From the Marin Independent Journal:
“Marin County is modifying the boundaries of two of its five groundwater basins to avoid having to create a new agency to monitor one basin and make a plan for recharging it, as mandated by state law.
The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday authorized modifying the boundaries of the Sand Point Area Basin, which is adjacent to the Wilson Grove Basin, underlying the Dillon Beach and Lawson’s Landing area. The Sand Point Area Basin has been designated as low priority.
Sand Point Area Basin’s boundaries will be adjusted to encompass the portion of the Wilson Grove Basin that extends into Marin, thereby relieving the county of its responsibility to form an agency and develop a plan. … “
Read more from the Marin Independent Journal here: Marin cedes supervision of water basin to Sonoma County
From the Bakersfield Californian:
“Concerns are rising Kern might lose local control over groundwater pumping — an activity vital to farmers, ranchers, oil producers and others — after county officials moved to scale back their own oversight role.
The county informed property owners Aug. 24 it does not have the expertise or the money to actively manage groundwater use in portions of Kern where no other management authority exists. It encouraged them to join a local water district or form their own management organization, either of which would be expected to come up with a plan for making the practice sustainable. … “
Read more from the Bakersfield Californian here: Kern County downsizes groundwater management role, raising concerns of state intervention
From the Modesto Bee:
“Stanislaus County will ask the state Supreme Court for a ruling on whether environmental review is a necessary step for a new water well.
In August, a state appeals court overturned the Stanislaus Superior Court’s decision in the Protecting Our Water lawsuit, which sought an injunction against county well permit approvals. The plaintiffs claimed the county was violating the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in approving well permits without considering environmental harm. … “
Read more from the Modesto Bee here: Stanislaus County appeals ruling that would make it harder for farmers to dig wells
Guest commentary by Don A. Wright at WaterWrights.net:
“Just when things are starting to get back to normal after the recent drought, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 has sucked all the oxygen out of the room. It’s common for irrigation and water district general managers to spend at least half their time and talent on dealing with the requirements of this law. Many have said this is the most impactful piece of water legislation since 1914 when the Water Commission Act formalized the appropriation system and centralized appropriative water right records at the state level (now the State Water Resources Control Board). Under the act, the state required new appropriators to obtain a permit from the state prior to diverting water but left groundwater alone.
The Valley’s aquifer is showing the stress of over pumping and some very real dangers lie ahead if this trend isn’t reversed. While there is plenty of room to blame misguided water policy from Sacramento – the blame won’t correct the problem. In fact most experts and laymen alike don’t see a way for business to return to usual. …
I asked some people whose opinions I respect; what can a farmer do to protect his assets? Here are some of the answers.
To read the full commentary, click here: GUEST COMMENTARY: SGMA – What’s a Farmer to Do?
From Stanford’s Water in the West:
“Local agencies in critically overdrafted groundwater basins in California have less than a year and a half to draft their plans to achieve sustainable groundwater management. These Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs), formed under California’s 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), will need to avoid six specified “undesirable results” ranging from seawater intrusion and degraded water quality to land subsidence.
A new report by Water in the West visiting scholar Letty Belin guides these agencies through how to understand and comply with the requirement that GSAs must not cause “significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of surface water.” … “
Read more from Stanford’s Water in the West here: Avoiding ‘Adverse Impacts’ of Groundwater Pumping on Surface Waters.
“The Paso Robles Groundwater Basin is critically over-drafted and county leaders continue to work on a plan to fix that.
So far, water experts and district leaders have drafted 5 out of 13 chapters of the state-mandated Groundwater Sustainability Plan. They need to submit the full plan to the state by Jan. 31, 2020.
In the meantime, they’re looking for public comment. … “
Read more from KSBY here: Public input needed for future of Paso Robles groundwater basin
From Brownstein Hyatt Farber Shreck:
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”) is now in its fourth year of operation. Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (“GSAs”) have been formed throughout the medium- and high-priority basins across California, and those GSAs are now developing Groundwater Sustainability Plans (“GSP”). The GSPs will ultimately afford greater long-term groundwater supply reliability by avoiding chronic groundwaer depletion and other “undesirable results,” such as signficant loss of storage, water quality degradation, subsidence, and seawater intrusion.
To achieve sustainable management in basins experiencing pronounced overdraft conditions, either augmented recharge will be necessary or groundwater extractions will need to be reduced over time. This process will affect municipal water suppliers that rely on groundwater basins that are subject to SGMA’s provision. It is, thus, important that municipal water suppliers understand the requirements of SGMA, the potential impacts to their groundwater supplies, and the procedural and substantive options and strategies that should be considered throughout the process.
To that effect, this paper will cover:
1. An overview of SGMA and its essential provisions;
2. The issues that will need to be resolved to implement SGMA, including the potential
division of available water supplies within a basin;
3. A summary of key groundwater rights laws;
4. A discussion of groundwater basin adjudications and new laws designed to streamline future adjudications and harmonize their results with SGMA; and
5. Strategies that municipal water providers may employ to optimize outcomes from the SGMA/adjudication process.
Read the report from Brownstein Hyatt Farber Shreck here: Report: An Assessment of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act for Municipal Water Suppliers.
From New Times SLO:
“A jury trial to determine whose groundwater rights should win out in a 5-year-old clash between public water purveyors and private landowners near Paso Robles approached a conclusion in Santa Clara County Superior Court the week of Sept. 20.
In 2013, a small group of North County property owners, led by vintner Cindy Steinbeck, filed a quiet title water rights lawsuit in San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, amid anxiety about the drought, its impact on the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin, and the regulations set to curb water pumping. … ”
Read more from New Times SLO here: Paso Robles quiet title trial nears end in Santa Clara
From New Times SLO:
“One chapter at a time. That’s how scientists, water officials, and the public are writing the 20-year sustainability plan for the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin. Five out of the plan’s 13 total chapters are drafted thus far, covering introductions, basin boundaries, and hydrology.
But that was the easy part. Sustainability discussions are about to get a lot more complicated and challenging as the meat of the plan—future groundwater level targets, well monitoring programs, recharge projects, and financing questions—start to take center stage. … ”
Read more from New Times SLO here: Paso Robles groundwater talks to heat up as state deadline looms
From the Santa Cruz Sentinel:
“A water-sharing project opening a pipeline between Santa Cruz and Soquel Creek Water District may be underway as early as November, serving as a partial solution for the region’s chronic water supply shortage. The two utilities have spent more than a decade researching options for water supply expansion as their populations continue to grow.
Santa Cruz, dependent on river and stream water supplies, does not have enough storage space for its customers’ long-term needs, while Soquel Creek Water District, as with other water agencies in the county, is dependent on underground aquifers that are not refilling as quickly as they are being depleted by well pumping. … ”
Read more from the Santa Cruz Sentinel here: Santa Cruz, Soquel Creek Water District anticipate water exchange kickoff