Managing Water and Farmland Transitions in the San Joaquin Valley

Implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014

The implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014 will bring long-term benefits for California’s agricultural communities, environment, and economy. This law directs local groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) to plan for and execute the transition to sustainable groundwater use—avoiding undesirable results of pumping and securing groundwater availability into the future. Managing groundwater reserves sustainably is a critical hedge against the changing climate, which is bringing warmer, more intense droughts and increasingly volatile precipitation.

The Costs of Implementing SGMA

But implementing SGMA will come with costs. The San Joaquin Valley, home to 4 million people and most of the state’s critically overdrafted areas, is ground zero for difficult decisions around SGMA. In two recent studies (Hanak et al. 2019, updated in Escriva-Bou et al. 2023), we showed how flexible approaches to managing available water—by facilitating surface and groundwater trading—can complement strategies to augment supplies. Together, these approaches can significantly reduce the costs of achieving sustainability. Even so, reducing pumping by the valley’s largest water user—agriculture—will be unavoidable. In the most extreme scenario, close to 900,000 of the valley’s 4.5 million acres of irrigated cropland could go fallow to meet the needed reductions in water use.

Transitioning Lands to Alternative Productive Uses

With nearly 20 percent of the San Joaquin Valley’s irrigated agricultural footprint at risk, it is crucial to consider how to transition these lands to alternative productive uses that consume much less water. In more than seven years of conversations with diverse valley stakeholders—including water and land managers, farmers, researchers, and representatives of local agencies, communities, and environmental organizations, among others—one recurring theme has emerged: haphazard, unplanned fallowing is widely viewed as a pathway to undesirable outcomes for the valley’s economy, environment, and community well-being. Concerns include widespread land degradation due to noxious weed infestations and topsoil loss, setbacks to the valley’s progress on air quality, missed opportunities to create habitat connectivity, and heightened risks of economic disruption in this heavily agricultural region.

Progress on SGMA Implementation

SGMA implementation has advanced considerably in the past few years. Under the law, GSAs are responsible for submitting and implementing groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs), and the state may intervene if it deems these plans inadequate. The plans must contain detailed estimates of water supplies and demands, as well as projects and actions to bring basins into balance by the early 2040s while avoiding undesirable impacts of pumping along the way.

The valley’s GSAs generally met the deadlines for submitting their first GSPs—2020 for the 11 critically overdrafted basins and 2022 for the four other basins. But the review process has been rocky. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) required revisions to plans in all 11 critically overdrafted basins, citing insufficient coordination and a failure to adequately address undesirable results, such as land subsidence and reduced drinking water reliability in rural communities. DWR has approved revised plans in four of these basins but has deemed the revised plans inadequate in six others. (As of this writing, plans in the five remaining basins are still under review.) The basins with inadequate plans have been referred to the State Water Board, which will determine whether to designate the basins as probationary and directly oversee pumping (California Department of Water Resources 2023; California State Water Resources Control Board 2023).

Meanwhile, GSAs and their members have started executing their plans. Many plans emphasize projects to boost water supplies—notably through groundwater recharge—and the abundant rains of 2023 have spurred significant new activity (Peterson and Bardeen 2023). Some GSAs are directly addressing the undesirable impacts of pumping, for instance, through programs to ensure drinking water supplies for domestic well users. And some have begun the difficult task of reducing groundwater use—by establishing pumping allocations, incentivizing water users to pump less (e.g., with extraction fees), launching local groundwater trading, and offering credits for fallowing land while following best management practices for soil protection.

Considering Land Use Alternatives

In our recent work, we have taken a closer look at several land use alternatives that show promise for mitigating the downsides of widespread land fallowing. For example, developing utility-scale solar energy on former cropland is a potentially attractive option that can help California meet its clean energy goals, though one that is constrained by transmission capacity and permitting hurdles (Ayres et al. 2022). Another option involves keeping agricultural lands in production with water-limited cropping systems such as winter forages (Peterson, Pittelkow, and Lundy 2022). Small doses of supplemental irrigation can allow growers to establish these flexible crops across a wide swath of the valley, and with the right incentives, they could help increase the nimbleness of farming operations. As lands transition away from intensively irrigated crop production, opportunities may also arise to restore valuable desert and upland habitat—and even some riparian and wetland areas (Hanak, Peterson, and Hart 2022). Lands dedicated to expanding groundwater recharge can also serve as intermittent wetlands (Hanak et al. 2019). Finally, in a region that may continue to see considerable population growth, water-efficient new development could help close the groundwater gap while supporting local economies (Ayres et al. 2021a).

Ensuring a Balanced Transition

Such synergies can help to offset the costs of transitioning to groundwater sustainability. But there is more to the conversation than “which land use, and where?” Adaptation measures—including both water trading and land repurposing—could address potential problems, but also might cause unintended consequences. To ensure a balanced and beneficial transition to groundwater sustainability, substantial changes will be needed to improve how institutions work together, and to tailor fiscal and regulatory programs to the new realities. It will be essential to align incentives, coordinate policies and approaches, and establish adequate streams of funding.

About this Report

We begin by recapping our findings on the size of the valley’s water deficit, what this could mean for land fallowing, and how supply and demand management tools could help bring down the costs of water scarcity. We then drill deeper into how water trading could play out on the landscape, and we explore the opportunities and potential tradeoffs of sharing water in this way. We bring together our findings on the promise and limitations of various alternatives for lands at risk of losing their water. Finally, we offer recommendations on how to manage water and farmland transitions in the most

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
• SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
• SDG 13: Climate Action
• SDG 15: Life on Land

The article discusses the implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in California, which is directly related to SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation). It also mentions the need for alternative land use options, such as utility-scale solar energy and water-limited cropping systems, which are connected to SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 15 (Life on Land). Additionally, the article addresses the potential economic and environmental impacts of fallowing land, which relates to SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 13 (Climate Action).

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 6.4: By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity.
• SDG 7.2: By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.
• SDG 11.3: By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated, and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries.
• SDG 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.
• SDG 15.1: By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains, and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements.

Based on the article’s content, the specific targets identified are related to improving water-use efficiency (SDG 6.4), increasing the share of renewable energy (SDG 7.2), enhancing sustainable urbanization (SDG 11.3), strengthening resilience to climate-related hazards (SDG 13.1), and ensuring the conservation and sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems (SDG 15.1).

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator 6.4.1: Change in water-use efficiency over time.
• Indicator 7.2.1: Renewable energy share in the total final energy consumption.
• Indicator 11.3.1: Ratio of land consumption rate to population growth rate.
• Indicator 13.1.1: Number of deaths, missing persons, and directly affected persons attributed to disasters per 100,000 population.
• Indicator 15.1.1: Forest area as a proportion of total land area.

The article does not explicitly mention these indicators, but they can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets. For example, Indicator 6.4.1 can measure the change in water-use efficiency over time, Indicator 7.2.1 can measure the share of renewable energy in the total final energy consumption, Indicator 11.3.1 can measure the ratio of land consumption rate to population growth rate, Indicator 13.1.1 can measure the impact of climate-related hazards on the population, and Indicator 15.1.1 can measure the proportion of forest area in the total land area.

4. SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Table

Behold! This splendid article springs forth from the wellspring of knowledge, shaped by a wondrous proprietary AI technology that delved into a vast ocean of data, illuminating the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that all rights are reserved by SDG Investors LLC, empowering us to champion progress together.

Source: ppic.org

Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.