Environment California, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

Holmes, Athey, Cowan & Mermelstein LLP | July 23rd, 2024

Majority of global river flow sustained by groundwater

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | July 19th, 2024

Groundwater-sustained baseflow is a vital source of river flow, especially during dry seasons. The proportion of river flow sustained by baseflow—the baseflow index—i

Groundwater-sustained baseflow is a vital source of river flow, especially during dry seasons. The proportion of river flow sustained by baseflow—the baseflow index—is essential for assessing fluvial nutrient cycling and contaminant transport. However, the global baseflow index remains highly uncertain, with current Earth system model simulations ranging from 12% to 94%. Here we estimate the global baseflow index to be 59% ± 7% based on an emergent constraint approach, which integrates 50 Earth system models with baseflow indices derived from streamflow observations in 15,567 basins. Our observational constraint indicates that at least 21% ± 3% of precipitation recharges groundwater, which is approximately double the figure reported in the Sixth Assessment Report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Thus, our research suggests a more active role of groundwater in the global water cycle than most Earth system models currently simulate. We present evidence that the considerable disagreement in simulated baseflow stems from unrealistic and varied model representations of infiltration, aquifer structure and groundwater dynamics. These processes should be prioritized so that models can capture active groundwater–river connections.

Groundwater-dependent ecosystem map exposes global dryland protection needs

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | July 17th, 2024

Electron bifurcation and fluoride efflux systems implicated in defluorination of perfluorinated unsaturated carboxylic acids by Acetobacterium spp

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) | July 17th, 2024

Butte Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Revised)

Siskiyou County Flood Control and Water District Groundwater Sustainability Agency | July 12th, 2024

This GSP was prepared to meet the regulatory requirements established by DWR. The completed GSP Elements Guide is organized according to the GSP Emergency Regulations se

This GSP was prepared to meet the regulatory requirements established by DWR. The completed GSP Elements Guide is organized according to the GSP Emergency Regulations sections of the California Code of Regulations and is provided in Appendix 1-D. Due to size, this file has been divided. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Turlock Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Revised)

West and East Turlock Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies | July 12th, 2024

The Turlock GSAs submitted the first version of the Turlock GSP to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in January 2022. DWR determined the GSP to be incomplete in J

The Turlock GSAs submitted the first version of the Turlock GSP to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in January 2022. DWR determined the GSP to be incomplete in January of 2024 (DWR, 2024) and identified two deficiencies. The first of these involves provision of sufficient information (namely, analysis of potential impacts on wells) to support the selection of sustainable management criteria for chronic lowering of groundwater levels. The second involves the provision of sufficient details on the projects and management actions to mitigate overdraft in the Subbasin and to provide a feasible path to achieve sustainability. Corrective actions are incorporated into this revised July 16, 2024 GSP for resubmittal to DWR. This does not represent a GSP update, which is slated for 2027. The revised GSP was adopted by the GSAs on July 11, 2024 pursuant to 23 CCR § 355.2(e)(2)(A).

Modesto Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Revised)

Publisher not available | July 12th, 2024

Submitted to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in January 2022, the first version of this GSP was reviewed by DWR in January 2024 and determined to be incomplete (D

Submitted to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in January 2022, the first version of this GSP was reviewed by DWR in January 2024 and determined to be incomplete (DWR, 2024). Two deficiencies were identified by DWR. The first of these involves provision of sufficient information (namely, analysis of potential impacts on wells) to support the selection of sustainable management criteria for chronic lowering of groundwater levels. The second involves provision of sufficient details on the projects and management actions to mitigate overdraft in the Subbasin and provide a feasible path to achieve sustainability. Corrective actions, including a resolution approved by both GSAs to arrest groundwater level declines by 2027 and raise groundwater levels after 2027, are incorporated into this revised July 16, 2024, GSP for resubmittal to DWR. This GSP is a revised version and does not represent a GSP update, which is slated for 2027. Due to size, this file has been divided. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

Temporary Restraining Order in Kings County Farm Bureau et al v. California State Water Resources Control Board

Superior Court of California, County of Kings | July 11th, 2024

Seasonality of Retreat Rate of a Wave-Exposed Marsh Edge

American Geophysical Union (AGU) | July 10th, 2024

Waves can cause destruction of marshlands when they collide with the boundary of the marsh area. We studied how the speed of marsh loss from waves can change between seas

Waves can cause destruction of marshlands when they collide with the boundary of the marsh area. We studied how the speed of marsh loss from waves can change between seasons with different climates. To do this we made five 3D models of a marsh in South San Francisco Bay over a single year and looked at their differences between summer/fall/winter/spring. We found fast marsh loss in the seasons where daily winds are common (spring/summer), and minor changes in seasons with storms but without daily winds (fall/winter). Across our entire marsh, we saw lots of variety in how much it was changing, including some addition (i.e., positive change) to the mudflats near the marsh in the fall/winter. When we compared the marsh loss over one year to what was lost between 2004 and 2019, the speeds were similar, so we believe our study period was similar to long‐term marsh dynamics. This work encourages incorporating different seasonal climates into expectations of how marshes evolve, and supports that we need to think about marshes and mudflats as connected in how they change over time.

2024 5-Year Review: Summary & Evaluation of Northern California Steelhead

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) | July 9th, 2024

Many West Coast salmon and steelhead (Oncorhynchus spp.) stocks have declined substantially from their historic numbers and now are at a fraction of their historical abun

Many West Coast salmon and steelhead (Oncorhynchus spp.) stocks have declined substantially from their historic numbers and now are at a fraction of their historical abundance. Several factors contribute to these declines, including: overfishing, loss of freshwater and estuarine habitat, hydropower development, poor ocean conditions, and hatchery practices. These factors collectively led to the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) listing of 28 salmon and steelhead stocks in California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA, under section 4(c)(2), directs the Secretary of Commerce to review the listing classification of threatened and endangered species at least once every 5 years. A 5-year review is a periodic analysis of a species’ status conducted to ensure that the listing classification of a species as threatened or endangered on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (List) (50 CFR 17.11 – 17.12; 50 CFR 223.102, 224.101) is accurate (USFWS and NMFS 2006; NMFS 2020). After completing this review, the Secretary must determine if any species should: (1) be removed from the list; (2) have its status changed from endangered to threatened; or (3) have its status changed from threatened to endangered. If, in the 5-year review, a change in classification is recommended, the recommended change will be further considered in a separate rule-making process. The most recent 5-year review analysis for West Coast salmon and steelhead occurred in 2016. This document describes the results of the 2024 review of ESA-listed Northern California steelhead (NC steelhead). A 5-year review is: • A summary and analysis of available information on a given species; • The tracking of a species’ progress toward recovery; • The recording of the deliberative process used to make a recommendation on whether or not to reclassify a species; • A recommendation on whether reclassification of the species is indicated.