Central Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Revised)

Central Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (CKGSA) | July 13th, 2022

Characterization of Groundwater Recharge and Flow in California's San Joaquin Valley From InSAR-Observed Surface Deformation

American Geophysical Union (AGU) | March 4th, 2021

Surface deformation in California's Central Valley (CV) has long been linked to changes in groundwater storage. Recent advances in remote sensing have enabled the mappin

Surface deformation in California's Central Valley (CV) has long been linked to changes in groundwater storage. Recent advances in remote sensing have enabled the mapping of CV deformation and associated changes in groundwater resources at increasingly higher spatiotemporal resolution. Here, we use interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) from the Sentinel-1 missions, augmented by continuous Global Positioning System (cGPS) positioning, to characterize the surface deformation of the San Joaquin Valley (SJV, southern two-thirds of the CV) for consecutive dry (2016) and wet (2017) water years. We separate trends and seasonal oscillations in deformation time series and interpret them in the context of surface and groundwater hydrology. We find that subsidence rates in 2016 (mean −42.0 mm/yr; peak −345 mm/yr) are twice that in 2017 (mean −20.4 mm/yr; peak −177 mm/yr), consistent with increased groundwater pumping in 2016 to offset the loss of surface-water deliveries. Locations of greatest subsidence migrated outwards from the valley axis in the wetter 2017 water year, possibly reflecting a surplus of surface-water supplies in the lowest portions of the SJV. Patterns in the amplitude of seasonal deformation and the timing of peak seasonal uplift reveal entry points and potential pathways for groundwater recharge into the SJV and subsequent groundwater flow within the aquifer. This study provides novel insight into the SJV aquifer system that can be used to constrain groundwater flow and subsidence models, which has relevance to groundwater management in the context of California's 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).

Chowchilla Subbasin Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Revised)

Chowchilla Subbasin GSP Advisory Committee | July 27th, 2022

Due to file size, this document has been divided. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, Part 13, Part 14, Par

Due to file size, this document has been divided. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, Part 13, Part 14, Part 15, Part 16, Part 17  

Chowchilla Subbasin Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Groundwater Sustainablity Plan

Chowchilla Subbasin GSP Advisory Committee | January 1st, 2020

Coastal Plain of Orange County, Basin 8-001 Alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Orange County Water District (OCWD) | January 1st, 2017

Collaborative Governance and Environmental Justice: Disadvantaged Community Representation in California Sustainable Groundwater Management

Western Political Science Association | April 18th, 2019

A consistent critique of the theory and empirical research on collaborative governance is a lack of conceptualization and analysis of the role of political power and ine

A consistent critique of the theory and empirical research on collaborative governance is a lack of conceptualization and analysis of the role of political power and inequality (Foster 2002; Franks and Cleaver 2007; Morrison et al. 2017; Purdy 2012). The critique is more broadly applied to public policy and institutional analysis in general (Knight 1992; Moe 2005), and has implications the democratic legitimacy of governance arrangements (Alexander, Doorn, and Priest 2018). Political institutions provide differential access to decision-making (Besley and Case 2003), while political groups and individuals have higher or lower capacity to participate in governance systems and influence the outcomes (Olson 2009; Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993; Stigler 1971). Thus, there continues to be a need for empirical research focused on the crucial issue of how these factors affect the structure and function of governance institutions. This article contributes to this discussion by analyzing the representation of disadvantaged communities in the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in California.

Colusa County | Managed Aquifer Recharge: benefitting aquifers, farmers, and migratory birds

Nature Conservancy | September 3rd, 2018

In partnership with growers and the Colusa Groundwater Authority (CGA), The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is implementing a pilot multiple-benefit managed aquifer r

In partnership with growers and the Colusa Groundwater Authority (CGA), The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is implementing a pilot multiple-benefit managed aquifer recharge (MAR) program on farmland in California’s Central Valley, Colusa County. This program will benefit local groundwater users by replenishing critical domestic and agricultural groundwater supplies in a Severely Disadvanateged Community (SDAC). Participating farmers will benefit economically through incentive payments, and migratory shorebirds will benefit through the creation of critical winter habitat on farms through our specific field and water depth specificiations. MAR sites will be selected where and when it is appropriate and cost-effective to do so based on farming practices, soil suitability, water availability, basin water balances, and migratory/shorebird habitat requirements. The relevance and success of this program for Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs), Severely Disadvantaged Communities (SDACs), and Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) will require all of these stakeholders and project participants to collaborate on its design. Thus, TNC will engage growers, water managers, and other stakeholders in a variety of formal and informal ways to ensure that this program will meet the needs of all parties involved in GSP development. This program serves as a model for other GSAs and stakeholders seeking to deliver multiple benefits through on-farm recharge in the Central Valley where such a program is appropriate.

Colusa Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Colusa Groundwater Authority | December 3rd, 2021

The purpose of this GSP is to characterize groundwater conditions in the Subbasin, evaluate and report on existing conditions relating to the six sustainability indicator

The purpose of this GSP is to characterize groundwater conditions in the Subbasin, evaluate and report on existing conditions relating to the six sustainability indicators, describe existing monitoring, 14 management programs and policies relating to groundwater resource use, document public outreach and communication, establish sustainability goals, and describe projects and management actions (PMAs) the GSAs will implement to achieve sustainable groundwater management within 20 years of implementing the GSP. Due to size, this file has been divided into 16 parts Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, Part 13, Part 14, Part 15, Part 16

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.

Comparing Local Groundwater Withdrawal Permitting Laws in the Southwest and California

Stanford University | October 13th, 2016

 For the first time in California’s history, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA) aims to empower local agencies to sustainably manage the pumping

 For the first time in California’s history, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA) aims to empower local agencies to sustainably manage the pumping of groundwater. A notable, but often unremarked, aspect of SGMA is that it provides Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) with the power to adopt rules and regulations to establish “groundwater extraction allocations” (i.e., a permitting regime). California is the last of the seven southwest states — Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah — to introduce a permitting power, suggesting that the other southwestern states can inform GSAs looking to promote sustainability through the use of their new power to establish extraction allocations.