Status of Groundwater Quality in the Santa Barbara Study Unit, 2011: California GAMA Priority Basin Project

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | September 30th, 2016

Groundwater quality in the 48-square-mile Santa Barbara study unit was investigated in 2011 as part of the California State Water Resources Control Board’s Groundwater

Groundwater quality in the 48-square-mile Santa Barbara study unit was investigated in 2011 as part of the California State Water Resources Control Board’s Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program Priority Basin Project. The study unit is mostly in Santa Barbara County and is in the Transverse and Selected Peninsular Ranges hydrogeologic province. The GAMA Priority Basin Project is carried out by the U.S. Geological Survey in collaboration with the California State Water Resources Control Board and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The GAMA Priority Basin Project was designed to provide a statistically unbiased, spatially distributed assessment of the quality of untreated groundwater in the primary aquifer system of California. The primary aquifer system is defined as that part of the aquifer corresponding to the perforation interval of wells listed in the California Department of Public Health database for the Santa Barbara study unit. This status assessment is intended to characterize the quality of groundwater resources in the primary aquifer system of the Santa Barbara study unit, not the treated drinking water delivered to consumers by water purveyors. The status assessment for the Santa Barbara study unit was based on water-quality and ancillary data collected in 2011 by the U.S. Geological Survey from 23 sites and on water-quality data from the California Department of Public Health database for January 24, 2008–January 23, 2011. The data used for the assessment included volatile organic compounds; pesticides; pharmaceutical compounds; two constituents of special interest, perchlorate and N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA); and naturally present inorganic constituents, such as major ions and trace elements. Relative-concentrations (sample concentration divided by the health- or aesthetic-based benchmark concentration) were used to evaluate groundwater quality for those constituents that have federal or California regulatory and non-regulatory benchmarks for drinking-water quality. For inorganic, organic, and special-interest constituents, a relative-concentration greater than 1.0 indicates a concentration greater than the benchmark and is classified as high. Inorganic constituents are classified as moderate if relative-concentrations are greater than 0.5 and less than or equal to 1.0 and are classified as low if relative-concentrations are less than or equal to 0.5. For organic and special-interest constituents, the boundary between moderate and low relative-concentrations was set at 0.1. Aquifer-scale proportion was used as the primary metric for evaluating regional-scale groundwater quality. High aquifer-scale proportion is defined as the areal percentage of the primary aquifer system with a relative-concentration greater than 1.0 for a particular constituent or class of constituents. Moderate and low aquifer-scale proportions were defined as the areal percentage of the primary aquifer system that had moderate and low relative-concentrations, respectively. Two statistical approaches—grid based and spatially weighted—were used to calculate aquifer-scale proportions for individual constituents and constituent classes. Grid-based and spatially weighted estimates were comparable in this the study (within 90-percent confidence intervals). Grid-based results were selected for use in the status assessment unless, as was observed in a few cases, a grid-based result was zero and the spatially weighted result was not zero, in which case, the spatially weighted result was used. Inorganic constituents that have human-health benchmarks were present at high relative-concentrations in 5.3 percent of the primary aquifer system and at moderate concentrations in 32 percent. High aquifer-scale proportions of inorganic constituents primarily were a result of high aquifer-scale proportions of boron (5.3 percent) and fluoride (5.3 percent). Inorganic constituents that have aesthetic-based benchmarks, referred to as secondary maximum contaminant levels, were present at high relative-concentrations in 58 percent of the primary aquifer system and at moderate concentrations in 37 percent. Iron, manganese, sulfate, and total dissolved solids were the inorganic constituents with secondary maximum contaminant levels present at high relative-concentrations.

Status of Perennial Estuarine Wetlands in the State of California

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | November 1st, 2008

Section 305(b) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires each state submit biennial reports describing the health of its surface water, including wetlands, to the USE

Section 305(b) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires each state submit biennial reports describing the health of its surface water, including wetlands, to the USEPA. This document reports on the health of California’s perennial, saline estuarine wetlands. Estuaries are partially enclosed bodies of water along the coast where freshwater runoff meets and mixes with salt water from the ocean. Based on the draft definition of wetlands for California, an estuarine wetland is an area within an estuary that is exposed at low tide and covered with rooted vegetation. The health of the state’s estuarine wetlands is estimated from a statewide survey of the distribution, abundance, and ambient condition of estuarine wetlands. The survey had three components: 1) landscape profile; 2) probability-based assessment of ambient condition; and 3) assessment of selected estuarine wetland restoration and mitigation projects. The results help answer four fundamental management questions: 1) where are the State’s estuarine wetlands and how abundant are they; 2) what is the ambient condition of estuarine wetlands statewide and how does their condition vary by region; 3) what are the major stressors and how do they vary among coastal regions; and 4) what is the condition of permitted restoration projects relative to ambient condition. This fourth question demonstrates how data could be used to evaluate policies and programs affecting the distribution, abundance, and condition of estuarine wetlands. The landscape profile described the distribution and abundance of the State’s estuarine wetlands relative to other estuarine habitats and explored the underlying causes through a detailed examination of trends in San Francisco Estuary. A probability-based survey was used to assess the ambient condition of saline, perennial estuarine wetlands. The statewide ambient survey involved 120 sites allocated equally among four regions: North Coast, San Francisco Estuary, Central Coast, and South Coast. An additional 30 sites were allocated to South Coast to test for a difference between large and small estuaries. The field survey was conducted in the Fall of 2007. The statewide ambient survey in turn served as a regional frame of reference for project assessments. Both the ambient survey and the project assessments utilized the California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM; Version 5.0.2). CRAM is a field-based method to assess wetland condition based on visible indicators of four wetland attributes: Landscape Context, Hydrology, Physical Structure, and Biological Structure. Results were reported as the percent of the total area of estuarine wetland in California likely to fall within four categories equally-spaced categories of possible CRAM index or attribute scores, which range from 25-100: Scores greater than 82 = Category 1; scores between 63 and 82 = Category 2; scores between 44 and 63 = Category 3; and scores less than 44 = Category 4. Landscape Profile. Approximately 91% of the historical amount acreage of California wetlands has been lost due to reclamation and land use. Accurate estimates of estuarine wetland loss in particular are only available for the San Francisco Estuary. In spite of losing approximately 85% of its saline wetlands and almost 92% of its freshwater tidal wetlands, the SF Estuary has almost 44,500 acres of estuarine wetlands at this time, about 77% of all the estuarine wetlands in the state. Although land use varies among the estuaries of California, it has affected the distribution, abundance, size, and shape of estuarine wetlands in consistently deleterious ways. It has decreased the amount of estuarine wetland and increased the number of small wetlands, thus increasing the distance between wetlands. In the more urbanized estuaries of the South Coast, Central Coast, and SF Estuary, many wetlands are embedded in intensive land uses and bounded by levees. These conditions diminish the hydrological and ecological connectivity among the wetlands, increase their susceptibility to invasion and local catastrophic events, and reduce their overall capacity to serve society.

Status of Water Quality in Groundwater Resources Used for Drinking-Water Supply in the Southeastern San Joaquin Valley, 2013–15: California GAMA Priority Basin Project

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | April 25th, 2024

The California Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program Priority Basin Project (GAMA-PBP) investigated water quality of groundwater resources used for drinki

The California Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program Priority Basin Project (GAMA-PBP) investigated water quality of groundwater resources used for drinking-water supplies in the Madera-Chowchilla, Kings, Kaweah, Tule, and Tulare Lake groundwater subbasins of the southeastern San Joaquin Valley during 2013–15. The study focused primarily on groundwater resources used for domestic-supply wells in the southeastern San Joaquin Valley (SESJV-D), which correspond mostly to shallower parts of aquifer systems, compared to the groundwater resources used for public-supply wells in the southeastern San Joaquin Valley (SESJV-P). The investigation had three components: (1) characterization of the status of water quality in the SESJV-D, (2) comparison between water quality in the SESJV-D and SESJV-P, and (3) identification of natural and anthropogenic factors that potentially could affect water quality in these resources.

Status of Water-Quality Conditions in the United States, 2010–20, Chapter C of U.S. Geological Survey Integrated Water Availability Assessment—2010–20

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | January 15th, 2025

Key findings related to groundwater and surface water quality problems that affect water availability include the following: Drinking-water use is affected by geogen

Key findings related to groundwater and surface water quality problems that affect water availability include the following: Drinking-water use is affected by geogenic and anthropogenic contaminants. Elevated concentrations of arsenic, manganese, strontium, radium, adjusted gross alpha, and nitrate are common in drinking water aquifers serving more than 30 million people in the United States. About one-third of stream miles assessed as surface-water sourced drinking-water supply are impaired with respect to drinking-water use, most commonly because of non-mercury metals and salinity. Health-based drinking-water violations at public water systems may disproportionately affect socially vulnerable communities. People with domestic wells as their drinking-water source are more prone to exposure to contaminants compared to people served by public water systems. Ecological water uses are predominantly limited by nutrients, sediment, temperature, pathogens, salinity, and pesticides. Contaminants without or historically without regulatory thresholds (for example, polyfluoroalkyl substances [PFAS]) have been underrepresented in previous assessments and also likely contribute to ecological degradation and human exposure. Water availability for human and ecological use is limited by elevated constituent concentrations in surface water and groundwater because of human activities. Human activities include sources (for example, inorganic and organic chemicals), processes (for example, dredging), or permanent landscape modifications (for example, dams, urbanization). Interactions between groundwater and surface water can influence water quality. Surface-water recharge can be a source of contaminants to aquifers, whereas groundwater discharge, with slow transport times, results in long-term, lagged delivery of pollutants to surface waters (especially nitrate, chloride, PFAS, and other constituents). Little information exists regarding human-health exposure risks from mixtures of geogenic and anthropogenic drinking-water contaminants. Co-occurrence and mixtures of multiple water-quality constituents, taken together, can cause compounding negative effects on water availability but mixtures are rarely measured in standard monitoring protocols. Alternative water resources could increase water availability by providing additional supply from non-traditional sources such as reclaimed wastewater, brackish and saline water, and produced water from oil and gas development. Companion chapters: U.S. Geological Survey Integrated Water Availability Assessment—2010–20, Chapter A Water Supply in the Conterminous United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, Water Years 2010–20, Chapter B Water Use Across the Conterminous United States, Water Years 2010–20, Chapter D  Climate Change and Future Water Availability in the United States, Chapter E  Integrated Water Availability in the Conterminous United States, 2010–20, Chapter F 

Status Review of California coho salmon north of San Francisco

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | May 9th, 2002

On July 28, 2000, the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) received a petition to list coho salmon north of San Francisco as an endangered species under provisions of th

On July 28, 2000, the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) received a petition to list coho salmon north of San Francisco as an endangered species under provisions of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The Commission referred the petition to the Department of Fish and Game (Department) on August 7, 2000, for evaluation. The Department found that the information in the petition was sufficient to indicate the action may be warranted and recommended the Commission accept the petition. The petition was accepted by the Commission on April 5, 2001. On April 27, 2001 the Commission published a Notice of Findings in the California Regulatory Notice Register declaring coho salmon a candidate species, thereby starting the candidacy period. The Department solicited information and undertook a status review of the species using the best scientific information available. This report contains the results of the Department’s status review and recommendations to the Commission. The Department evaluated the status separately for the two coho salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESU) that occur in California: Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho ESU (SONCC Coho ESU - those populations from Punta Gorda north to the Oregon border) and the Central California Coast Coho ESU (CCC Coho ESU - those populations from San Francisco Bay north to Punta Gorda). This approach is consistent with previous listings, the federal approach to species’ evaluation, and the generally accepted biological criterion that a species is “a group of interbreeding organisms that is reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

Statutory Water Rights Law And Related California Code Sections (As amended, including Statutes 2016)

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | March 30th, 2017

The State Water Resources Control Board publishes this collection of California statutes pertaining to the law of water rights as part of its public information program.

The State Water Resources Control Board publishes this collection of California statutes pertaining to the law of water rights as part of its public information program. This booklet contains sections from the California Constitution, the California Water Code, and other related codes which affect water rights decisions. This booklet is provided as a public service. It contains only excerpts of the Water Code. While every effort is made to assure accuracy, persons should consult the official version of the California Code when making legal decisions. The California Legislative Counsel maintains the official code, which is accessible on the Internet at: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml. In addition to the statutes contained in this booklet, decisions of the State Water Resources Control Board are guided by case law. A listing of major recent decisions is included. In general, the statutes contained in this booklet govern the acquisition and exercise of rights to reasonable and beneficial use of surface waters (and of groundwater flowing in known and definite channels) by priority of appropriation initiated on or after December 19, 1914. That is the effective date of the Water Commission Act, which is the origin of many of the water right provisions of today’s Water Code.

Steelhead Restoration and Management Plan for California

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | February 1st, 1996

This document will serve as the blueprint for the Department's efforts to restore this prized, and oftentimes overlooked, resource. Restoration of California's anadrom

This document will serve as the blueprint for the Department's efforts to restore this prized, and oftentimes overlooked, resource. Restoration of California's anadromous fish populations is mandated by The Salmon, Steelhead Trout, and Anadromous Fisheries Program Act of 1988 (SB 2261) which states that it is a policy of the State to significantly increase the natural production of salmon and steelhead by the end of the century. SB 2261 directs the Department to develop a program that strives to double naturally spawning anadromous fish populations by the year 2000. Steelhead management is often included in, and sometimes lost within, management of the more economically important Pacific salmon. Recognizing this, several legislators along with prominent angling organizations urged the Department to incorporate a Statewide Steelhead Restoration Plan into the initial elements of the SB 2261 program. Thus, the development of the Steelhead Restoration and Management Plan for California (Steelhead Plan) has been an important feature of the SB 2261 program since its inception in 1988. Various organizations, principally California Trout, Inc. and Trout Unlimited, remain committed to assisting the Department in its efforts to recover steelhead populations and eagerly await the publication of the Steelhead Plan so that implementation of the identified restoration measures can begin.  Many other angling and conservation organizations are committed to the Steelhead Plan and have corresponded with the Department during its development. Governor Pete Wilson pointed out in his Water Policy Statement of April, 1992, the urgent need for a long-term, comprehensive water policy that includes safe, reliable water supplies for cities and farms and sufficient water to restore fish and wildlife resources. The goals and recommendations set forth in the Steelhead Plan are consistent with this latter aspect of the Governor's Water Policy. Because steelhead are present within the range of all other anadromous salmonid species in California, and because they use a greater portion of a particular river system than do other anadromous fish, restoration of steelhead habitat will have a salutary effect on many other anadromous fish species as well. The Steelhead Plan is one in a series of documents developed by the Department to address the mandated doubling policy stated above. Restoring Central Valley Streams, A Plan for Action was published in 1993 and presents a multi-species approach to restoration of anadromous fish populations in the Central Valley. The Steelhead Plan dovetails with, and is an integral component of, this Action Plan. The Steelhead Plan identifies the life history requirements and needs of an important element of Central Valley anadromous fish ecosystems.

Still Imperilled, Still Important: The Little Hoover Commission’s Review of the CALFED Program

Little Hoover Commission | November 17th, 2005

The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is a treasured and imperiled resource. And CALFED has been the best hope to restore it. The ambitious state-federal partnership is

The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is a treasured and imperiled resource. And CALFED has been the best hope to restore it. The ambitious state-federal partnership is proof that political will and leadership can resolve seemingly intractable conflicts. And yet in recent years, the program also has demonstrated the propensity for rudderless bureaucracies to get caught in inescapable eddies. It is not too late for the Delta, or for CALFED. But restoring the estuary and managing the resource in a sustainable manner will require continuous political support, expert leadership, and smart management.

Stipulated Agreement: Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles vs. Board of Supervisors of the County of Inyo et al

Superior Court of California, County of Inyo | October 21st, 1991

Stockton East Water District - Groundwater Recharge Basin, Southeast Recharge Basin

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | February 15th, 2018

Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500 - 1508), and Department of the Interior Regulations (43 CFR Part 46), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) prepared this env

Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500 - 1508), and Department of the Interior Regulations (43 CFR Part 46), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) prepared this environmental assessment to evaluate and disclose potential environmental impacts associated with providing funds to the Stockton East Water District (SEWD) in San Joaquin County, California to construct a new 73-acre groundwater recharge basin . Reclamation would provide $300,000 through the Drought Response Program to SEWD for the development of a groundwater recharge basin. The Drought Response Program is a program designed to help water users develop drought contingency plans and build long-term drought resilience.