State and green crimes related to water pollution and ecological disorganization: water pollution from publicly owned treatment works (POTW) facilities across US states

Palgrave Communications | August 1st, 2017

Green criminologists often refer to water pollution as an example of a green crime, but have yet to produce much research on this subject. The current article addressesÂ

Green criminologists often refer to water pollution as an example of a green crime, but have yet to produce much research on this subject. The current article addresses the need for green criminological analyses of water pollution problems, and draws attention to an overlooked issue: water pollution emissions from state owned public water treatment facilities or POTWs. Legally, POTWs may emit certain quantities and kinds of pollutants to waterways following treatment. This does not mean, however, that those emissions have no adverse ecological or public health impacts, or that those emissions cannot also be employed as examples of green crimes or green-state crimes. Indeed, from the perspective of environmental sociology and ecological Marxism, those emissions generate ecological disorganization. Moreover, POTW emissions contain numerous pollutants that generate different forms of ecological disorganization. The current study uses POTW emissions data drawn from the US EPA’s Discharge Monitoring Report system for 2014 to illustrate the extent of pollution emitted by POTWs in and across US states as one dimension of ecological disorganization. To contextualize the meaning of those data, we review US water pollution regulations, review the health and ecological impacts of chemicals emitted by POTWs, and situate those emissions within green criminological discussions of green crime and greenstate crimes.

State Plan of Flood Control Descriptive Document (2010)

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | January 15th, 2010

This report provides an inventory and description of the existing flood control works (facilities), lands, programs, plans, conditions, and mode of operations and mainten

This report provides an inventory and description of the existing flood control works (facilities), lands, programs, plans, conditions, and mode of operations and maintenance (O&M) for the State-Federal flood protection system in the Central Valley of California. This flood protection system is composed of federally authorized project levees and related facilities for which the State has provided assurances1 of cooperation to the federal government. These State-provided assurances are an important distinction for what constitutes the State-federal flood protection system since other flood protection facilities in the Central Valley are not covered by State assurances and are not part of the State-federal system. Collectively, the facilities, lands, programs, conditions, and mode of O&M for the State-Federal flood protection system in the Central Valley are referred to as the State Plan of Flood Control (SPFC). This SPFC Descriptive Document is the first time that an inventory of the SPFC has been compiled or referenced in a single document. Until now, much of the information on the SPFC has been individually maintained for each of the many flood protection projects that constitute State-federal flood protection along the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and tributaries. For example, much of the information contained in sections of this report originates in 118 individual project (unit-specific) O&M manuals. The O&M manuals provide key information about each project and how it should be operated and maintained (see reference digital versatile disc (DVD) at the back of this report). In addition, since the individual projects for the system were implemented over almost a century, some information may have been lost or never obtained. In those cases, gaps exist in the information presented in this report and further research is required. It is important to note that the SPFC is only a portion of the larger system that provides flood protection for the Central Valley. The SPFC relies on many other features that do not meet the definition of the SPFC. For example, non-SPFC reservoirs provide substantial regulation of flows to levels that SPFC facilities can mostly handle. Private levees, locally operated drainage systems, and other facilities work in conjunction with SPFC facilities. Management practices such as emergency response, floodplain management, and other practices are part of the overall flood protection system. All parts of the system, including the SPFC, depend on other parts of the system to operate as a unit. This report is structured as a reference document for the SPFC. It includes narrative descriptions, tables, and figures, especially maps, to help the reader find information for this complex flood management system. Some sections include summary sections for readers who only need an overview of the subject. RELATED DOCUMENT: State Plan of Flood Control Descriptive Document 2016 Update

Statement of Findings regarding the Determination of Incomplete Status of the San Joaquin Valley – Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | January 28th, 2022

The Department of Water Resources (Department) is required to evaluate whether a submitted groundwater sustainability plan (GSP or Plan) conforms to specific requirements

The Department of Water Resources (Department) is required to evaluate whether a submitted groundwater sustainability plan (GSP or Plan) conforms to specific requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA or Act), is likely to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin covered by the Plan, and whether the Plan adversely affects the ability of an adjacent basin to implement its GSP or impedes achievement of sustainability goals in an adjacent basin. (Water Code   10733.) The Department is directed to issue an assessment of the Plan within two years of its submission. (Water Code 10733.4.) This Statement of Findings explains the Department’s decision regarding the Plan submitted by the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (Authority), which is a joint powers authority formed by the 16 groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) located within the San Joaquin Valley – Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin (No. 5-022.01). Department management has reviewed the enclosed Staff Report, which recommends that the identified deficiencies should preclude approval of the GSP. Based on its review of the Staff Report, Department management is satisfied that staff have conducted a thorough evaluation and assessment of the Plan and concurs with, and hereby adopts, staff’s recommendation and all the corrective actions provided. The Department thus deems the Plan incomplete based on the Staff Report and the findings contained herein.

Statement of Findings regarding the Determination of Incomplete Status of the San Joaquin Valley – Kern County Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plans

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | January 28th, 2022

The Department of Water Resources (Department) is required to evaluate whether a submitted groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) conforms to specific requirements of the

The Department of Water Resources (Department) is required to evaluate whether a submitted groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) conforms to specific requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), is likely to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin covered by the GSP, and whether the GSP adversely affects the ability of an adjacent basin to implement its GSP or impedes achievement of sustainability goals in an adjacent basin. (Water Code 10733.) The Department is directed to issue an assessment of the GSP within two years of its submission. (Water Code 10733.4.) SGMA allows for multiple GSPs implemented by multiple groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) and coordinated pursuant to a single coordination agreement that covers the entire basin to be an acceptable planning scenario. (Water Code   10727.) In the San Joaquin Valley – Kern County Subbasin (Subbasin), five separate GSPs were prepared by 11 GSAs pursuant to the required coordination agreement. This Statement of Findings explains the Department’s decision regarding the multiple GSPs covering the Subbasin submitted jointly by the multiple GSAs. Collectively, the five GSPs and the coordination agreement are referred to as the Plan for the Subbasin. Individually, the GSPs include the following: • Kern Groundwater Authority Groundwater Sustainability Plan (KGA GSP) – prepared by the Kern Groundwater Authority (KGA) GSA, Semitropic Water Storage District (SWSD) GSA, Cawelo Water District (CWD) GSA, City of McFarland GSA, Pioneer GSA, and West Kern Water District (WKWD) GSA. o Divided into 15 management areas, 22 sub-management areas. • Kern River Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Kern River GSP) – prepared by the Kern River GS and Greenfield County Water District GSA. o Divided into three management areas, 11 sub-management areas. • Buena Vista Water Storage District GSA Groundwater Sustainability Plan (BV GSP) – prepared by the Buena Vista Water Storage District (BV) GSA. o Divided into two management areas. • Olcese Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Olcese GSP) – prepared by the Olcese Water District (OWD) GSA. • Henry Miller Water District Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Henry Miller GSP) – prepared by the Henry Miller Water District (HMWD) GSA. Department management has reviewed the enclosed Staff Report, which recommends that the deficiencies identified should preclude approval of the Plan. Based on its review of the Staff Report, Department management is satisfied that staff have conducted a thorough evaluation and assessment of the Plan and concurs with, and hereby adopts, staff’s recommendation and all the corrective actions provided. The Department thus deems the Plan incomplete based on the Staff Report and the findings contained herein.

Statement of Findings regarding the Determination of Incomplete Status of the San Joaquin Valley – KIngs Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plans

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | January 28th, 2022

The Department of Water Resources (Department) is required to evaluate whether a submitted groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) conforms to specific requirements of th

The Department of Water Resources (Department) is required to evaluate whether a submitted groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) conforms to specific requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), is likely to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin covered by the GSP, and whether the GSP adversely affects the ability of an adjacent basin to implement its GSP or impedes achievement of sustainability goals in an adjacent basin. (Water Code § 10733.) The Department is directed to issue an assessment of the GSP within two years of its submission. (Water Code § 10733.4.) SGMA allows for multiple GSPs implemented by multiple groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) and coordinated pursuant to a single coordination agreement that covers the entire basin to be an acceptable planning scenario. (Water Code § 10727.) In the San Joaquin Valley – Kings Subbasin (Subbasin), seven separate GSPs were prepared by seven GSAs pursuant to the required coordination agreement. This Statement of Findings explains the Department’s decision regarding the multiple GSPs covering the Subbasin. Collectively, the seven GSPs and the coordination agreement are referred to as the Plan for the Subbasin. Individually, the GSPs include the following: • Central Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Central Kings GSP) – prepared the Central Kings GSA (CKGSA). • James Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan (James GSP) – prepared by the James GSA (JGSA). • Kings River East Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Kings River East GSP) – prepared by the Kings River East GSA (KREGSA). • McMullin Area Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan (McMullin GSP) – prepared by the McMullin Area GSA (MAGSA). • North Fork Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan (North Fork Kings GSP) – prepared by the North Fork Kings GSA (NFKGSA). • North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan (North Kings GSP) – prepared by the North Kings GSA (NKGSA). San Joaquin Valley – Kings Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.08) • South Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan (South Kings GSP) – prepared by the South Kings GSA (SKGSA). Department management has reviewed the enclosed Staff Report, which recommends that the deficiencies identified should preclude approval of the Plan. Based on its review of the Staff Report, Department management is satisfied that staff have conducted a thorough evaluation and assessment of the Plan and concurs with, and hereby adopts, staff’s recommendation and all the corrective actions provided. The Department thus deems the Plan incomplete based on the Staff Report and the findings contained herein.

Statement of Findings regarding the Approval of the San Joaquin Valley - Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | July 6th, 2023

Statement of Findings regarding the Approval of the San Joaquin Valley - Tracy Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | January 18th, 2024

The Department of Water Resources (Department) is required to evaluate whether a submitted groundwater sustainability plan (GSP or Plan) conforms to specific requirements

The Department of Water Resources (Department) is required to evaluate whether a submitted groundwater sustainability plan (GSP or Plan) conforms to specific requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA or Act), is likely to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin covered by the Plan, and whether the Plan adversely affects the ability of an adjacent basin to implement its GSP or impedes achievement of sustainability goals in an adjacent basin. (Water Code § 10733.) The Department is directed to issue an assessment of the Plan within two years of its submission. (Water Code § 10733.4.) This Statement of Findings explains the Department’s decision regarding the Plan submitted by the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District, Banta-Carbona Irrigation District, City of Lathrop, City of Tracy, San Joaquin County, and the Stewart Tract Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs or Agencies) for the San Joaquin Valley - Tracy Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.15).

Statement of Findings regarding the Approval of the San Joaquin Valley – Kings Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | August 4th, 2023

Statement of Findings regarding the Approval of the San Joaquin Valley – Madera Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | December 21st, 2023

Statement of Findings regarding the Approval of the San Joaquin Valley – Westside Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | October 26th, 2023