Chowchilla Subbasin Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Groundwater Sustainability Plan (3rd Revision)

Madera County | January 3rd, 2025

In 2024-2025, the GSAs revised the Subbasin GSP to:  Amend the Domestic Well Mitigation Program Refine the Groundwater Level Representative Monitoring Sites (RMS

In 2024-2025, the GSAs revised the Subbasin GSP to:  Amend the Domestic Well Mitigation Program Refine the Groundwater Level Representative Monitoring Sites (RMS) Network Refine Groundwater Level Sustainable Management Criteria (SMC)  Backstop Projects and Management Actions Refine Subsidence SMC and Provide for Subsidence Mitigation

Chromium, chromium isotopes and selected trace elements, western Mojave Desert, USA

Elsevier | February 6th, 2008

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the geologic, hydrologic and geochemical processes that control natural Cr concentrations and Cr isotopic compositions in ground

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the geologic, hydrologic and geochemical processes that control natural Cr concentrations and Cr isotopic compositions in ground-water.

Citizen's Guide to Working with the California Water Boards

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | July 8th, 2011

The Guide provides an overview of the Water Boards and the many opportunities that all Californians have to participate with the Water Boards in decisions and activities

The Guide provides an overview of the Water Boards and the many opportunities that all Californians have to participate with the Water Boards in decisions and activities that affect the state’s water resources. While some of the public participation opportunities are formal, e.g., at a Water Board hearing, others are less formal, but just as important, e.g., a stakeholder process implemented by a Regional Board. Although the Guide doesn’t contain information about specific water quality decisions that are before the Boards, it will direct you where you can find that information. We look forward to updating this Guide periodically to assure its continuing usefulness to you, the public.

City and County of San Francisco v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

Supreme Court of the United States | January 8th, 2024

For a plain language summary from Scotusblog, click here.

For a plain language summary from Scotusblog, click here.

City of Barstow, et al v. City of Adelanto, el al (Mojave Basin Area cases)

Superior Court of California, County of Riverside | December 5th, 2002

From An Evaluation of California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins, Langridge et al, UC Davis (2016): "The Mojave Basin adjudication was initiated by a lawsuit filed

From An Evaluation of California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins, Langridge et al, UC Davis (2016): "The Mojave Basin adjudication was initiated by a lawsuit filed May 30, 1990, by the City of Barstow and the Southern California Water Company. The complaint alleged that the cumulative increase in water use in the upper part of the Mojave Basin caused or threatened to cause a reduction in the natural flow of water to the central part of the Mojave Basin. Water users included downstream agriculture (many alfalfa farms), aquaculture, recreational lakes, homeowner associations, and upstream burgeoning municipalities. In the center of the basin is the smaller, low-income town of Barstow, which was concerned about its water supply. A 1993 Stipulated Judgment set forth a proposed physical solution that did not apportion production rights on the basis of preexisting legal water rights, and parties representing over 80 percent of verified water production in the basin agreed to its terms. However, some farmers with overlying rights chose not to stipulate to the judgment. On appeal, the court stated that in considering a stipulated physical solution involving equitable apportionment, the water rights of parties that did not join the stipulation must also be considered. The adjudication set out a complex system to reduce production a producer’s free production allowance (FPA) over time, but withdrawals remain significant in three out of the five subareas. The judgment also contained unique provisions for assuring that the water needs of endangered and other species and their habitat would be protected. One outcome of the adjudication was that many farmers in the western Alto Subarea sold or leased their base annual production (BAP) rights or leased their FPA to municipalities, and population in the Alto Subarea almost doubled. The Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base east of Barstow is a federal Superfund site."

Classifying California’s stream thermal regimes for cold-water conservation

PLOS | August 20th, 2021

Stream temperature science and management is rapidly shifting from single-metric driven approaches to multi-metric, thermal regime characterizations of streamscapes. Giv

Stream temperature science and management is rapidly shifting from single-metric driven approaches to multi-metric, thermal regime characterizations of streamscapes. Given considerable investments in recovery of cold-water fisheries (e.g., Pacific salmon and other declining native species), understanding where cold water is likely to persist, and how coldwater thermal regimes vary, is critical for conservation. California’s unique position at the southern end of cold-water ecosystems in the northern hemisphere, variable geography and hydrology, and extensive flow regulation requires a systematic approach to thermal regime classification. We used publicly available, long-term (> 8 years) stream temperature data from 77 sites across California to model their thermal regimes, calculate three temperature metrics, and use the metrics to classify each regime with an agglomerative nesting algorithm. Then, we assessed the variation in each class and considered underlying physical or anthropogenic factors that could explain differences between classes. Finally, we considered how different classes might fit existing criteria for cool- or cold-water thermal regimes, and how those differences complicate efforts to manage stream temperature through regulation. Our results demonstrate that cool- and cold-water thermal regimes vary spatially across California. Several salient findings emerge from this study. Groundwater-dominated streams are a ubiquitous, but as yet, poorly explored class of thermal regimes. Further, flow regulation below dams imposes serial discontinuities, including artificial thermal regimes on downstream ecosystems. Finally, and contrary to what is often assumed, California reservoirs do not contain sufficient cold-water storage to replicate desirable, reach-scale thermal regimes. While barriers to cold-water conservation are considerable and the trajectory of cold-water species towards extinction is dire, protecting reaches that demonstrate resilience to climate warming remains worthwhile.

Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) | December 2nd, 2008

Congress enacted the Clean Water Act ("CWA" or "the Act") "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." One

Congress enacted the Clean Water Act ("CWA" or "the Act") "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." One of the mechanisms adopted by Congress to achieve that purpose is a prohibition on the discharge of any pollutants, including dredged or fill material, into "navigable waters" except in compliance with other specified sections of the Act. In most cases, this means compliance with a permit issued pursuant to CWA §402 or §404. The Act defines the term "discharge of a pollutant" as "any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source" and provides that "[t]he term `navigable waters' means the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas[,]." In Rapanos, the Supreme Court addressed where the Federal government can apply the Clean Water Act, specifically by determining whether a wetland or tributary is a "water of the United States." The justices issued five separate opinions in Rapanos (one plurality opinion, two concurring opinions, and two dissenting opinions), with no single opinion commanding a majority of the Court. The Rapanos Decision Four justices, in a plurality opinion authored by Justice Scalia, rejected the argument that the term "waters of the United States" is limited to only those waters that are navigable in the traditional sense and their abutting wetlands. However, the plurality concluded that the agencies' regulatory authority should extend only to "relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water" connected to traditional navigable waters, and to "wetlands with a continuous surface connection to" such relatively permanent waters . Justice Kennedy did not join the plurality's opinion but instead authored an opinion concurring in the judgment vacating and remanding the cases to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Justice Kennedy agreed with the plurality that the statutory term "waters of the United States" extends beyond water bodies that are traditionally considered navigable." Justice Kennedy, however, found the plurality's interpretation of the scope of the CWA to be "inconsistent with the Act's text,structure,andpurpose[,]" and he instead presented a different standard for evaluating CWA jurisdiction over wetlands and other waterbodies.' Justice Kennedy concluded that wetlands are"waters of the United States" "if the wetlands, either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as `navigable.' When, in contrast, wetlands' effects on water quality are speculative or insubstantial, they fall outside the zone fairly encompassed by the statutory term 'navigable waters.' Four justices, in a dissenting opinion authored by Justice Stevens, concluded that EPA's and the Corps' interpretation of "waters of the United States" was a reasonable interpretation of the Clean Water Act. When there is no majority opinion in a Supreme Court case, controlling legal principles may be derived from those principles espoused by five or more justices. Thus, regulatory jurisdiction under the CWA exists over a water body if either the plurality's or Justice Kennedy's standard is satisfied. Since Rapanos, the United States has filed pleadings in a number of cases interpreting the decision in this manner. The agencies are issuing this memorandum in recognition of the fact that EPA regions and Corps districts need guidance to ensure that jurisdictional determinations, permitting actions, and other relevant actions are consistent with the decision and supported by the administrative record. Therefore, the agencies have evaluated the Rapanos opinions to identify those waters that are subject to CWA jurisdiction under the reasoning of a majority of the justices. This approach is appropriate for a guidance document. The agencies will continue to monitor implementation of the Rapanos decision in the field and recognize that further consideration of jurisdictional issues, including clarification and definition of key terminology, may be appropriate in the future, either through issuance of additional guidance or through rulemaking.

Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2012

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) | December 13th, 2012

Clear Lake Watershed and Lake Remediation

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | December 9th, 2024

The main goal of this joint effort between the University of California Davis, Tahoe Environmental Research Center (UCD-TERC), and the United States Geological Survey (US

The main goal of this joint effort between the University of California Davis, Tahoe Environmental Research Center (UCD-TERC), and the United States Geological Survey (USGS), is to develop the watershed and in-lake monitoring and modeling needed to:  Better understanding of the processes contributing to poor water quality;  Predict watershed and lake responses to changing environmental conditions; and,  Evaluate the impacts and unintended consequences of potential management and restoration activities. 

Clearer Structure, Cleaner Water: Improving Performance and Outcomes at the State Water Boards

Little Hoover Commission | January 1st, 2009

The Little Hoover Commission on Thursday urged the governor and the Legislature to reform the State Water Resources Control Board and nine Regional Water Quality Control

The Little Hoover Commission on Thursday urged the governor and the Legislature to reform the State Water Resources Control Board and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards by expanding the state board to nine members, with five members representing statewide interests and four drawn on a rotating basis from the nine regional board chairpersons, whose positions would become full-time. In addition, the Commission called for a revamped appeals process; to improve the use of data and science in water quality regulatory processes; and urged the water boards to focus on new ways to solve modern water quality problems and set priorities. In its report, Clearer Structure, Cleaner Water: Improving Performance and Outcomes at the State Water Boards, the Commission also recommends refocusing both the state board and regional boards on policy-making and updating basin plans. During its study, the Commission found that the water boards face increasingly complex water quality problems, caused in part by hard-to-regulate sources such as urban and agricultural runoff. The Commission also found that a decentralized governance structure, with nine regional water quality boards operating with distinct policies and processes, hinders accountability and transparency. The result is a system that has lost the confidence of most stakeholders. To restore accountability and increase focus on clean-water outcomes, the Commission recommends strengthening the relationship between the state and regional boards. “The governance structure for water quality regulation in California is 40 years old and is ill-prepared to handle modern problems,” Little Hoover Commission Chairman Daniel Hancock said. “Major reform is needed to help protect and improve water quality, which is a key to the state’s future.”