Pumping for the masses: evolution of groundwater management in metropolitan Los Angeles

Geo Journal (Springer) | August 7th, 2015

Groundwater supports many aspects of human life. In cities, groundwater can provide a cost-effective source of water for drinking and industrial uses, while groundwater b

Groundwater supports many aspects of human life. In cities, groundwater can provide a cost-effective source of water for drinking and industrial uses, while groundwater basins provide storage. The role of groundwater in a city’s water supply tends to change over time. In the Los Angeles metropolitan area, groundwater is critical. Over decades, users in the region’s many basins allocated annual pumping rights to groundwater among users through adjudications. These rights were determined through collective processes over decades, which contributed to the complex array of public and private organizations involved in water management. The rights also continue to evolve. We analyzed changes in the distribution of groundwater rights over time for adjudicated basins in Southern Los Angeles County. Results indicate that groundwater rights are increasingly: (1) controlled or regulated by public institutions and municipalities, and (2) consolidated among larger users. Yet, both the percentage of total supplies provided by groundwater, as well as the distribution of groundwater rights, varies widely among cities and communities throughout Los Angeles. As metropolitan Los Angeles faces reduced water imports and emphasizes local water reliance, access to pumping rights and storage capacity in groundwater basins will become even more vital. We discuss implications of our results for future urban water management.

Racanelli Decision: Detailed summary of the decision

Department of Justice (DOJ) | November 16th, 2007

At their meeting on October 25, 2007, the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force members asked for a summary of United States v. State Water Resources Control Board (1986) 1

At their meeting on October 25, 2007, the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force members asked for a summary of United States v. State Water Resources Control Board (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 82, commonly referred to as the “Racanelli Decision,” after the appellate judge who wrote the opinion. We repeat the Court’s own very short summary of the case, followed by a more detailed summary of the decision.

Recent California Water Transfers: Implications for Water Management

Natural Resources Journal (University of New Mexico) | January 3rd, 1995

The 1991 and 1992 California Drought Emergency Water Banks were the first large water transfer programs in the nation in which the state served as the predominant broke

The 1991 and 1992 California Drought Emergency Water Banks were the first large water transfer programs in the nation in which the state served as the predominant broker for water trades. Although the state-sponsored Water Banks have drawn widespread attention, there have been a great number of water transfers and exchanges taking place in California independently of the state. These transfers illustrate well the widespread applicability of transfers in managing water resource systems, as well as the multiple mechanisms available for effecting water transfers. This article focuses on California's recent experiences with water transfers, and offers a series of potential lessons for federal, state, and local managers for integrating water transfers in regional water resource systems.

Record of Decision, Trump Administration Action 5 Operations Plan for the Central Valley and State Water Projects, per Executive Order 14181

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | December 4th, 2025

On January 24, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 14181 “Emergency Measures To Provide Water Resources In California And Improve Disaster Response I

On January 24, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 14181 “Emergency Measures To Provide Water Resources In California And Improve Disaster Response In Certain Areas.” A Presidential Memorandum titled “Putting People Over Fish” was signed four days before the Executive Order and references a reliable water supply, but the specific direction to the CVP is found in Executive Order 14181. Section 2 of Executive Order 14181 requires, among other measures, (c) The Secretary of the Interior, including through the Bureau of Reclamation, shall utilize his discretion to operate the CVP to deliver more water and produce additional hydropower, including by increasing storage and conveyance, and jointly operating federal and state facilities, to high­need communities, notwithstanding any contrary State or local laws. The Bureau of Reclamation shall take all available measures to ensure that State agencies — including the California Department of Water Resources — do not interfere with the Bureau of Reclamation’s operation of the project to maximize water delivery to high­need communities or otherwise, including but not limited to the issuance of a new Record of Decision maximizing water deliveries and consistent with the 2020 Record of Decision. Subsection (g) calls for a “proposed plan, for review by the Secretaries, to appropriately suspend, revise, or rescind any regulations or procedures that unduly burden such projects and are not necessary to protect the public interest or otherwise comply with the law.” This ROD implements initial actions in response to Executive Order 14181. Click here for the Reclamation Long Term Operations page,  here for response to the Trump Action 5 gambit from California Department of Water Resources, and here for the response from the State Water Resources Control Board

Regulatory steps needed to protect and conserve wetlands not subject to the Clean Water Act

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | November 17th, 2003

This report responds to legislative direction to describe the steps and resources needed to protect California wetlands and other waters that are not covered by the feder

This report responds to legislative direction to describe the steps and resources needed to protect California wetlands and other waters that are not covered by the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). It gives special attention to "isolated" waters removed from CWA jurisdiction by the U.S. Supreme Court's 2001 decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC). Wetlands and riparian areas support extraordinary biodiversity and are uniquely important in sustaining the hydrologic, chemical, and ecological integrity of broader aquatic systems. However, for physical and legal reasons, they present special management challenges. Neither CWA nor the state Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne) were designed to conserve wetlands, and their regulatory protection is therefore often problematic and incomplete.

Relationship between wetland condition, stress, and buffer

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | April 25th, 2016

Report on Voluntary Diversion Reduction Program Among in-Delta Riparian Water Right Claimants

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | March 11th, 2016

Facing a fourth consecutive year of drought in 2015 and consequential threat of curtailments, farmers in the Delta proposed a voluntary program to significantly reduce th

Facing a fourth consecutive year of drought in 2015 and consequential threat of curtailments, farmers in the Delta proposed a voluntary program to significantly reduce their surface water diversions during the critical summer growing season. This is a report describing the context, origin, objectives, regulatory framework, implementation and results of that program.

Rethinking Old Rights

Social Science Research Network (SSRN) | November 1st, 2023

Review of CDFW Recommendations for the 2022 Readoption of Drought Emergency Regulations on the Scott River and Recommendations for Future Management During Extreme Drought Conditions

Siskiyou Farm Bureau | August 31st, 2022

Review of the Laws Establishing the SWRCB's Permitting Authority over Appropriations of Groundwater Classified as Subterranean Streams and the SWRCB’s Implementation of those Laws

Berkeley Law Scholarship Repository | January 19th, 2002

Introduction 1. A Brief Description of Groundwater: The Law and the Reality 2. Questions Addressed in this Report 3. Responses to the Questions Posed by the Board P

Introduction 1. A Brief Description of Groundwater: The Law and the Reality 2. Questions Addressed in this Report 3. Responses to the Questions Posed by the Board Part I: The Legal Background of the Water Commission Act 1. The Pomeroy Case 2. The Pomeroy Case in its Historical Context 3. Doing the Job Pomeroy Failed to Do: Katz v. Walkinshaw and Los Angeles v. Hunter Part II: The Statutory Response 1. The Water Commission Act of 1913 2. Subsequent Legislative Developments Part III: The Board’s Current Implementation of the Law Governing Subterranean Streams Flowing Through Known and Definite Channels 1. Recent Board Decisions a. Garrapata Creek b. Draft Decision, Pauma and Pala Basins 2. Older Board Decisions a. Sheep Creek, San Bernardino County b. Stony Creek, Colusa County c. Chorro and Morro Creeks, San Luis Obispo County d. Tia Juana River, San Diego County e. Carmel River, Monterey County f. Sacramento River Groundwater Transfer, Yolo County g. San Luis Rey River, San Diego County (Mission and Bonsall Basins) Part IV: Groundwater Law in Other States 1. Arizona 2. Other Western States 3. Nebraska 4. Oregon 5. Colorado Part V: Management of Groundwater Outside Water Code § 1200 1. Overlying Uses of Groundwater 2. Other Sources of Authority Over Use of Groundwater a. Constitution Article X, § 2, Water Code § 100, The Public Trust, and Water Code § 275 b. Remedies for Impairment of Water Rights Part VI: Should the Legal Test Be Changed? Appendices A: Draft of Proposed Water Commission Bill B-1: Assembly Bill No. 642 (1913) (as introduced Jan. 23, 1913). B-2: Assembly Bill No. 642 (1913) (as amended in Senate May 10, 1913) C: Water Commission Act of 1913 D: Transcripts of Hearings on Proposed Water Commission Bill E: Memos from Technical Advisory Committee Members