technical paper managing groundwater quality and quantity in the

1、AbstractManaging Groundwater Quality and Quantity in the San Joaquin Valley, California:Integrated Strategies for Protecting Groundwater in Arid RegionsbyRandolph Barrett FlayMaster of Science in Environmental Science, P

2、olicy and ManagementUniversity of California, BerkeleyProfessor T. N. Narasimhan, ChairThe following quote from the case of Cline v. American Aggregates,1 which came before the Supreme Court of Ohio in 1984, reasserts th

3、e fundamental need to apply improvements in groundwater science to our institutional and legal arrangements that manage it. The court stated: “Finally, a primary goal of water law should be that the legal system conform

4、s to hydrologic fact. Scientific knowledge in the field of hydrology has advanced in the past decade to the point that water tables and sources are more readily discoverable. This knowledge can establish the cause and

5、effect relationship of the tapping of underground water to the existing water level. Thus, liability can now be fairly adjudicated with these advances which were sorely lacking when this court decided Frazier more than

6、a century ago.” While California has since 1903 not observed the English Rule of Capture with regards to property rights in groundwater (which was overturned in Ohio by the case above), there is a significant need to mo

7、ve beyond the current system of management which has done little to ensure certainty in groundwater rights and protect groundwater quantity and quality for the long-term. Given the recent effort undertaken to 1 Cline v.

8、 American Aggregates Corporation (1984). 15 Ohio St. 3d 384.basins have been adjudicated or statutorily created groundwater management districts exist, the vast majority of groundwater extraction is unquantified. In ove

9、rdrafted regions, decisions over allocation are largely left to the costly and uncertain processes of adjudication, while issues of protection and management are left to the motivation of local districts with few venues

10、for basin-scale planning. Reliance on existing institutions has not been successful in reducing the uncertainty associated with groundwater rights.5 Further, it has failed throughout many regions of the state, in parti

11、cular the San Joaquin Valley, to mitigate conditions of overdraft, salinization, and trace element contamination, all of which are intimately connected to the patterns of groundwater use.6This thesis examines the approac

12、hes of Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Texas to the management of groundwater to seek solutions that are compatible with California’s hydrologic and legal settings. These states have taken steps to integrat

13、e recent scientific knowledge of groundwater flow and chemistry into their legal mechanisms of allocation and protection.7 Recent advances in understanding the importance of groundwater in regional flow and chemistry m

14、ust be reconciled with the laws and institutions that dictate its allocation and management. Optimal and sustainable California Legislature. Assembly Interim Committee on Water (1962). Ground Water Problems in Californ

15、ia : A Report of the Assembly Interim Committee on Water to the California Legislature. Sacramento, CA: Assembly of the State of California. Governor's Commission to Review California Water Rights Law (1978). Final

16、 report - Governor's Commission to Review California Water Rights Law. Sacramento, CA: The Commission. 5 United States of America v. State Water Resources Control Board (1986). 182 Cal.App.3d 82. City of Barstow v.

17、Mojave Water Agency (2000). 23 Cal. 4th 1224. 6 San Joaquin Valley Drainage Implementation Program (1998). Drainage Management in the San Joaquin Valley: A Status Report. Sacramento, CA: The Program. 7 Smith, Z. A. (198

18、4). “Centralized decisionmaking in the administration of groundwater rights : the experience of Arizona, California and New Mexico and suggestions for the future.” Natural resources journal: [641]-688. Nebraska Natural

19、Resources Commission and Nebraska State Water Planning and Review Process (1986). Integrated management of surface water and groundwater. Lincoln, NE: State Water Planning and Review Process Nebraska Natural Resources

20、Commission. Mossman, S. D. (1996). ““'Whiskey is for Drinkin' but Water is for Fightin' About': A First-hand Account of Nebraska's Integrated Management of Ground and Surface Water Debate and the Pas