SGMA Explainer

 

Description

In 1914, California created the regulatory structure that determines how surface water is stored and diverted. However, groundwater, unseen and unmeasured, was not regulated until a century later. During that time, aquifers were contaminated and pumped dry, causing severe impacts to communities and infrastructure.

Californians obtain their water from two main sources: reservoirs that impound river flows and precipitation – including snowmelt – and groundwater. But while surface water supplies are both highly regulated and broadly understood by ratepayers, groundwater has remained something of a mystery – even to people who depend on it for home use. Regulation has been ad hoc at best and nonexistent at worst, with severe consequences accumulating over the past two decades – most notably, accelerating aquifer overdraft and massive ground subsidence.

State legislators and policy makers are attempting to grapple with the issue. Passed by the California legislature and signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown in 2014, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) is the first serious attempt by state lawmakers to address the rapid depletion of California’s groundwater resources. The law is designed to achieve a sustainable equilibrium between pumping and recharge in the state’s aquifers by 2042.

While the State retains ultimate authority over groundwater resources – particularly when disputes are involved – SGMA invests primary groundwater oversight in local groundwater management agencies, known as Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs). Over 260 GSAs were formed after the passage of SGMA.[1] GSAs are required to develop and submit groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) for review and approval. If DWR determines that a GSP does not meet legal requirements, it can reject it and direct the GSA to revise the plan. If the revised plan is still inadequate, DWR can refer the GSA to the State Water Board for enforcement, which can result in state control over the groundwater basin, including well monitoring, management fees, and restrictions on pumping. To date, six GSPs have been found inadequate and two GSAs have been placed on probation for failing to comply with SGMA.[2] The common failures include lack of protections for drinking water wells, insufficient reductions in pumping, and lack of monitoring of groundwater levels and contaminants.

Background

Given that California is semi-arid and subject to periodic devastating droughts, groundwater has long played a critical role in the state’s agricultural and community sectors, supplying between 40 and 60 percent of total irrigation water.[3] It is both a primary and emergency water source for crops, particularly in the Central Valley. Many communities also rely on groundwater to supply both commercial enterprises and residential properties, including domestic wells. Until SGMA, groundwater extraction was wholly unregulated in California, with dire overdrafting occurring and accelerating in multiple basins, most notably in the San Joaquin Valley, the Central Coast, and Southern California. In some locations, land subsidence caused by groundwater pumping damaged major infrastructure, including roads, bridges, and surface water delivery canals.[4] By 2016, 21 groundwater basins were determined to be in “critical overdraft” (COD) status by DWR. Under SGMA, these COD basins are required to achieve sustainability two years sooner than other impacted basins – 2040 rather than 2042.

Effectiveness

The reviews on SGMA’s effectiveness are mixed. Positive developments include:

  • Enhanced Public Awareness of the Importance of Groundwater

Prior to SGMA’s passage, aquifer overdraft barely registered with California’s residents. The local sustainable groundwater agencies and state oversight authorized by the Act have helped focus public attention on groundwater challenges.

  • Improved Data on California’s Imperiled Groundwater Resources

The analysis and monitoring of groundwater basins required by SGMA have led to greatly improved understanding of their status, connection to surface water resources, and the state’s general hydrological dynamics. 

  • Codifying Remediation for Overdrafted Basins

Although the compliance process for fixing inadequate GSPs is lengthy, it ultimately allows the state to mandate pumping reductions for public health and sustainability if necessary.

  • Broad Community Input

The Act provides avenues for participation among a wide range of stakeholders, including tribes, environmentalists, farmers and ranchers, and local communities.


SGMA also faces challenges, including:

  • Failure to Prioritize the Human Right to Water

Small communities where people rely on groundwater for their drinking water are particularly vulnerable to untreated contaminants and over pumping that results in dry wells. Although the state has initiated enforcement against a few GSAs that are antagonistic to ensuring safe and accessible drinking water, there are many other communities where contaminated sources and supply insecurity during droughts are still major impediments to daily life.

  • Uneven Enforcement

Some groundwater sustainability agencies have been remiss in monitoring groundwater pumping or curtailing overdrafting, but the state has initiated enforcement only in the most egregious cases.

  • Problematic Application

SGMA has proven rather unwieldy in implementation. This is due in part to the architecture of the enabling legislation and the complexities implicit in the coordinated management of multiple groundwater basins with different characteristics, stakeholder groups, and local priorities.

  • Geophysical Realities

Accelerating climate change and the longer, deeper droughts associated with it are challenging SGMA’s efficacy in addressing California’s groundwater deficits. Stronger regulation may well be necessary to avoid catastrophe.

  • Contaminant Mobilization

Groundwater sustainability agencies can inadvertently contaminate aquifers through improper recharge procedures. Site and hydrological conditions must be carefully considered to avoid introducing pollutants into groundwater basins.

  • Underrepresentation of Vulnerable Communities

Tribes, disadvantaged communities and domestic well owners are underrepresented in many groundwater sustainability agencies. Outreach to these groups typically is minimal or nonexistent.

  • Improper Interpretation by Powerful Water Agencies

Some regional water agencies have used the Act to justify seizure of groundwater resources by claiming recharging efforts constitute authority over the affected aquifers.


Conclusion

SGMA was an important first step in ameliorating California’s groundwater crisis, but its deficiencies require redress. The Act must be amended to accommodate excluded stakeholders, enforce compliance among sustainable groundwater agencies, and ensure goals are achieved through comprehensive oversight. Enhanced funding for aquifer monitoring and stakeholder participation is also essential.

For further reading, we recommend:

https://www.communitywatercenter.org/sgma

https://www.watertalkpodcast.com/episodes/episode-17

https://environmentalpolicy.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk6866/files/files/person/Final%20Report%20-%20English.pdf

 
C-WIN