Chowchilla Subbasin Staff Assessment

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | April 1st, 2025

The state intervention process for the Chowchilla Subbasin was triggered in March 2023 when DWR determined the subbasin’s 2022 GSP was inadequate and identified multipl

The state intervention process for the Chowchilla Subbasin was triggered in March 2023 when DWR determined the subbasin’s 2022 GSP was inadequate and identified multiple deficiencies in the GSP. DWR identified issues regarding the local agencies’ plans for managing for the chronic lowering of groundwater levels and land subsidence (land sinking due to groundwater pumping). State Water Board staff reviewed the 2022 GSP and determined that implementing the 2022 GSP would result in additional groundwater level declines, potential impacts to drinking water wells, and damage to subbasin infrastructure, such as canals and levees, through continued land subsidence. The GSAs released a revised draft GSP in August 2024, which they adopted with slight revisions in March 2025 (2025 GSP). State Water Board staff evaluated the 2025 GSP to determine if identified deficiencies were addressed. The GSAs made significant progress through the 2025 GSP and adequately addressed deficiencies. Through the 2025 GSP, the GSAs show a greater commitment to protecting drinking water users and improved groundwater management. State Water Board staff concludes the GSAs amended the GSP such that a probationary designation of the Chowchilla Subbasin is unnecessary and recommends the Board return the Subbasin to DWR’s jurisdiction for continued evaluation of local management under SGMA.

Chowchilla Subbasin Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Groundwater Sustainablity Plan

Chowchilla Subbasin GSP Advisory Committee | January 1st, 2020

Colusa Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Colusa Groundwater Authority | December 3rd, 2021

The purpose of this GSP is to characterize groundwater conditions in the Subbasin, evaluate and report on existing conditions relating to the six sustainability indicator

The purpose of this GSP is to characterize groundwater conditions in the Subbasin, evaluate and report on existing conditions relating to the six sustainability indicators, describe existing monitoring, 14 management programs and policies relating to groundwater resource use, document public outreach and communication, establish sustainability goals, and describe projects and management actions (PMAs) the GSAs will implement to achieve sustainable groundwater management within 20 years of implementing the GSP. Due to size, this file has been divided into 16 parts Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, Part 13, Part 14, Part 15, Part 16

Comment on “Short-lived pause in Central California subsidence after heavy winter precipitation of 2017” by K. D. Murray and R. B. Lohman

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) | June 12th, 2019

In a study by Murray and Lohman (M&L), the authors suggest that remote sensing data are useful for monitoring land subsidence due to aquifer system compacti

In a study by Murray and Lohman (M&L), the authors suggest that remote sensing data are useful for monitoring land subsidence due to aquifer system compaction. We agree. To infer aquifer dynamics, we provide a more detailed and joint analysis of deformation and groundwater data. Investigating well data in the Tulare Basin, we find that groundwater levels stabilized before 2015 and show that M&L’s observed continued subsidence through July 2016 is likely caused by the delayed compaction of the aquitard. Our analysis suggests the observed 2017 transient uplift is not due to recharge of the aquifer system after heavy winter rainfall because it requires an unrealistic vertical hydraulic gradient nearly five orders of magnitude larger than that typical of Tulare Basin. We find that, regardless of the amount of rainfall, transient annual uplifts of ~3 cm occur in May to June. Using an elastic skeletal storage coefficient of 5 × 10−3, we link this ground uplift to annual groundwater level changes.

Comparing Groundwater Quality in Public-Supply and Shallow Aquifers in the Monterey Bay and Salinas Valley Basins, California

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | December 17th, 2018

Groundwater quality in the Monterey–Salinas Valley Public-Supply and Shallow Aquifer Systems was investigated by the GAMA-PBP. The Monterey–Salinas Valley Pub

Groundwater quality in the Monterey–Salinas Valley Public-Supply and Shallow Aquifer Systems was investigated by the GAMA-PBP. The Monterey–Salinas Valley Public-Supply Aquifer System study unit (MS-PA) initially was assessed in 2005 (Kulongoski and Belitz, 2011). The Mon-terey–Salinas Valley Shallow Aquifer System study unit (MS-SA) was sampled in 2012–13 (Burton and Wright, 2018). The MS-PA and the MS-SA largely coincide areally; however, they represent different parts of the aquifer system vertically. The MS-PA examined deeper groundwater primarily used for public supply, whereas the MS-SA examined relatively shallow groundwater primarily used for domestic supply. The MS-SA was divided into four study areas. Three of these study areas combined (MS-SA3) were equivalent to the MS-PA study unit excluding a small sliver along the Carmel River. The fourth MS-SA study area, Highlands, is composed of the hills and mountains bordering the Salinas Valley. The MS-PA and the MS-SA study units have warm, dry summers and cool, moist winters. The average annual rainfall is 331 millimeters (mm; 13 inches, in.) with average annual temperatures of14 degrees Celsius (57 degrees Fahrenheit) in Salinas. The study units are drained by three main rivers and their tributaries: the Salinas, Pajaro, and San Lorenzo Rivers. Groundwater quality status and understanding assessments of the study units were based on data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). In the MS-PA, additional inorganic data was obtained from the California State Water Resources Control BoardDivision of Drinking Water Public- Supply Well Water-Quality Database (Kulongoski and Belitz, 2011). A grid-based method to select wells was applied in both study units, which allows for an estimation of the proportions of the aquifer system with constituents at low, moderate, or high concentrations relative to regulatory and non- regulatory benchmarks for drinking-water quality established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or California State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water. The grid-based method provides statistically unbiased results and permits comparison of those results to other GAMA Priority Basin Project study areas (Belitz and others, 2010).

Comprehensive Groundwater Cleanup Strategy for Historical Chromium Discharges from PG&E's Hinkley Compressor Station, San Bernardino County, Final Environmental Impact Report Volume I: Comments on Draft EIR and Responses

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | April 20th, 2013

Click here for Volume II

Click here for Volume II

Conceptual Model of the Great Basin Carbonate and Alluvial Aquifer System

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | September 20th, 2011

Conceptual Model Review of Napa Valley Groundwater Model

Napa County | November 15th, 2010

The purpose of this technical memorandum is to provide a general review of the Napa Valley Groundwater model (groundwater model) produced by DHI Water & Environment (

The purpose of this technical memorandum is to provide a general review of the Napa Valley Groundwater model (groundwater model) produced by DHI Water & Environment (DHI) as part of the 2005 Napa County Baseline Data Report (2005 BDR) (Jones & Stokes et al., 2005). This memorandum is not intended to be a full peer-review in which model code, input/output files, and output results would be analyzed. Opinions stated herein are based solely on a review of the 2006 Final BDR Technical Appendix (DHI, 2006a), which presents the model code, model construction, calibration, and application of modeling efforts introduced in Chapters 15, 16, and 17 of the BDR. Further information on the groundwater model was reviewed from the 2005 BDR and a 2007 technical memorandum Modeling Analysis in Support of Vineyard Development Scenarios Evaluation (DHI, 2007) in which the groundwater model was updated/expanded and applied in evaluating various vineyard development scenarios. The scope of Luhdorff & Scalmanini, Consulting Engineers’ (LSCE) work, described herein, included a review of the conceptual model developed by DHI from which the inputs to the groundwater model were based. In addition, information provided on the model code, construction, and development of the groundwater model and model calibration were also reviewed. The focus of LSCE’s work was to assess whether the information provided in the reviewed documents was complete and whether the model can be used for the stated purpose for which it was developed.

Conduct Airborne Electromagnetic Surveys

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | July 15th, 2020

Corning Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Tehama County Flood Control and Water Conservation District | December 20th, 2021

Preparation of this GSP is the first step for the GSAs to achieve groundwater sustainability in the Corning Subbasin. To evaluate progress toward groundwater sustainabili

Preparation of this GSP is the first step for the GSAs to achieve groundwater sustainability in the Corning Subbasin. To evaluate progress toward groundwater sustainability during implementation, annual reports and 5-year updates to the GSP will be prepared as required by SGMA. The GSAs recognize that sustainability is only possible with support of stakeholders and coordination of local, state, tribal and federal agencies and the managed use of both surface and groundwater resources. While SGMA does not require the Plan to address California’s Public Trust Doctrine, a 2018 California Court of Appeal ruling found that groundwater pumping that reduces the flow or volume of water in a navigable stream (and tributaries that supply navigable streams) may violate the public trust. This Plan recognizes the importance of protecting public trust resources, including fish and wildlife, in the Subbasin’s streams that are connected to groundwater.