Gone. Decades of greed, neglect, corruption, and bad politics led to last year’s Paradise fire, the worst in California history. It should never have happened. It will happen again.

California Sunday Magazine | July 31st, 2019

By the time I made it to Paradise, the deadliest wildfire in California history was four months past, and the burned-out ridge between the two river canyons was pouring

By the time I made it to Paradise, the deadliest wildfire in California history was four months past, and the burned-out ridge between the two river canyons was pouring rain. I was riding the Skyway, the road from Chico to Paradise, flatland to hilltop, trying to understand what forces had conspired last November to create a blaze of such anger that it took the lives of 85 people and destroyed 19,000 structures. I had puzzled out enough disasters to know that tragedy was a force of intricate construction. It wasn’t one detached act that materialized as tragedy but myriad smaller acts — some incidental, some accidental, others malevolent — that lined up in perfect continuity. Had one circumstance in the sequence lost its footing, a cosmic stumble, the next circumstance would have never hitched on, and tragedy would have been averted.

Grassland Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Grassland Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GGSA) | January 17th, 2020

*Cover gives draft date of December but consulting engineer signature is for 1/17/2020

*Cover gives draft date of December but consulting engineer signature is for 1/17/2020

Grassland Groundwater Sustainability Agency Revised Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Grassland Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GGSA) | July 8th, 2022

This GSP, including the Common Chapter, has been revised (changes are shown in Appendix G) to address items of concern raised by DWR in its initial “Incomplete” Deter

This GSP, including the Common Chapter, has been revised (changes are shown in Appendix G) to address items of concern raised by DWR in its initial “Incomplete” Determination Letter dated January 21, 2022. Every effort was made to ensure that this revised GSP and the revised Common Chapter are consistent. In the event of an inconsistency, the revised Common Chapter controls. The Grassland Plan Area will continue to be sustainable by maintaining the historically balanced groundwater system in order to avoid causing significant and unreasonable undesirable impacts to beneficial users of groundwater as they relate to the six sustainability indicators. The Plan Area participants are committed to continued coordination with neighboring GSP areas and neighboring subbasins in order to aid in the localized and statewide groundwater sustainability goals as defined by each GSP and Subbasin. Due to size, this file has been divided. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7

Gravelley Ford Water District Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Gravelly Ford Water District (GFWD) | August 12th, 2019

Gravelly Ford Water District Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Gravelly Ford Water District (GFWD) | March 19th, 2023

In 2022, the Technical representatives for the four GSPs representing the seven GSAs in the Madera Basin started meeting to revise the four GSP Plans to resolve deficienc

In 2022, the Technical representatives for the four GSPs representing the seven GSAs in the Madera Basin started meeting to revise the four GSP Plans to resolve deficiencies identified by the DWR in their review of the four GSP plans as stated in the September 2022 Incomplete determination letter. During the period from September 2022 through March 2023 the group also had meetings with DWR staff to establish direction on the recommendations in the DWR Incomplete letter. This Incomplete letter established a 180-day period to provide a revised GSP to address the deficiencies. The Technical group developed a corrective action plan to address the items identified by DWR staff in the Incomplete letter to address the noted deficiencies. During the last quarter of 2022 and the first quarter of 2023 the four GSPs revised their individual plans to coordinate approaches and methodologies that would provide similar language and approach across the Madera Subbasin, those items being: • Resolve the potential deficiencies identified by DWR in their September 2022 incomplete determination letter, and discussed during five DWR consultation meetings between November 2022 and January 2023; • Summarize the progressive implementation actions taken by the GSAs since submission of the GSP in January 2020; • Recognize the Madera Subbasin GSAs’ clear and formal commitment to fund and implement a Domestic Well Mitigation Program beginning no later than January 1, 2024, including the execution of a memorandum of understanding (MOU); and • Reaffirm their commitment to implementing the GSP and achieving sustainable groundwater conditions by 2040.

Greater Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency 2022 First Amended Groundwater Susteainability Plan

Greater Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GKGSA) | July 20th, 2022

Due to size, this file has been divided. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10

Due to size, this file has been divided. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10

Green Light for Adaptive Policies on the Colorado River

Water (MDPI) | December 21st, 2021

The Colorado River is a critical source of water supply for 40 million people in nine states spanning two nations in western North America. Overallocated in the 20th cent

The Colorado River is a critical source of water supply for 40 million people in nine states spanning two nations in western North America. Overallocated in the 20th century, its problems have been compounded by climate change in the 21st century. We review the basin’s hydrologic and water management history in order to identify opportunities for adaptive governance to respond to the challenge of reduced system flows and distill the ingredients of past successes. While significant advances have been made in the first two decades of the 21st century, these past actions have not been sufficient to halt the declines in the basin’s reservoirs. We find that the mix of federal, state, and local responsibility creates challenges for adaptation but that progress can be made through a combination of detailed policy option development followed by quick action at hydrologically driven moments of opportunity. The role of directives and deadlines from federal authorities in facilitating difficult compromises is noted. The current state of dramatically decreased overall flows has opened a window of opportunity for the adoption of water management actions that move the river system toward sustainability. Specific measures, based on the existing institutional framework and on policy proposals that have circulated within the Colorado River community, are suggested.

Ground Water in the Redding Basin, Shasta and Tehama Counties, California

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | December 31st, 1983

The Redding Basin covers about 510 square miles in the northern part of the Central Valley of California and is surrounded by the Cascade Range, Klamath Mountains,and Coa

The Redding Basin covers about 510 square miles in the northern part of the Central Valley of California and is surrounded by the Cascade Range, Klamath Mountains,and CoastRanges. It is separated from the main part of the valley by the Red Bluff Arch, a subsurface geologic structure. Ground water in the Redding Basin is obtained principally from wells tapping continental deposits of Tertiary and (or) Quaternary age. These deposits are arranged in a synclinal structure that trends and plunges south- ward. They are deposited on the Chico Formation, a marine sedimentary unit, and a basement complex composed of older igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks. Recharge to the Redding ground-water basin is from subsurface inflow; infiltration of precipitation and applied irrigation water; and percolation from stream san dcreeks.

Ground-water conditions at Beale Air Force Base and vicinity, California

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | April 15th, 1980

The U.S. Geological Survey was asked by the Air Force to make a study of ground-water conditions at the base. This report and an earlier data report have resulted

The U.S. Geological Survey was asked by the Air Force to make a study of ground-water conditions at the base. This report and an earlier data report have resulted from the study. The purpose of the study was to appraise the ground-water resource in the vicinity of Beale Air Force Base with regard to source, occurrence, movement, and chemical quality. This information will be used in the long-term management of the water supply for the base. The scope of the study included identifying zones of poor-quality water that could affect the base water supply and providing suggestions for changes in pumping, well construction, and well-site selection that would improve the reliability of the water supply. Source material included drillers' logs, chemical analyses of ground water, water-level records, pumpage records, and previously published reports for the area.

Ground-Water Hydrology of the Upper Klamath Basin, Oregon and California

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | April 15th, 2010

The upper Klamath Basin spans the California-Oregon border from the flank of the Cascade Range eastward to the Basin and Range Province, and encompasses the Klamath River

The upper Klamath Basin spans the California-Oregon border from the flank of the Cascade Range eastward to the Basin and Range Province, and encompasses the Klamath River drainage basin above Iron Gate Dam. Most of the basin is semiarid, but the Cascade Range and uplands in the interior and eastern parts of the basin receive on average more than 30 inches of precipitation per year. The basin has several perennial streams with mean annual discharges of hundreds of cubic feet per second, and the Klamath River at Iron Gate Dam, which represents drainage from the entire upper basin, has a mean annual discharge of about 2,100 cubic feet per second. The basin once contained three large lakes: Upper and Lower Klamath Lakes and Tule Lake, each of which covered areas of 100 to 150 square miles, including extensive marginal wetlands. Lower Klamath Lake and Tule Lake have been mostly drained, and the former lake beds are now cultivated. Upper Klamath Lake remains, and is an important source of irrigation water. Much of the wetland surrounding Upper Klamath Lake has been diked and drained, although efforts are underway to restore large areas. Upper Klamath Lake and the remaining parts of Lower Klamath and Tule Lakes provide important wildlife habitat, and parts of each are included in the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges Complex. The upper Klamath Basin has a substantial regional ground-water flow system. The late Tertiary to Quaternary volcanic rocks that underlie the region are generally permeable, with transmissivity estimates ranging from 1,000 to 100,000 feet squared per day, and compose a system of variously interconnected aquifers. Interbedded with the volcanic rocks are late Tertiary sedimentary rocks composed primarily of fine-grained lake sediments and basin-filling deposits. These sedimentary deposits have generally low permeability, are not good aquifers, and probably restrict ground-water movement in some areas. The regional ground-water system is underlain and bounded on the east and west by older Tertiary volcanic and sedimentary rocks that have generally low permeability. Eight regional-scale hydrogeologic units are defined in the upper Klamath Basin on the basis of surficial geology and subsurface data. Ground water flows from recharge areas in the Cascade Range and upland areas in the basin interior and eastern margins toward stream valleys and interior subbasins. Ground water discharges to streams throughout the basin, and most streams have some component of ground water (baseflow). Some streams, however, are predominantly ground-water fed and have relatively constant flows throughout the year. Large amounts of ground water discharge in the Wood River subbasin, the lower Williamson River area, and along the margin of the Cascade Range. Much of the inflow to Upper Klamath Lake can be attributed to ground-water discharge to streams and major spring complexes within a dozen or so miles from the lake. This large component of ground water buffers the lake somewhat from climate cycles. There are also ground-water discharge areas in the eastern parts of the basin, for example in the upper Williamson and Sprague River subbasins and in the Lost River subbasin at Bonanza Springs. Irrigated agriculture is an integral part of the economy of the upper Klamath Basin. Although estimates vary somewhat, roughly 500,000 acres are irrigated in the upper Klamath Basin, about 190,000 acres of which are part of the Bureau of Reclamation Klamath Project. Most of this land is irrigated with surface water. Ground water has been used for many decades to irrigate areas where surface water is not available, for example outside of irrigation districts and stream valleys. Ground water has also been used as a supplemental source of water in areas where surface water supplies are limited and during droughts. Ground water use for irrigation has increased in recent years due to drought and shifts in surface-water allocation from irrigation to instream uses. The shifts in surface-water allocation have resulted from efforts to improve habitat for fish listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act. The ground-water system in the upper Klamath Basin responds to external stresses such as climate cycles, pumping, lake stage variations, and canal operation. This response is manifest as fluctuations in hydraulic head (as represented by fluctuations in the water-table surface) and variations in ground-water discharge to springs. Basinwide, decadal-scale climate cycles are the largest factor controlling head and discharge fluctuations. Climate-driven water-table fluctuations of more than 12 feet have been observed near the Range, and decadal-scale fluctuations of 5 feet are common throughout the basin. Ground-water discharge to springs and streams varies basinwide in response to decadal-scale climate cycles. The response of the ground-water system to pumping is generally largest in areas where pumping occurs. Annual drawdown and recovery cycles of 1 to 10 feet are common in pumping areas. Long-term drawdown effects, where the water table has reached or is attempting to reach a new level in equilibrium with the pumping, are apparent in parts of the basin. Since 2001, ground-water use in the upper Klamath Basin has increased by about 50 percent. Much of this increase has occurred in the area in and around the Bureau of Reclamation Klamath Project, roughly tripling ground-water pumping in that area. This focused increase in pumping has resulted in ground-water level declines in the pumped aquifer in excess of 10 to 15 feet over a large part of the Project between 2001 and 2004. If pumping rates of recent years are continued, the aquifer could achieve a new equilibrium; however, the final configuration of the water table (depth to water) and the spatial and temporal distribution of the resulting effects to streams are unknown. Historical water-level data suggest that the water table should recover from recent declines if pumping is reduced to pre-2001 rates.