Aliso Water District Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Amended)

Aliso Water District Groundwater Sustainability Agency | July 7th, 2022

The January 2020 AWD GSA GSP, along with the other GSPs of the Delta-Mendota Subbasin, was deemed incomplete by DWR January 21, 2022 (Appendix H). The incomplete determin

The January 2020 AWD GSA GSP, along with the other GSPs of the Delta-Mendota Subbasin, was deemed incomplete by DWR January 21, 2022 (Appendix H). The incomplete determination provided 180 days to respond to the deficiencies identified by DWR. Subsequently, multiple consultations with DWR and meetings of the Delta-Mendota GSP groups were held to develop a coordinated response. This GSP, including the Common Chapter (Appendix B), addresses the concerns of DWR’s January 2022 Determination Letter. Due to size, this file has been divided. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5

Alternative management paradigms for the future of the Colorado and Green Rivers

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) | January 28th, 2021

The Colorado River is among the most extensively managed river systems in the world. The river’s headwaters are within the Rocky Mountains in the United States. From t

The Colorado River is among the most extensively managed river systems in the world. The river’s headwaters are within the Rocky Mountains in the United States. From there, it flows through the arid lands of the Colorado Plateau and the Basin-and-Range to its delta in northwestern Mexico. Here, the river is the only significant water supply in an otherwise starkly arid landscape and has long been called “America’s Nile.” It provides a critical water supply for nearly four million acres of irrigated land, municipal supplies for 30 million people located within and outside the basin, and more than 4,200 MW of hydropower generation capacity. The Colorado River and some of its tributaries also provide an existing or potential water supply for at least 15 Native American tribes. The river flows through seven National Wildlife Refuges, four National Recreation Areas, and five National Parks. Today, the annual consumptive uses and losses of streamflow in the basin typically exceed the amount of water available, and the river rarely flows into the Gulf of California. The impacts of climate change are likely to decrease future runoff and intensify droughts, thereby threatening current and future uses in the basin. Clearly, new ways of thinking about and managing the river need to be sought and implemented.

Alternatives Report Post-2026 Operational Guidelines and Strategies for Lake Powell and Lake Mead

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | January 17th, 2025

In December 2007 the Secretary of the Interior adopted coordinated operating guidelines for operation of Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam for an interim period that expires

In December 2007 the Secretary of the Interior adopted coordinated operating guidelines for operation of Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam for an interim period that expires in 2026. To address long-term Colorado River operations after the expiration of these guidelines, the United States Department of the Interior initiated a National Environmental Policy Act process on June 16, 2023, to develop and adopt successor domestic guidelines and agreements for the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam to take effect in mid-2026, before the current operational framework expires. On November 20, 2024, the Bureau of Reclamation published the range of alternatives planned for analysis in the draft environmental impact statement and committed to providing additional information in a subsequent report. This report describes these alternatives and the process for developing them in more detail. The alternatives were developed over the past year and incorporate considerable input received from the Colorado River Basin States, Colorado River Basin Tribes, conservation organizations, other federal agencies, and other stakeholders during that time. Throughout 2024, the Bureau of Reclamation worked extensively with these key partners to integrate their input into the range of alternatives. The alternatives identified in this report provide a reasonable and broad range of Colorado River operations that capture an appropriate range of potential environmental impacts from implementing new operational guidelines post-2026. Click here for USBR notes on the alternatives development process.

Amended Groundwater Sustainability Plan, Tri-County Water Authority - Tule Subbasin

Tri-County Water Authority | July 27th, 2022

The Tule Subbasin submitted six GSPs, including one for the Tri-County Water Authority, in January 2020 to the Department of Water Resources (DWR). DWR was required to de

The Tule Subbasin submitted six GSPs, including one for the Tri-County Water Authority, in January 2020 to the Department of Water Resources (DWR). DWR was required to determine whether the GSPs conformed to the specific requirements of SGMA. DWR issued a single determination letter for the Tule Subbasin commenting on all six GSPs. In a letter dated January 28, 2022, DWR determined that that the GSP is incomplete. DWR stated that the GSP was considered incomplete as “it does not define undesirable results or set sustainable management criteria for groundwater levels, subsidence, and water quality in the manner consistent with SGMA and the GSP regulations.” Upon receiving the incomplete determination, the Subbasin had 180 days to address the identified deficiencies and submit revised GSPs by July 27, 2022. The TCWA is submitting this 2022 Amended GSP to address the three deficiencies outlined in the determination letter. 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

Amended Olcese Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for Certain Lands Overlying the Kern County Subbasin

Olcese Groundwater Sustainability Agency | July 27th, 2022

This GSP has been prepared by the Olcese GSA, which is the GSA for the portion of the Kern County Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin (Department of Wate

This GSP has been prepared by the Olcese GSA, which is the GSA for the portion of the Kern County Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin (Department of Water Resources [DWR] Basin No. 5-022.14, referred to herein as the “Kern Subbasin” or “Basin”) that underlies the Olcese Water District (“OWD” or “District”). The area that is covered by this GSP is referred to herein as the “Olcese Groundwater Sustainability Agency Area” or “Olcese GSA Area” and is located in the eastern portion of the Kern Subbasin. The Kern Subbasin is one of 21 basins and subbasins identified by the DWR as being critically overdrafted, a designation that triggers an accelerated timetable for GSP development by 2020 and achievement of sustainability by 2040. As of June 2022, a total of 14 GSAs, including the Olcese GSA, have been formed within the Kern Subbasin and a total of six GSPs have been prepared by these various GSAs. This Olcese GSP has been developed in coordination with the other GSPs for the Kern Subbasin to meet SGMA regulatory requirements1 while reflecting the unique hydrogeologic conditions within the Olcese GSA Area and preserving local control over water resources. Pursuant to the SGMA GSP submittal deadline, the Olcese GSP was originally submitted to DWR in January 2020; this amended Olcese GSP is in response to DWR’s 28 January 2022 letter entitled Incomplete Determination of the 2020 Groundwater Sustainability Plans Submitted for the San Joaquin Valley – Kern County Subbasin. Together, the Kern Subbasin GSPs provide a path to maintain 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

American River Group (ARG) Annual Report of Activities

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | November 14th, 2018

Amplified impacts of multi-year La Niñas on soil moisture compared to single-year La Niñas

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | August 14th, 2025

This study examines December-January-February (DJF) soil moisture responses to multi-year (MY) and single-year (SY) La Niñas using a 2200-year CESM1 simulation, AGCM exp

This study examines December-January-February (DJF) soil moisture responses to multi-year (MY) and single-year (SY) La Niñas using a 2200-year CESM1 simulation, AGCM experiments, and observational data. Four regions where MY La Niñas amplify SY La Niñas’ impacts on soil moisture were identified: North America, Australia, the Middle East, and the Sahel. SY La Niñas typically cause soil moisture drying in the Middle East and North America and wetting in Australia and the Sahel. MY La Niñas enhance these effects in the second DJF due to the strengthening of precipitation anomalies or the accumulation of precipitation-induced soil moisture anomalies, except in the Sahel where wetting is driven in part by evapotranspiration anomalies. Soil moisture variations are linked to La Niña-induced sea surface temperature changes in the Indian Ocean (for Australia and the Middle East) and the Pacific Ocean (for North America). These amplified effects are largely supported by the observed MY La Niña events from 1948 to 2022. These findings emphasize the need to integrate MY La Niñas into regional agriculture and water resource management strategies to better anticipate and mitigate their impacts.

An Assessment of Urban Water Demand Forecasts in California

Pacific Institute | August 5th, 2020

In California, urban per capita water demand has declined dramatically over the past several decades, driven in part by greater uptake of water-efficient devices. These r

In California, urban per capita water demand has declined dramatically over the past several decades, driven in part by greater uptake of water-efficient devices. These reductions have important implications for estimating future water demand. However, failure to account for the long-term trend of declining per capita water demand has led to routine overestimation of future water demand. This can lead to unnecessary and costly investment in unneeded infrastructure and new sources of supply, higher costs, and adverse environmental impacts. This report examines the accuracy of long-range water demand forecasts for California’s 10 largest urban water suppliers. It finds that per capita water demand declined for all water suppliers between 2000 and 2015. In most cases, reductions in per capita water demand were so large that total water demand declined during this period. Additionally, all water suppliers overestimated demand, driven largely by inflated estimates of per capita water demand and, to a lesser extent, overestimates of population growth rates. The report offers recommendations on how to improve the accuracy of long-range water demand forecasts.

An Evaluation of California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins

University of California, Santa Cruz (UC Santa Cruz) | October 1st, 2016

Groundwater is a critical resource in California, providing on average 30 percent of the state’s total water supply and significantly more during dry years. Many commu

Groundwater is a critical resource in California, providing on average 30 percent of the state’s total water supply and significantly more during dry years. Many communities rely exclusively on groundwater, and it is an essential back-up source of water during droughts when pumping increases significantly to compensate for reduced surface supplies. Local groundwater management agencies, special act districts, and court adjudications are the primary institutional arrangements to manage groundwater in California. Increasing groundwater declines in many areas of the state and concomitant negative impacts prompted the passage of the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The SGMA established new requirements for 127 high- and medium-priority groundwater basins that are either in overdraft or vulnerable to overdraft to develop sustainable management programs with increased state oversight. The SGMA defines sustainable groundwater management as: “The management and use of groundwater in a manner that can be maintained during the planning and implementation horizon without causing undesirable results.” Undesirable results include: chronic lowering of groundwater levels; significant and unreasonable reduction of groundwater storage; significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion, degraded water quality, and land subsidence; depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water. The SGMA exempts 388 basins categorized as low- and very-low priority, as well as all the adjudicated groundwater basins and 3 basins with pending groundwater adjudications. The SGMA was followed by the passage of Assembly Bill 1390 (AB 1390) and Senate Bill 226 (SB 226) in 2015 that provide some procedures for groundwater adjudications. In the adjudication of a groundwater basin, the court generally defines and determines water rights for all users and provides court-supervised basin management by a Watermaster, who is usually appointed by the court to ensure that the basin is managed in accordance with the court’s decree. Prior to adjudication, key stakeholders and users of the groundwater in a basin often negotiate a stipulation and physical solution to manage the basin, and the court can then accept it in whole or in part, or reject it and craft a different solution to manage the basin. There is limited analysis of the history and current condition of California’s adjudicated basins and the potential for future improvements to the adjudication process. This report for the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) evaluates all of California’s adjudicated basins with respect to sustainable groundwater management as defined in SGMA including: accomplishments, challenges, how management can be improved, and whether there are common elements that result in the sustainable management of an adjudicated groundwater basin.

An Evolutionary Theory of Administrative Law

Southern Methodist University | May 25th, 2018

Law evolves to accommodate change—this is axiomatic in most academic legal traditions. But in the era of the administrative state, with congressional gridlock and a jud

Law evolves to accommodate change—this is axiomatic in most academic legal traditions. But in the era of the administrative state, with congressional gridlock and a judiciary hesitant to address policy questions, evolution of statutory law has become much more difficult. This leads to pent up demand for change in legal regimes. If the legislature and the courts cannot provide an outlet for this pressure, where does it go? How does the law continue to change? Although other scholars have looked to agencies as engines of legal change, we lack a theoretical framework to understand how that change happens. I argue that an evolutionary framework provides an informative framework for understanding administrative legal change. I provide three case studies that demonstrate the administrative evolution of the Endangered Species Act. In spite of tremendous advances in conservation, fundamental changes in scientists’ understanding of human impacts on the natural world, and increasingly strident clashes over private property rights and endangered species, the Act has remained largely unchanged for the last 35 years. In a functioning legislative system, the Act would have been amended to accommodate many of these changes. Instead, the case studies show a mechanism of legal change through agency action analogous to the mechanisms underlying biological evolution. Other commentators have argued the administrative state stymies evolution of the law, but this research contradicts that view. Applying an evolutionary framework to administrative actions creates a new theory of administrative evolution of the law, placing administrative analysis within the long tradition of evolutionary approaches to legal change used by commentators from Aristotle to Holmes. In contrast to traditional normative theories of administrative law, an evolutionary approach focuses on how change progresses over time. This theory of administrative evolution of the law also casts new light on a host of normative questions, from the role of judicial review to improvements in agency decision-making. Considering administrative actions within the broader context of the legal evolution promises a fruitful new approach to analyzing administrative law.