A Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Summary: Time and Fragmentation. By Cheyene Keniston March 3, 2016 ENVS 190

Transcription

1 A Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Summary: Time and Fragmentation By Cheyene Keniston March 3, 2016 ENVS 190

2 Table of Contents I. Abstract - 2 II. Introduction - 3 III. Legislative History - 4 a. Supportive Policy - 5 b. SGMA Legislative History - 8 IV. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Regulatory Authorities - 10 a. Groundwater Sustainability Agencies - 11 b. California Department of Water Resources - 13 c. California State Water Resources Control Board - 15 V. The SGMA Timeline - 16 VI. Analysis of SGMA Timeline and Fragmentation - 20 a. Analysis of Time - 21 b. Analysis of Fragmentation - 24 VII. Conclusion - 26 VIII. Figure 1-28 IX. References Cited

3 Abstract The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) is the first groundwater management statute to be signed into California law. The statute, adopted in 2014, outlines a statewide sustainable groundwater management plan that divides management powers between 3 main entities: Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSA), California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). These agencies must work together to develop and implement a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for each groundwater basin in California by 2022, and to achieve complete sustainable groundwater management by The SGMA will face natural hardships with time constraints and the fragmented nature of groundwater policy; however, proactive and adaptive policies can help decrease implementation complications to make the SGMA successful. Groundwater is vital to the health of California and the SGMA is policy that is essential to protecting California s groundwater. 2

4 Introduction California is experiencing a multiyear drought where there has been a consistent decline in precipitation and snowpack (ICCP 2014). Because of the decrease in freshwater, there is a major need for water regulation policies to protect freshwater resources. The unrestricted human use of groundwater has also contributed to the over- exploitation of freshwater resources, decreasing water table levels, well dehydration, and land subsidence issues from the loss of groundwater (Moran and Wendell 2015). Due to these phenomena, California s groundwater is in danger of being depleted; therefore, groundwater management has become a top priority for policy makers. Sustainable groundwater management policies are needed to protect groundwater in California. California has implemented drought resiliency tactics, some of which have resulted in consuming more groundwater and damaging aquifers (Howitt et al. 2015). Groundwater levels in many basins within California have declined 100 feet below historic depths (DWR 2015a). Groundwater depletion can result in irreversible land subsidence if an aquifer is not recharged. After an aquifer loses water- holding capacity, due to land subsidence, it cannot recover the lost capacity; therefore, the water resource no longer exists. Groundwater is relied on more in the current drought conditions, and if the capacity of groundwater resources continues to decrease there could be serious water shortages throughout California (Megdal et al. 2014). Contradictions between the demands for groundwater and the sustainable management of groundwater in California have made 3

5 protection policies necessary to facilitate sustainable groundwater management, and to protect California s freshwater resources. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) is groundbreaking California legislation that was passed in 2014 and outlines a statewide plan to sustainably manage groundwater for the first time. The SGMA is an assemblage of three different statutes that collectively create regulations and standards to manage groundwater resources sustainably. The law mandates local agencies to implement sustainable groundwater management practices, but it gives the agencies a large amount of flexibility to accomplish this objective. Local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSA) will be the main entities responsible for groundwater basin management, whereas larger government agencies will provide management guidance, funding, and, policy enforcement (SGMA 2014). The California Department of Water Resources and the State Water Resources Control Board will be the agencies that oversee the GSAs and SGMA implementation. The SGMA is the beginning of groundwater conservation policy in California, and will promote sustainable development. The statute sets regulations to ensure groundwater in California is not depleted, and it is a necessary step to protecting California s freshwater supply. Legislative History Since the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act is new legislation, and the statute itself has not accumulated much history; however, before the SGMA was signed into law there were three pieces of legislation that were supportive to its development: the 4

6 Clean Water Act, the California Water Code, and SBX7-6 (DWR 2015a). The Clean Water Act contributed to the development of national water protection policy, the California Water Code is directly referenced and supported by the SGMA legislation, and SBX7-6 is especially helpful with categorizing wetland priority levels and identifying groundwater basins. These three pieces of legislation all contributed to the formulation of the SGMA. Supportive Policy The Clean Water Act (CWA) was first passed in 1948 as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), which was among the first federal pieces of water legislation, and was extremely influential in the development of water protection policy. After it was amended heavily in 1972, the legislation was renamed the Clean Water Act, and established the basic regulation for discharging pollutants into U.S. waters and federal water quality standards for surface waters (EPA 2015). The CWA is not directly referenced in the SGMA but the CWA protects interconnected surface waters in the U.S., which is important for protecting groundwater. The Clean Water Act created a national platform for protective water standards for the SGMA to build on (EPA 2015). California acted as a leader in environmental policy by enacting the California Water Code in 1943, which lays out California water rights, water use regulations, water health standards, and water restrictions. It defines California groundwater rights, which is what the SGMA legislation primarily deals with (SGMA 2014 and the Water Code ). Sections within the Water Code that are applicable to groundwater are directly referred to in SGMA legislation, and the two statutes are interconnected. The SGMA reinforces regulations from the Water Code and also directly 5

7 amends the Water Code to avoid contradictions between the laws. The California Water Code influenced the development of the SGMA, and will continue to help the SGMA policies develop. In November of 2009, California state legislature amended the Water Code with Senate Bill X7-6, which mandated a California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program to collect data on California s groundwater. Groundwater basins were identified throughout the state and ecosystem health was assessed; consequently, through this legislation, preliminary basin prioritization results were synthesized. Groundwater basin ecosystem health was assessed on a high, medium, and low priority scale. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) determines the basin priority by evaluating eight conditions: 1. The human population overlying the basin. 2. The rate of current and projected growth of the human population overlying the basin. 3. The number of public supply wells that draw from the basin. 4. The total number of wells that draw from the basin. 5. The irrigated acreage overlying the basin. 6. The degree to which persons overlying the basin rely on groundwater as their primary source of water. 7. Any documented impacts on the groundwater within the basin, including overdraft, subsidence, saline intrusion, and other water quality degradation. 8. Any other information determined to be relevant by the department. 6

8 DWR (2014b) uses a statewide ranking and scale to determine the basins health as shown in (Table 1). Table 1: The California Department of Water Resources groundwater basin priority criteria (DWR 2014b). 25% of California's groundwater basins and subbasins are at a High and Medium priority, while the remaining basins are categorized as Low or Very Low priority, based on data that was collected through the CASGEM program (DWR 2014a). SBX7-6 generated the development of groundwater health standards and produced a list of groundwater basins, which supported progression of the SGMA. 7

9 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Legislative History The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was passed by the California legislative process and signed by governor Jerry Brown on September 16, The statute was implemented in January of 2015, and the legislation timeline is currently being executed on schedule. There are 3 primary bills that the SGMA legislation consists of: SB1168, SB1219, and AB1739. Senator Fran Pavley wrote Senate Bill 1168 and presented it to the senate on February 20, SB1168 is the foundation of the SGMA and it is intended to set up the framework policies for the SGMA legislation. Senator Pavley also wrote Senate Bill 1319 and presented it to the senate on February 24, This bill provides language clarifications and additional information to supplement SB1168. Assembly member Roger Dickenson drafted Assembly Bill 1739 and presented it to the state assembly on February 27, This bill was the portion of the law that details the enforcement aspect of the SGMA (ACWA 2014 and UCD 2014). These three foundational pieces of legislation are all integral sections of the SGMA that set the foundation for groundwater management in the state of California. In September 2015, Governor Jerry Brown signed an additional supplementary statute to the SGMA legislation, Senate Bill 13. The purpose of this new legislation was to clarify amendments and add additional procedural information to the SGMA. Senator Pavley, who drafted most of the SGMA legislation, drafted SB13 as well. It includes more information about groundwater management intervention by the State Water Board if needed, and there are additional guidelines for determining high- and medium- priority basins (Table 1). It clarifies that the State Water Resources Control Board may require reporting from high- and medium- priority basins that are not yet managed by 8

10 a GSA. Under SB13, if there are multiple agencies managing a single basin then all agencies are required to pursue a mutual agreement to designate a primary GSA that will facilitate the GSAs collaboration and bare the management responsibility. SB13 outlines the process for becoming a GSA, the participation guidelines for investor owned and mutual water companies, and mandates GSAs to submit and post a notice if any agreement substantially changes the management plan information (SWRCB 2015) (SB ). SB13 is shaping legislation that supports and propels the SGMA development. Supportive legislation and amendments have helped implement the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act throughout 2015, and legislation that will improve the SGMA will continue to arise as the law is being carried out. This supportive legislation may be any supplementary bills or litigation rulings that attempt to clarify or add necessary components to the statute in efforts to refine the SGMA. Refining legislation will help improve SGMA policies and mold California groundwater laws to be accurately representative of California s human, and environmental needs. As the SGMA evolves, refining legislation that arises will be a defining factor in how California groundwater policy is shaped. The legislation refining process involves much effort from concerned citizens, business owners, corporations, NGO s, and government agencies. Shaping policies must be representative of all stakeholders, and those who are actively engaged in the policy refining process will have much influence on how the SGMA develops. This additional legislation can create policies that will impact California the greatest, so it is important for 9

11 community groups that are affected to be aware of how the SGMA affects them and to seek representation if there are any injustices such as: differences between water restrictions determined by the socioeconomic region, or differences between water cost based on education level. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Regulatory Authorities The SGMA grants the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSA) the regulatory powers needed to sustainably manage groundwater extraction (UCD 2014). Although state and federal agencies will have authority over the groundwater management plans, the SGMA has a central theme of keeping groundwater management local. Local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies will be the primary entities that will develop and implement the sustainable management plans; however, many different organizations will be involved with the implementation of the SGMA. The involvement of research organizations, policy advocates, an array of non- governmental organizations, lobbyists, commerce associations, groundwater consumers, and the public will be essential during the implementation process. According to the SGMA, to have any local management power over any portion of a groundwater basin, the management entity must be a registered GSA (ACWA 2014, SB ). The local water agencies that previously managed the basin can form a GSA to continue to have management power; however, any agency can choose to be a Groundwater Sustainability Agency to manage any part of a groundwater basin. All GSAs 10

12 are required to comply with all SGMA regulations and obligations (ACWA 2014). Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSA) Local GSAs must develop and implement a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for all groundwater basins that have been considered to be medium- to high- priority basins, which is determined by guidelines in SB13 (Table 1). The GSP must encompass a 20- year development plan and carry out the implementation period for transitioning to sustainable management practices. If the GSA fails to progress throughout this 20 year process, they will be put on probation and monitored closely by the DWR. If development plans are not ready by the end of 20 years but the basin s management practices are progressing toward sustainability, then the DWR can allot the GSA extra time to carry out their GSP (UCD 2014). Every GSP must include information about a variety of groundwater management aspects (Table 2). Mandated Groundwater Sustainability Plan Information Historical information Project horizons Aquifer interactions Aquifer system's physical properties A summary of monitoring practices Projected water demands and supplies Demands on the aquifer Land subsidence Surface interaction Descriptive maps All Protocols 5 year milestones to achieve sustainability in 20 years Degradation data Water levels Measurable Objectives Water quality Table 2: Information that must be included in any GSP (ACWA 2014). 11

13 Measurable Objectives are mandated to be in every GSP and are particularly important because it is a mechanism put in place to help the implementation process achieve its goals on time. These Measurable Objectives are detailed goals that are subject to change to improve sustainable production, and must be included in every 5- year milestone report. The GSP should also include a description of other government plans that are applicable to groundwater in any way, and that may affect local groundwater management plans (ACWA 2014). Groundwater Sustainability Agencies have the power to adopt ordinances, regulations, resolutions, and to modify the local GSP for the success of SGMA legislative goals. The local GSA may conduct investigations, require well registration, install well- monitoring devices, and require annual water extraction statements. It will impose regulations, limits, and suspensions to the control and dispersion of groundwater wells, and can also impose fees to effectively implement new management plans. The GSA is also the entity that can request the Department of Water Resources to change groundwater basin boundaries and subbasin boundaries (UCD 2014). The majority of the implementation responsibilities rest on the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies, and the amount of work that the GSAs have to do is extensive. In hopes of dispersing the workload, the SGMA allows more than one GSA to control the management of a single basin. If there are multiple GSAs that are managing a single basin, then management plans need to reflect the priorities of multiple management entities. Although dispersing the groundwater management workload helps with the amount of work that needs to be done, it does create an additional form of management segmentation. To help address fragmentation, the statute allows multiple GSAs to either 12

14 create a single comprehensive management plan or multiple management plans to cover an entire basin. If there are multiple plans for a single basin, all of the plans will be reviewed by the DWR to make sure they work together to reach the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act sustainability goals (ACWA 2014). The GSP should identify information to foster a relationship that will encourage productive development and effective implementation methods. By allocating most of the management responsibilities to local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies, the SGMA reflects the efforts to keep groundwater management local. GSAs have to follow standards and regulations to create sustainable progress; however, there is considerable management freedom to create a unique GSP that best fits local groundwater needs. Granting local entities the power and freedom to manage groundwater sustainably enables local people to get involved, and local involvement will help with the representation of local groundwater needs. California Department of Water Resources (DWR) The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) is responsible for groundwater basin identification and the basin priority classifications, which was largely completed by the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program. The DWR must also give continuous effort to identify all basins in California that are in medium- and high- priority conditions, which will include reevaluation of basins and new basin evaluations (Table 1). The DWR is responsible for basin prioritization and identification; however, it is primarily responsible for the assessment of Groundwater 13

15 Sustainability Agencies, the Groundwater Sustainability Plans, and facilitates compromise between all major stakeholders (ACWA 2014). The DWR acts as a main component of the communication chain that hold GSAs responsible for their mandated duties and reports the SGMA progress to the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The DWR monitors all GSAs progress to make sure they are managing groundwater sustainably, and implementing SGMA accurately in a timely manner; conversely, the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies can use the DWR as a resource for advisory and monetary help on any issues they face. To evaluate the management of a basin or subbasin, the DWR will periodically assess the GSA and the GSP to determine if they are complying, and whether the groundwater management plan is capable of achieving sustainability goals. The DWR has authority to require documentation or services from the GSA and the GSA must report to the DWR. The DWR provides these progress reports to the SWRCB for further review, and these evaluations will be used to determine GSA probation status, funding, and the need for management intervention (Moran and Wendell 2015). The DWR has the power to grant GSAs two five- year extensions upon a good progress report, if needed, beyond the 20- year sustainability deadline. The DWR may also grant one extension after the initial two extensions, if the GSA demonstrates a compelling need for the additional time to complete the implementation of their Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). The DWR is the entity that will report if there is a need to put a GSA on probationary status, and it is the entity that will send officials to intervene with GSA management. The DWR is responsible for making sure the SGMA implementation is 14

16 completed and groundwater sustainability is achieved; additionally, they must monitor and support the GSAs to successfully make progress towards realistic and timely goals (Section of SGMA). California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) The SWRCB is at the top of the SGMA chain of command. The fundamental responsibility of the SWRCB is to ensure that all SGMA plans, procedure, and regulations are being properly followed. The SGMA intends to achieve a supportive hierarchy through an organizational structure where the (SWRCB) utilizes the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to aid and monitor the success of GSAs. The progress and development of Groundwater Sustainability Agencies is reported by the California Department of Water Resources to the State Water Resources Control Board, which ultimately evaluates the overall groundwater management success and decides if corrective action is necessary. The SWRCB is the entity that can put a basin or GSA on probationary status; however, it can only do so after determining that a GSA is not established, or if the current GSA is insufficient. The SWRCB has grounds to put a GSA on probation if a basin is showing undesirable results, which are conditions including chronic groundwater level depletion, seawater intrusion, degraded water quality, land subsidence, and/or interconnected surface water depletion (UCD 2014, Smith and Abhold 2015). The SWRCB will review progress reports, conduct investigations, and consult with the DWR to verify Groundwater Sustainability Agency satisfactory progress and determine the probationary status of all GSAs. 15

17 In the end, each regulatory entity has different roles and different levels of legal power. GSAs have the biggest role in the development and implementation of GSPs, and the SGMA. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) is in charge of the micromanagement of GSAs, and is responsible for the success of all GSP implementation. The SWRCB has regulatory power, and is responsible for holding the DWR and GSAs accountable for their SGMA responsibilities. The SGMA power separation is comparable to the three U.S. branches of government, where the different SGMA management authorities create a check and balance system to help avoid policy mistakes, corruption, and injustices. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Timeline The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) became the first California statewide groundwater management regulation legislation in 2014, and the management plan implementation is scheduled for 20 years. At the end of 20 years, a GSA should be fully developed for each appropriate groundwater basin, and sustainable management practices should be fully put into effect. The goal for achieving sustainable groundwater management is intended for completion within the years of (UCD 2014, ACWA 2014, DWR 2015a, & Smith and Abhold 2015). The SGMA officially went into effect on January 1, By Jan. 31, 2015, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) had to identify the initial priority for each groundwater basin in California, which they did. Senate Bill x7-6 has aided this step by 16

18 previous efforts in recording a foundation groundwater basin list (Water Code ). Throughout 2015, the SGMA started to go into effect and GSAs were mainly being formed. January 1, 2016 was the deadline to have emergency regulations for groundwater basin boundary revisions developed and adopted by the DWR. Management regulations must include the groundwater evaluation methodology and criteria used to recommend any groundwater basin boundary revisions, which includes the establishment of any new basin or subbasins (Water Code ). The plans to have the emergency regulations out by January 2016 was not met; instead, the draft document is expected to be released between February 2016 and the end of March 2016, and the new deadline for the emergency regulations final draft adoption is June 1, 2016(Austin 2016 & DWR 2015b). DWR was scheduled to complete the procedures that will be used for evaluating Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) by the end of January of 2016, and they achieved this goal (Water Code , UCD 2014, DWR 2015b). There are four phases that a GSP must pass to become finalized: scoping, draft discussion papers and informational sessions, draft regulations and public hearings, and proposed regulations and adoption. DWR (2015b) states that scoping is the phase where 10 important basin factors are evaluated and a discussion paper for each topic is generated: Topic 1 - Pre- SGMA Conditions and Undesirable Results, Topic 2 - Measureable Objectives and Interim Milestones, Topic 3 - Land Use and County Involvement, Topic 4 - Alternative GSP Submittals, Topic 5 - Boundaries Overlapping and Unmonitored Areas, Topic 6 - Intra- Basin Coordination Agreements, 17

19 Topic 7 - Water Budgets and Coordination, Topic 8 - State Agency Coordination, Topic 9 - Data Collection, Management, and Reporting, and Topic 10 - Adaptive Management and Focus Areas In phase 2, draft discussion papers and informational sessions, the GSA must hold 3 outreach informational sessions to present all 10- discussion papers to the public. In phase 3, draft regulations and public hearings, the GSA must hold 3 public hearings where local stakeholders can offer their input. In the last phase, regulations and adoption, the GSP is reviewed a final time and adopted (DWR 2015b). The DWR is responsible for publishing an estimate of water available for groundwater replenishment by the end of 2016 (Water Code 10729). By Jan. 1, 2017, the DWR must publish best management practices for sustainable groundwater management (Water Code 10729). All GSAs that are seeking to include any management method that is not in the state s groundwater sustainability management plan, must have a proposal to do so submitted to the DWR by January 1 st 2017 (UCD 2014). June 30, 2017 is the deadline to establish a GSA for any Medium- or high- priority basin (Water Code 10724, ). After June 2017, if there is no local GSA entity sustainably managing the whole basin, or if there is not an alternative plan, the basin will be put on probationary status by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the groundwater management will be taken control of by the DWR (Water Code ). All groundwater extractions from a basin outside of a GSAs management, or from a probationary basin, must be reported to the SWRCB by July 1, 2017 (Water Code 5202, 18

20 10724, & UCD 2014). By January 31, 2020 any basin that is designated high- or medium- priority must be managed under one or multiple GSPs. The State Water Resources Control Board can deem probationary status to a part or whole basin, if the GSP is insufficient or contains faulty methodology. After January 2020, if a high or medium priority basin does not have a GSP, then the State Water Resources Control Board will conclude that the Groundwater Sustainability Agency is unsatisfactory and put the basin on probationary status (Water Code ). A GSA has 180 days to fix the issues designated by the DWR, and if the GSA does not respond to the notice there will be state intervention and management plans will be moved forward by the DWR. The DWR will assume responsibility over the probationary basin to formulate a GSA and a GSP (DWR 2015a). Between January , after the GSAs have submitted all GSPs, the DWR must have all GSPs evaluated and have analysis back to the GSA within 2 years. In January of 2025, there will be an evaluation of how nearby surface water is impacted by the Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSP) management practices. If there is significant depletion or pollution and the GSP implementation is unsatisfactory, then the GSA will be put on probation and monitored heavily (Water Code 10735). By January 31, , all groundwater management sustainability goals should be achieved (Figure 1)(DWR 2015a). There will be five- year incremental GSA progress reports that include Measurable Objectives and milestones, and are pivotal to achieving sustainable 19

21 groundwater management in 20 years (Water Code & ACWA 2014). The ability to change the SGMA plan and timeline to improve or solve problems is reflective of adaptive management, which a management approach that encourages change in order to adapt for problem solving. Regional issues and specific basin situations differ greatly, and these unique features will dictate the length of time in which sustainable groundwater management can be reached. For some regions it may be simple and relatively quick for GSAs to adopt new groundwater management practices whereas, in other regions, it could be much more difficult and lengthy for a GSA to change management practices. As the legislation is implemented, case studies will arise from public policy centers, state centers, and court rulings to serve as management examples that will help shape sustainable groundwater management best practices. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) timeline is relatively vague and general, but it is not the only form of California groundwater management deadlines. Individual GSAs will have unique deadlines, and additional statewide deadlines are likely to arise as the implementation process proceeds. The SGMA s hard deadlines will be accompanied by GSA progress reports, reviews, and each GSP will have measurable objectives that contain multiple deadlines to help the SGMA implementation stay on schedule. Analysis of the SGMA Timeline and Fragmentation Despite the essential need for the SGMA legislation in California, there are some major criticisms of the SGMA. According to the SGMA timeline, groundwater 20

22 sustainability will be reached by 2040 at the earliest, and one critique is that the law will not be able to protect groundwater resources before it is depleted (Moran and Wendell 2015). Another criticism of the SGMA is that the statute will have issues resulting from the fragmentation of groundwater management agencies. Approximately 2,300 local agencies are involved in the management of groundwater in California, and it is apparent that fragmentation is already a problem (Nelson 2012). The SGMA timeline constraints and fragmentation of management powers are two issues that the SGMA faces; however, within the legislation there are components that attempt to proactively minimize these potential problems and they will be discussed throughout this analysis. Analysis of Time One civic concern is that the groundwater conditions will worsen, and the water levels will reach catastrophically low levels before any policies outlined in the SGMA are successfully implemented (Moran and Wendell 2015). The uncertainty of climate change and the possibility of an extreme drought in California is an ongoing concern for policy makers and individuals. The SGMA timeline provides a realistic time period for deadlines reflected by mandated incremental progress reports, and shows the urgency to achieve a major groundwater management shift from frivolously over extracting groundwater to extracting groundwater sustainably. The DWR, GSAs, and the SWRCB must work together to carry out the SGMA promptly and successfully. Timeline complications occur for numerous reasons, and adaptive management can help resolve time constraint issues that arise. Processing paperwork and permitting complications can commonly contribute to avoidable delays. Also, as long as 21

23 California law does not require groundwater consumption reporting there will be little incentive for reporting timely or accurate measurements. These two management issues could delay the groundwater data collection process and prolong the SGMA development significantly; however, they can be avoided with preventive action (Aladjem and Sunding 2015). As the SGMA development process is being carried out, timely problem solving and adaptive management approaches will be needed by all managing parties to uphold the legislation timeline. Adaptive management is an approach that encourages change, if needed, to solve problems and because each GSA will have different issues with groundwater management, change from the unified state management plans will most likely be needed. Policy adaptation will help customize best management practices for each basin, and will help achieve the best outcomes (Moran and Wendell 2015). The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) has some preventative mechanisms in place that could decrease delays and keep GSA s progress on track. Mandated groundwater health progress reports are required of the GSAs by the SGMA. All of the basin s water sources must be assessed to monitor the health of the basin s watershed, so issues within the watershed can be identified and controlled before groundwater depletion occurs. Mandated Measurable Objectives are intended to help GSAs set realistic sustainability goals and support efforts to achieve these goals in a timely mater by requiring objectives at many different stages of development. The Measurable Objectives should have clear a background, establish starting points and ending goals to help increase transparency of the SGMA timeline, and to help avoid time delaying issues (Moran and Wendell 2015). The SGMA legislation attempts to address timeline concerns with Measurable Objectives that provide incremented goals, which nurture adaptive 22

24 problem solving, and as time passes the SGMA progression will be revealed. Each Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) will have to cope with local basin conditions distinctive to each basin and give tailored efforts to alternate groundwater management practices, which will dictate a unique timeline. Creating an economic market for groundwater could help incentivize timely development. An economic market for California groundwater would create an economic value for groundwater use, and account for groundwater extraction externalities. Groundwater extraction directly takes from the common pool of resources and policy should reflect this opportunity cost. Creating an economic groundwater market would incentivize development of the most efficient groundwater technologies and the most efficient technology would naturally drive the market. Once the most efficient and sustainable groundwater extraction method is identified, the market will reach equilibrium and all GSAs will need to operate at the maximum efficiency and sustainability level to succeed because of market competition (Aladjem and Sunding 2015). SGMA law does not mandate an economic market, but there are aspects of the statute that enable the development of an economic market for groundwater. It is necessary for groundwater consumption monitoring, costs, and limits to be strictly enforced for an economic market approach to be successful. GSAs have the ability to monitor, apply fees, and apply restrictions to groundwater extractions, which could create a monetary value for groundwater and in turn an economic market (Aladjem and Sunding 2015). Creating a monetary value for groundwater will hold water users responsible for how much water they consume, and promote conservation. This approach will 23

25 encourage the development of sustainable groundwater technologies and will support development of the SGMA goals considerably. Sustainable allocation of groundwater is fundamental to the SGMA and the health of California, and an economic market approach presents a market with the power to allocate groundwater; therefore, it would be useful to empower an economic market model to sustainably manage groundwater. Analysis of Fragmentation Natural hydrologic and geographic aspects of groundwater and the SGMA segmented powers pose management fragmentation hardships. Considering the magnitude and geography of groundwater aquifers it would be extremely difficult for one organization to manage the entire state s groundwater resources with efficiency, and successfully represent all communities that rely on groundwater. The SGMA disperses groundwater management power to Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSA), the California Department Water Resources (DWR), and the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to help with management issues due to the magnitude of groundwater resources, and to achieve comprehensive representations of local needs. Local representation and efficiency is vital to reaching groundwater sustainability, and the fragmentation of power has several positives as well as negatives. Local agencies have the ability to capture the needs of the communities that rely on groundwater, they can deal with arising issues faster, and the separation ensures that not one agency has power over all groundwater in California. Problem areas that can arise from a segmented management system include: insufficient organization and planning, missing information, regulation contradictions, workload duplication, and the tendency to ignore 24

26 the big- picture goals. There could also be a power struggle between governmental and non- governmental entities (Megdal et al. 2014). The negatives can create problem areas and timeline delays, but they can also be avoided with efficient policies and practices to help the positive outcomes be effective. Groundwater fragmentation presents all GSAs with difficulties in meeting their goals, but the SGMA uses preventative policies to minimize negative outcomes and helping GSAs achieve their goals. Avoiding further fragmentation of groundwater management powers will increase the potential for success because it will avoid adding any additional room for communication errors, paperwork errors, workload errors, and avoiding wasting efforts development unneeded agencies. Statewide and local agency efforts are needed to have effective communication, and to ensure Groundwater Sustainability Agencies have the ability to advance their GSPs. Non- governmental organizations and the GSAs will create location specific management plans that make sustainable groundwater management realistic, and higher governmental organizations will help GSAs include California statewide goals and promote proper communication (Megdal et al. 2014). The GSA status reports are mandated to ensure the basic level of information communication, and for every GSP there must be information sharing protocols to maximize efficient communication. Having a DWR and SWRCB representative within the GSA can also help decrease fragmentation issues (Moran and Wendell 2015). Issues that derive from fragmentation of powers are likely to arise throughout the implementation of the SGMA; however, efforts to decrease these issues will be ongoing throughout the continuation of the SGMA. 25

27 The DWR and SWRCB will guide GSAs development and try to decrease fragmentation of management practices through funding opportunities that offer direction with funding requirements. Identifying GSAs that are doing well could allow the state to provide more resources for them to support further sustainable development (Moran and Wendell 2015). Funding offers incentive to achieve a common goal, effective communication, and can provide resources that will improve organization. Using funding to decrease fragmentation issues such as, diverted goals and lack of communication is a useful strategy present in the SGMA. Conclusion The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) has propelled California groundwater legislation forward for the first time, and the statute has become a platform for the protection of California s groundwater. Groundwater conservation and sustainable management in California greatly relies on the success of this legislation. The SGMA Measurable Objectives will be an important adaptive characteristic in achieving groundwater sustainability. These objectives divide the SGMA development process into 5- year periods to nurture adaptation and success; additionally, they are meant to help avoid any issues that are foreseeable through goal planning and incremental progress reports. In these objectives, quantitative standards and thresholds will be established to help groundwater monitoring and management adaptation. Adaptive management will encourage change to solve groundwater complications, and protective measures will help prevent groundwater health from exceeding thresholds. 26

28 The SGMA s management plans account for uncertainties to use proactively in monitoring groundwater health, and allows for management adaptation to occur from the data. This allows GSAs to identify issues through monitoring data and control developing issues before there is any destruction opposed to traditional management where adaptation occurs when a catastrophe occurs (Smith and Abhold 2015). The proactive aspects of the SGMA are meant to cultivate success by decreasing complications and advance sustainable development. Research, litigation, and amendments to the SGMA legislation are ways to help shape the future SGMA legislation to reach groundwater sustainability successfully (Moran and Wendell 2015 & Howitt 2015). Optimism about the SGMA regulations and water conservation promotion can help aid the SGMA manage groundwater sustainably. Water conservation can assist the SGMA in addressing California s water allocation issues. Since conserving water is the best way to avoid drought and water usages of individuals accumulate into an impacting amount, individuals can help avoid drought by conserving water in any way. Creating social awareness by displaying water availability, issues that stem from water shortage, and providing education on water policy can be helpful in enlightening people so they are able to conserve water. Spreading awareness about the status of water can help create new norms where water is valued more and wasted less. 27

29 Jan 1, 2015 Local Agencies may no longer adopt or update GMPs for high and medium priority basins. Water Code Jan 31, 2015 * DWR releases initial basin prioritization. ** Water Code * subject to critical conditions of overdraft. Water Code 12924(a) Jan 1, 2016 DWR adopts regulations to revise basin boundaries. Water Code (b) Apr 1, 2016 and begin submitting annual reports to DWR. Water Code (f) Jun 1, 2016 DWR adopts regulations for evaluating and implementing GSPs and coordination agreements and DWR adopts regulations for evaluating alternatives to GSPs. Water Code Dec 31, 2016 * DWR publishes report on water available for groundwater replenishment. Water Code 10729(c) 2017 DWR publishes Bulletin 118- Interim Update with updated Basin Boundaries, updated Basin Prioritization, and reissues (as needed) basins subject to critical conditions of overdraft. Jan 1, 2017 * DWR publishes BMPs for sustainable management of groundwater. Water Code 10729(d) Jan 1, 2017 Alternative to a GSP due to DWR. Water Code Jun 30, 2017 Establish GSAs (or equivalent) for all high and medium priority basins. Water Code (a) Jul 1, 2017 as GSA if no GSA has been established. Water Code 10724(b) Groundwater Legislation Timeline 2020 DWR publishes Bulletin 118- Comprehensive Update. Water Code Jan 31, 2020 subject to critical conditions of overdraft must be managed under a GSP. Water Code (a)(1) On April 1 following GSP adoption and annually thereafter, GSAs provide report on progress towards sustainability to DWR. Water Code Jan 31, 2022 All other high and medium priority basins must be managed under a GSP. Water Code (a)(2) On April 1 following GSP adoption and annually thereafter, GSAs provide report on progress towards sustainability to DWR. Water Code Jun 30, 2017 Jan 31, 2020 Jan 2021 Jan 31, 2022 GMP GSA GSP BMPs Water Board Action DWR Action Joint Water Board and DWR Action Local Action Groundwater Management Plan Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan Best Management Practices Board may hold a hearing to designate approved alternative is not established. Water Code (a)(1) Elements to be documented in Bulletin 118 Updates * Basin prioritization will be updated prior to each ** Bulletin 118 Update (estimated to be every 5 years) Jul 1, 2017 Board adopts a fee Water Code Dec 15, 2017 Board begins collection of annual reports from persons extracting more than two acre feet per year from areas not managed by a GSA. Water Code 5202 Board may hold a hearing to designate a critically-overdrafted basin as the Board, determines that the GSP is inadequate or will not achieve sustainability. Water Code (a)(3) Jan 1, 2018 Board may begin to develop interim plans if a local agency has not status. The Board consults with DWR. Water Code (c) Probationary basins may petition for un-designation. The Board consults with DWR to determine if the petition is complete. The Board acts on the petition within 90 days of submittal. Water Code (g)(2) Board may begin developing interim plans for critically overdrafted the probationary designation, if the Board, in consultation with the DWR, determines that a local agency has resulted in the probationary status. Water Code (b) Board may hold a hearing to designate a high and medium priority basin as the Board, determines that the GSP is inadequate or will not achieve sustainability. Water Code (a)(5)(A) Jan 31, 2025 Board may designate a basin as with the Board, determines that the GSP is inadequate or not being implemented correctly, and the Board determines that the basin is in a condition where groundwater interconnected surface waters. Water Code (a)(5)(B) December 2014 Figure 1: The SGMA timeline (DWR 2015c). 28

30 References ACWA (2014) Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of Association of California Water Agencies. DWR. Retrieved from: achieving- groundwater- sustainability Aladjem, D., and Sunding, D. (2015) Marketing the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: applying economics to solve California s groundwater problems. Natural Resources & Environment 30: 1-4. Austin, C. (2016) Sustsainable Groundwater Management Update: Groundwater Sustainability Plan Regulations. Maven s Notebook. Retrieved from: groundwater- management- update- groundwater- sustainability- plan- regulations/ California water code, California Code , 10722, 10724, 10729, , 10729, 5202 (1943) DWR (2014a) Final California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring CASGEM Basin Prioritization Results. California Department of Water Resources. Retrieved from: DWR (2014b) California Groundwater Monitoring Basin Prioritization Process. California Department of Water Resources. Retrieved from: ization_ pdf DWR (2015a) Progress Report: Subsidence in the Central Valley, California. A report prepared for the Department of Water Resources by NASA s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. California Department of Water Resources. Retrieved from: DWR (2015b) Groundwater Sustainability Plan Regulations. California Department of Water Resources. Retrieved from: DWR (2015c) Groundwater Legislation Timeline. California Department of Water Resources. Retrieved from: e_dwr_draft6.pdf EPA (2015) Summary of the Clean Water Act (1972). Retrieved from: regulations/summary- clean- water- act 29

31 Howitt, R., D. MacEwan, J. Medellin- Azuara, J. R. Lund, and D. A. Summer. (2015). Economic Analysis of the 2015 Drought For California Agriculture. Center for Watershed Science, University of California, Davis, CA. Available at: Full_Report_WithAppendices.pdf ICCP (2014). Assessment Reports. Chapter 15. North America. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved from: Megdal, S. B., Gerlak, A. K., Varady, R. G., and Huang, L. (2014) Groundwater governance in the United States: common priorities and challenges. National Ground Water Association: doi: /gwat Moran, T., and Wendell, D. (2015) The sustainable groundwater management act of 2014: challenges and opportunities for implementation. Water in the west. Stanford University. Retrieved from: Nelson, R.L. (2012). Assessing local planning to control groundwater depletion: California as a microcosm of global issues. Water Resources Research, 48: doi: /2011WR UCD - University of California Davis (2014) The 2014 sustainable groundwater management act: A handbook to Understanding and implementing the law. Water Education Foundation. Available at: Senate Bill 13 (2015) SB- 13 Groundwater. California Legislative Information (2015) Retreived from: SGMA. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act [SB1168 (Pavley), AB1739 (Dickinson), and SB1319 (Pavley)] (2014). Smith, C. J., and Abhold, K. (2015) Measuring What Matters: setting measurable objectives to achieve sustainable groundwater management in California. Union of concerned scientists. Available at: SWRCB (2015) The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. State Water Resources Control Board. Retrieved from: 30