2016 Annual Report of Hydrogeologic Conditions, Water Requirements, Supplies and Disposition Santa Maria Valley Management Area

City of Santa Maria | April 13th, 2017

This annual report of conditions in the Santa Maria Valley Management Area, for calendar year 2016, has been prepared to meet the reporting conditions of the June 30, 20

This annual report of conditions in the Santa Maria Valley Management Area, for calendar year 2016, has been prepared to meet the reporting conditions of the June 30, 2005, Stipulation entered by the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, in the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin litigation. The Stipulation divided the overall Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin into three management areas, the largest of which overlies the main Santa Maria Valley (the Santa Maria Valley Management Area, or SMVMA) and is the subject of this report. The other two management areas, the Nipomo Mesa Management Area (NMMA) and the Northern Cities Management Area, are addressed in separate annual reports prepared by others. The Stipulation, approved and implemented in 2008, specifies that monitoring shall be sufficient to determine groundwater conditions, land and water uses, sources of water supply, and the disposition of all water supplies in the Basin. Annual Reports for the SMVMA are to summarize the results of the monitoring and include an analysis of the relationship between projected water demand and supply. The Stipulation was preserved in the California Court of Appeal (Sixth Appellate District) Decision of November 21, 2012, and in the Superior Court of the State of California (County of Santa Clara) Final Judgment of April 23, 2014. Thus, the Physical Solution criteria for monitoring and managing groundwater in the basin remain. In accordance with the Stipulation, this report on the SMVMA provides a description of the physical setting and briefly describes previous studies conducted in the groundwater basin, including the long-term monitoring program developed for the SMVMA. As reported herein, the Twitchell Management Authority (TMA) commissioned the preparation of a monitoring program for the SMVMA in 2008, and its complete implementation is expected to provide the data with which to fully assess future conditions. This report describes hydrogeologic conditions in the management area historically and through 2016, including groundwater conditions, Twitchell Reservoir operations, and hydrologic and climatic conditions. As with all previous annual reports (commencing in 2008), the water requirements and supplies for agricultural and municipal uses are accounted, as are the components of water disposition in the SMVMA. Conclusions drawn regarding water resource conditions are discussed, including any finding of severe water shortage, which is concluded to not be the case through 2016. Finally, recommendations are provided with regard to the intra-basin transfer of water from the SMVMA to the NMMA, possible enhancement of groundwater recharge, expanded assessment of water resource conditions, and continued implementation of the monitoring program for the SMVMA. Janny Choi from Stanford University's Water in the West discusses the Santa Maria stipulation in the 2014 paper Before the Well Runs Dry: Improving the Linkage Between Groundwater and Land Use Planning.

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.

Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases

Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles | December 23rd, 2015

The complaints and cross-complaints in the Action frame many legal issues. The Action includes over 4,000 Parties, as well as the members of the Non-Pumper Class and the

The complaints and cross-complaints in the Action frame many legal issues. The Action includes over 4,000 Parties, as well as the members of the Non-Pumper Class and the members of the Small Pumper Class. The Basin’s entire Groundwater supply and Groundwater rights, extending over approximately 1390 square miles, have been brought to issue. The numerous Groundwater rights at issue in the case include, without limitation, overlying, appropriative, prescriptive, and federal reserved water rights to Groundwater, rights to return flows from Imported Water, rights to recycled water, rights to stored Imported Water subject to the Watermaster rules and regulations, and rights to utilize the storage space within the Basin. After several months of trial, the Court made findings regarding Basin characteristics and determined the Basin’s Safe Yield. The Court’s rulings and judgments in this case, including the Safe Yield determination, form the basis for this Judgment. For annual reports go to the Department of Water Resources Adjudicated Annual Reporting page.

Borrego Water District v. All Persons Who Claim a Right to Extract Groundwater in the Borrego Valley Groundwater Subbasin No. 7-024-01

Superior Court of California, County of Orange | April 8th, 2021

Bulletin No. 38, Report of Kings River Water Master for the Period 1918-1930

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | December 1st, 1931

*Scan quality is poor on alternate pages. Researchers may want to contact the California Department of Water Resources, or UC Davis, for access to the original.

*Scan quality is poor on alternate pages. Researchers may want to contact the California Department of Water Resources, or UC Davis, for access to the original.

Central and West Basin Water Replenishment District, etc. v. Charles E. Adams, et al

Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles | December 23rd, 2013

Note from “An Evaluation of California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins” by Langridge et al: "Third Amendment Judgment to the Central Basin adjudication ... allo

Note from “An Evaluation of California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins” by Langridge et al: "Third Amendment Judgment to the Central Basin adjudication ... allowed parties holding water rights to store water in the Central Basin for later recovery; DWR was replaced with a new Watermaster consisting of three separate arms with different functions: Administrative Body, Water Rights Panel, and a Storage Panel."

Chinatown: Owens Valley and Western Water Reallocation—Getting the Record Straight and What It Means for Water Markets

Texas Law Review (SSRN) | June 1st, 2005

In this Article I examine the notorious Owens Valley water transfer to Los Angeles. Not only was it one of the largest private water exchanges in U.S. history, but it rem

In this Article I examine the notorious Owens Valley water transfer to Los Angeles. Not only was it one of the largest private water exchanges in U.S. history, but it remains pivotal in the political economy of western water reallocation. It involved negotiations over land and water rights between representatives of the city of Los Angeles and approximately eighteen hundred farmers and town lot owners between 1905 and 1935. By 1935, Los Angeles had acquired 95 percent of the farm acreage and 88 percent of the town properties in the valley. The water transferred from Owens Valley, a marginal agricultural area, made possible the growth of Los Angeles, and Owens Valley remains the largest single source of water for the Los Angeles Basin. Yet, the Owens Valley transfer has a very negative legacy and has hindered subsequent efforts to reallocate water from agriculture to urban and environmental uses. The negotiations for water rights and land took thirty years to complete and were often acrimonious. I analyze the negotiations between representatives of Los Angeles and Owens Valley farmers to determine the sources of bargaining conflicts. I also evaluate the economic impact of the exchange on both parties to show that each party was made substantially better off. Yet, the notion of “theft” remains. To explain this, I examine the distribution of the economic benefits of the water and land sale. Distributional issues take on greater importance when there are valuation disputes and the gains from trade are shared very unequally. With these insights, I conclude with lessons for contemporary western water reallocation. 

Chino Basin Municipal Water District v. City of Chino et al

Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino | August 25th, 2014

From "An Evaluation of California's Adjudicated Groundwater Basins" by Langridge et al: "Chino Basin is one of the largest groundwater basins in Southern California. It a

From "An Evaluation of California's Adjudicated Groundwater Basins" by Langridge et al: "Chino Basin is one of the largest groundwater basins in Southern California. It abuts Los Angeles County, Orange County, and Riverside County. Over the past few decades, the basin has experienced rapid growth. The southern area was once notable for containing the heaviest concentration of dairy farms in the United States. There is significant subsidence in areas of the basin due to overpumping. While it is often described as a basin with ongoing conflict, there were also significant collaborative efforts to address basin problems during and after the adjudication process. Three different stakeholder groups—overlying agricultural, overlying non-agricultural, and appropriators—negotiated a management plan prior to adjudication, and it was adopted in a 1978 stipulated judgment. Stakeholders agreed on water rights for each group of users. There were multiple additional amendments over the last twenty years adopted in a 2012 restated judgment." Click here for the Chino basin Department of Water Resources Adjudicated Basin Reporting page.

City of Barstow, et al v. City of Adelanto, el al (Mojave Basin Area cases)

Superior Court of California, County of Riverside | December 5th, 2002

From An Evaluation of California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins, Langridge et al, UC Davis (2016): "The Mojave Basin adjudication was initiated by a lawsuit filed

From An Evaluation of California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins, Langridge et al, UC Davis (2016): "The Mojave Basin adjudication was initiated by a lawsuit filed May 30, 1990, by the City of Barstow and the Southern California Water Company. The complaint alleged that the cumulative increase in water use in the upper part of the Mojave Basin caused or threatened to cause a reduction in the natural flow of water to the central part of the Mojave Basin. Water users included downstream agriculture (many alfalfa farms), aquaculture, recreational lakes, homeowner associations, and upstream burgeoning municipalities. In the center of the basin is the smaller, low-income town of Barstow, which was concerned about its water supply. A 1993 Stipulated Judgment set forth a proposed physical solution that did not apportion production rights on the basis of preexisting legal water rights, and parties representing over 80 percent of verified water production in the basin agreed to its terms. However, some farmers with overlying rights chose not to stipulate to the judgment. On appeal, the court stated that in considering a stipulated physical solution involving equitable apportionment, the water rights of parties that did not join the stipulation must also be considered. The adjudication set out a complex system to reduce production a producer’s free production allowance (FPA) over time, but withdrawals remain significant in three out of the five subareas. The judgment also contained unique provisions for assuring that the water needs of endangered and other species and their habitat would be protected. One outcome of the adjudication was that many farmers in the western Alto Subarea sold or leased their base annual production (BAP) rights or leased their FPA to municipalities, and population in the Alto Subarea almost doubled. The Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base east of Barstow is a federal Superfund site."

City of San Bernardino vs. Fontana Water Co. et al.

Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino | January 28th, 1924