Pumping for the masses: evolution of groundwater management in metropolitan Los Angeles

Geo Journal (Springer) | August 7th, 2015

Groundwater supports many aspects of human life. In cities, groundwater can provide a cost-effective source of water for drinking and industrial uses, while groundwater b

Groundwater supports many aspects of human life. In cities, groundwater can provide a cost-effective source of water for drinking and industrial uses, while groundwater basins provide storage. The role of groundwater in a city’s water supply tends to change over time. In the Los Angeles metropolitan area, groundwater is critical. Over decades, users in the region’s many basins allocated annual pumping rights to groundwater among users through adjudications. These rights were determined through collective processes over decades, which contributed to the complex array of public and private organizations involved in water management. The rights also continue to evolve. We analyzed changes in the distribution of groundwater rights over time for adjudicated basins in Southern Los Angeles County. Results indicate that groundwater rights are increasingly: (1) controlled or regulated by public institutions and municipalities, and (2) consolidated among larger users. Yet, both the percentage of total supplies provided by groundwater, as well as the distribution of groundwater rights, varies widely among cities and communities throughout Los Angeles. As metropolitan Los Angeles faces reduced water imports and emphasizes local water reliance, access to pumping rights and storage capacity in groundwater basins will become even more vital. We discuss implications of our results for future urban water management.

Rules and Regulations of the Borrego Springs Watermaster

Superior Court of California, County of Orange | February 23rd, 2021

San Antonio Water Company v. Foothill Irrigation Company, et al

Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino | July 25th, 1958

From "An Evaluation of California's Adjudicated Groundwater Basins" by Langridge et al: "The Cucamonga Basin is a small groundwater basin located in San Bernardino Co

From "An Evaluation of California's Adjudicated Groundwater Basins" by Langridge et al: "The Cucamonga Basin is a small groundwater basin located in San Bernardino County. In the 1950s, approximately 25 parties, mostly small local water companies and several individual water users, filed an action to adjudicate the rights to the basin’s groundwater and certain surface waters tributary to the basin. The subsequent adjudication resulted in a 1958 Decree that contains some provisions for the metering and recording of water production, inspection of records, prohibitions against new water production, and potential reductions in water production. The court did not appoint an official Watermaster for the basin, and annual reports are not required. Since adjudication, water use in the basin has shifted from primarily agricultural use to primarily municipal use. Today there are three main water agencies — Cucamonga Valley Water District, San Antonio Water Company, and West End Consolidated Water Company — that hold nearly all of the adjudicated rights in the basin and jointly manage the basin pursuant to the 1958 Decree. Studies differ regarding the condition of the basin. A 2007 Metropolitan Water District review indicates that water levels in key wells have decreased about 120 feet and that the basin is experiencing long-term decline. Basin managers point to production data that also shows water production in the basin can trend below the total allocated rights production data."

San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Basin Salt And Nutrient Management Plan

Publisher not available | May 31st, 2016

San Timoteo Watershed Management Authority, vs. City of Banning, et al.

Superior Court of California, County of Riverside | February 4th, 2004

Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District (TCCWD) v. Armstrong et al

Superior Court of California, County of Kern | February 25th, 1972

From An Evaluation of California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins by Langridge et al, UC Davis (2016): "Tehachapi Basin (1, 2) , Cummings Basin, and Brite Basin are

From An Evaluation of California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins by Langridge et al, UC Davis (2016): "Tehachapi Basin (1, 2) , Cummings Basin, and Brite Basin are three small groundwater basins in Kern County. Although the basins were adjudicated separately, a single entity, The Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District (TCCWD) serves as Watermaster over the three distinct groundwater basins. An interesting finding is that the Cummings adjudication was never completed. Because of this, its users rely on overlying rights with voluntary agreements, and there is no regulated curtailment of withdrawals. There are only a few big users so it is able to track its water use with relative accuracy, but the basin has significant overdraft. Two of its major users (Stallion Springs and Bear Valley) pump water from the basin that is delivered to offsite users, and they offset the export with imported water. Two-thirds of the residents within Cummings Basin are inmates at the California Correctional Institute."

Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District v. Austin et al

Superior Court of California, County of Kern | December 9th, 1970

Note from "An Evaluation of California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins" by Langridge et al: "Tehachapi Basin, Cummings Basin, and Brite Basin are three small ground

Note from "An Evaluation of California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins" by Langridge et al: "Tehachapi Basin, Cummings Basin, and Brite Basin are three small groundwater basins in Kern County. Although they were adjudicated as individual basins, the local Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District is the Watermaster for all three basins. Adjudication was deemed desirable so water users could tap into newly available imported water and also secure their water rights. To construct transmission facilities, a federal loan was needed, and adjudication was necessary to assure repayment."

The Scientist and Engineer in Court

American Geophysical Union (AGU) | January 1st, 1983

Published by the American Geophysical Union as part of the Water Resources Monograph Series, Volume 8. The gavel goes down, the witness is called and sworn in: "Will y

Published by the American Geophysical Union as part of the Water Resources Monograph Series, Volume 8. The gavel goes down, the witness is called and sworn in: "Will you tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?" Every court day scientists and engineers take this oath, yet few know the duties of an expert witness and fewer still know the procedures in a lawsuit. Unprepared for the courtroom, they watch a drama unfold without benefit of the plot (Ball, 1975). Courtrooms swirl with costume and ceremony. Jury, judge, and spectators assume roles: audience, director, trier of the facts. And the lawyers! Lawyers are the key dramatis personae. Protagonist and antagonist confront one another as lawyers argue their clients cases in the courtroom. They object endlessly. They cross-examine opposing witnesses mercilessly. They speak an opaque jargon of "laches," "remittitur" and "stare decisis." They speak Latin: "ab initio," "in pari causa," "lex loci actus." They speak old French: "estoppel," "fee simple," "voire dire." And they speak law-speak: "abuse of discretion," "clearly erroneous," "malice aforethought" (Mellinkoff, 1963). They call contrary versions of the same story true. They plead for understanding and compassion. They mix independent variables called "facts" and a dependent variable called "law" into an argumentative gruel for court consumption. Then it's over, and the judge delivers his or her opinion. One lawyer calls it the decision of the decade, a magnificent example of benign, reasoned law. The other darkly threatens to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary, to relieve an onerous and oppressive injustice. All of this is fascinating theatre, but to the unprepared scientist or engineer, the drama has none of the charm and all of the clarity of a Japanese "Noh" play.

Twenty-first Annual Report of the Mojave Basin Area Watermaster

Mojave Basin Area Watermaster | May 1st, 2015

Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District v. City of Alhambra et al

Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles | June 21st, 2012

Background note from An Evaluation of California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins by Langridge et al, (UC Davis) 2016 The Main San Gabriel Basin is one of the larges

Background note from An Evaluation of California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins by Langridge et al, (UC Davis) 2016 The Main San Gabriel Basin is one of the largest groundwater basins in southern California, providing residents of the greater San Gabriel Valley with about 240,000 AF per year. It is geographically situated in the south-easterly portion of Los Angeles County and bounded on the north by the San Gabriel Mountains, on the northwest by Raymond Basin, on the southeast by Puente Basin, and on the south by the Central Basin. The adjudication of the basin was deemed necessary by water producers to streamline administration, reduce overdraft, and adhere to the Long Beach Judgment and Puente Narrows Agreements, and the adjudication was relatively amenable. One of the most significant concerns in the basin is water quality, with four areas of the valley containing Superfund sites. The 1973 Judgment included water quality as one of the Watermaster’s responsibilities, and since the mid-1980s the Watermaster has coordinated with regulatory agencies to have groundwater remediation facilities constructed, permitted and operated to protect and enhance the groundwater supplies. The 1992 Judgment amendment explicitly required coordination with EPA for a federal cleanup of the Superfund sites.