PUB00052 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Groundwater Management While local officials and groundwater users have been reluctant to let state authorities take a larger role in groundwater management, the onus is increasing on local authorities to take steps to protect the quality and quantity at aquifers. Partnerships are being formed among water users in different parts of the state to conjunctively use ground- water and surface water and take advantage of water marketing opportunities, much of it sparked by AS 3030. , ~ ~ 0:..0:... -=- -.. - .c. AS 3030 wenf info effect January 1993. The bill was developed, in part, after EPA pressured states to develop groundwater management plans. EPA was concerned that the existing fragmented approach did not protect groundwater quality. In 1991, a strategy was proposed that would have allowed for federal over- sight of comprehensive state groundwater management plans. The state management plans would have set priorities and established programs intended to coordinate and expand government efforts to protect groundwater quality. AS 3030 instead provides for voluntary action by local agencies. Under the law, local agencies can develop a groundwater manage- ment plan to address local problems such as sea water intrusion, over- draft, wellhead contamination and mitigation for contaminated ground- water. The local districts cannot impose binding water rights on pumpers. But after holding an election, the agencies can impose fees on pumping. Except in basins facing critical overdraft, AS 3030 does not provide for limitations on domestic pumping for single-unit homes. Historically, marshes formed It'here Ca/~rornia 's groundwater mul sutj"ace water systems met. Modem-day management efforts aim to recreate this link through artificial recharge ponds, above. About the same time some local communities started to implement AS 3030, the ability of counties to go beyond imposing fees and imposing limits came to the tore. In 1992 two Sacramento Valley farmers bought two 5-acre parcels of land alongside the federal Tehama-Colusa Canal in Tehama County. They constructed wells with the intent of pumping water into the canal for distribution to farming operations downstream in Glenn and Colusa counties. The Tehama County Board of Supervisors, citing the county's police powers to protect people 18 and property, passed ordinances prohibiting ground- water "mining" without a permit and prohibiting any wells drilled after 1991 from influencing the ground- water beyond the property lines of the parcel. The would-be pumpers sued the county, arguing the board of supervisors exceeded their authority by limiting groundwater pumping. The Superior Court agreed, and the county appealed. The Third Disfrict Court of Appeal, in its review of Baldwin v. County of Tehama, found in 1994 that state law does not preclude counties from regulating groundwater. The appellate court dismissed arguments that local governments could not pass groundwater ordinances because special districts could be created fo do so. lt also dismissed arguments that the ordinance conflicted with a state law allowing water to be transferred between basins, and that AS 3030 dictated how local groundwater management should be conducted. Instead, the court reasoned that AS 3030 was one avenue, consistent with other state policies, for managing groundwater at the local level. The case solidified the ability of local governments to manage groundwater, but raised the issue of how local is local. Local governments already had authority to conduct limited groundwater manage- ment activities as part of the general plan process and land-use authorities. Water districts do nol have police powers, but can be the agent for enacting AS 3030 groundwater management plans. County governments have some ability to regulate ground- water, but have little control over water districts. Those issues hint at possible conflicts, but also hold potential for local governments and water districts to collaboratively use authorities to develop compre- hensive management strategies. In 1995, a group of water experts representing the entire spectrum of interests was impaneled by the nonprofit California Assembly Process to review California's groundwater management. A majority of the participants agreed that AS 3030 was not likely to provide the comprehensive management that may ullimately be needed to protect aquifers from depletion and degradation, saying that mounting pressure on the state's waler supplies will cause a water market to emerge and urban areas to increase their focus on local groundwater development, conservation and conjunctive use. The state, in turn, will eventually strengthen the framework for groundwater management, which, along with money for water transfers, reduced per capita demand and regulation, will force competing stakeholders to compromise.