Monthly Archive: October 2016

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. What do you need to know?

In November 2014, the Governor of California signed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), 100 years after the passing the Water Commission Act of 1914 establishing Calif5c-groundwater-3ornia’s surface water rights system.  Effective January 1, 2015, SGMA establishes a new structure for sustaining groundwater and, for the first time, attempts to comprehensively manage groundwater use in California outside of the legal courts. While the ultimate goal of SGMA is clear, the legislation itself included a timetable for implementation, along with a mixed bag of useful tools for sustainable groundwater management and conflicting directions which have the potential to stymie implementation.

SGMA requires the development and implementation of groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) for medium- and high-priority alluvial groundwater basins (see list of applicable basins here: The GSPs must contain measurable objectives and actions to bring a groundwater basin into, or maintain, sustainability within 20 years of GSP implementation without causing undesirable results. SGMA also requires the establishment of groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) to oversee development and implementation of GSPs, and provides authority to GSAs to sustainably manage groundwater.

The timeline for SGMA is prescriptive, with established deadlines for GSAs and GSPs:

If these deadlines are not met, the State has the authority to intervene. GSAs are responsible for developing and implementing GSPs, and together must cover the entirety of the groundwater basin. At the same time, there may not be overlaps between each GSA. The State Water Resources Control Board may deem basins as “probationary” if GSAs within the basin do not meet applicable standards for basin coverage and overlaps. Agencies may want to keep track of entities that have filed to become a GSA within their basin as a way to monitor potential overlaps.  An up-to-date table of those who have filed to be an exclusive GSA can be found here:

Regulations for GSPs are now available, which provide guidance for GSP development; however, regulations for GSP implementation are still being prepared ( There are multiple steps to GSP development, including, but not limited to:

  • Data collection and analysis
  • Water budget development
  • Alternatives development for programs and management actions to achieve sustainability
  • Monitoring for parameters such as groundwater elevations, water quality, and subsidence
  • Outreach to stakeholders
  • Financing plan development

One of the first questions that GSAs are grappling with is how the work will be paid for. The answer, unfortunately, is not a simple one. One option would be to apply for grant funding that will be available from the Department of Water Resources (DWR); information on the funding program is available here: Approximately $90 million will be available on a statewide, competitive basis, for projects that develop and implement sustainable groundwater planning and projects. However, given the amount of demand for this money, GSAs will need to consider additional funding sources. A second funding option is to collect money from agencies that are involved in the GSA or GSP development. Depending upon the way in which GSAs are formed and the area covered by the GSA(s), agencies can potentially share the costs associated with developing the GSP. A third funding option is to implement new funding streams via a pumping tax, replenishment fee, or other long-term funding mechanism. This third option must be implemented carefully, with agencies making sure to complete proper noticing and due diligence to ensure compliance with Proposition 218 and other legal requirements.

While GSP development may take several years to complete, the GSP itself is just a starting point. After GSPs are completed, GSAs will embark on implementation, employing a variety of projects and programs to achieve their sustainability goals. Once the selected management actions and projects are implemented, GSAs will need to review the results, and will likely need to adjust their GSPs accordingly. In this sense, GSAs should view the GSP as a long-term plan for adaptive management which will help each basin reach its sustainability goals. Implementation is a long-term event that will be a challenging process for many GSAs, involving:

  • Obtaining buy-in on GSP programs and actions (thereby avoiding lawsuits)
  • Completing ongoing monitoring for compliance and to fill data gaps
  • Enforcing new rules, ordinances and programs
  • Completing adaptive management

Given that implementation has the ability to impact the groundwater users within each basin,
GSAs must also ensure that the GSP development and implementation processes are conducted with stakeholder involvement. Including stakeholders in an open and transparent process will help to secure stakeholder buy-in, and reduce conflicts that may otherwise result in lawsuits or other challenges that could delay SGMA compliance. Agencies may find efficiencies in stakeholder involvement by engaging with existing stakeholder processes, such as the Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) framework, to reach out to established groups of stakeholders with an interest in water management. You can find out more information about the IRWM Program in your region by contacting the applicable planning region lead:

In general, there will be many variables and challenges faced by GSAs to comply with provisions of SGMA. To ensure success, agencies must take a proactive approach to acquiring funding, developing and implementing GSPs, and achieving stakeholder buy-in. Finally, as regulators in California continue to develop regulations that clarify how SGMA compliance will be tracked and measured, GSAs must keep abreast of these changes so that compliance can be maintained.  Interested entities can sign up for DWR’s Sustainable Groundwater Management email list to receive regular updates and information pertaining to SGMA:

Leslie Dumas, P.E., D.WRE

Communication is Key to Successful Outfall Relocation and NPDES Permitting

In 2014-2015, RMC worked with both the Novato Sanitary District and the State Coastal Conservancy to obtain Regional Water Quality Control Board approval to relocate the District’s outfall about 1.2 miles inland to a restored marsh adjacent to the Hamilton Wetlands Restoration Project. The outfall’s new location provides year-round freshwater flows to help sustain the brackish marsh habitat. We also provided full regulatory assistance for reissuance of the 2015 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the District’s 7.0-MGD secondary wastewater treatment plant.

hamiltonwetlandsv2RMC began the work by leading coordination activities with Regional Water Quality Control Board staff to verify the regulatory approach for supporting the outfall relocation. We then completed four important water quality studies:

  1. Dilution Analysis of the Proposed Discharge. The District’s previous NPDES permit included dilution credits for specific water quality parameters. RMC investigated the applicability of these dilution credits with the new outfall. Through modeling, conducted with the assistance of modeling subconsultant RMA of Davis, California, we analyzed hydrodynamics and water quality in the San Pablo Bay to evaluate potential dilution of the proposed discharge. We performed tracer analyses to define site contours for varying dilution factors.
  2. Mixing Zone Analysis. For the Regional Water Quality Control Board to allow dilution credits, the State Implementation Policy (SIP) dictates that certain mixing zone conditions be met. RMC prepared a detailed mixing zone analysis by evaluating effluent and receiving water data to determine the relevant parameters, using the effluent data to determine the smallest practicable mixing zones, and analyzing the SIP mixing zone conditions.
  3. Antidegradation Analysis. The relocated outfall must comply with federal and state antidegradation policies, which define different “tiers” according to water quality and/or impairment. To demonstrate compliance, RMC collected, analyzed, and compiled extensive water quality data. We then quantitatively evaluated the incremental water quality impacts of a year-round discharge from the treatment plant to the marsh by studying effluent and receiving water concentrations for numerous pollutants, as well as estimating pollutant loads from wastewater treatment plants throughout the Bay Area. RMC also identified specific environmental and socioeconomic benefits of the project, and used the tiers to determine compliance with the antidegradation policy. Our analysis showed that the receiving water is expected to continue to meet water quality objectives and protect beneficial uses after the outfall is relocated.
  4. Justification for Shallow Water Discharge. The San Francisco Bay Basin Plan specifically prohibits point source discharges that achieve an initial dilution of less than 10:1 with few exceptions. To justify continued exception to this prohibition for the new outfall, RMC developed a document that shows how achieving a dilution greater than 10:1 would be an inordinate burden, describes the District’s active water recycling program, and presents the specific net environmental benefits of the proposed marsh.

As these four water quality studies were being performed, RMC was also intricately engaged in the District’s NPDES permit reissuance process. We completed multiple federal and state forms, maps, and schematics and documented District improvements. RMC collected, compiled, and reviewed several years of plant influent, effluent, biosolids, and receiving water monitoring data to complete the 2014 permit renewal application—also known as the Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD). Using this data, our team performed a reasonable potential analysis (RPA) for the District’s effluent to identify constituents needing effluent limits and calculated anticipated final effluent limits. Because there are different ways to interpret language in state and regional regulations, we conducted sensitivity analyses with the RPA to determine the most appropriate regulatory scenario for the District.

Throughout the efforts, RMC kept the communication lines open among the District, the State Coastal Conservancy, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. We also kept a close eye on upcoming regulatory initiatives (e.g., statewide toxicity policy) and several other NPDES permit renewals that could set precedent for new permit requirements.

After submittal of the ROWD with the water quality studies in September 2014, RMC continued to assist the District with NPDES permit negotiations. Our staff performed in-depth reviews of both the administrative draft permit and public draft permit (i.e., tentative order), prepared detailed comments in both instances to submit to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and actively engaged in discussions with the three entities about the permit. RMC’s proactive communication and thorough analysis and documentation led to a successful permit adoption in July 2015.

Jennie Pang – Environmental Engineer