Northern and Central Delta-Mendota Regions Revised Groundwater Sustainability Plan

San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority (SLDMWA) | June 24th, 2022

Within the Delta-Mendota Subbasin, six (6) GSPs have been developed in a coordinated fashion with the goal of achieving sustainability for the Subbasin as a whole. The GS

Within the Delta-Mendota Subbasin, six (6) GSPs have been developed in a coordinated fashion with the goal of achieving sustainability for the Subbasin as a whole. The GSP Groups preparing the coordinated GSPs include: the Aliso Water District GSP Group, Farmers Water District GSP Group, Fresno County GSP Group, Grassland GSP Group, Northern & Central Delta-Mendota Region GSP Group, and San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors GSP Group. This GSP has been developed for the Northern and Central Delta-Mendota Regions, which are comprised of the following eight Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs): Central Delta-Mendota, City of Patterson, DM-II, Northwestern Delta-Mendota, Oro Loma Water District, Patterson Irrigation District, West Stanislaus Irrigation District, and Widren Water District. The Northern & Central Delta-Mendota Region GSP has been developed by these GSAs to meet SGMA regulatory requirements while reflecting local needs and preserving local control over water resources. This GSP provides a path to achieve and document sustainable groundwater management within 20 years following adoption, promoting the long-term sustainability of locally-managed groundwater resources now and into the future. Due to size, this file has been divided. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

NPDES Stormwater Cost Survey

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | January 4th, 2005

Task A – Documenting Stormwater Program Costs  Five California municipalities and one metropolitan area with stormwater programs that are demonstrating meaningful

Task A – Documenting Stormwater Program Costs  Five California municipalities and one metropolitan area with stormwater programs that are demonstrating meaningful progress toward maximum extent practicable (MEP) compliance as identified by Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) staff were surveyed for the most recent stormwater compliance costs. Demonstrating meaningful progress is defined in this report as implementing activities specifically presented in the Storm Water Management Plans (SWMPs). Because permits use an iterative approach that increases requirements until water quality objectives are met, current levels of implementation may not be the ultimate MEP standard. This report does not address the benefits of permit compliance activities. Some scenarios addressing ultimate compliance cost are addressed in Task B. Task A was accomplished by the Office of Water Programs (OWP) at California State University, Sacramento (CSUS). Task B – Alternative Approaches to Stormwater Quality Control Task B is an assessment of regulatory policy to determine the intent of stormwater regulation regarding advanced treatment. Alternatives for stormwater quality control that are believed to comply with the intent of the regulations are described. Costs were estimated for the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) area. Task B was accomplished by the University of Southern California (USC) and the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA).

Nutrient Management Strategy for San Francisco Bay

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB) | November 1st, 2012

This document presents a draft strategy for developing the science needed to make informed decisions about assessing nutrient impacts on water quality, protecting benefic

This document presents a draft strategy for developing the science needed to make informed decisions about assessing nutrient impacts on water quality, protecting beneficial uses , and managing nutrient loads to San Francisco Bay. The document first provides relevant background, after which management decisions related to nutrients are highlighted. The document then lays out a plan, developed collaboratively by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) and Bay stakeholders, for the technical studies required to support decisions regarding nutrient management .

Oases of the future? Springs as potential hydrologic refugia in drying climates

Ecological Society of America (Wiley) | June 1st, 2020

Natural springs in water‐limited landscapes are biodiversity hotspots and keystone ecosystems that have a disproportionate influence on surrounding landscapes despite t

Natural springs in water‐limited landscapes are biodiversity hotspots and keystone ecosystems that have a disproportionate influence on surrounding landscapes despite their usually small size. Some springs served as evolutionary refugia during previous climate drying, supporting relict species in isolated habitats. Understanding whether springs will provide hydrologic refugia from future climate change is important to biodiversity conservation but is complicated by hydrologic variability among springs, data limitations, and multiple non‐climate threats to groundwater‐dependent ecosystems. We present a conceptual framework for categorizing springs as potentially stable, relative, or transient hydrologic refugia in a drying climate. Clues about the refugial capacity of springs can be assembled from various approaches, including citizen‐science‐powered ecohydrologic monitoring, remote sensing, landowner interviews, and environmental tracer analysis. Managers can integrate multiple lines of evidence to predict which springs may become future refugia for species of concern, strengthening the long‐term effectiveness of their conservation and restoration, and informing climate adaptation for terrestrial and freshwater species.

Objective definition of rainfall intensity-duration thresholds for the initiation of post-fire debris flows in southern California

Landslides (Springer) | June 27th, 2012

Rainfall intensity–duration (ID) thresholds are commonly used to predict the temporal occurrence of debris flows and shallow landslides. Typically, thresholds are sub

Rainfall intensity–duration (ID) thresholds are commonly used to predict the temporal occurrence of debris flows and shallow landslides. Typically, thresholds are subjectively defined as the upper limit of peak rainstorm intensities that do not produce debris flows and landslides, or as the lower limit of peak rainstorm intensities that initiate debris flows and landslides. In addition, peak rainstorm intensities are often used to define thresholds, as data regarding the precise timing of debris flows and associated rainfall intensities are usually not available, and rainfall characteristics are often estimated from distant gauging locations. Here, we attempt to improve the performance of existing threshold-based predictions of post-fire debris-flow occurrence by utilizing data on the precise timing of debris flows relative to rainfall intensity, and develop an objective method to define the threshold intensities. We objectively defined the thresholds by maximizing the number of correct predictions of debris flow occurrence while minimizing the rate of both Type I (false positive) and Type II (false negative) errors. We identified that (1) there were statistically significant differences between peak storm and triggering intensities, (2) the objectively defined threshold model presents a better balance between predictive success, false alarms and failed alarms than previous subjectively defined thresholds, (3) thresholds based on measurements of rainfall intensity over shorter duration (≤60min) are better predictors of post-fire debris-flow initiation than longer duration thresholds, and (4) the objectively defined thresholds were exceeded prior to the recorded time of debris flow at frequencies similar to or better than subjective thresholds. Our findings highlight the need to better constrain the timing and processes of initiation of landslides and debris flows for future threshold studies. In addition, the methods used to define rainfall thresholds in this study represent a computationally simple means of deriving critical values for other studies of nonlinear phenomena characterized by thresholds.

Ojai Basin Groundwater Management Agency Groundwater Management Plan – 2018 Update

Ojai Basin Groundwater Management Agency | August 30th, 2018

In September, 2014, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a package of three bills (AB 1739, SB 1168, and SB 1319) known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“

In September, 2014, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a package of three bills (AB 1739, SB 1168, and SB 1319) known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”). SGMA provides a framework for sustainable management of groundwater supplies by local authorities, with a limited role for state intervention only if necessary to protect the resource.  The Act requires the formation of local groundwater sustainability agencies that must assess conditions in their local water basins and adopt locally-based management plans. SGMA provides local agencies with the tools and authority to require registration of groundwater wells, measure and manage extractions, require reports and assess fees, and request revisions of basin boundaries, including establishing new subbasins.  High- and medium-priority basins, as defined by the State of California Department of Water Resources (“DWR”), must adopt groundwater sustainability plans within five to seven years, depending on whether the basin is in critical overdraft. Statewide groundwater basins are prioritized based on eight criteria: (1) overlying population, (2) projected growth of overlying population, (3) public supply wells, (4) total water wells, (5) overlying irrigated acreage, (6) reliance on groundwater as the primary source of water (7) impacts on the groundwater, including overdraft, subsidence, saline intrusion, and other water quality degradation, and (8) any other information determined to be relevant by the DWR.  Consistent with its Enabling Legislation, the Ojai Basin Groundwater Management Agency (“OBGMA” or “Agency”) has worked to preserve the quantity and quality of groundwater in the Ojai Valley Groundwater Basin (“Ojai Basin”) for sustainable long-term use since the agency’s establishment in 1991. (The Agency’s Enabling Legislation, SB 534, approved by the Governor October 8, 1991, is also referred to herein as the “OBGMA Act.”) These management efforts have resulted in the protection and maintenance of the long-term water supply for the common benefit of all water users in the Basin. As a result, the Ojai Basin has operated within its “sustainable yield” for the past several decades with no evidence of “undesirable results.”  Per OBGMA Resolution No. 2014-4, adopted by its Board of Directors on December 4, 2014 (copy included as Appendix A), OBGMA is designated as the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (“GSA”) for the Ojai Groundwater Basin. In addition, SGMA identifies OBGMA as an “exclusive local agency” within its statutory boundaries for purposes of implementing the requirements of the Act. (Water Code § 10723(c)(1).) Since OBGMA, in compliance with its Enabling Legislation, already performs many of the planning and management tasks required by SGMA, and sustainable conditions have persisted in the Basin for more than a 10-year period. OBGMA determined it would comply with SGMA by making the Alternative Demonstration of groundwater sustainability authorized by Water Code § 10733.6(b)(3).  To comply with SGMA, OBGMA issued its December 23, 2016 “Report Supporting Alternative Demonstration Made Pursuant to Water Code 10733.6(b)(3). The report contained a physical description of the Basin, including groundwater levels, groundwater quality, information on groundwater-surface water interaction, data on historical and projected water demands and supplies, monitoring and management provisions. The report demonstrated how the Ojai Basin has operated within its “sustainable yield” for the past several decades with no evidence of “undesirable results.”  In sum, OBGMA’s management of the Basin pursuant to its Enabling Legislation has allowed the Agency to make the Alternative Demonstration authorized by SGMA. This 2018 Update to the Agency’s Groundwater Management Plan, undertaken in compliance with its Enabling Legislation, is part of the Agency’s ongoing efforts to preserve the long-term quantity and quality of groundwater in the Ojai Basin for the common benefit all users in the Basin. 

On the Sources of Water Supply Forecast Error in Western Colorado

American Meteorological Society (AMS) | December 1st, 2023

One Water LA 2040 Plan

City of Los Angeles | April 30th, 2018

The purpose of the One Water LA 2040 Plan (Plan) is to increase sustainable water management for the City of Los Angeles (City). The City launched One Water LA with two p

The purpose of the One Water LA 2040 Plan (Plan) is to increase sustainable water management for the City of Los Angeles (City). The City launched One Water LA with two primary goals: 1. Develop a vision and implementation strategy to more sustainably and cost-effectively manage water. 2. Identify ways for City departments and regional agencies to integrate their water management strategies. Los Angeles Sanitation (LASAN) and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) led the Plan's development, partnering with other City departments, regional agencies, academia, the business community, and other stakeholders. The Plan provides a comprehensive strategy for managing water in a more integrated, collaborative, and sustainable way through new project, program, and policy opportunities. The Implementation Strategy provides a roadmap to make the One Water LA Vision a reality. Additional water projects, programs, or policies that are the sole responsibility of one agency, including LADWP's aqueduct or groundwater remediation project, are contained in each agency's appropriate plans. This plan is divided into an Executive Summary and ten sections. Executive Summary Volume One: Summary Report Volume Two: Wastewater Facilities Plan Volume Three: Stormwater and Urban Runoff Facilities Plan Volume Four: Los Angeles River Flow Study Volume Five: Integration Opportunities Analysis Volume Six: Climate Risk and Resilience Assessment for Wastewater and Stormwater Infrastructure Volume Seven: Implementation Strategy Supporting Documents Volume Eight: Technical Support Materials Volume Nine: Stakeholder Engagement Materials, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 Volume Ten: Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (in progress)

Opportunities to Accelerate Nature-Based Solutions: A Roadmap for Climate Progress, Thriving Nature, Equity, and Prosperity

White House Domestic Climate Policy Office | November 30th, 2022

Opportunities to protect drinking water sources and advance watershed goals through the Clean Water Act

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) | November 10th, 2014

We live in times of both declining public agency resources and increasing complexity of environmental and public health problems, like the increasing occurrence, intensit

We live in times of both declining public agency resources and increasing complexity of environmental and public health problems, like the increasing occurrence, intensity, and duration of harmful algal blooms and precursors to disinfection by-products in drinking water. These and other problems are compounded by population growth, climate extremes, and excess water in some places as well as insufficient water in others. Complex times demand creative and thoughtful approaches to challenges. It is critical that we find innovative solutions that leverage expertise, resources, efficiencies, and authorities to achieve our Nation’s water quality and source water protection goals. As part of a State-U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) collaboration initiative, a workgroup was formed to identify opportunities to coordinate among clean water and drinking water programs. This workgroup recognizes that many difficult issues cross program boundaries, and thus a coordinated approach has the potential to make greater headway nationally. In developing the product that follows, the workgroup also drew on the experiences of states and EPA practitioners managing these programs. This Toolkit is a result of state and EPA collaboration. It could not have been developed without the time, effort and dedication of those who contributed to it and particularly the expertise of the state and EPA regional participants who are implementing the practices in this report. This initiative and Toolkit invite a more holistic and coordinated planning and funding approach between the clean water and drinking water programs, and with other public and private partners at the federal, state, and local levels, including water and wastewater utilities. The opportunities outlined in this Toolkit do not reflect all possible environmental authorities that may work together to protect drinking water; it is beyond the scope of this document to acknowledge all threats to, and challenges involved in, protecting drinking water. Instead, the suggestions below describe the fundamental steps toward protective actions that may catalyze broader collaboration among a diversity of programs and entities. It is important to note that this Toolkit does not impose legally binding requirements on EPA, states, tribes, or the regulated community, nor does it confer legal rights or impose legal obligations on any member of the public. This Toolkit does not constitute a regulation, nor does it change or substitute for any Clean Water Act or Safe Drinking Water Act1 provision or EPA regulations. Rather, this Toolkit is designed to support discussion, institutional change, and advance water quality goals and the protection of drinking water sources of public water systems (PWSs)2, also known as source water protection.