"Incomplete” Determination of the 2020 Groundwater Sustainability Plans Submitted for the San Joaquin Valley – Madera Subbasin

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | September 22nd, 2022

The Department of Water Resources (Department) has evaluated the four groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) submitted for the San Joaquin Valley – Madera Subbasin (Su

The Department of Water Resources (Department) has evaluated the four groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) submitted for the San Joaquin Valley – Madera Subbasin (Subbasin), as well as the materials considered to be part of the required coordination agreement. Collectively, the four GSPs and the coordination agreement are referred to as the Plan for the Subbasin. The Department has determined that the Plan is “incomplete” pursuant to Section 355.2(e)(2) of the GSP Regulations. The Department based its incomplete determination on recommendations from the Staff Report, included as an enclosure to the attached Statement of Findings, which describes that the Subbasin’s Plan does not satisfy the objectives of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) nor substantially comply with the GSP Regulations. The Staff Report also provides corrective actions which the Department recommends the Subbasin’s 7 groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) review while determining how and whether to address the deficiencies in a coordinated manner. The Subbasin’s GSAs have 180 days, the maximum allowed by the GSP Regulations, to address the identified deficiencies. Where addressing the deficiencies requires modification of the Plan, the GSAs must adopt those modifications into their respective GSPs and all applicable coordination agreement materials, or otherwise demonstrate that those modifications are part of the Plan before resubmitting it to the Department for evaluation no later than March 21, 2023.

A Guide to Water Quality Requirements under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

Stanford University | April 17th, 2019

California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) develop Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) that ach

California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) develop Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) that achieve sustainability within twenty years of Plan adoption. Meeting this goal requires GSAs to avoid causing any of the six undesirable results that are central to SGMA, including undesirable result number 4 (UR No. 4) – “significant and unreasonable degraded water quality” throughout the basin. Unlike most other undesirable results, UR No. 4 is the subject of robust federal, state and local regulatory regimes carried out by a number of different entities. While the State and Regional Water Resources Control Boards have the broadest responsibilities to protect groundwater quality, many other agencies also have relevant responsibilities. The other distinctive feature of UR No. 4 is that groundwater management that prevents chronic lowering of groundwater levels may be insufficient to prevent significant and unreasonable degradation of groundwater quality. For example, significant changes in groundwater pumping can potentially mobilize naturally occurring constituents or cause migration or expansion of contaminant plumes even when the extracted amount is within the basin’s sustainable yield. This Guide is intended to assist GSAs along with other agencies and stakeholders in understanding the meaning of UR No. 4, and to provide insights into how GSAs can successfully fulfill their legal responsibilities regarding groundwater quality. To avoid UR No. 4 under SGMA, this Guide recommends that GSAs do the following: 1. Understand the existing regulatory regime for groundwater quality and, as necessary, confer with entities that have regulatory authority over groundwater quality in their basins. (See Section 3 of this Guide). 2. Consider existing federal, state and local groundwater quality standards when developing groundwater quality minimum thresholds in their basins. Federal, state or local regulatory requirements were established after careful scientific study, legal review and procedural steps mandated by law. They are designed to protect public health and welfare, and they provide the clearest indication of the point beyond which there is a real risk of an undesirable result. (See Section 3.1). 3. Work closely with their Regional Water Quality Control Boards to address all groundwater quality issues. GSAs working in the Central Valley are especially encouraged to work with the Central Valley Regional Board to address salt and nutrient groundwater contamination. Programs in this region are continuing to evolve and will require that GSAs remain aware of changing regulatory requirements. Additionally, there are many groundwater quality monitoring efforts in this region that are generating a lot of groundwater quality data. These efforts should be aligned with any groundwater monitoring efforts being undertaken by GSAs. (See Sections 3.4.2 and 4.3.2). 4. Use existing groundwater quality data and information to (1) assess and prioritize groundwater quality issues in their basins, (2) meet requirements that GSPs include a description of current and historical groundwater conditions within the basin and (3) serve as either the basis for or a complement to local groundwater quality monitoring programs developed by GSAs. 5. Consider the following approach (discussed in Section 3.2) if they identify groundwater quality problems that either arose or were exacerbated after January 1, 2015: • Where there is a significant groundwater quality problem that is clearly under the purview of another agency, confer with that agency and seek to confirm a reasonable plan to address the groundwater quality problem. If such a plan exists, the water quality problem and the plan should be referenced in the GSP. Section 3 and Table 1 in the Guide provide information on existing regulatory programs and the agencies responsible for their enforcement. • Where a significant groundwater quality problem is not clearly under the purview of another agency, or the responsible agency is unable to confirm a reasonable plan to address the problem, confer with Regional or State Board staff, and perhaps affected parties, to identify a reasonable plan to address the problem. If no reasonable plan is identified, and remediating the problem is impractical, excessively wasteful of resources or otherwise infeasible, the GSA should include in the Plan an explanation of the problem and the reasons why remediation is impractical or infeasible. 6. Consider the following approach (discussed in Section 5) if they are planning projects or actions that may affect groundwater quality: • Assess the potential impacts that the projects or actions are likely to have on groundwater quality over time. If the GSA concludes that the proposed project or action could have unacceptable adverse impacts on water quality, GSAs should consider options such as revising the project to avoid or mitigate the project’s impacts or developing alternative projects that avoid water quality problems. • Ensure regulatory compliance for any GSP management actions (e.g., recharge projects, water banking) that have the potential to negatively impact water quality in their basins or adjacent basins. (Sections 3 and 5 provide information on regulatory requirements and considerations associated with groundwater recharge and active basin management, respectively.) 7. Develop supplemental groundwater monitoring networks where necessary. Many basins being managed under SGMA have significant water quality data gaps. Thus, GSAs in many basins will likely need to develop or expand local groundwater quality monitoring networks. Decisions to do so should be informed by (1) the extent and quality of existing groundwater quality in the region, (2) the level of groundwater development, (3) the severity of existing groundwater quality issues and their proximity to domestic or irrigation wells, public water supply sources or other vulnerable users, (4) current or proposed groundwater management actions or projects, (5) local resources, and (6) the hydrogeologic complexity of the basin. GSAs are not responsible for enforcing existing water quality standards or collecting data to support existing water quality programs. However, they are responsible for avoiding “significant and unreasonable” degradation of water quality in their basins. Working with federal, state and local water quality monitoring and enforcement entities will help GSAs understand groundwater quality issues in their basins, enabling them to develop GSPs that avoid UR No. 4.

A simmering revolt against groundwater cutbacks in California

Stanford University | December 14th, 2022

In 2014, California legislators, focused on groundwater’s accelerating decline during a prolonged drought, passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Its impera

In 2014, California legislators, focused on groundwater’s accelerating decline during a prolonged drought, passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Its imperatives: keeping groundwater levels sustainable by 2040 and keeping control of groundwater in local hands. Both goals are now in limbo. As the state endures yet another prolonged drought and state water managers have balked at approving plans covering the basins at greatest risk – the vast majority in the San Joaquin Valley – more growers in a few of the new local groundwater agencies are in revolt at the new rules that will curtail access to the water they once took for granted.

Aliso Water District Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Aliso Water District Groundwater Sustainability Agency | January 17th, 2020

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

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

Anderson Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Enterprise Anderson Groundwater Sustainability Agency | January 20th, 2022

This GSP covers all of the 98,700 acres of the Anderson Subbasin. The GSP describes the current groundwater conditions and hydrogeologic conceptual model, establishes a

This GSP covers all of the 98,700 acres of the Anderson Subbasin. The GSP describes the current groundwater conditions and hydrogeologic conceptual model, establishes a water budget, outlines local sustainable management criteria (SMC or SMCs), and describes projects and management actions for maintaining sustainability through the GSP planning and implementation period. Due to size, this file has been divided into 9 parts. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9

Approved Determination of the Revised Groundwater Sustainability Plan Submitted for the San Joaquin Valley – Merced Subbasin

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | August 4th, 2023

Assessment of Interconnected Subbasins

Butte County | June 30th, 2017

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) to develop groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) that achieve sust

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) to develop groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) that achieve sustainable groundwater management within 20 years of adoption. All critically overdrafted basins must adopt GSPs by January 31, 2020; all other medium and high priority basins must complete GSPs by January 31, 2022. Since many subbasins are hydrologically connected to adjoining subbasins, sustainable groundwater management will require accounting for groundwater interactions with adjoining subbasins. Often, adjoining subbasins will use different analytical methods or apply different levels of technical rigor. Many GSAs are concerned that different methodologies for developing interbasin flows can lead to different results that will call into question the ability to achieve sustainability and would potentially create issues with SGMA compliance. This effort evaluated opportunities and barriers for agencies to account for interconnected basin dynamics through the collaboration of technical experts focused on a portion of the northern Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management (NSVIRWM) Plan area. As interbasin flows (i.e., groundwater flow between interconnected basins) cannot be directly measured, the project reviewed available tools to investigate how they may or may not be suitable for use in estimating interbasin flows within the region. This process highlighted areas for local agencies to consider in addressing interbasin issues, developed a framework for analysis in other areas of the state, and identified areas where the state and federal government can assist local agencies implementing SGMA. This report is developed to provide summary level information appropriate for decision makers, with more detailed technical information and examples provided in the appendices or by reference. Interbasin flow is groundwater entering or exiting a defined subbasin through its boundaries in the subsurface and may vary significantly in space and time based on the dynamics of inflow and outflow from the basins. Interbasin flows are driven by differences in groundwater levels (i.e. head gradients) across the basin boundary. Groundwater levels are, in turn, impacted by processes on the land surface. Land use and crop acreages drive water demand in a subbasin and indirectly drive groundwater pumping, which has a direct effect on groundwater levels (i.e., groundwater heads). The direction and magnitude of interbasin flow depends on the groundwater head gradient across the basin boundary and the conductivity of the aquifer materials. It is widely recognized that the groundwater subbasins in the Sacramento Valley, and throughout the Central Valley, are interconnected to varying degrees. The Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin includes many subbasins, extends over a wide geographic area, and includes numerous established and eligible GSAs. With interconnected subbasins, management decisions and actions in one subbasin may influence one or more adjoining subbasins. Such influence may positively or negatively impact sustainability. Thus, interbasin flows become critical to both GSAs’ development of GSPs and to DWR reviewing GSPs.