Climate information? Embedding climate futures within temporalities of California water management

Environmental Sociology (Taylor & Francis) | March 27th, 2018

This article uses the case of drinking water utility managers in California to understand uses of climate-change information in resource management. A dominant

This article uses the case of drinking water utility managers in California to understand uses of climate-change information in resource management. A dominant narrative suggests that producing management practices best adapted to climate-change impacts is a matter of reconciling the supply of scientific knowledge with the demand signals of resource managers. We question this narrative with reference to the diverse cultural and socio-technical structures in which the future climate takes on meaning in water management. Using interviews (n = 61), we analyze three ideal-typical ‘social temporalities’ of climate change: modeled futures, whose future?, and truncated futures. We define social temporalities as alternative constructions of the future built into socio-technical engagement with water and into collective orientations to climate change. Of the three ideal types, we found that only one (modeled futures) closely aligns with the supply-demand relationship as constructed in scholarly literature and climate adaptation-related policy. This leaves nonconforming types without guidance that resonates with their relationship to climate change information. Consideration of sociological dimensions of climate knowledge may warrant a revised or additional approach to climate service programs or related assistance efforts.

Communities that rely on a contaminated groundwater source for drinking water

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | January 1st, 2013

AB 2222 (Caballero, Chapter 670, Statutes of 2008) requires the State Water Resources Control Board to submit a report to the Legislature that identifies: 1) communities

AB 2222 (Caballero, Chapter 670, Statutes of 2008) requires the State Water Resources Control Board to submit a report to the Legislature that identifies: 1) communities in California that rely on contaminated groundwater as a primary source of drinking water; 2) the principal contaminants and other constituents of concern; and 3) potential solutions and funding sources to clean up or treat groundwater or provide alternative water supplies. A “community,” for the purposes of this report, is defined as a Community Public Water System (Health and Safety Code Section 116395). When this report refers to communities that rely on a contaminated groundwater source, it is referring to community public water systems that draw water from a contaminated groundwater source prior to any treatment. Over 95 percent of the 38 million Californians get their drinking water from a public water system. The findings in this report do not reflect private domestic wells or other unregulated water systems since the state does not require these groundwater users to sample their wells, and consequently a comprehensive database for these groundwater sources does not exist. This report identifies 680 community water systems that, prior to any treatment, relied on a contaminated groundwater source during the most recent California Department of Public Health (CDPH) compliance cycle (2002-2010). It is important to note that, according to CDPH, over 98% of Californians on public water supply are served safe drinking water. Although many water suppliers draw from contaminated groundwater sources, most suppliers are able to treat the water or blend it with cleaner supplies before serving it to the public. Consequently, when this report refers to communities that rely on contaminated groundwater, it is referring to community public water systems that draw water from one or more contaminated groundwater wells prior to any treatment or blending. Some community water systems, however, cannot afford treatment or lack alternative water sources, and have served water that exceeds a public drinking water standard. Of the 680 community water systems that rely on a contaminated groundwater source, 265 have served water that exceeded a public drinking water standard during the most recent CDPH compliance cycle (2002-2010).

Community Perspectives on SGMA Implementation

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | June 13th, 2019

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014 represents a historic opportunity to achieve long-term sustainable groundwater management and protect th

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014 represents a historic opportunity to achieve long-term sustainable groundwater management and protect the drinking water supplies of hundreds of small and rural low-income communities that rely on this shared resource, especially in the San Joaquin Valley. Prior research, however, indicates that few of these communities are represented in the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) formed to implement the new law. This raises questions about other forms of community involvement, and concerns about the extent to which small and rural drinking-water interests are being incorporated into the process. This report details the results of twenty-three interviews with thirty-one representatives of small, low-income communities who rely on groundwater for their drinking-water supplies. The findings suggest community stakeholders are highly interested in SGMA and desire to be involved in its implementation, which many deemed indispensable for the future of their communities. Many are actively participating or following the process, including by serving on boards and committees, attending meetings and workshops, and monitoring meeting minutes and agendas. The experience of small and rural communities with SGMA is predictably diverse. Some interviewees have had very positive experiences thus far and are hopeful about the ways SGMA could benefit their communities and regions in the future. Others have felt overlooked or intentionally excluded. Yet many similarities also arose across the interviews including six common challenges and concerns about SGMA implementation: 1. Resource constraints to participation: Lack of staff, small budgets, in-house experts and an inability to pay for outside services/support limited communities’ formal participation in GSA governance and attendance and involvement in SGMA meetings. 2. Accessibility: Additional factors limiting the accessibility of the SGMA process included day-time meetings, language barriers, the proliferation of board and committee meetings, and irregular and unclear meeting schedules and notices. 3. Transparency: A lack of transparency in GSA decision-making as well as limited access to the data and information being used to develop Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) were common concerns for interviewees. 4. Lack of formal representation: The relegation of communities to advisory, rather than decision-making, roles in the SGMA process was also a common concern. 5. Limited opportunities to provide meaningful input and feedback: Whether participating as a decision-maker, committee member or as a member of the public attending meetings, many were frustrated at the lack of opportunities to provide meaningful input into decisions or on draft documents due to short turnaround times, not being provided necessary background or materials, and limited opportunities for public comment and open discussion. 6. Lack of addressing drinking water interests and priorities: Overwhelmingly, interviewees reported that drinking water interests, especially water quality and domestic wells, were not part of their local SGMA conversations, leading many to be skeptical that SGMA would have drinking-water benefits. Best practices detailed by interviewees with particularly positive experiences and suggestions and recommendations from all of the interviewees, however, demonstrate ample opportunities to address these issues and increase the integration of drinking-water stakeholders and interests into sustainable groundwater management. Targeted efforts to reduce barriers to participation, improve communication and transparency, and promote diverse representation could go a long way to ensuring the “consideration” and “active involvement” of this important, historically marginalized, stakeholder group. For example, communities can educate their GSA about drinking-water priorities and the variety of regulations and requirements public water systems must comply with and coordinate with other small and rural communities to elevate and advocate for drinking water needs. GSAs should incorporate available public data into Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) while developing plans to fill data gaps, provide ample time for feedback on staggered and sequential GSP sections and streamline and increase interaction with stakeholders in meetings. State agencies should consider requiring or incentivizing collaborative community projects be included in GSPs, and community representation in GSP development and implementation as well as provide funding to support meaningful community involvement in all phases of SGMA implementation.

Comparison of potential drinking water source contamination across one hundred U.S. cities

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | December 13th, 2021

Drinking water supplies of cities are exposed to potential contamination arising from land use and other anthropogenic activities in local and distal source watersheds. B

Drinking water supplies of cities are exposed to potential contamination arising from land use and other anthropogenic activities in local and distal source watersheds. Because water quality sampling surveys are often piecemeal, regionally inconsistent, and incomplete with respect to unregulated contaminants, the United States lacks a detailed comparison of potential source water contamination across all of its large cities. Here we combine national scale geospatial datasets with hydrologic simulations to compute two metrics representing potential contamination of water supplies from point and nonpoint sources for over a hundred U.S. cities. We reveal enormous diversity in anthropogenic activities across watersheds with corresponding disparities in the potential contamination of drinking water supplies to cities. Approximately 5% of large cities rely on water that is composed primarily of runoff from non-pristine lands (e.g., agriculture, residential, industrial), while four-fifths of all large cities that withdraw surface water are exposed to treated wastewater in their supplies.

Critical Aquifer Overdraft Accelerates Degradation of Groundwater Quality in California's Central Valley During Drought

American Geophysical Union (AGU) | September 1st, 2021

It has been established that wells are at risk to run dry when groundwater levels decline during drought, but associated impacts to water quality are poorly understood. 

It has been established that wells are at risk to run dry when groundwater levels decline during drought, but associated impacts to water quality are poorly understood. This study examined 30 yr of data from California's Central Valley to find dramatic groundwater-level declines during drought were associated with worsening groundwater quality. This likely happens because increased pumping during drought can draw shallow, contaminated groundwater to depths commonly tapped by public drinking water wells. This is the first study of its kind to show direct linkages between drought and groundwater quality at such a broad spatial scale

Customer Debt and Lost Revenue: The Financial Impacts of COVID-19 on Small Community Water Systems

Pacific Institute | May 4th, 2021

This report provides information on revenue losses experienced by small community water systems (SCWS) in the United States and debt accumulated by their customers during

This report provides information on revenue losses experienced by small community water systems (SCWS) in the United States and debt accumulated by their customers during the COVID-19 pandemic. More than 45,000 SCWS, defined as systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, exist across the United States. The pandemic has exacerbated pre-existing challenges for these water systems and for poorer communities faced with rapidly rising water bills, including financial and cyber insecurity, and the rising costs of treating new contaminants in their water and wastewater. The report includes case studies illustrating the breadth and depth of challenges SCWS face due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

CV SALTS Prioritization & Optimization Study Year 1 Progress Report

Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability (CV-SALTS) | March 24th, 2023

CV-SALTS Groundwater Sustainability Plan Data Collection - Pilot Study Results

Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability (CV-SALTS) | February 1st, 2024

The purpose of Prioritization & Optimization (P&O) Study Task 5.3 (Information Extraction from Groundwater Sustainability Plans [GSP]) is to extract and organize relevan

The purpose of Prioritization & Optimization (P&O) Study Task 5.3 (Information Extraction from Groundwater Sustainability Plans [GSP]) is to extract and organize relevant GSP data and information that can be used to (1) validate or refine information contained in the P&O Study’s CV-SWAT watershed model (developed to support ongoing baseline characterization work); (2) support the eventual development of salinity management alternatives within specified planning areas; and (3) help ensure that long-term Central Valley salt planning considers ongoing Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) planning efforts, which is of particular interest to the State Water Resources Control Board.

CV-SALTS Groundwater Sustainability Plan Data Integration Report Integrated Scope of Work - Task 5.3 (Draft)

Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability (CV-SALTS) | June 20th, 2024

The purpose of Prioritization & Optimization (P&O) Study Task 5.3 (Information Extraction from Groundwater Sustainability Plans [GSP]) is to extract and organize

The purpose of Prioritization & Optimization (P&O) Study Task 5.3 (Information Extraction from Groundwater Sustainability Plans [GSP]) is to extract and organize relevant GSP data and information that can be used to: Validate or refine information contained in the P&O Study’s Central Valley Soil and Water Assessment Tool (CV-SWAT) watershed model and other models (developed to support ongoing baseline characterization work and future salinity-related analyses); Support the eventual development of salinity management alternatives within specified Central Valley planning areas; and Help ensure that long-term Central Valley salt planning understands and considers ongoing Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) planning efforts, efforts and potential future conditions of the water in the Central Valley region and benefits from the local investment in these plans. It is also expected that this report will be a foundation for enhanced coordination with GSAs as planning occurs in their regions. Click below for document appendices.  Appendix A: Selected GSP Information Summaries by Hydrologic Region Appendix B: Appendix B 1 - Sac Valley Hydrologic Region - GSP Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model Excerpts and Near AEM Profiles Appendix B 2 - San Joaquin Valley Hydrologic Region - GSP Hydrologic Conceptual Model Excerpts and Near AEM Profiles Appendix B 3 - Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region - GSP Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model Excerpts and Near AEM Profiles

CV-SALTS Prioritization & Optimization Study: Final Baseline Characterization Report

Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability (CV-SALTS) | March 9th, 2024

The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) first adopted a three-phased Salt Control Program into the water quality regulations

The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) first adopted a three-phased Salt Control Program into the water quality regulations applicable to the Central Valley Region of California in 2018; these regulations were subsequently amended in 2020. Phase I of the Salt Control Program requires implementation of the Prioritization and Optimization (P&O) Study. The primary purposes of this Study are to characterize existing salinity conditions in surface water and groundwater in the Central Valley Region, establish appropriate salinity targets for the protection of beneficial uses, and facilitate the development of long-term salt management alternatives for implementation in Phases II and III of the Salt Control Program.