Comments on 2 Revised Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plans

Posted on by

In April 2024, AquAlliance submitted comments for the Colusa & Corning Revised Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plans.

  • The Colusa Subbasin covers the majority of valley portion Glenn and Colusa counties.
  • The Corning Subbasin covers southern Tehama County and northeastern Glenn County.
  • View Groundwater Subbasin Boundaries map

Two excerpts from our comments are highlighted below to catch your attention. Click these links for the full comments.

Highlights:

1) “Sadly, the energy and commitment to address the known challenges [in the Colusa Subbasin] are lacking… The Revised GSP may contend that “The GSAs have expressed a clear and firm commitment to develop and implement these Programs on a clear and specific timeline to address and prevent overdraft, groundwater level decline, and subsidence and to mitigate potential undesirable results for drinking water well users during the GSP implementation period,” but will delay domestic well mitigation until it writes a plan by January 2026 and  demand management implementation until January 2027 if it is still needed and they have a program in place. The ‘clear and firm commitment’ is just big talk for a Subbasin with people and the environment in deep trouble as AquAlliance demonstrates in these comments. Future plans, programs, monitoring, reporting, ‘preparing to implement,’ ‘evaluation of groundwater conditions,’ ‘overdraft concerns,’ mean nothing when “In particular, the GSAs have identified declining groundwater levels over the past 15 to 20 years in the Orland-Artois and Arbuckle- College City areas.” (p. 6-3) Who do the GSAs, power brokers in the Subbasin, local government, and the State of California think they are fooling?!”

2) ‘The [Colusa] Plan assumes that groundwater sustainability of the Subbasin will be achieved in part because Central Valley Project and other surface waters will be available for recharge. It fails to note that groundwater recharge alters the rights to groundwater[1] and may not be a solution acceptable to Subbasin users. It also fails to demonstrate that creating the space for recharge harms groundwater dependent farms and residential property as well as streams and habitat for myriad species. Conjunctive use with recharge has long been the plan of Glenn Colusa Irrigation District and the Bureau of Reclamation – to take over the basin and manipulate it for the benefit of moneyed interests, not the local people or environment.”

[1] Los Angeles v. Glendale (1943) 23 Cal.2d 68, 76-78; Los Angeles v. San Fernando (1975) 14 Cal.3d 199, 258-60; Stevens v. Oakdale Irrigation District (1939) 13 Cal.2d 343, 352-43; Crane v. Stevinson (1936) 5 Cal. 2d 387, 398.