Changing the course? What's worked, what hasn't and what's next for the SCWP: An assessment of the first three rounds of the Safe Clean Water Program

Los Angeles Waterkeeper (LA Waterkeeper) | February 16th, 2023

In 2018, Los Angeles County voters overwhelmingly approved “Measure W” — a 2.5 cent per square foot parcel tax on impervious surface on all land parcels within the

In 2018, Los Angeles County voters overwhelmingly approved “Measure W” — a 2.5 cent per square foot parcel tax on impervious surface on all land parcels within the LA County Flood Control District to fund multi-benefit stormwater infrastructure. The Safe Clean Water Program (SCWP) was developed to distribute and manage the funds raised, approximately $280M annually. The SCWP operates through three distinct programs: the District Program (10% of funds), the Municipal Program (40% of funds), and the Regional Program (50% of funds). The Regional Program has recently completed its third round of funding awarded through a competitive grant process. This assessment focuses on how the Regional Program is performing in achieving the SCWP’s overarching goals of water quality, water supply, and community investment benefits as provided in the ordinance authorizing this measure for the ballot. It also explores how well the program is meeting its goals around community engagement and support, benefits to disadvantaged communities, and green workforce development. The purpose of this assessment is to help the SCWP’s Regional Oversight Committee (ROC) and ultimately other decision-makers such as the LA County Board of Supervisors better understand what is working well with the program and where improvements could be made as part of the biennial review.

Chowchilla Subbasin Staff Assessment

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | April 1st, 2025

The state intervention process for the Chowchilla Subbasin was triggered in March 2023 when DWR determined the subbasin’s 2022 GSP was inadequate and identified multipl

The state intervention process for the Chowchilla Subbasin was triggered in March 2023 when DWR determined the subbasin’s 2022 GSP was inadequate and identified multiple deficiencies in the GSP. DWR identified issues regarding the local agencies’ plans for managing for the chronic lowering of groundwater levels and land subsidence (land sinking due to groundwater pumping). State Water Board staff reviewed the 2022 GSP and determined that implementing the 2022 GSP would result in additional groundwater level declines, potential impacts to drinking water wells, and damage to subbasin infrastructure, such as canals and levees, through continued land subsidence. The GSAs released a revised draft GSP in August 2024, which they adopted with slight revisions in March 2025 (2025 GSP). State Water Board staff evaluated the 2025 GSP to determine if identified deficiencies were addressed. The GSAs made significant progress through the 2025 GSP and adequately addressed deficiencies. Through the 2025 GSP, the GSAs show a greater commitment to protecting drinking water users and improved groundwater management. State Water Board staff concludes the GSAs amended the GSP such that a probationary designation of the Chowchilla Subbasin is unnecessary and recommends the Board return the Subbasin to DWR’s jurisdiction for continued evaluation of local management under SGMA.

Climate Change and Rural Water for Frontline Communities in the Southwest United States

Pacific Institute | March 26th, 2024

Climate change is threatening rural water supply and quality in the Southwest United States and will intensify water challenges in the coming years. Climate impacts such

Climate change is threatening rural water supply and quality in the Southwest United States and will intensify water challenges in the coming years. Climate impacts such as prolonged drought conditions and extreme high temperatures paired with groundwater depletion and reduced mountain snowpack are increasing the risk of water supply shortages in the region. Climate change models project an increase in temperature and an overall decline in average annual precipitation in the Southwest, though punctuated with extreme precipitation and more damaging flooding events.

Collaborative Governance and Environmental Justice: Disadvantaged Community Representation in California Sustainable Groundwater Management

Western Political Science Association | April 18th, 2019

A consistent critique of the theory and empirical research on collaborative governance is a lack of conceptualization and analysis of the role of political power and ine

A consistent critique of the theory and empirical research on collaborative governance is a lack of conceptualization and analysis of the role of political power and inequality (Foster 2002; Franks and Cleaver 2007; Morrison et al. 2017; Purdy 2012). The critique is more broadly applied to public policy and institutional analysis in general (Knight 1992; Moe 2005), and has implications the democratic legitimacy of governance arrangements (Alexander, Doorn, and Priest 2018). Political institutions provide differential access to decision-making (Besley and Case 2003), while political groups and individuals have higher or lower capacity to participate in governance systems and influence the outcomes (Olson 2009; Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993; Stigler 1971). Thus, there continues to be a need for empirical research focused on the crucial issue of how these factors affect the structure and function of governance institutions. This article contributes to this discussion by analyzing the representation of disadvantaged communities in the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in California.

Communities that rely on a contaminated groundwater source for drinking water

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | January 1st, 2013

AB 2222 (Caballero, Chapter 670, Statutes of 2008) requires the State Water Resources Control Board to submit a report to the Legislature that identifies: 1) communities

AB 2222 (Caballero, Chapter 670, Statutes of 2008) requires the State Water Resources Control Board to submit a report to the Legislature that identifies: 1) communities in California that rely on contaminated groundwater as a primary source of drinking water; 2) the principal contaminants and other constituents of concern; and 3) potential solutions and funding sources to clean up or treat groundwater or provide alternative water supplies. A “community,” for the purposes of this report, is defined as a Community Public Water System (Health and Safety Code Section 116395). When this report refers to communities that rely on a contaminated groundwater source, it is referring to community public water systems that draw water from a contaminated groundwater source prior to any treatment. Over 95 percent of the 38 million Californians get their drinking water from a public water system. The findings in this report do not reflect private domestic wells or other unregulated water systems since the state does not require these groundwater users to sample their wells, and consequently a comprehensive database for these groundwater sources does not exist. This report identifies 680 community water systems that, prior to any treatment, relied on a contaminated groundwater source during the most recent California Department of Public Health (CDPH) compliance cycle (2002-2010). It is important to note that, according to CDPH, over 98% of Californians on public water supply are served safe drinking water. Although many water suppliers draw from contaminated groundwater sources, most suppliers are able to treat the water or blend it with cleaner supplies before serving it to the public. Consequently, when this report refers to communities that rely on contaminated groundwater, it is referring to community public water systems that draw water from one or more contaminated groundwater wells prior to any treatment or blending. Some community water systems, however, cannot afford treatment or lack alternative water sources, and have served water that exceeds a public drinking water standard. Of the 680 community water systems that rely on a contaminated groundwater source, 265 have served water that exceeded a public drinking water standard during the most recent CDPH compliance cycle (2002-2010).

Community Perspectives and Environmental Justice in California's San Joaquin Valley

University of California, Merced | December 1st, 2022

Community Perspectives on SGMA Implementation

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | June 13th, 2019

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014 represents a historic opportunity to achieve long-term sustainable groundwater management and protect th

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014 represents a historic opportunity to achieve long-term sustainable groundwater management and protect the drinking water supplies of hundreds of small and rural low-income communities that rely on this shared resource, especially in the San Joaquin Valley. Prior research, however, indicates that few of these communities are represented in the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) formed to implement the new law. This raises questions about other forms of community involvement, and concerns about the extent to which small and rural drinking-water interests are being incorporated into the process. This report details the results of twenty-three interviews with thirty-one representatives of small, low-income communities who rely on groundwater for their drinking-water supplies. The findings suggest community stakeholders are highly interested in SGMA and desire to be involved in its implementation, which many deemed indispensable for the future of their communities. Many are actively participating or following the process, including by serving on boards and committees, attending meetings and workshops, and monitoring meeting minutes and agendas. The experience of small and rural communities with SGMA is predictably diverse. Some interviewees have had very positive experiences thus far and are hopeful about the ways SGMA could benefit their communities and regions in the future. Others have felt overlooked or intentionally excluded. Yet many similarities also arose across the interviews including six common challenges and concerns about SGMA implementation: 1. Resource constraints to participation: Lack of staff, small budgets, in-house experts and an inability to pay for outside services/support limited communities’ formal participation in GSA governance and attendance and involvement in SGMA meetings. 2. Accessibility: Additional factors limiting the accessibility of the SGMA process included day-time meetings, language barriers, the proliferation of board and committee meetings, and irregular and unclear meeting schedules and notices. 3. Transparency: A lack of transparency in GSA decision-making as well as limited access to the data and information being used to develop Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) were common concerns for interviewees. 4. Lack of formal representation: The relegation of communities to advisory, rather than decision-making, roles in the SGMA process was also a common concern. 5. Limited opportunities to provide meaningful input and feedback: Whether participating as a decision-maker, committee member or as a member of the public attending meetings, many were frustrated at the lack of opportunities to provide meaningful input into decisions or on draft documents due to short turnaround times, not being provided necessary background or materials, and limited opportunities for public comment and open discussion. 6. Lack of addressing drinking water interests and priorities: Overwhelmingly, interviewees reported that drinking water interests, especially water quality and domestic wells, were not part of their local SGMA conversations, leading many to be skeptical that SGMA would have drinking-water benefits. Best practices detailed by interviewees with particularly positive experiences and suggestions and recommendations from all of the interviewees, however, demonstrate ample opportunities to address these issues and increase the integration of drinking-water stakeholders and interests into sustainable groundwater management. Targeted efforts to reduce barriers to participation, improve communication and transparency, and promote diverse representation could go a long way to ensuring the “consideration” and “active involvement” of this important, historically marginalized, stakeholder group. For example, communities can educate their GSA about drinking-water priorities and the variety of regulations and requirements public water systems must comply with and coordinate with other small and rural communities to elevate and advocate for drinking water needs. GSAs should incorporate available public data into Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) while developing plans to fill data gaps, provide ample time for feedback on staggered and sequential GSP sections and streamline and increase interaction with stakeholders in meetings. State agencies should consider requiring or incentivizing collaborative community projects be included in GSPs, and community representation in GSP development and implementation as well as provide funding to support meaningful community involvement in all phases of SGMA implementation.

Customer Debt and Lost Revenue: The Financial Impacts of COVID-19 on Small Community Water Systems

Pacific Institute | May 4th, 2021

This report provides information on revenue losses experienced by small community water systems (SCWS) in the United States and debt accumulated by their customers during

This report provides information on revenue losses experienced by small community water systems (SCWS) in the United States and debt accumulated by their customers during the COVID-19 pandemic. More than 45,000 SCWS, defined as systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, exist across the United States. The pandemic has exacerbated pre-existing challenges for these water systems and for poorer communities faced with rapidly rising water bills, including financial and cyber insecurity, and the rising costs of treating new contaminants in their water and wastewater. The report includes case studies illustrating the breadth and depth of challenges SCWS face due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Disparities in urban vegetation degradation and heat exposure during drought periods in U.S. cities

nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | December 15th, 2025

Policymakers are increasingly recognizing the necessity for the equitable distribution of urban green spaces across sociodemographic groups. Nevertheless, the extant rese

Policymakers are increasingly recognizing the necessity for the equitable distribution of urban green spaces across sociodemographic groups. Nevertheless, the extant research consistently highlights disparities in this allocation, frequently neglecting the critical implications of extreme droughts on vegetation-related inequalities. Leveraging satellite observations in conjunction with census data, we examine the drought-related disparities in urban vegetation degradation (UVD) and the corresponding heat exposure across sociodemographic groups within major U.S. cities. Our findings reveal that marginalized communities experience more severe UVD during droughts, a trend particularly pronounced in Sunbelt U.S. cities, such as those in Southern California and Texas. Additionally, the unequal UVD during drought exacerbates existing inequalities in heat exposure. These results highlight the urgent need for the implementation of targeted policies, including effective water supply management strategies. Such measures could mitigate thermal environmental injustices and promote equitable vegetation distribution under a warming climate.

Drinking Water and Exclusion: A Case Study from California's Central Valley

California Law Review | February 1st, 2012

The American West is notorious for its water wars, and California's complex water allocation and governance challenges serve as a bellwether for contemporary water gove

The American West is notorious for its water wars, and California's complex water allocation and governance challenges serve as a bellwether for contemporary water governance across western states, Policy makers and environmental advocates typically represent California's water woes as a regulatory problem - a failure to balance the needs of growing urban populations with ecological preservation and agricultural irrigation. These debates, however, often elide the issue of water deprivation, and they do not adequately address the concerns of an important constituency: low-income, rural communities. This Comment argues that a focus on regulation misses a fundamental feature of water inequality: the structure and design of local water districts. Utilizing a case study of California's Central Valley to illustrate how these structural barriers operate, I argue that Calfornia's complex system of local water districts fractures governance, limits electoral participation, and undermines the State's stated environmental, equity, and utilitarian water goals. I offer suggestions for alternative local water district organization in order to address the constraints of Calfornia's current water governance regime.