Dispute Resolution Processes - Thinking Through SGMA Implementation: A Water in the West Series

Stanford University | October 9th, 2019

Groundwater serves as the primary water supply for more than two billion people worldwide (Famiglietti 2014) and supplies approximately 40% of irrigation water supply gl

Groundwater serves as the primary water supply for more than two billion people worldwide (Famiglietti 2014) and supplies approximately 40% of irrigation water supply globally (Siebert et al. 2010). This heavy reliance on groundwater aquifers has led to the unsustainable depletion of groundwater resources at the regional and global scale resulting in an increasing number of conflicts over groundwater resources (Jarvis 2014). Similar to global trends, a long-term overreliance on groundwater in California has resulted in historically low groundwater levels in basins throughout the state. Groundwater level declines have had widespread impacts, including drying of domestic wells, land subsidence and the loss of supply wells. In 2014, California passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) to address the impacts resulting from chronic groundwater overdraft in the state. SGMA requires formation of local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs). GSAs must develop and implement Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs, Plan) to achieve sustainability within 20 years of Plan implementation. Achieving sustainability requires local agencies, stakeholders and water users to make many difficult and potentially contentious decisions such as regulating pumping, levying pumping fees and finding and purchasing alternative water supplies to meet legislated sustainability goals. These decisions are prone to conflict, particularly when pumping restrictions are viewed as infringing on property rights, or when fees are charged to support local management. Traditionally, many of these decisions have been resolved through court adjudications, many of which have been long and expensive processes in California (Szeptycki et al. 2018) and elsewhere (USDA 2018). In recent decades, the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) movement has fostered use of alternative processes, including direct negotiation among the parties, facilitation, mediation and arbitration in lieu of, or supplemental to, adjudication to resolve environmental conflicts. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) mediation program has the explicit goal of helping “avoid expensive and time-consuming administrative appeals and/ or litigation” (USDA 2018). Other government departments like the Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also have mediation programs with similar goals. Many of the local GSAs established under SGMA are multi-entity GSAs formed through Joint Powers Authorities Agreements (JPAA) or through Memorandums of Understanding Agreements (MOUA) – we refer to these agreements collectively as “Agreements.” Additionally, the jurisdictional area of many GSAs does not span the entire groundwater basin. SGMA requires sustainability at the basin-scale, so many GSAs will need to collaborate internally (among member agencies within a GSA) and externally (with other GSAs in their basin) to develop and implement GSPs which are “together likely to achieve the groundwater sustainability goal for the basin,” (California Water Code (CWC) § 10733(b)). Newly formed GSAs have additional layers of potential conflict that may not be present in interpersonal or even other inter-organizational contexts with well-established processes and precedents, including questions of who has the authority, what process(es) should be followed when exercising that authority and what the constraints on the exercise of that authority are. These questions are particularly pertinent when agencies with similar or overlapping authorities are working together – as is common practice under SGMA. Questions regarding authority, tight legal and regulatory timelines, a lack of existing precedents and the need to represent agency and constituent interests have the potential to exacerbate conflicts under SGMA. In some cases, where authoritative interpretations of legal authority and limits have not been established yet, litigation may be necessary and warranted. When institutions have to coordinate and cooperate, as JPAs do, identifying processes and forums for resolving conflicts is crucial (Marta et al. 2014). However, developing effective mechanisms for resolving conflicts and using them can be challenging. Learning from the experiences of past water management agencies in California, as well as the natural resource conflict resolution literature more broadly, may help GSAs develop robust dispute resolution plans with processes to incentivize and streamline their resolution.

Diverse stakeholders create collaborative, multilevel basin governance for groundwater sustainability

California Agriculture (UCANR) | March 13th, 2018

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) is introducing significant changes in the way groundwater is governed for agricultural use. It requires the format

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) is introducing significant changes in the way groundwater is governed for agricultural use. It requires the formation of groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) to manage groundwater basins for sustainability with the engagement of all users. That presents opportunities for collaboration, as well as challenges, particularly in basins with large numbers of agricultural water users who have longstanding private pumping rights. The GSA formation process has resulted in the creation of multiple GSAs in many such basins, particularly in the Central Valley. In case studies of three basins, we examine agricultural stakeholders' concerns about SGMA, and how these are being addressed in collaborative approaches to groundwater basin governance. We find that many water districts and private pumpers share a strong interest in maintaining local autonomy, but they have distinct concerns and different options for forming and participating in GSAs. Multilevel collaborative governance structures may help meet SGMA's requirements for broad stakeholder engagement, our studies suggest, while also addressing concerns about autonomy and including agricultural water users in decision-making.

Draft Final Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Borrego Springs Groundwater Subbasin

Borrego Water District (BWD) | August 30th, 2019

The Borrego Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA, Agency), which comprises the Borrego Water District (BWD) and the County of San Diego (County), developed a Gro

The Borrego Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA, Agency), which comprises the Borrego Water District (BWD) and the County of San Diego (County), developed a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP, Plan) to provide a structure to enable local government, groundwater users and the local community to work together to achieve sustainable use of groundwater resources in the Borrego Springs Groundwater Subbasin (Subbasin) (California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Basin No. 7.024.01) of the Borrego Valley Groundwater Basin. The GSP was subsequently repurposed as a Groundwater Management Plan (GMP), an integral part of a Physical Solution in a groundwater rights adjudication consistent with the requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The purpose of this GMP is to refine and expedite implementation of the Physical Solution and to avoid litigation over the GSP and its associated Project and Management Actions (PMAs). The GSP and this resulting GMP was developed through a process of stakeholder negotiation among major water users, landowners and government agencies. Specifically, this GMP is adopted as part of the Physical Solution by means of a Judgment. The Judgment was agreed to by Stipulating Parties accounting for more than 75% of groundwater production and more than 50% of non-minimal producer well owners as an alternative to the GSA/GSP process for the Borrego Springs Subbasin under SGMA (California Water Code Sections 10733.6 and 10737.4). This GMP includes and is to be interpreted and implemented consistent with and subject to the provisions of the Judgment. The provisions of the Judgment control over and supersede any contrary provisions contained in this GMP. Due to size, this file has been divided. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6

Drawdown ‘‘Triggers’’: A Misguided Strategy for Protecting Groundwater-Fed Streams and Springs

National Groundwater Association (NGWA) | October 31st, 2016

There is increasing recognition of the importanceof groundwater to the survival and function of terrestrial ecosystems (e.g., Ribeiro et al. 2013), which has grown from

There is increasing recognition of the importanceof groundwater to the survival and function of terrestrial ecosystems (e.g., Ribeiro et al. 2013), which has grown from understanding of the intimate connections between groundwater and surface water (Winter et al.1998). In this context, management strategies that can protect groundwater-dependent ecosystems (GDEs) such as springs and groundwater-fed streams are of critical importance. One strategy being adopted in some casesis the use of “drawdown triggers.” This involves specifying an amount of acceptable drawdown relative to baseline at a particular monitoring point, which if exceeded, triggers a management response. This technical commentary examines this strategy, highlighting potential pit-falls. There are important aspects of the response of groundwater and connected springs and streams which may be overlooked if drawdown triggers are adopted as the primary strategy for GDE protection. A case study of a recently approved mining project is discussed and some additional and/or alternative approaches proposed.

Drought and Groundwater Sustainability in California’s Farming Regions

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) | June 25th, 2024

East Bay Plain Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

East Bay Municipal Utilities District (East Bay MUD) | January 26th, 2022

The Plan Area lies within the boundaries of Contra Costa and Alameda counties, including all or portions of the cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, El Cerrito, Emeryvill

The Plan Area lies within the boundaries of Contra Costa and Alameda counties, including all or portions of the cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, El Cerrito, Emeryville, Hayward, Oakland, Piedmont, Richmond, San Leandro, and San Pablo. Unincorporated areas (including San Lorenzo) within the subbasin are covered by the respective county general plans (GPs), and various city GPs cover the other portions of the Subbasin. The Subbasin does not contain state lands, but does include some federal lands including Lytton Tribal lands. Due to size, this document has been divided into separate files. Executive Summary, Executive Summary Chapters 1-5, Appendix 1 (Chapter 1), Appendix 2 (Chapter 2), Appendix 3 (Chapter 3), Appendix 4 (Chapter 4), (No Appendix for Chapter 5), Appendix 6

East Contra Costa Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

East Contra Costa Groundwater Sustainability Agency | October 15th, 2021

On March 28, 2019, the state approved a subdivision of the Tracy Subbasin that separated the East Contra Costa portion (now called the ECC Subbasin) from the San Joaquin

On March 28, 2019, the state approved a subdivision of the Tracy Subbasin that separated the East Contra Costa portion (now called the ECC Subbasin) from the San Joaquin County portion (retained the Tracy Subbasin name), thereby providing more local control of groundwater resources. In addition, seven GSAs were formed by local public agencies to ensure that their diverse constituents are represented in this GSP. If needed, each GSA has authorities to enact policies to protect groundwater resources based on conditions within their respective jurisdictions. This provides stakeholders with more focused engagement through a local GSA. Due to size, the file has been divided into six parts. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6

East Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency 2022 First Amended Groundwater Sustainability Plan

East Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency (EKGSA) | July 27th, 2022

Due to size, this file has been divided into eight parts. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8

Due to size, this file has been divided into eight parts. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8

East Kaweah GSA Groundwater Sustainability Plan

East Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency (EKGSA) | February 17th, 2019

Final GSP delivered to the Department of Water Resources 1/31/20 per DWR; final online draft awaiting uploading per inquiry to EKGSA 2/13/20

Final GSP delivered to the Department of Water Resources 1/31/20 per DWR; final online draft awaiting uploading per inquiry to EKGSA 2/13/20

Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Revised)

Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (ESJGA) | June 15th, 2022

In 2014, the California legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in response to continued overdraft of California’s groundwater resources.

In 2014, the California legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in response to continued overdraft of California’s groundwater resources. The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin (Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin, or Subbasin) is one of 21 basins and subbasins identified by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) as being in a state of critical overdraft. SGMA requires preparation of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) to address measures necessary to attain sustainable conditions in the Subbasin. Within the framework of SGMA, sustainability is generally defined as long-term reliability of the groundwater supply and the absence of undesirable results. The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (ESJGWA) was formed in 2017 in response to SGMA. A Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement establishes the ESJGWA, which is composed of 16 Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs): Central Delta Water Agency (CDWA), Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District (CSJWCD), City of Lodi, City of Manteca, City of Stockton, Eastside San Joaquin GSA (Eastside GSA) (composed of Calaveras County Water District [CCWD], Stanislaus County, and Rock Creek Water District), Linden County Water District (LCWD), Lockeford Community Services District (LCSD), North San Joaquin Water Conservation District (NSJWCD), Oakdale Irrigation District (OID), San Joaquin County No. 1, San Joaquin County No. 2 (with participation from California Water Service Company Stockton District [Cal Water]), South Delta Water Agency (SDWA), South San Joaquin GSA (composed of South San Joaquin Irrigation District [SSJID] including Woodward Reservoir, City of Ripon, and City of Escalon), Stockton East Water District (SEWD), and Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID). The ESJGWA is governed by a 16-member Board of Directors (ESJGWA Board), with one representative from each GSA. The Board is guided by an Advisory Committee, also with one representative from each GSA, that is tasked with making recommendations to the ESJGWA Board on technical and substantive matters. SGMA requires development of a GSP that achieves groundwater sustainability in the Subbasin by 2040. The GSP outlines the need to reduce overdraft conditions and has identified 23 projects for potential development that either replace groundwater use (offset) or supplement groundwater supplies (recharge) to meet current and future water demands. Although current analysis indicates that groundwater pumping offsets and/or recharge on the order of 37,000 acre-feet per year (AF/year) may be required to achieve sustainability, additional efforts are needed to confirm the level of pumping offsets and/or recharge required to achieve sustainability. These efforts include collecting additional data and a review of the Subbasin groundwater model, along with other efforts as outlined in the GSP. A Public Draft GSP was prepared and made available for public review and comment on July 10, 2019 for a period of 45 days ending on August 25, 2019. The ESJGWA received numerous comments from the public, reviewed and prepared responses to comments, and revised the Draft GSP. This Final GSP includes those edits and revisions. Comment letters and responses are included as appendices to the GSP. On November 18, 2021, the ESJGWA received a Consultation Initiation Letter (Letter) from DWR. The Letter identified two potential deficiencies in the Subbasin GSPs which may preclude DWR’s approval, as well as potential corrective actions to address each potential deficiency. The Letter initiated consultation between DWR, the Plan Manager, the ESJGWA, and the Subbasin’s GSAs. In response to DWR’s comments, this GSP was revised in June 2022. DWR comments have also been addressed in a series of four technical memoranda appended to this revised GSP and referenced throughout the document. Due to size, this file has been divided into eight parts. Part 1,  Part 2,  Part 3,  Part 4,  Part 5,  Part 6,  Part 7,  Part 8