“Good Luck Fixing the Problem”: Small Low-Income Community Participation in Collaborative Groundwater Governance and Implications for Drinking Water Source Protection

Society and Natural Resources, Routledge | June 10th, 2020

There is increasing interest in the potential of source water protection to address chronic challenges with small systems and rural drinking water provision. Such a plann

There is increasing interest in the potential of source water protection to address chronic challenges with small systems and rural drinking water provision. Such a planning and management approach to increasing safe drinking water access, however, will likely require leveraging multi-stakeholder collaborative governance venues to this effect. This paper investigates the prospects of doing so using the case of California’s groundwater reform process known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act or SGMA. Interviews with drinking water stakeholders from small low-income communities in the San Joaquin Valley show how existing power and resource disparities limit the prospects of integrating rural drinking water priorities into regional planning. Long-term, more fundamental changes will be needed to meaningfully transform water management in this direction. Short-term state intervention is needed to protect equity and public good goals, raising potential contradictions between devolved water management and improved drinking water access that need to be addressed.

2017 SGMA Annual Report South American Subbasin (5-021.65) Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority

Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority, GEI Consultants Inc. | April 1st, 2018

The Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority (SCGA) has prepared an Annual Report describing groundwater conditions in the South American Subbasin for the 2017

The Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority (SCGA) has prepared an Annual Report describing groundwater conditions in the South American Subbasin for the 2017 Water Year (i.e., inclusive of months October 2016 to September 2017) in support of their pending Alternative Submittal. The Annual Report is intended for conveying monitoring and water use data to the State DWR on an annual basis to gauge performance of the groundwater subbasin relative to the sustainability goal set forth in a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) or, for SCGA, the Alternative Submittal. As such, SCGA is including sufficient information to provide interested parties with sufficient background and supporting details to serve as a public communications document for subbasin management and to take the place of historic biennial reporting available on the SCGA website.

A Guide to Water Quality Requirements under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and the Bill Lane Center for the American West | April 17th, 2019

California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) develop Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) that ach

California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) develop Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) that achieve sustainability within twenty years of Plan adoption. Meeting this goal requires GSAs to avoid causing any of the six undesirable results that are central to SGMA, including undesirable result number 4 (UR No. 4) – “significant and unreasonable degraded water quality” throughout the basin. Unlike most other undesirable results, UR No. 4 is the subject of robust federal, state and local regulatory regimes carried out by a number of different entities. While the State and Regional Water Resources Control Boards have the broadest responsibilities to protect groundwater quality, many other agencies also have relevant responsibilities. The other distinctive feature of UR No. 4 is that groundwater management that prevents chronic lowering of groundwater levels may be insufficient to prevent significant and unreasonable degradation of groundwater quality. For example, significant changes in groundwater pumping can potentially mobilize naturally occurring constituents or cause migration or expansion of contaminant plumes even when the extracted amount is within the basin’s sustainable yield. This Guide is intended to assist GSAs along with other agencies and stakeholders in understanding the meaning of UR No. 4, and to provide insights into how GSAs can successfully fulfill their legal responsibilities regarding groundwater quality. To avoid UR No. 4 under SGMA, this Guide recommends that GSAs do the following: 1. Understand the existing regulatory regime for groundwater quality and, as necessary, confer with entities that have regulatory authority over groundwater quality in their basins. (See Section 3 of this Guide). 2. Consider existing federal, state and local groundwater quality standards when developing groundwater quality minimum thresholds in their basins. Federal, state or local regulatory requirements were established after careful scientific study, legal review and procedural steps mandated by law. They are designed to protect public health and welfare, and they provide the clearest indication of the point beyond which there is a real risk of an undesirable result. (See Section 3.1). 3. Work closely with their Regional Water Quality Control Boards to address all groundwater quality issues. GSAs working in the Central Valley are especially encouraged to work with the Central Valley Regional Board to address salt and nutrient groundwater contamination. Programs in this region are continuing to evolve and will require that GSAs remain aware of changing regulatory requirements. Additionally, there are many groundwater quality monitoring efforts in this region that are generating a lot of groundwater quality data. These efforts should be aligned with any groundwater monitoring efforts being undertaken by GSAs. (See Sections 3.4.2 and 4.3.2). 4. Use existing groundwater quality data and information to (1) assess and prioritize groundwater quality issues in their basins, (2) meet requirements that GSPs include a description of current and historical groundwater conditions within the basin and (3) serve as either the basis for or a complement to local groundwater quality monitoring programs developed by GSAs. 5. Consider the following approach (discussed in Section 3.2) if they identify groundwater quality problems that either arose or were exacerbated after January 1, 2015: • Where there is a significant groundwater quality problem that is clearly under the purview of another agency, confer with that agency and seek to confirm a reasonable plan to address the groundwater quality problem. If such a plan exists, the water quality problem and the plan should be referenced in the GSP. Section 3 and Table 1 in the Guide provide information on existing regulatory programs and the agencies responsible for their enforcement. • Where a significant groundwater quality problem is not clearly under the purview of another agency, or the responsible agency is unable to confirm a reasonable plan to address the problem, confer with Regional or State Board staff, and perhaps affected parties, to identify a reasonable plan to address the problem. If no reasonable plan is identified, and remediating the problem is impractical, excessively wasteful of resources or otherwise infeasible, the GSA should include in the Plan an explanation of the problem and the reasons why remediation is impractical or infeasible. 6. Consider the following approach (discussed in Section 5) if they are planning projects or actions that may affect groundwater quality: • Assess the potential impacts that the projects or actions are likely to have on groundwater quality over time. If the GSA concludes that the proposed project or action could have unacceptable adverse impacts on water quality, GSAs should consider options such as revising the project to avoid or mitigate the project’s impacts or developing alternative projects that avoid water quality problems. • Ensure regulatory compliance for any GSP management actions (e.g., recharge projects, water banking) that have the potential to negatively impact water quality in their basins or adjacent basins. (Sections 3 and 5 provide information on regulatory requirements and considerations associated with groundwater recharge and active basin management, respectively.) 7. Develop supplemental groundwater monitoring networks where necessary. Many basins being managed under SGMA have significant water quality data gaps. Thus, GSAs in many basins will likely need to develop or expand local groundwater quality monitoring networks. Decisions to do so should be informed by (1) the extent and quality of existing groundwater quality in the region, (2) the level of groundwater development, (3) the severity of existing groundwater quality issues and their proximity to domestic or irrigation wells, public water supply sources or other vulnerable users, (4) current or proposed groundwater management actions or projects, (5) local resources, and (6) the hydrogeologic complexity of the basin. GSAs are not responsible for enforcing existing water quality standards or collecting data to support existing water quality programs. However, they are responsible for avoiding “significant and unreasonable” degradation of water quality in their basins. Working with federal, state and local water quality monitoring and enforcement entities will help GSAs understand groundwater quality issues in their basins, enabling them to develop GSPs that avoid UR No. 4.

Adapting to Climate Change and Drought in Selected California Groundwater Basins: Local Achievements and Challenges

California Natural Resources Agency | August 27th, 2018

Climate change projections are for higher temperatures and extreme droughts by the end of the 21st century. This will alter the natural recharge of groundwater, including

Climate change projections are for higher temperatures and extreme droughts by the end of the 21st century. This will alter the natural recharge of groundwater, including decreased inflow from runoff, increased evaporative losses, and warmer and shorter winter seasons, impacts that are likely to exacerbate already existing groundwater overdraft in many basins. Additionally, the imported surface water that can be delivered from the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) to areas reliant on this water for groundwater recharge and consumptive use is projected to be less reliable and more expensive. Yet groundwater is a critical water supply source during drought when it compensates for reduced surface water supplies. The need for proactive adaptation strategies to address the extreme droughts projected under climate change are frequently discussed, yet there are limited examples of such groundwater management strategies. This paper therefore explores:  1) How groundwater management agencies are planning for drought  2) What new approaches are currently being used that show promise for addressing the more extreme droughts projected under climate change? 

Addressing Regional Surface Water Depletions in California: A Proposed Approach for Compliance with The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) | August 15th, 2018

Successful implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), including its provision to avoid significant and unreasonable depletion of interconnecte

Successful implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), including its provision to avoid significant and unreasonable depletion of interconnected surface water, is a high priority for the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). The lack of established mechanisms for addressing depletions of interconnected surface water makes the implementation of this aspect of SGMA especially challenging. Accordingly, EDF offers recommendations to address the requirements of the law related to depletion of interconnected surface water, commonly referred to as “Undesirable Result No. 6” (UR #6). We propose an approach that we believe provides a reasonable balance among the conflicting factors of rigor, cost, uncertainty, and enforceability that weigh on the implementation of this requirement. Our goal is to offer a pathway to achieve the fundamental and critical objective of UR#6, which aims to prevent significant impacts to water users and ecosystems that depend on streams and rivers that may be depleted by groundwater withdrawals, in a way that is not unreasonably costly or unproductively burdensome on the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs), water users, and state agencies who will bear most of the burden of complying with—or ensuring compliance with—SGMA.

Advancing Strategic Land Repurposing and Groundwater Sustainability in California

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) | March 26th, 2021

For decades, California has been on a steady trajectory toward water scarcity, which is now exacerbated by climate change. More frequent and intense droughts and incre

For decades, California has been on a steady trajectory toward water scarcity, which is now exacerbated by climate change. More frequent and intense droughts and increased demands have affected the reliability of surface water supplies. As a result, many have looked to groundwater to fill the gap. Groundwater overpumping has resulted in adverse impacts such as reduction in groundwater storage, subsidence, water quality degradation, sea water intrusion, wells going dry and depletion of interconnected surface waters throughout many areas in California’s San Joaquin Valley. These impacts led to the passage of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) by the state Legislature in 2014, which mandates sustainable use of groundwater by 2040 for the most critically overdrafted basins.

Aliso Water District Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Aliso Water District Groundwater Sustainability Agency | January 17th, 2020

An Evaluation of California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins

University of California, Santa Cruz | October 1st, 2016

Groundwater is a critical resource in California, providing on average 30 percent of the state’s total water supply and significantly more during dry years. Many commu

Groundwater is a critical resource in California, providing on average 30 percent of the state’s total water supply and significantly more during dry years. Many communities rely exclusively on groundwater, and it is an essential back-up source of water during droughts when pumping increases significantly to compensate for reduced surface supplies. Local groundwater management agencies, special act districts, and court adjudications are the primary institutional arrangements to manage groundwater in California. Increasing groundwater declines in many areas of the state and concomitant negative impacts prompted the passage of the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The SGMA established new requirements for 127 high- and medium-priority groundwater basins that are either in overdraft or vulnerable to overdraft to develop sustainable management programs with increased state oversight. The SGMA defines sustainable groundwater management as: “The management and use of groundwater in a manner that can be maintained during the planning and implementation horizon without causing undesirable results.” Undesirable results include: chronic lowering of groundwater levels; significant and unreasonable reduction of groundwater storage; significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion, degraded water quality, and land subsidence; depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water. The SGMA exempts 388 basins categorized as low- and very-low priority, as well as all the adjudicated groundwater basins and 3 basins with pending groundwater adjudications. The SGMA was followed by the passage of Assembly Bill 1390 (AB 1390) and Senate Bill 226 (SB 226) in 2015 that provide some procedures for groundwater adjudications. In the adjudication of a groundwater basin, the court generally defines and determines water rights for all users and provides court-supervised basin management by a Watermaster, who is usually appointed by the court to ensure that the basin is managed in accordance with the court’s decree. Prior to adjudication, key stakeholders and users of the groundwater in a basin often negotiate a stipulation and physical solution to manage the basin, and the court can then accept it in whole or in part, or reject it and craft a different solution to manage the basin. There is limited analysis of the history and current condition of California’s adjudicated basins and the potential for future improvements to the adjudication process. This report for the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) evaluates all of California’s adjudicated basins with respect to sustainable groundwater management as defined in SGMA including: accomplishments, challenges, how management can be improved, and whether there are common elements that result in the sustainable management of an adjudicated groundwater basin.

Approaches for groundwater management in times of depletion and regulatory change

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | June 1st, 2018

New legislation and related regulations in California mandate groundwater management to avoid undesirable results from excessive groundwater pumping and other hum

New legislation and related regulations in California mandate groundwater management to avoid undesirable results from excessive groundwater pumping and other human activities. Required aspects of management planning that will occur in well over 100 alluvial groundwater sub-basins across the state include scientific foundation and public transparency. While the details of individual groundwater management approaches will be particular to conditions in each management area, there will be common elements based on similar aspects of many groundwater systems in the state. The process of beginning to implement groundwater management for a large part of the state poses challenges. Use of scientific knowledge and methods of analysis developed in academia and industry will be helpful to the overall effort. This dissertation considers aspects of groundwater management that are expected to be common among many planning efforts. Inactive water supply wells acting as conduits for contaminant migration is considered through field examples and use of recently available databases regarding existing well constructions and water quality. Nonpoint source pollution effects on groundwater quality from conduit wells are investigated and selective regulatory action is explored as an option for addressing an issue that is too large for complete solution with available resources. Options for managed aquifer recharge are explored for a combined urban-agricultural area through use of a recently released land use database. A hydro-economic analysis is performed using linear programming to evaluate the efficacy of an on-farm recharge approach. Future work may include development of additional insights within the context of the study areas presented as well as extensions that consider new geographic areas and additional related considerations.

Assessment of Interconnected Subbasins

Butte County | June 30th, 2017

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) to develop groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) that achieve sust

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) to develop groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) that achieve sustainable groundwater management within 20 years of adoption. All critically overdrafted basins must adopt GSPs by January 31, 2020; all other medium and high priority basins must complete GSPs by January 31, 2022. Since many subbasins are hydrologically connected to adjoining subbasins, sustainable groundwater management will require accounting for groundwater interactions with adjoining subbasins. Often, adjoining subbasins will use different analytical methods or apply different levels of technical rigor. Many GSAs are concerned that different methodologies for developing interbasin flows can lead to different results that will call into question the ability to achieve sustainability and would potentially create issues with SGMA compliance. This effort evaluated opportunities and barriers for agencies to account for interconnected basin dynamics through the collaboration of technical experts focused on a portion of the northern Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management (NSVIRWM) Plan area. As interbasin flows (i.e., groundwater flow between interconnected basins) cannot be directly measured, the project reviewed available tools to investigate how they may or may not be suitable for use in estimating interbasin flows within the region. This process highlighted areas for local agencies to consider in addressing interbasin issues, developed a framework for analysis in other areas of the state, and identified areas where the state and federal government can assist local agencies implementing SGMA. This report is developed to provide summary level information appropriate for decision makers, with more detailed technical information and examples provided in the appendices or by reference. Interbasin flow is groundwater entering or exiting a defined subbasin through its boundaries in the subsurface and may vary significantly in space and time based on the dynamics of inflow and outflow from the basins. Interbasin flows are driven by differences in groundwater levels (i.e. head gradients) across the basin boundary. Groundwater levels are, in turn, impacted by processes on the land surface. Land use and crop acreages drive water demand in a subbasin and indirectly drive groundwater pumping, which has a direct effect on groundwater levels (i.e., groundwater heads). The direction and magnitude of interbasin flow depends on the groundwater head gradient across the basin boundary and the conductivity of the aquifer materials. It is widely recognized that the groundwater subbasins in the Sacramento Valley, and throughout the Central Valley, are interconnected to varying degrees. The Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin includes many subbasins, extends over a wide geographic area, and includes numerous established and eligible GSAs. With interconnected subbasins, management decisions and actions in one subbasin may influence one or more adjoining subbasins. Such influence may positively or negatively impact sustainability. Thus, interbasin flows become critical to both GSAs’ development of GSPs and to DWR reviewing GSPs.