Statement of Findings regarding the Determination of Incomplete Status of the San Joaquin Valley – Kaweah 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 – Kaweah Subbasin (Subbasin), three separate GSPs were prepared by three 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 three GSPs and the coordination agreement are referred to as the Plan for the Subbasin. Individually, the GSPs include the following: • East Kaweah GSA Groundwater Sustainability Plan (East Kaweah GSP) – the East Kaweah GSP is implemented by a single GSA, the East Kaweah GSA. • Greater Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Greater Kaweah GSP) – the Greater Kaweah GSP is implemented by a single GSA, the Greater Kaweah GSA. • Mid-Kaweah GSA Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Mid-Kaweah GSP) – prepared by the Mid-Kaweah 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 – Tulare Lake 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), 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 jointly by the El Rico GSA, Mid-Kings River GSA, South Fork Kings GSA, Southwest Kings GSA, and Tri-County Water Authority GSA (collectively, the GSAs or Agencies) for the San Joaquin Valley – Tulare Lake Subbasin (No. 5-022.12). 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 – Tule 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 – Tule Subbasin (Subbasin), six separate GSPs were prepared by 7 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 six GSPs and the coordination agreement are referred to as the Plan for the Subbasin. Individually, the GSPs include the following: • Groundwater Sustainability Plan, Alpaugh Groundwater Sustainability Agency (Alpaugh GSP) – The Alpaugh GSP is managed by a single GSA, the Alpaugh GSA. • Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, Groundwater Sustainability Plan, January 2020, Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District Groundwater Sustainability Agency (Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District GSP) – The Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District GSP is managed by a single GSA, the Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District GSA, and has four management areas. • Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, Groundwater Sustainability Plan, January 2020, Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency, Tule Subbasin (Eastern Tule GSP) – The Eastern Tule GSP is managed by a single GSA, Eastern Tule Joint Powers Authority GSA, and has five management areas. • Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, Groundwater Sustainability Plan, January 2020, Lower Tule River Irrigation District Groundwater Sustainability Agency, Tule Subbasin (Lower Tule River Irrigation District GSP) – The Lower Tule River Irrigation District GSP is managed by a single GSA, Lower Tule River Irrigation District GSA, and has three management areas. • Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, Groundwater Sustainability Plan, January 2020, Pixley Irrigation District Groundwater Sustainability Agency, Tule Subbasin (Pixley Irrigation District GSP) – The Pixley Irrigation District GSP is managed by a single GSA, Pixley Irrigation District GSA, and has three management areas. • Tri-County Water Authority, Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Tri-County GSP) – The Tri-County GSP is managed by a single GSA, Tri-County Water Authority, and has two management areas. 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.

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.

Storage Capacity and Sedimentation Characteristics of the San Antonio Reservoir, California, 2018

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | January 15th, 2020

Storage in California’s reservoirs and snowpack in this time of drought

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | June 30th, 2015

The San Francisco Bay and Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta (Delta) are the recipients of inflows from a watershed that spans much of California and that has ties to nearly

The San Francisco Bay and Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta (Delta) are the recipients of inflows from a watershed that spans much of California and that has ties to nearly the entire state. Historically, California has buffered its water supplies and flood risks both within—and beyond—the Delta’s catchment by devel-oping many reservoirs, large and small, high and low. Most of these reservoirs carry water from wet winter seasons—when water demands are low and flood risks are high—to dry, warm seasons (and years) when demands are high and little precipitation falls. Many reservoirs are also used to catch and delay (or spread in time) flood flows that otherwise might cause damage to communities and floodplains. This essay describes the status of surface-water and snow-pack storage conditions in California in spring 2015, providing context for better understanding where the state’s water stores stand as we enter summer 2015. 

Stream Flow and Losses of the Colorado River in the Southern Colorado Plateau

Utah State University | September 18th, 2020

A confounding uncertainty for predicting stream flow and losses in anticipation of renegotiation of the 2007 Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages concerns the acc

A confounding uncertainty for predicting stream flow and losses in anticipation of renegotiation of the 2007 Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages concerns the accuracy and precision of those data. Several key gages that are not used in CRSS and are not considered part of the standard network of gages used to manage the Colorado River offer critical insight into understanding future watershed conditions.

Summary of Hydrologic Testing, Wellbore-Flow Data, and Expanded Water-Level and Water-Quality Data, 2011–15, Fort Irwin National Training Center, San Bernardino County, California

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | October 29th, 2019

In view of the U.S. Army’s historical reliance and plans to increase demands on groundwater to supply its operations at Fort Irwin National Training Center (NTC), Calif

In view of the U.S. Army’s historical reliance and plans to increase demands on groundwater to supply its operations at Fort Irwin National Training Center (NTC), California, coupled with the continuing water-level declines in some developed groundwater basins as a result of pumping, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the U.S. Army, evaluated the water resources, including water quality and potential groundwater supply, of undeveloped basins in the NTC. Previous work in the three developed groundwater basins—Langford, Bicycle, and Irwin—provided information to support water-resources management of those basins. During 2009–12, the USGS installed 41 wells at the NTC; 34 wells were at 14 single- or multiple-well monitoring sites, and 7 wells were long-screen test wells. The majority of the wells were installed in previously undeveloped or minimally developed groundwater basins (Cronise, Red Pass, the Central Corridor area, Superior, Goldstone, and Nelson Basins). During 2012–15, the USGS tested hydrologic properties at 32 wells in 8 basins to help characterize the aquifer system. This report presents data and analyses from core samples; slug tests and single-well aquifer tests; coupled measurements of wellbore flow, water levels, and water-quality constituents; and results from two-dimensional numerical modeling. This information provides a basis for developing and constraining basin-scale hydrogeologic framework and groundwater-flow models to further evaluate water resources in each groundwater basin.Core samples were tested for vertical saturated hydraulic conductivity, physical properties, and particle-size distribution. Vertical saturated hydraulic conductivities of the cores ranged from less than 0.00001 to 18.13 feet per day, and porosities ranged from 0.15 to 0.56. These physical properties and particle-size analyses indicate the high degree of heterogeneity of the hydrogeologic deposits penetrated by the boreholes. Horizontal hydraulic conductivities estimated from slug tests in 22 monitoring wells in 6 basins (Cronise, Central Corridor area, Goldstone, Langford, Bicycle, and Nelson Basins) ranged from less than 0.1 to 40 feet per day. Results of the aquifer tests at six test wells in the Goldstone, Nelson, and Superior Basins indicate hydraulic conductivities ranged from 0.37 to 66 feet per day; associated transmissivity values ranged from 130 to 28,000 feet squared per day. Wellbore-flow data, collected from the six test wells under unpumped and pumped conditions, generally showed downward movement of water. Flow data collected under unpumped conditions indicate groundwater entered the well through the upper part of the screened interval and exited to aquifer zones in the lower part of the screened interval at rates ranging from 1 to 3 gallons per minute. Flow data collected under pumping conditions show increased flow downward in the test wells, indicating higher yields from deeper aquifers. Water levels, measured periodically between 2011 and 2015, remained stable during this period in the majority of the wells measured since 2011, except at two monitoring sites in developed basins (Bicycle and Langford). Vertical hydraulic gradients were generally low throughout the NTC, but ranged from –0.0003 to 0.27 during the summer of 2015. Multiple-well monitoring sites in Bicycle, Central Corridor area, Cronise, Goldstone, Nelson, and Superior Basins, had downward vertical gradients.  Groundwater in wells in Nelson and Superior Basins, and wells BLA5, CCT1, and GOLD2 #2, was characterized as sodium-bicarbonate water, whereas groundwater from the remaining wells in Goldstone Basin was characterized as sodium-chloride water and Cronise Basin, and well LL04 was characterized by sodium-sulfate water. Total dissolved solids (TDS) ranged from 285 to 13,400 milligrams per liter (mg/L) TDS and chloride concentrations ranged from 19 to 1,030 mg/L chloride, with lowest concentrations of each in groundwater from Superior and Nelson Basins and highest concentrations in Cronise Basin. Nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen ranged from less than 0.040 mg/L in groundwater from Cronise and Goldstone Basins to about 20 mg/L in Nelson Basin. Groundwater from wells in Nelson Basin was isotopically light, whereas groundwater samples from wells CRTH1, CRTH2, and LL04 were isotopically heavier and plotted along an evaporative trend line. No measurable tritium was detected in groundwater from 13 wells sampled in 2015, indicating that groundwater was recharged prior to 1952. Measured carbon-14 (14C) activities in groundwater from four wells sampled in 2015 ranged from about 7.9 to 23.5 percent modern carbon and had apparent (uncorrected) ages of 11,970–20,980 years. Arsenic concentrations were above the maximum contaminant level of 10 micrograms per liter in groundwater from all wells, except those in Goldstone Basin and the two deepest wells in Langford Basin (LL04); likewise, fluoride concentrations were above the California maximum contaminant level of 2 mg/L in groundwater from most wells, except those in Goldstone and Superior Basins, the middle well in Langford Basin, middle and deep wells in two locations in Cronise Basin, and two wells in Nelson Basin. Wellbore flow was simulated for each well by using an integrated-flow analysis tool, AnalyzeHOLE, to evaluate aquifer properties and heterogeneity. Horizontal layers in the model (hydrogeologic units) were defined by lithostratigraphic‐geophysical units, interpreted from lithologic and geophysical logs for each well, and were adjusted during calibration. The saturated hydraulic conductivities derived from the calibrated simulations ranged from less than 0.01 to 60 feet per day in Nelson, Goldstone, and Superior Basins.

Surface Storage - CalFed (Resource Management Strategy)

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | July 29th, 2016

California remains significantly dependent upon surface water. A review of the California Water Balance Summary, 2001-2010 (California Water Plan Update 2013, Volume 1, C

California remains significantly dependent upon surface water. A review of the California Water Balance Summary, 2001-2010 (California Water Plan Update 2013, Volume 1, Chapter 3, Table 3-2), indicates that in an average year like 2010, about 65 maf (million acre-feet) (more than 80 percent) of 80 maf total dedicated and developed water supply is associated with surface water. Surface storage is an essential element of managing the state’s surface water resources. The naturally arid conditions found in much of California, coupled with seasonal variations of too much or too little water prompted water planners of the past to implement conveyance and storage projects to support land development, population, and economic growth. After construction, these dams captured seasonal runoff and stored it for beneficial uses during drier times. Today, these projects facilitate a larger set of water management objectives including reliable water supplies, water quality and ecosystem maintenance, flood management, and hydropower generation. In many areas of the state, surface water and groundwater are used conjunctively. Coordinated surface water and groundwater management can be either formal or informal. For example, a managed groundwater recharge program where surface water is infiltrated to an aquifer for later use is formal; excess applied surface water in agricultural areas during wetter years that increases the availability of groundwater in drier years is often more informal. Dams and surface water storage continue to be a critical tool for providing water management flexibility in California. The amount of surface water in California, as noted above, often make it a foundational integration element of more diverse local and regional water management portfolios. In addition to storing water for use by residents, businesses, and industries, these facilities provide vital supplies during warm and dry periods for growing crops and maintaining the state’s managed wildlife refuges.

Sustainable L.A. Grand Challenge Environmental Report Card for Los Angeles County: Water 2019

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) | October 22nd, 2019

The Sustainable LA Grand Challenge (SLA GC) Environmental Report Card (ERC) for Los Angeles County (L.A. County) is the only comprehensive environmental report card for

The Sustainable LA Grand Challenge (SLA GC) Environmental Report Card (ERC) for Los Angeles County (L.A. County) is the only comprehensive environmental report card for a megacity in the world. This 2019 ERC on Water provides an in-depth look at the region’s efforts in moving toward a more resilient local water supply, which requires maximizing high quality local water supplies, improving water conveyance and treatment infrastructure, reducing water consumption, and implementing innovative technology and policy solutions. Twenty indicators were assessed across eight categories. Many of these indicators are new areas of assessment for the ERC and will provide a more comprehensive picture of current conditions compared to the 2015 ERC that last assessed L.A. County’s water. Grades were assigned in each category based on compliance with environmental laws or numeric standards where applicable, on our best professional judgment, and on historical improvements and context. This year’s grades range from D/ Incomplete to B+, and although there has been great progress in some areas, others still require significant improvement to raise the county’s C+ average.