The Exclusivity of Inclusion: Involving Environmental Justice Communities in California’s Central Valley in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

Shampa Panda, JD ’16, Berkeley Law, is a law clerk with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, soon to join the Honors Program at the U.S. Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division. Her article won the 2017 California Water Law Writing Prize, sponsored by the California Water Law Symposium and McGeorge School of Law. Ms. Panda’s article was written in 2016 and updated in 2018. Although information related to SGMA implementation changes quickly and additional GSAs have since offered Spanish versions of key documents, the Journal is proud to offer this article which skillfully frames important issues related to public agency governance, water, and communications with California’s diverse communities.   

Shampa A. Panda¹

California was one of the first states to codify the principle of environmental justice (“EJ”),² which state law defines as “the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.”³ Historically, activism in the EJ field has focused on the siting of hazardous facilities such as landfills in poor communities of color, and on efforts to mitigate the associated pollution burden and health effects.⁴ However, procedural justice, which one researcher defines as the “fairness of the process by which goods are allocated and decisions made,”⁵ is also an important component of EJ activism.⁶ This is because exclusion from the decision-making process exacerbates how already marginalized groups access environmental resources.⁷ Core tenets of procedural justice include ensuring that EJ communities have the legal and technical resources they need to understand and fully participate in complex environmental issues⁸, an especially salient consideration when navigating the regulatory maze of groundwater management in California.⁹

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was enacted into law in 2014, with an effective date of January 1, 2015.¹⁰ Comprised of a package of three bills,¹¹ SGMA marks the first time in California’s history that groundwater will be managed in a comprehensive manner to ensure long-term sustainability.¹² Under the SGMA, groundwater basins or subbasins (“basins”) that are designated as high-and-medium priority must form groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) to allocate and manage groundwater.¹³ The GSAs are local agencies, with expansive powers to regulate groundwater users within their boundaries.¹⁴ The SGMA also includes a statutory directive for GSAs to identify certain communities, referred to in the statute as “disadvantaged communities” that include but are not limited to “those served by private domestic wells or small community systems”¹⁵ and integrate them into the groundwater management decision-making process.¹⁶ It is these disadvantaged communities that this paper analyzes. The SGMA does carve out an exception from the reporting requirements of the statute for de minimis extractors, which the statute defines as “a person who extracts, for domestic purposes, two acre-feet or less (of groundwater) per year.”¹⁷ Most domestic well users likely qualify as de minimis extractors. But other disadvantaged communities, such as community water systems, are groundwater users and the SGMA specifically directs that GSAs “shall” consider their interests in ultimately implementing groundwater sustainability plans (“GSPs”).¹⁸

Part I of this paper offers a brief history of EJ communities in the Central Valley and how the colocation of EJ communities in unincorporated areas of the Central Valley impacts water availability and infrastructure for these communities. Part II gives an overview of the SGMA, with an emphasis on how the statute envisions the inclusion of EJ communities in the GSA formation process. Part III delves into a qualitative case study, evaluating how GSAs in the Southern Central Valley have: (1) included Spanish-speaking communities in the GSA formation process, using the publication of the notice of intent to form a GSA in a Spanish-language newspaper as a proxy for the inclusion of Spanish-speaking communities and (2) considered the needs of “disadvantaged communities” in the notice of intent to form, defined as those communities with small drinking water systems and with private water wells. The paper ends with recommendations for how agencies can help EJ communities build the necessary technical and legal capacity to advocate for effective inclusion in the planning requirement of the SGMA.

Part I: Background of Water Justice Issues among Environmental Justice Communities in the Central Valley

The San Joaquin Valley consists of eight counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, and Kern.¹⁹ Forty-six percent of San Joaquin Valley residents are Latino or Hispanic,²⁰ and poverty indicators such as the unemployment rate and enrollment in federal assistance programs place the San Joaquin Valley among the poorest in America.²¹ The Environmental Protection Agency’s EJSCREEN, an environmental justice screening and mapping tool, reveals that many of the communities in the San Joaquin Valley are among “some of the nation’s worst environmental justice hot spots.”²²

Over 500,000 residents, most of whom are people of color,²³ live in unincorporated communities in the San Joaquin Valley.²⁴ Due in part to decades of neglect as well as race and class-based discrimination perpetrated by city and county governments,²⁵ many of these unincorporated communities lack basic public services such as water and sanitation delivery.²⁶ As a result, many of the unincorporated communities in the Central Valley have significantly impaired water sources.²⁷ A combination of a limited tax base and high poverty rates contributes to insufficient water infrastructure,²⁸ leading to a dependence on groundwater pumps and private wells for these communities.²⁹

This reliance on untreated groundwater has increased the risk of exposure to contamination.³⁰ Unincorporated communities in the Central Valley have serious contamination in their drinking water sources,³¹ and numerous studies have shown substantial arsenic contamination in the groundwater.³² Indeed, coupled with the lack of adequate regulatory monitoring³³ the reliance on untreated groundwater has led to unincorporated communities in the Central Valley having the highest rates of water contamination exposure in California.³⁴ Groundwater contamination can lead to, among other negative health effects, hormone disruption and severe gastrointestinal diseases.³⁵

Small water systems, defined as systems with fewer than 3,300 connections,³⁶ are the source of 93 percent of all health violations related to contaminated groundwater.³⁷ The most frequently detected contaminants in California’s drinking water wells are arsenic and nitrate.³⁸ Nitrate contamination is frequently a result of fertilizer runoff from nearby farms,³⁹ and has been linked to health issues including reproductive problems and cancer.⁴⁰ Faced with this pervasive water contamination in an area where 95% of the population relies on groundwater as the primary source of water,⁴¹ many unincorporated communities have turned to buying water from local water districts and purchasing bottled drinking water to meet their daily water needs.⁴² Some residents are even forced to use bottled water for cooking because of the levels of contamination from pesticide and fertilizer runoff in their groundwater wells.⁴³

Passed in 2012, Assembly Bill 685 declares that it is the policy of California that “every human being has the right to safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitation purposes.”⁴⁴ By codifying this human right to water, California has acknowledged the crucial role that access to water plays in economic development and public health.⁴⁵ All state agencies, including the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), have an obligation to consider AB 685 when establishing any policies or regulations.⁴⁶ However, there remains a significant gap between this aspirational goal of California water policy and the on-the-ground reality of water access for many Californians, especially the residents of unincorporated communities in the San Joaquin Valley.

Studies show that there is substantial overlap between environmental hazards such as groundwater contamination and social vulnerability, especially in unincorporated communities.⁴⁷ Cumulative impacts, defined by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) as the “exposures, public health or environmental effects, from the combined emissions and discharges, in a geographic area, including environmental pollution from all sources,”⁴⁸ serves as an additional framework to analyze the impact of water access on EJ communities. A three-year study on cumulative environmental vulnerabilities used a “cumulative environmental vulnerability assessment” to identify communities in the San Joaquin Valley at greatest risk for facing environmental risks. The study found that it was communities such as Kettleman City and Monterey Park — both small, unincorporated communities that depended on wells for drinking water — that were facing both high degrees of environmental risk from toxic air and water pollutants and social vulnerability, as evidenced by low levels of formal education and poverty.⁴⁹ The relationship between environmental risks, social vulnerability and health effects is certainly complex. Having established that living at the intersection of pervasive environmental impacts and socioeconomic disparities leads to significant health and economic impacts for the EJ communities in the San Joaquin Valley, the paper now moves to the SGMA and how the statute’s implementation has factored in these vulnerable populations into groundwater management.

Part II: Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

The 2014 water year was the driest that California had seen in over five hundred years.⁵⁰ The SGMA was enacted against the backdrop of this historic drought as an attempt to overhaul state water policy, which is a unique hybrid of the first-in-time is first-in-right Western water rights system of prior appropriation and a complex permitting scheme administered by the SWRCB.⁵¹ Before the passage of the SGMA, however, California had no statewide regulation of groundwater management, and unconstrained groundwater pumping was leading to a lowered water table, land subsidence for land overlying aquifers, and impacted surface waters.⁵²

The statutory language of the SGMA emphasizes that management is best achieved on the local level, with much of the responsibility for groundwater planning assigned to local agencies called GSAs. In an attempt to develop a workable statewide framework for sustainable groundwater management that effectively incorporates local knowledge, the SGMA implements a comprehensive planning mandate at the groundwater basin level.⁵³ The planning responsibility delegated to GSAs ranges from establishing baseline conditions for sustainability metrics to developing enforceable local regulatory requirements on groundwater pumping. Although much of the planning and enforcement will be delegated to GSAs, the state retains the ability to intervene if the local management plans are insufficient.⁵⁴

The timeline for the planning and implementation phases of groundwater management is brisk. Under the SGMA, groundwater basins designated as high or medium priority and critically overdrafted must develop a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) with measurable objectives and interim milestones by January 31, 2020,⁵⁵ and achieve the sustainability mandates in the GSP within 20 years of implementation.⁵⁶ For those basins that are designated as high and medium priority, the groundwater sustainability plan must be submitted by January 31, 2022.⁵⁷

Concerns about meaningful participation and representative GSA decision-making are interwoven through the statutory language of the SGMA and agency guidance documents. The SGMA has a number of public notice requirements to ensure that stakeholders are able to engage in the process of establishing a GSA,⁵⁸ amending the groundwater sustainability plan,⁵⁹ or imposing any proposed fees.⁶⁰ It also specifically directs GSAs to consider the interests of beneficial users of groundwater, which includes “disadvantaged communities (DAC), including, but not limited to, those served by private domestic wells or small community water systems.”⁶¹ The statute also requires interests of beneficial users, including private domestic wells and small community water systems, to be integrated into the groundwater management process.⁶² However, there is little explicit guidance in the statutory language of SGMA as to how GSAs should engage these users, apart from a mandate that GSAs must include an “explanation of how [beneficial users including disadvantaged communities] interests will be considered in the development and operation of the groundwater sustainability agency.”⁶³ That being said, while the statute itself may not have much guidance on practical ways to incorporate disadvantaged communities, DWR recently published a “Stakeholder Communication and Engagement Digital Toolkit” that discusses a number of different options for SGMA outreach.⁶⁴ It includes, for example, a template of SGMA materials in Spanish from the Salinas Valley Groundwater work group,⁶⁵ and a factsheet from the Upper Ventura River work group that details the different public agencies that comprise the Upper Ventura River GSA.⁶⁶ Furthermore, in guidance documents DWR acknowledges that “proactive outreach to and engagement of partners and stakeholders” including EJ interests is essential to achieve sustainable groundwater management.⁶⁷ EJ organizations are included along with conservation groups and water policy organizations in the non-governmental organization advisory group that assists DWR in implementing its responsibilities under the SGMA.⁶⁸

Part III: How GSAs include EJ Communities in the Central Valley

Under the SGMA, any local agencies that seeks to form a GSA must file a “notice of intent” with DWR including the service area boundaries of the GSA, the bylaws and ordinances adopted by the local agency, and a “list of interest[ed] parties … and an explanation of how their interests will be considered in the development and operation of the GSA.”⁶⁹ It must also publish this notice of intent in local newspapers.⁷⁰ As of September 19th, there were 376 notices of intent to form a GSA filed on the SGMA Portal.⁷¹ The San Joaquin Valley contains 8 counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Kern.⁷² Of these counties, the following counties have a percent share of at least 20% of people with incomes below the federal poverty line: Kern County (22.5%), King County (20.7%), Tulare County (24.8%), Fresno County (24.8%), and Merced County (24.6%).⁷³ This paper surveyed all of the notices filed for GSAs in Tulare and Fresno County, both of which have a poverty rate of 24.8%, the highest in the state.⁷⁴ For comparison, the state poverty rate averaged 15.3%.

The following case study draws on the notices of intent submitted by local agencies looking to form GSAs in the counties of Fresno and Tulare to evaluate how GSAs: (1) Include Spanish-speaking communities in the GSA formation process, using the publication of notice of intent to form the GSA in Spanish as a proxy (2) Address the needs of EJ communities, by analyzing how the language of the notices of intent plans for the needs of small drinking water systems and communities with private water wells.

See Survey of GSA Formation Notices in Fresno and Tulare Counties table

Some GSA formation notices discuss the incorporation of “disadvantaged communities” into GSA management. For example, the Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency contemplates allocating members of the GSA board for disadvantaged communities, stating in its formation notice that disadvantaged communities “are represented on the Board of Directors and could seek representation on the Stakeholder Committee.”⁷⁵ Similarly, the East Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency states that disadvantaged communities “may gain additional representation through the Advisory Committee.”⁷⁶ The North Forks Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency has both — one member of the GSA board of directors shall have experience in “land use, water management, or improving access to drinking water in economically disadvantaged communities,” and the advisory committee should include representatives of “environmental justice organizations or community benefit organizations with demonstrated experience working with disadvantaged communities and with expertise in drinking water, groundwater, or land use.”⁷⁷ Still other GSAs discussed collaborating with other entities to engage with disadvantaged communities. The City of Mendota stated that it would identify disadvantaged communities “through public outreach tools and through the points of contact that [have] been identified through prior planning efforts,”⁷⁸ although it did not discuss what those “prior planning efforts” consisted of. Along the same lines, the Wildren Water District GSA indicated its intent to work with Fresno and Merced Counties to “include any groundwater dependent disadvantaged communities in the GSP planning and implementation process.”⁷⁹ Finally, at least one GSA collaborated with EJ organizations during the planning process itself. Kings River East Groundwater Sustainability Agency involved Community Water Center, an organization which advocates for environmental justice interests within the Kings River East GSA, in the planning process.⁸⁰

However, in terms of outreach to Spanish-speaking communities, not a single GSA formation notice that was filed with the DWR included a Spanish version, or even included in its formation documents a copy of a notice of public hearing that was in Spanish. While it is true that there is no express statutory directive in the SGMA that GSAs must publish the notices of intent to form in Spanish, that no notices of intent were published in Spanish even though so much of Fresno and Tulare County is Spanish-speaking is indicative of a telling gap in GSA and SGMA-related outreach outreach to Spanish-speaking communities.

This case study of GSA formation notices in Fresno and Tulare County shows a lack of meaningful outreach to EJ communities. GSAs in at least these two San Joaquin counties are not publishing notices of intent in Spanish, even when there are many Spanish-speaking communities in the GSA’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, in many of the GSA formation notices, there is also little mention, if at all, in the notices of intent of how the GSAs will facilitate the participation of constituents that are served by private domestic wells or small community water systems. It is difficult to discern how much of the lack of discussion or clear evidence of engagement with disadvantaged communities is as a result of the SGMA’s own lack of specific statutory directives about just how much detail the notice of intent to form must go into when discussing outreach to disadvantaged communities. But what is particularly troubling about the oftentimes boilerplate discussion of disadvantaged communities in the notices of intent to form is that disadvantaged communities are by their very definition already disenfranchised — in other words, these are communities that already have trouble accessing the decision-making structure in every aspect of their lives. As discussed in Part I, disadvantaged communities face not only socioeconomic disparities but also a disproportionate share of environmental damage. This makes them unique from other stakeholders — such as agricultural interests or municipalities — that GSA notices of intent may also discuss in a somewhat cursory manner.

Some key changes in local agency SGMA implementation practices could help to close this communication and outreach gap in disadvantaged communities and Spanish-speaking communities. For one, GSAs could allocate slots for disadvantaged communities to serve on GSA management committees or on advisory committees. This way, GSAs can incorporate the concerns unique to disadvantaged communities in the decision-making process. Improved outreach, and the resulting specific community feedback from Spanish-speaking communities, and indeed from other communities of color in the Central Valley whose primary language is not English, would further enrich dialogues about how to manage groundwater for those communities and the basin at large. GSAs could consider meeting in community centers and schools that are accessible to communities that may not have access to cars, and to conduct these meetings in Spanish or to have interpreters available. Finally, while this case study examines the now-complete GSA formation process, it offers valuable insight on how to incorporate members of disadvantaged communities and Spanish-speaking communities into the next step of the SGMA — the development of the GSPs themselves.

The lack of resources and capacity to effectively organize within EJ communities and resolve water management issues is a significant barrier for EJ communities to participate in groundwater management. Groundwater has a number of characteristics that make it difficult to manage. For example, it is difficult to directly measure groundwater flows and the spatial limits of aquifers are not well known. Since managing groundwater effectively requires access to many specialized tools to map aquifer properties, this technical knowledge can be a formidable barrier for EJ communities to participate in decisionmaking. Therefore, EJ communities must have adequate funding and institutional support for capacity building to attain equal decisionmaking status in the planning process.⁸¹ The passage of the SGMA was a significant reform in California water law, but truly effective groundwater management in the Central Valley will require a collaborative, environmental justice-based planning model that incorporates procedural justice. Core principles of procedural justice include providing materials in a language that allows for the meaningful involvement of interested community members.⁸² Keeping this in mind, GSAs in the Central Valley must take proactive steps to ensure public participation in groundwater management decisions such as publishing notice of meetings and meeting agendas in languages other than English where the impacted community is comprised of non-English speakers and facilitating dual-language collaboration between agency heads and community leaders.⁸³ State agencies should engage in more oversight to ensure that GSAs are following the SGMA’s mandates of public participation, especially pressing considering the SGMA’s relatively short timeline for groundwater planning.

To facilitate capacity-building, EJ communities can apply for financial support from CalEPA’s Environmental Justice Small Grant Program,⁸⁴ whose stated aims are to fund projects that “improved access to safe and clean water” and “improve … understanding of the technical and procedural aspects of environmental decision-making.”⁸⁵ EJ groups that are non-profit organizations are also eligible to receive grants from the Sustainable Groundwater Planning Grant Program, which has more than $100 million in funds available for groups to implement sustainable groundwater planning.⁸⁶ EJ groups can also apply for funding from Proposition 1 to enhance participation in the regulatory process, expand access to funding and technical assistance, and improve water quality and drinking water.⁸⁷

A recommendation outside of the regulatory framework is for EJ communities to engage in strategic civil disobedience to raise awareness about their lack of inclusion in the groundwater planning process. There are a number of examples of communities organizing against unequal water governance structures,⁸⁸ from conflicts over water prices and availability in Mexico City⁸⁹ to protests over the privatization of the water supply in Bolivia.⁹⁰ In the United States, in 2009 EJ communities in Detroit created the People’s Water Board in response to water shutoffs and an unresponsive and insular Detroit Water Board.⁹¹ This alternative water board demanded more transparent water decisionmaking, a moratorium on water shutoffs, and a reinstatement of the water affordability plan. By attending state legislative meetings and protesting the lack of inclusion,⁹² the People’s Water Board was able to raise awareness about the effect of rising water prices on Detroit’s residents. In November 2015, state representatives from Detroit and surrounding municipalities introduced bill packages that would reform the water shut-off process and rework the water pricing structure in Detroit.⁹³ Organizing to create a similar alternative water board could be an effective form of advocacy for EJ communities in the Central Valley.

Water justice requires all communities to be able to access and manage water for beneficial uses, from drinking to cultural and spiritual practices to enjoyment for recreational purposes.⁹⁴ Climate change will only deepen existing water justice inequalities.⁹⁵ In agricultural areas such as the Central Valley, climate change will lead to shifts in growing conditions and a likely increase in the use of fertilizer and pesticides, increasing the risk of contamination for unincorporated communities that are already facing polluted water sources.⁹⁶ EJ communities in the Central Valley continue to face a disproportionate burden of environmental threats,⁹⁷ and the lack of access to clean water serves to exacerbate health impacts and decrease economic opportunities.⁹⁸

Conclusion

The SGMA contemplates groundwater management with strong local control under the assumption that communities are best equipped to tailor durable solutions to groundwater management. However, without the meaningful participation of EJ communities in the decisionmaking progress, goals of ensuring that EJ communities do not bear disproportionate environmental and public health burdens cannot be met.⁹⁹ This conflicts with both the statutory language of the SGMA — which specifically directs GSAs to include “disadvantaged communities” in the planning process — and the human right to water codified by AB 685.

The SGMA is a valuable opportunity for EJ communities to be included in the groundwater management process. However, this case study indicates that GSAs in at least Fresno and Tulare Counties could improve their efforts to provide outreach to and consider the interests of disadvantaged communities in their SGMA implementation efforts.¹⁰⁰ In the face of anthropogenic climate change, access to clean water for EJ communities that live in the unincorporated areas of the Central Valley and rely on small water systems and private wells has never been more important. Acknowledging the decades of disparities that unincorporated communities in the Central Valley have already faced, there are a number of opportunities both within and outside of the current regulatory structure to facilitate the inclusion of EJ communities in groundwater management.

Against the backdrop of a growing lack of access to clean water due in part to anthropogenic climate change, participatory environmental decision-making that includes EJ communities is especially important.¹⁰¹ The SGMA is a rare opportunity to include these communities, which have been frequently excluded from the decision-making process in environmental law, from the ground up in groundwater management. By incorporating tenets of procedural justice in the GSA formation and implementation process, social disparities in access to water in California can be mitigated and environmental justice done.

Survey of GSA Formation Notices in Fresno and Tulare Counties

¹ Judicial Law Clerk for the Honorable David C. Norton at the District of South Carolina. J.D. UC Berkeley School of Law (2016), B.S. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (2013). The idea for this paper was initially formed in the Fall 2015 Environmental Justice course at Berkeley Law, taught by Roger Lin from Communities for a Bettaer Environment and Ingrid Brostrom from the Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment. I am thankful to the California Water Law Journal for publishing this article, and deeply grateful to Jennifer Harder, Associate Professor at McGeorge School of Law and Rebecca R.A. Smith at Downey Brand LLP for helping me refine it.

² See California Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Justice Program Update: February 2014, available at http://www.calepa.ca.gov/Publications/Reports/2014/EJUpdateRpt.pdf

³ Cal. Gov. Code § 65040.12 (West 2015).

⁴ Hornik, K, Cutts, B, and Greenlee, A, Community Theories of Change: Linking Environmental Justice to Sustainability through Stakeholder Perceptions in Milwaukee (WI, USA), 979 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 979, 979 (2016).

⁵ Susan Clayton, Models of Justice in the Environmental Debate, 56 Journal of Social Issues 459, 461 (2000).

⁶ Schlosberg, D. Reconceiving Environmental Justice: Global Movements and Political Theories, Environmental Politics, Vol.13, No.3, Autumn 2004, 517 – 540

⁷ See California Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Justice Program Update: February 2014, available at http://www.calepa.ca.gov/Publications/Reports/2014/EJUpdateRpt.pdf

⁸ Id.

⁹ Theesfeld, I. (2010), Institutional Challenges for National Groundwater Governance: Policies and Issues. Ground Water, 48: 131–142

¹⁰ See Community Water Center, Collaborating for Success: Stakeholder Engagement for Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Implementation, available at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/gmp/docs/local_asst/sgma_stakeholderengagement_whitepaper.pdf

¹¹ Assemb. B. 1739, 2013-2014 Leg. (Cal. 2014); S.B. 1168, 2013-2014 Leg. (Cal. 2014); S.B. 1319, 2013-2014 Leg. (Cal. 2014) (codified in various sections of the Government Code and Water Code).

¹² Community Water Center, Collaborating for Success: Stakeholder Engagement for Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Implementation, available at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/gmp/docs/local_asst/sgma_stakeholderengagement_whitepaper.pdf

¹³ State Water Resources Control Board, Frequently Asked Questions on Groundwater Sustainability Agencies, available at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/gmp/docs/eligbility/gsa_faq.pdf.

¹⁴ Id.

¹⁵ Cal. Water Code § 10723.2 (West)

¹⁶ Community Water Center, Collaborating for Success: Stakeholder Engagement for Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Implementation, available at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/gmp/docs/local_asst/sgma_stakeholderengagement_whitepaper.pdf

¹⁷ Cal. Water Code § 10721

¹⁸ Cal. Water Code § 10723.2

¹⁹ Huang. G., Cumulative Environmental Vulnerability and Environmental Justice in California’s San Joaquin Valley, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health (2012), 9(5), 1593-1608.

²⁰ Id.

²¹ See Tadlock Cowan, Cong. Research Serv., RL 33184, California’s San Joaquin Valley: A Region in Transition 2, 50, 53, 56-59, 72-73, 79-82 (2005), available at http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL33184.pdf

²² EPA ‘environmental justice’ map highlights California’s pollution ills, Los Angeles Times (2015), http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-environmental-justice-map-20150609-story.html (last visited September 11, 2017).

²³ Michelle Wilde Anderson, Mapped Out of Local Democracy, 62 Stan. L. Rev. 931, 107-08 (2010)

²⁴ Community Equity Initiative, Cal. Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., http://www.crla.org/node/30 (last visited Dec. 15, 2015)

²⁵ Michelle Wilde Anderson, Cities Inside Out: Race, Poverty and Exclusion at the Urban Fringe, 55 UCLA L. Rev. 1095, 1101 (2008)

²⁶ Id. at 1106-12.

²⁷ Huang. G., Cumulative Environmental Vulnerability and Environmental Justice in California’s San Joaquin Valley, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health (2012), 9(5), 1593-1608.

²⁸ Camille Pannu, Drinking Water and Exclusion: A Case Study from California’s Central Valley, 100 Cal. L. Rev. 223, 225 (2012)

²⁹ See Kane County, Planning Issues-Water Resources, available at http://www.countyofkane.org/Documents/Quality%20of%20Kane/2040%20Plan/waterResources.pdf

³⁰ U.S. Envtl. Protection Agency, Aging Water Infrastructure Research Program: Addressing the Challenge Through INNOVATION 1 (2007)

³¹ Patricia Leigh Brown, The Problem is Clear: The Water is Filthy, The New York Times (Nov. 13, 2012), available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/us/tainted-water-in-california-farmworker-communities.html?_r=0.

³² See Marcel Honore, Local and County Officials say fixing the problem will be complex – and costly, The Desert Sun (Jan. 31, 2010), available at http://www.cacoastkeeper.org/news/arsenic-tinged-water-plagues-unincorporated-communities.

³³ The Problem, Community Water Center, http:// www.communitywatercenter.org (last visited Dec. 12, 2015)

³⁴ Envtl. Justice Coal. for Water, Thirsty for Justice: A People’s Blueprint for California Water 57-58 (2005), available at http:// www.ejcw.org/ThirstyforJustice.pdf.

³⁵ Global Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene, Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/global/wash_diseases.html (last visited Dec. 16, 2015).

³⁶ US Commission in Civil Rights (USCCR). 2009c. 2006: Public Water System Compliance Report. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency. http://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/resources/reports/accomplishment/sdwa/.

³⁷ Imperial, M. T. 1999. “Environmental Justice and Water Pollution Control: Th e Clean Water Act Construction Grants Program.” Public Works Management & Policy 4 (2): 100–118.

³⁸ California Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Justice Program Update: February 2014, available at http://www.calepa.ca.gov/Publications/Reports/2014/EJUpdateRpt.pdf

³⁹ Harter, T. 2009. “Agricultural Impacts on Groundwater Nitrate.” Southwest Hydrology 8 (4): 22–23, 35.

⁴⁰ Moore, E., and E. Matalon. 2011. The Human Costs of Nitrate-Contaminated Drinking Water in the San Joaquin Valley . Oakland, CA: Pacific Institute.

⁴¹ Carolina Balazs, Water Quality and Environmental Justice in California’s Central Valley, November 11, 2014, http://www.switzernetwork.org/sites/default/files/file-attachments/switzerwebinar_balazs_waterandej_2014.11.11_final_compressed.pdf

⁴² Camille Pannu, Drinking Water and Exclusion: A Case Study from California’s Central Valley, 100 Cal. L. Rev. 223, 243 (2012)

⁴³ Brian Cohen & Richard Wiles, Pouring It On: Nitrate Contamination of Drinking Water, Envtl. Working Group (Feb. 1996), http:// www.ewg.org/reports/nitrate.

⁴⁴ Cal. Water Code § 106.3 (West)

⁴⁵ Healthy Water, Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater (last visited Dec. 15, 2015).

⁴⁶ California Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Justice Program Update: February 2014, available at http://www.calepa.ca.gov/Publications/Reports/2014/EJUpdateRpt.pdf

⁴⁷ See e.g. Huang. G., Cumulative Environmental Vulnerability and Environmental Justice in California’s San Joaquin Valley, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health (2012), 9(5), 1593-1608.

⁴⁸ CalEPA Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (IWG), Intra-Agency Environmental Justice Strategy; IWG: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.

⁴⁹ Land of Risk/Land of Opportunity: Cumulative Environmental Vulnerabilities in California’s San Joaquin Valley, available at http://www.crla.org/sites/all/files/content/uploads/Resources/Report_Land_of_Risk_Land_of_Opportunity.pdf

⁵⁰ California Farms Are Slow to Adopt Water-Saving Technology, NEWSWEEK (2014), http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/14/california-farms-are-slow-adopt-water-saving-technology-245516.html (last visited Nov 7, 2015).

⁵¹ A Basic Overview of California Water Law, available at http://ucanr.edu/sites/wsheduvr/files/79369.pdf

⁵² Water in the West Center at Stanford Law School, California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014: Recommendations for Preventing and Resolving Groundwater Conflicts, available at http://waterinthewest.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/SGMA_RecommendationsforGWConflicts_2.pdf

⁵³ Community Water Center, Collaborating for Success: Stakeholder Engagement for Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Implementation, available at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/gmp/docs/local_asst/sgma_stakeholderengagement_whitepaper.pdf

⁵⁴ Melanie Mason, Gov. Jerry Brown signs historic groundwater management legislation, LOS ANGELES TIMES, September 16, 2014, http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-groundwater-regulation-bills-20140916-story.html (last visited Nov 7, 2015); see also Water Code § 10735.2(a)

⁵⁵ Water in the West Center at Stanford Law School, California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014: Recommendations for Preventing and Resolving Groundwater Conflicts, available at http://waterinthewest.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/SGMA_RecommendationsforGWConflicts_2.pdf

⁵⁶ Community Water Center, Collaborating for Success: Stakeholder Engagement for Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Implementation, available at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/gmp/docs/local_asst/sgma_stakeholderengagement_whitepaper.pdf

⁵⁷ California Department of Water Resources, Critically Overdrafted Basins, available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/sgm/cod.cfm

⁵⁸ Cal. Water Code § 10723(b) (“Before electing to be a groundwater sustainability agency, and after publication of notice pursuant to Section 6066 of the Government Code, the local agency or agencies shall hold a public hearing in the county or counties overlying the basin”)

⁵⁹ Cal. Water Code § 10728.4 (“A groundwater sustainability agency may adopt or amend a groundwater sustainability plan after a public hearing, held at least 90 days after providing notice to a city or county within the area of the proposed plan or amendment.”)

⁶⁰ Cal. Water Code § 10730(b)(1) (“Prior to imposing or increasing a fee, a groundwater sustainability agency shall hold at least one public meeting, at which oral or written presentations may be made as part of the meeting…. At least10 days prior to the meeting, the groundwater sustainability agency shall make available to the public data upon which the proposed fee is based.”)

⁶¹ Cal. Water Code § 10723.2(i)

⁶² Community Water Center, Collaborating for Success: Stakeholder Engagement for Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Implementation, available at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/gmp/docs/local_asst/sgma_stakeholderengagement_whitepaper.pdf

⁶³ Cal. Water Code § 10723.8(a).

⁶⁴ http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/sgm/digital_toolkit.cfm

⁶⁵ http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/sgm/pdfs/Spanish%20Fact%20Sheet%201_What%20is%20a%20GSA%20and%20Who%20Decides.pdf

⁶⁶ The Upper Ventura River Groundwater Basin, available at http://www.uvrgroundwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/UVR-Basin-Fact-Sheet.pdf

⁶⁷ Sustainable Groundwater Management: Communication and Outreach. Cal. Dep’t of Water Resources, http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/sgm/outreach.cfm (last updated July 17, 2015).

⁶⁸ Sustainable Groundwater Management: Advisory Groups. Cal. Dep’t of Water Resources, http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/sgm/advisory.cfm (last updated December 11, 2015).

⁶⁹ Sustainable Groundwater Management: GSA Formation Notifications. Cal. Dep’t of Water Resources, http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/sgm/gsa_table.cfm (last updated December 8, 2015); see also Cal. Water Code § 10723.8(a)(4).

⁷⁰ Cal. Water Code § 10723(b).

⁷¹ The following analysis drew this information from the GSA formation notices filed on the SGMA Portal of the DWR website, available at http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/all.

⁷² Healthy Communities Date and Indicators Project, California Department of Public Health, available at: https://archive.cdph.ca.gov/programs/Documents/HCI_PovertyRate_754_Narrative_Examples11-5-13rev3-12-14.pdf

⁷³ Poverty varies significantly across California Counties: Percentage of People with Incomes Below the Federal Poverty Line, available at http://calbudgetcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/140108_poverty_table_and_map.pdf (based on US Census Bureau data of poverty in

⁷⁴ Fresno County GSAs: Farmers Water District, City of Mendota, Wildren Water District GSA, Fresno County-Management Area A, Ora Loma Water District, Fresno County-Management Area B, James Irrigation District, McMullin Area GSA, Fresno County-Westside Subbasin, Pleasant Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency, North Fork Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency, Westlands Water District, Central Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency, City of Firebaugh, North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency, San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority, Central Delta-Mendota Region Multi-Agency GSA, Kings River East Groundwater Sustainability Agency, South Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency.
Tulare County GSAs: Tulare County GSA, Mid-Kaweah Groundwater Subbasin Joint Powers Authority, East Keawah Groundwater Sustainability Agency, Tri-County Water Authority-7, Alpaugh Irrigation District, Tri-County Water Authority-1, Alpaugh Groundwater Sustainability Agency, Tri-County Water Authority-2, Tri-County Water Authority-3, Tri-County Water Authority-4, Lower Tule River Irrigation District, Pixley Irrigation District, Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency

⁷⁵ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/205

⁷⁶ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/314

⁷⁷ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/187

⁷⁸ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/67

⁷⁹ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/237

⁸⁰ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/18

⁸¹ See Sean Walsh & Kristin Shrader-Frechette, Environmental Justice and Procedural Safeguards: The Ethics of Environmental Restoration, 42 Ariz. L. Rev. 525, 534 (2000)

⁸² See California Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Justice Program Update: February 2014, available at http://www.calepa.ca.gov/Publications/Reports/2014/EJUpdateRpt.pdf

⁸³ JULIET CHRISTIAN-SMITH & PETER H. GLEICK, A TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY U.S. WATER POLICY, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, NEW YORK (2012)

⁸⁴ Small Grants and Funding Opportunities. Cal. Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.calepa.ca.gov/EnvJustice/Funding/ (last updated October 6, 2015)

⁸⁵ California Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Justice Program Update: February 2014, available at http://www.calepa.ca.gov/Publications/Reports/2014/EJUpdateRpt.pdf

⁸⁶ Sustainable Groundwater Planning Grant Program, Cal. Dep’t of Water Resources, http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/grants/sgwp/index.cfm (last updated August, 25, 2015)

⁸⁷ California Water Boards: Lahontan Region, Environmental Justice Program Implementation, available at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/lahontan/water_issues/programs/docs/0215_lahontan_ej_report.pdf

⁸⁸ Castro, J.E., Water Governance in the Twentieth-First Century, Ambient Soc. Vol. 3 (2007)

⁸⁹ Castro, J.E., Urban conflicts over water in Mexico: A theoretical and empirical exploration, available at http://www.ircwash.org/sites/default/files/UNESCO-IHP-2006-Urban.pdf

⁹⁰ Aaron T. Wolf, et al., Managing Water Conflict and Cooperation, available at http://tbw.geo.orst.edu/publications/abst_docs/wolf_sow_2005.pdf

⁹¹ People’s Water Board. 2009. “People’s Water Board Mission.” People’s Water Board. http://peopleswaterboard.blogspot.com/2009/06/peoples-water-board-mission.html.

⁹² People’s Water Board. 2009. “Thinking for Ourselves – Disrupting Denial.” People’s Water Board, http://www.peopleswaterboard.org/2015/12/thinking-for-ourselves-disrupting-denial.html

⁹³ People’s Water Board. 2009. “Michigan House and Senate Members Announce Water Quality Affordability Bills.” People’s Water Board, http://www.peopleswaterboard.org/2015/11/michigan-house-senate-members-announce-water-quality-affordability-bills.html

⁹⁴ Environmental Justice Coalition for Water (EJCW). 2005. Thirsty for Justice: A People’s Blueprint for California Water. Oakland: Environmental Justice Coalition for Water.

⁹⁵ Pastor, M., R. D. Bullard, J. K. Boyce, A. Fothergill, R. Morello-Frosch, and B. Wright. 2006. In the Water of the Storm: Environment, Disaster, and Race after Katrina . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

⁹⁶ Fougères, D. 2007. “Climate Change, Environmental Justice, and Human Rights in California’s Central Valley: A Case Study.” Center for International Environmental Law, Washington, DC. http://www.ciel.org/Publications/Climate/CaseStudy_CentralValleyCA_Nov07.
pdf.

⁹⁷ L. Pulido Environmentalism and Economic Justice: Two Chicano Struggles in the Southwest The University of Arizona Press, Tucson (1996)

⁹⁸ EJCW. Thirsty for Justice: A People’s Blueprint for California’s Water Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Oakland (2005)

⁹⁹ Id.

¹⁰⁰ Cal. Water Code § 10723.2(i)

¹⁰¹ California Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Justice Program Update: February 2014, available at http://www.calepa.ca.gov/Publications/Reports/2014/EJUpdateRpt.pdf

¹⁰² http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/341

¹⁰³ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/205

¹⁰⁴ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/43

¹⁰⁵ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/42

¹⁰⁶ There are multiple Tri-County Water Authority GSAs (Tri-County Water Authority-1, Tri-County Water Authority-2, Tri-County Water Authority-3, Tri-County Water Authority-4, Tri-County Water Authority-7). However, all of these GSAs have filed as the Tri-County Water Authority and are identical. A review of each of the GSA formation notices demonstrates that none of them are in Spanish, and beyond listing the “disadvantaged communities,” if any, within the boundaries of the GSA the GSA formation notices do not discuss disadvantaged communities.

¹⁰⁷ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/25

¹⁰⁸ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/58

¹⁰⁹ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/314

¹¹⁰ This information was taken from the document entitled “EKSGA Notice of Interested Persons” that the East Kawah Groundwater Sustainability Agency uploaded to the SGMA Portal on the same day that it uploaded all of its other documents, including its resolution forming the GSA and the notice that it published in two area newspapers, the Porterville Recorder and the Visalia Times.

¹¹¹ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/7

¹¹² http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/30

¹¹³ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/67

¹¹⁴ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/237

¹¹⁵ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/298

¹¹⁶ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/302

¹¹⁷ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/12

¹¹⁸ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/266

¹¹⁹ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/297

¹²⁰ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/190

¹²¹ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/187

¹²² This language is taken from Senate Bill No. 564, Chapter 392, which amends Section 10723 of the Water Code and creates the North Fork Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency.

¹²³ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/40

¹²⁴ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/211

¹²⁵ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/269

¹²⁶ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/65

¹²⁷ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/10

¹²⁸ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/206

¹²⁹ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/317

¹³⁰ http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/18