V.33 AUGUST 2024 VOLUME THIRTY-THREE
V isions
HYDROVISIONS is the official publication of the Groundwater Resources Association of California (GRA). GRA’s mailing address is 808 R Street. Suite 209, Sacramento, CA 95811. Any questions or comments concerning this publication should be directed to the newsletter editor at hydrovisions@grac.org
The Groundwater Resources Association of California is dedicated to resource management that protects and improves groundwater supply and quality through education and technical leadership.
EDITOR
Rodney Fricke hydrovisions@grac.org
EDITORIAL LAYOUT
Smith Moore & Associates
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
PRESIDENT
Christy Kennedy
Woodard & Curran
Tel: 925-627-4122
VICE PRESIDENT
Erik Cadaret
West Yost
Tel: 530-756-5905
SECRETARY
Moises Santillan
Water Replenishment District
Tel: 562-275-4279
TREASURER
Rodney Fricke
GEI Consultants
Tel: 916-407-8539
DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION OFFICER
Marina Deligiannis
Stantec
Tel: 916-418-8242
IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT
HISSN 2837-5696
R.T. Van Valer
ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR
Amanda Rae Hall
Groundwater Resources Association of California ahall@grac.org
DIRECTORS
Jena Acos
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schrek
Tel: 805-882-1427
Trelawney Bullis
AC Foods, Central Valley
Tel: 530-205-8387
Dave Ceppos
Sacramento State University
Tel: 916-539-0350
Elis Haddad
Haley & Aldrich
Tel: 408-529-9048
Dr. Hiroko Hort
GSI Environmental, Inc
Tel: 720-273-6364
Annalisa Kihara
State Water Resources Control Board
Tel: 916-947-7938
Yue Rong
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control
Tel: 213-576-6710
Abhishek Singh INTERA
Tel: 217-721-0301
Clayton Sorensen
West Yost Associates
Tel: 925-949-5817
Savannah Tjaden
Environmental Science Associates
Roohi Toosi
APEX Environmental & Water Resources
Tel: 949-491-3049
John Xiong
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tel: 714-371-1800
To contact any GRA Officer or Director by email, go to www.grac.org/board-of-directors
The statements and opinions expressed in GRA’s HydroVisions and other publications are those of the authors and/or contributors, and are not necessarily those of the GRA, its Board of Directors, or its members. Further, GRA makes no claims, promises, or guarantees about the absolute accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of this publication and expressly disclaims liability for errors and omissions in the contents. No warranty of any kind, implied or expressed, or statutory, is given with respect to the contents of this publication or its references to other resources. Reference in this publication to any specific commercial products, processes, or services, or the use of any trade, firm, or corporation name is for the information and convenience of the public, and does not constitute endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the GRA, its Board of Directors, or its members.
President’s MessaGe
Try this thought exercise. Think about the megatrends in the groundwater industry. Go back 10 years and read about the megatrends and assess. Did we get them right? In conducting this exercise recently for business planning purposes, I was inspired to go through the same exercise with GRA. Did we get them right within GRA forums and did we highlight and educate the industry around the hot topics? What were we projecting as critical topics and trends in 2014 and did we get them right now that we are in 2024? The best way to do this was to go straight to GRA’s “Think Tank”, the Contemporary Groundwater Issues Council (CGIC) – a group convening once yearly to discuss and assess megatrends and GRA’s role in technical education, outreach and policy; to see what the buzz was in 2014. The CGIC is tasked with providing feedback on important groundwater issues, which GRA leadership uses in planning future conferences, webinars, and workshops, and in reaching out to the legislature through its legislative liaison committee. Ten years ago – what was CGIC saying about 2024?
Ten years ago, on May 13, 2014, the GRA CGIC, a group of nearly 40 leaders in groundwater science, policy, management, use, economics, and regulation met at UC Davis. The meeting followed the release of three sets of comprehensive recommendations on groundwater management reform in California from the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA), from a broad stakeholder steering committee facilitated by the California Water Foundation (CWF), and from GRA. Given the increasing public focus on water as California’s drought continued for a third year in 2014 and given the strong interest of Governor Brown and the Legislature to move groundwater management into the 21st century, the CGIC’s focus in 2014 was to engage in the ongoing groundwater management discussion. Sounds a lot like our CGIC in 2023, and our SGMA Summit held in early June 2024!
The CGIC made a set of eight recommendations, which was published in June 2014, in the California Water Blog. Let’s conduct our megatrends-like assessment on these recommendations – did we get it right? Did GRA make useful recommendations that steered the direction of SGMA implementation? Here are the eight recommendations from 2014 and how they panned out by 2024.
GRA’s CGIC Recommendations in 2014 Implementation Success as of 2024
Support Local Management
Establish Basin Management Objectives for groundwater sustainability
Establish Water Budgets to define changes in storage and assess long-term drought and seasonal sustainability
Local and state agencies should ensure successful water budget development and document adverse impacts
Measure, assess, and report on aquifer conditions; review policy, develop objectives for neighboring basins
Make data more accessible
Local groundwater needs and governance structures and entities were established. Funding increased for state agencies for technical support (DWR Technical Support Services program) and backstop through SWRCB. DWR’s Facilitation Support Services also established for supporting development of GSPs. What’s not complete: development of financing mechanisms to support local management and facilitation of implementation.
MOs established for land subsidence, surface water flow depletions, water quality, groundwater levels and groundwater storage. MOs were not established for ecosystem health (GDEs are mapped), economic viability of pumping costs and public health.
Complete
Water budgets incorporate aquifer depth-specific groundwater levels and water quality measurements, aquifer characterization, consumptive use, crop evapotranspiration, precipitation, stream gauging, and land subsidence. What’s missing: metering of large pumpers and estimates of pumping by small pumpers.
Partial success. Measure, assess, and report on aquifer conditions; review policy = complete. SMC impact of neighboring basin evaluated, but lacking development of mutually compatible objectives.
Yes and no. Information on SGMA Data Viewer and transparency of well completion reports. What’s missing: pumping information
Make groundwater data more transferrable Not complete.
Develop Minimum Monitoring Standards for groundwater quality, water budgets, subsidence and reporting
Yes. These are the BMPs (with subsidence and ISW coming soon).
President’s MessaGe
We have pretty solid implementation success – and beyond that, we do see common themes within the eight recommendations and our technical education offerings and advocacy efforts over the last decade. From this assessment, we can see how impactful the act of convening industry leaders can be in guiding the direction of programming for an association. We look forward to the reconvening of the CGIC this year in October and megatrends they bring to the table.
Beyond SGMA, what are some of the megatrends you are following as a member of GRA, and what megatrends should GRA be involved in leading foundational direction on? Here are some of my predictions for the next decade, maybe less megatrend and more “what I’d like to see and be a part of making happen in my career”.
GRA President’s Groundwater Industry Megatrend Predictions through 2035:
1. Recharge becomes commonplace as permitting and water rights processes streamline – all, if not most agencies, are involved in some form of recharge; especially as artificial intelligence enables programs like FloodMAR everywhere.
2. Corporations become critical partners in driving replenishment projects.
3. With limited surface storage capacity and as more ‘floodier’ floods occur due to climate variability; groundwater basins start to become the primary drinking water reservoirs as surface water reservoirs reoperate to focus on flood management.
4. Broader regional partnerships as JPAs emerge to optimize the use and movement of water.
5. Water rights system in the west modernizes.
6. In urban areas, antidegradation policy are reassessed and cleanup standards evolve at pace with treatment technology. Treatment happens on the extraction side vs efforts to return aquifers to drinking water standards.
7. There is a proliferation of creativity in the industry with young talent bringing their growth mindset and the rise of automation of traditional work leaving room for more time problem solving. The industry broadens beyond traditional hydrogeological backgrounds and integrates with technology companies.
8. Technology emergence to achieve and accelerate the unthinkable - think redirection of atmospheric rivers and all that we don’t think is possible today.
Use the comment feature in LinkedIn – what are your megatrend predictions, and/or what are your hopes for our industry in the next ten years and what do you want to be a part of creating impact around?
Christy Kennedy, GRA President
Hydro Visions
future of water
by John McHugh - Luhdorff & Scalmanini
I chaired the Groundwater Resources Association’s Future of Water Symposium on February 23rd, 2024, my second time chairing a GRA event and sixth time participating on an event committee. This Symposium followed the first Future of Water, which was a pandemic-era event held virtually on February 23-24, 2021. Chairing the committee was both challenging and rewarding. In eight months, the committee planned and developed the program and invited amazing speakers to present, including leading professionals in the fields of Artificial Intelligence (AI), Sustainable Remediation, and Climate Change. The Symposium concluded with a panel focused on Tribal Ecological Knowledge.
With just under one hundred people attending, the interactive symposium felt intimate. Held at the Elks Tower, a beautiful 1926 building in Downtown Sacramento, this Symposium was designed for audience engagement with plenty of time for questions and answers during sessions and panel discussions. The goal of the Symposium was for attendees to leave feeling inspired and well-informed.
Our Keynote Speaker, Grey Nearing, PhD, Senior Research Scientist at Google, wowed the audience with Google’s AI and discussed the future of AI for water. The keynote was followed by a sustainable remediation and climate change panel moderated by Lisa Campbell, Parsons Corporation, which included Lauren Foster again, who impressed me at the prior
isions
Future of Water. Gus Tolley, Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. (DBS&A) moderated a dynamic discussion from a panel representing a variety of career stages, from students to near retirement. The theme for the panel was Constant Change: Water Industry Reflections and Predictions and software and computing were highlighted.
Sercan Ceyhan, Woodard & Curran, moderated a panel on AI that included perspectives on the applications of AI, its future, and its impact on future data collaboration. The audience wanted more; unfortunately, the Q & A was cut short to maintain the schedule. The final panel on Tribal Ecological Knowledge (TEK) was deftly moderated by Anecita Agustinez (Diné Nation), Department of Water Resources. Attendees appreciated the panelists’ valuable perspectives and traditional chronicling of information, in sharp contrast to computerdriven AI so prominent earlier in the day. It was an honor to have TEK leaders share their knowledge.
Chairing the event was a great leadership and speaking experience. While taking on a role in planning a professional event may seem daunting, it is an opportunity to learn from others, market yourself, your company, and make connections. The symposium was a success due to support from Smith Moore & Associates, the Keynote speaker Grey Nearing, the EEA Chair Erik Cadaret, and the moderators. Big thanks to the moderators Lisa, Gus, Serhan, and Anecita whose preparation resulted in good discussions, active audience participation, and rapt interest in a breadth of topics! Reflecting on my career, GRA has enriched it and led to lasting friendships. I am proud to say, “I am GRA.”
Hydro Visions
MetHods for total Pfas MeasureMent in water –
Pfas series article # 11
by Dan Bryant
- Woodard & Curra, John
Stults
- CDM Smith, Meeta Pannu - Orange County Water District, and Jim Strandberg - Woodard & Curran
Introduction
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of thousands of compounds used in industrial and commercial applications. PFAS have unique chemical structures that repel water and oil and make them resistant to transformation1 These properties have led to their widespread use in industrial and consumer products. However, the properties that make PFAS attractive for industrial uses also cause PFAS to
bioaccumulate in humans and the environment. Due to their widespread use and persistence, PFAS have been detected in various environmental matrices including soil, air, water, sediments and biosolids.
Individual PFAS (e.g. PFOA and PFOS) in water may be measured by multiple targeted methods, including USEPA Methods 537.1, 533, and 1633. Targeted methods perform the analysis by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and rely on matching analysis of unknown samples to known analytical standards. More recently, the USEPA and other researchers have developed methods to estimate the total PFAS load in a sample by measuring total
LC-MS/MS
TOP Assay Target and non-target with information on transformation
PIGE
19F-NMR
High Target and non-target dependent on LC-MS/MS method
Moderate to high
fluorine Moderate All classes of PFAS and inorganic fluorine None
fluorine
AOF/EOF CIC Total fluorine (EPA Method 1621)
Moderate to high
All classes of PFAS and inorganic fluorine
All classes of PFAS and inorganic fluorine
Moderate to high
None
Only for target components with reference standards
Requires target or non-target LC-MS/MS analysis for pre and post oxidation samples
Detection limits typically higher than AOF/EOF CIC
Detection limits typically higher than LC-MS/MS and AOF/EOF
Most validated and lower detection limit of total fluorine methods
Table 1. Comparison of TF Analytical Methods
isions
fluorine (TF), instead of measuring individual PFAS. The methods that measure TF include adsorbable organic fluorine (AOF), extractable organic fluorine (EOF), AOF by particle induced gamma ray emission (PIGE), TF using fluorine-19 nuclear magnetic resonance (19F-NMR), and Total Oxidizable Precursor Assay (TOP Assay). This article will provide details on these four TF methods. Table 1 compares the types of analysis, method sensitivities and number of PFAS covered for each method.
Adsorbable Organic Fluorine and Extractable Organic Fluorine (AOF/EOF)
Total PFAS concentration can be quantified using the total amount of organically bound fluorine present in a sample. Two total organic fluorine methods are available, referred to as AOF and EOF which only differ in how fluorine is extracted from the samples. Both methods quantify fluorine in the resulting extracts by combustion ion chromatography (CIC). The USEPA recently promulgated Method 1621 for AOF, where the water sample is passed through granular activated carbon (GAC) filters. The GAC sorbs organic compounds (including fluorine-bearing organic compounds) from the water sample, while inorganic compounds (including inorganic fluorine as the fluoride anion, F-) pass through. Fluorine in the GAC is then measured by CIC because the GAC is combusted at >1,000°C, which transforms the sorbed, organically bound fluorine into hydrofluoric acid, which is then collected in a pure reagent water and then analyzed for fluoride using ion chromatography.
EOF can be applied to either solids or liquids. The USEPA has not promulgated a method for EOF analysis, so different approaches are available. For solids, organic fluorine compounds are extracted from the sample using an organic solvent (commonly methanol). The resulting extract is then passed through a solid phase extraction (SPE) cartridge to sorb the organic compounds. For water samples, the water is passed directly through the SPE cartridge. The organic compounds are then eluted from the SPE cartridge, the eluant is combusted, and fluorine is measured by ion chromatography like in the AOF procedure.
Adsorbable Organic Fluorine by Particle Induced Gamma Ray Emission (AOF-PIGE)
PIGE spectrometry is a rapid screening tool to perform quantitative measurements of AOF. PIGE is a non-destructive spectroscopic technique that was previously demonstrated to screen for total PFAS on solid materials such as dust, textiles, and cosmetics. Recent research has adapted the PIGE method to aqueous samples. The method allows PFAS adsorption onto a graphitized activated carbon felt (GACF) using SPE to allow subsequent PIGE analysis of the felt as a solid sample. The aqueous concentration of AOF can thus be estimated and assumed to correspond to an estimate of total PFAS2. More recent work utilized PIGE to estimate total PFAS in real world samples of groundwater, surface water and recycled water3 and compared the AOF-PIGE values to EPA 533 measurements. The results therein suggested that PIGE captured 3- to 33-fold more PFAS (depending on the water matrix) compared to what was measured by EPA 533, suggesting the advantage of PIGE over EPA 533 to estimate total PFAS in water samples. The AOF-PIGE requires a large volume of water (1-2 liters) to achieve lower detection limits. In addition, AOF-PIGE may still underestimate total PFAS concentrations because the GACF may not capture higher solubility ultra short-chain PFAS.
19F-NMR
19F-NMR is a non-destructive method for non-targeted TF quantification and can capture all organofluoride compounds, including non-PFAS chemicals. 19F-NMR has been proposed as a suitable tool for total PFAS analysis4,5. Moreover, 19F NMR spectroscopy is not sensitive to matrix effects, resulting in high reproducibility, inexpensive analysis, and the ability to quantify PFAS without the need for reference standards. Quantitation can be achieved from the fluorine signal of any fluorinated internal standard. article continues on next page
Additionally, 19F-NMR can differentiate PFAS from non-PFAS compounds and from F- ions due to the distinguishable 19F signal from the alkyl chain of PFAS. This -CF3 signal is used to quantitate either a singular PFAS or total PFAS. The potential of 19F-NMR for PFAS analysis in surface water samples has been demonstrated for perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)5. Previously, 19F-NMR was not used for environmental samples because of its inability to detect low levels of PFAS. However, NMR can now achieve detections at parts per trillion levels. Use of 19F-NMR for PFAS quantification has been limited by the long run times and/or the large sample volumes required to achieve environmentally relevant detection limits.
Total Oxidizable Precursor (TOP) Assay
Many of the non-target PFAS present in PFAS-contaminated mixtures are characterized as PFAS precursors. These nontarget PFAS are typically components which are not fully fluorinated along the carbon backbone (e.g., X:2 fluorotelomer sulfonates (FTSs) and X:2 fluorotelomer alcohols (FTOHs)) or are complex, partially hydrogenated head groups (e.g., fluoroalkane sulfonamides (FASAs)). Precursors can undergo chemical reactions in the environment and transform to the terminal, fully fluoridated perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) that are commonly analyzed by targeted methods. TOP assay was originally proposed by Houtz and Sedlak6 to convert PFAS precursors, which can only be detected using nontarget or specialized targeted analysis, to the more typical PFAA precursors that can be detected by targeted analysis. Conversion of PFAS precursors is achieved by introducing the sample to a strong oxidizer (potassium persulfate) in the presence of a strong base and at high temperatures (80-100° C) to promote rapid transformation to PFAA precursors. A portion of the sample is run before and after the conversion process to quantify the change in terminal PFAA mass. Because 6:2 and 8:2 FTS are precursors that are included in target EPA method 1633, they are typically used as reference compounds to determine if full conversion has taken place. One potential limitation is that some PFAS compounds (e.g., GenX) will not oxidize under these conditions and thus will not be captured by this method. Since the introduction of the TOP assay, several modified TOP assay methods have been developed with the intent of promoting better conversion of precursors to terminal PFAAs.
Summary
Multiple methods are available to measure total fluorine in PFAS-contaminated samples and each method has its advantages. The advantage of AOF/EOF over TOP assay is that AOF/EOF will capture compounds that are not oxidizable (such as GenX) or that oxidize into non-target compounds, which TOP assay will miss. Both methods are limited in that they may have low recovery or miss ultrashort PFAS compounds. Unlike TOP assay, AOF/EOF methods are not specific to PFAS. Both methods will also quantify fluorine bound to organic compounds that may not be considered PFAS, such as chlorofluorocarbons and fluorinated
pharmaceuticals. TOP assay has lower detection limits than AOF/EOF.
PIGE has the advantage of being a quick measurement method requiring minimal sample preparation steps and can be used in conjunction with targeted methods. 19F-NMR method is promising but still requires more eluents to be tested to remove inorganic fluorine interferences and improve the detection limits. Both AOF-PIGE and AOF-CIC methods use carbonbased products to achieve the adsorption of PFAS before analysis and require methods to remove inorganic fluorine. So, these methods may be improved by exploring alternative carbon products for PFAS adsorption and perhaps steps to maximize the exclusion of inorganic fluorine.
References:
1. Herzke D, Olsson E, Posner S. Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in consumer products in Norway - a pilot study. Chemosphere. 2012 Aug; 88(8):980-7. doi: 10.1016/j. chemosphere.2012.03.035. Epub 2012 Apr 6. PMID: 22483730.
2. Tighe, M., Jin, Y., Whitehead, H. D., Hayes, K., Lieberman, M., Pannu, M., Plumlee, M. H., Peaslee, G. F. 2021. Screening for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Water with Particle Induced GammaRay Emission Spectroscopy. ES & T Water, 1 (12). https://doi. org/10.1021/acsestwater.1c00215.
3. Pannu, M.W., Plumlee, M.H., Jin, Y., Tighe, M. Peaslee, G.H. 2022. Application of novel method to estimate total PFAS content in water. Western Groundwater Congress. September 19-21, 2022, Sacramento.
4. Koch, A., Aro, R., Wang, T., Yeung., L.W.Y. 2020. Towards a comprehensive analytical workflow for the chemical characterization of organofluorine in consumer products and environmental samples. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry. 123. 115423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2019.02.024
5. Moody, C.A, Kwan W.C., Martin, J.W., Muir, D.C.G., Mabury, S.A. 2001. Determination of perfluorinated surfactants in surface water samples by two independent analytical techniques: liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry and 19F NMR. Analytical Chemistry. 73. 2200-2206.
6. Houtz, E.F., and Sedlak, D.L. 2012. Oxidative Conversion as a Means of Detecting Precursors to Perfluoroalkyl Acids in Urban Runoff. Environmental Science & Technology, 46, 9342-9349.
Hydro Visions
sGMa suMMit reflections: MoVinG into tHe teen years
by Jim Blanke - Woodard & Curran
The recent Groundwater Resources Association (GRA) SGMA Implementation Summit provided insights into where the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) is headed as it enters its second decade. With around 200 attendees, the summit featured panels and discussions on key topics such as water quality, depletions, subsidence, collaboration, and legal and policy challenges. Attendees included a broad group of Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) from across the state, along with several elected officials of GSA Boards, local public agencies, state agencies, consultants, non-profits, agricultural stakeholders, and other GSA stakeholder parties. Several themes emerged over the course of the day and a half event. One theme that found itself woven into multiple conversations was the idea that SGMA is growing up. GRA President, Christy Kennedy, kicked off the conference by drawing comparisons between SGMA and a growing child who is now about to enter their teenage years, equipped with a toolbox that will allow them to face harder challenges. Attendees were welcomed by the conference Co-Chairs, Jim Blanke of Woodard & Curran and Trevor Joseph of Sacramento Regional Water Authority; along with conference partners from ACWA, John Woodling of GEI, and Soren Nelson, ACWA Advocate. The warm welcome reflected on the milestones hit during the first decade of SGMA, the value of convening the partnership with ACWA and GRA, and the challenges that GSAs face in the coming years.
The Keynote Address by Natalie Stork with the State Water Resources Control Board outlined the basin probation process. Natalie used this platform to amplify the message that the state wants to see basins succeed with plan revisions and maintaining local control. She closed the overview with hope and the distinct message that “there are no winners here
now – the winners are future Californians.” This powerful statement could be heard among the chatter in the coffee breaks and was repeated to close the day in the subsidence session – a distinct example of difficult decisions now to benefit future generations.
Representatives from state, regional, and local agencies came together to share knowledge on the complexities of managing water quality across multiple programs, highlighting the need for continued engagement by GSAs. Two GSAs and two state agencies discussed projects, tools, and methods to help understand the complicated topic of interconnected surface waters and stream depletions. A panel on subsidence along the Friant-Kern Canal reflected on massive infrastructure needs and discussed the nuances of subsidence goals and responsibilities under SGMA. Breakout sessions on innovative recharge, groundwater-dependent ecosystems, allocations, and more drew significant interest and numerous carryover conversations during the reception.
After a deep dive into the complex technical challenges facing SGMA on Day 1, Day 2 focused on the bigger picture and the end game of achieving sustainable groundwater management. Communications experts, attorneys, and GSA representatives shared their experiences with collaborative processes, urging the attendees to look deeper into what motivates the behavior of different stakeholders to find common ground and solutions. The theme of understanding motivations continued into the final panel, with attorneys discussing the pros and cons of adjudication, including discussing the types of actions that may lead to an adjudication process.
Following Natalie’s quotable mantra were a number of other quips that kept coming up throughout the summit. In response to an audience question about streamlining similar water quality processes between agencies, Parry Klassen,
isions
Executive Director of Valley Water Collaborative, simply stated “break down silos.” This message of collaboration was weaved throughout the summit. Key takeaways from a discussion on depletions highlighted the importance of partnership to bridge gaps between disciplines. When discussing recharge projects, “let it rip” was the name of the game. It became clear that this message has already been embodied by GSAs across the state when Natlie Stork’s Keynote Address highlighted a success of 4.1 million acre-feet of recharge statewide in Water Year 2023 which was much higher than the volume recorded in a similarly wet Water Year 2019.
Overall, the summit reflected both the progress made and the continued work ahead as SGMA moves into its next phase. With an emphasis on teamwork and an openness to new approaches, attendees expressed hope that the challenges can be met through cooperation. As one example, in a “reverse
panel” where the panelists asked the audience questions, the audience embraced the message of hope and collaboration by responding with a resounding “No!”, when asked whether local control was a myth. The reflections from this event will help guide GSAs and all involved in achieving sustainable groundwater management.
This summit not only showcased the strides made over the past decade but also set the stage for the innovative strategies and collaborative efforts necessary to address future groundwater challenges. As one panelist put it, “sustainability is a moving target” and there is a strong need to both recognize the continual work that must be done while also combating change fatigue. As we move forward, the shared insights and collective commitment displayed at this event will be instrumental in advancing our mission of sustainable groundwater management – now and as SGMA moves into its teenage years towards adulthood.
Hydro Visions
sGMa exPert round table toPics
by
Chad Taylor - Todd Groundwater, Trevor Jones - Dudek, and Christy Kennedy - Woodard & Curran
The 2024 SGMA Implementation Summit was a hit. In typical GRA fashion, we took a creative path through the norm of conference presentations and conducted an “Expert Round Table” session after lunch on Day 1 of the conference. In our Expert Round Tables, we gathered ten experts to facilitate conversations around key topics. This year, 12 round tables were setup, including two tables with a “Choose Your Own Topic” open format.
All tables were near capacity, however two topics stood out with a crowd standing around the table. These two topics were “Innovative Recharge” led by Chad Taylor, Principal Hydrogeologist with Todd Groundwater, and “Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems” led by Trevor Jones, Senior Hydrogeologist with Dudek. Given the high interest in these topics, we asked Chad and Trevor to provide Hydrovisions readers with an inside look into the round table topic. Enjoy!
isions
Innovative Recharge Round Table Conversation – Chad Taylor
We began the Innovative Recharge round table discussion with a brief review of the multitude of physical recharge techniques agencies are implementing. The conversation then turned to novel means of incentivizing recharge using techniques like the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency’s Recharge Net Metering program. The focus then shifted to permitting and water rights for new recharge projects, which have often been a roadblock for agencies when planning recharge. The group recommended looking for multi-benefit project opportunities for recharge, which is what Sacramento County is exploring through a stakeholder process and the use of a spatial decision support tool on the Cosumnes River. Quantifying the benefits of recharge projects was also a topic of interest, and the group shared ideas about monitoring recharge and infiltration using traditional and emerging measurement methods like fiber-optic distributed temperature sensing technology. The group challenged GRA and ACWA to advance the recharge conversation before next year’s conference to provide more logistical recharge planning, permitting, and water rights support to GSAs and others.
Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Round Table
Conversation – Trevor Jones
The GDE roundtable discussion focused on challenges defining undesirable results, monitoring pumping impacts on GDE health, and effective stakeholder communication. The roundtable included representatives from consulting firms, groundwater sustainability agencies, and State agencies, each providing a unique perspective on the technical, political, and regulatory challenges that face GDE management under SGMA. While identifying and managing GDEs under SGMA will take on different forms across the State, the experts around the table emphasized that effective GDE management requires:
• Early coordination with State representatives and environmental interest groups to ensure that GDEs are appropriately represented and integrated into the broader sustainable groundwater management program.
• Development and use of numerical models to quantify the impacts of pumping on GDE health over a broad range of climatological conditions.
• Development of “plain language” outreach materials to communicate highly technical materials to a broad range of groundwater users and policymakers.
Conference Co-Chair Jim Blanke, Senior Hydrogeologist with Woodard & Curran, opened Day 2 with a reflection on the Expert Round Tables, asking attendees to share highlights from their learning at these sessions. The format of the Expert Round Table session received very positive feedback. GRA is committed to providing engaging content and stimulating learning formats for the groundwater community. Join us in October at the Western Groundwater Congress in Tahoe for more innovative conference sessions!
Hydro Visions
answerinG tHe call: insiGHts and stories froM Past western Groundwater conGress attendees
by Jean Moran – California State University East Bay; Sierra Ryan – County of Santa Cruz; Ryan Aston – SCI Consulting Group; Roohi Toosi – APEX Environmental & Water Resources
Introduction:
Over the years, the Western Groundwater Congress (WGC) has set the stage for groundwater professionals to gather, circulate ideas, and share knowledge related to groundwater management. It has shaped the perspectives and careers of many water resources professionals. The WGC provides a unique opportunity to not only experience a diverse array of perspectives, but to contribute to our shared understanding of groundwater. This year’s theme, “The Mountains are Calling…,” speaks to the undeniable impacts of climate extremes experienced in recent years, and the need to come together to share our appreciation of natural resources and to harmonize our collective efforts to prepare for the future.
7th Annual WGC, The Mountains Are Calling...Will You Answer?!
We are thrilled to announce that registration for the 7th annual WGC is now open! Special thanks to the planning committee and Smith Moore & Associates on their tireless efforts to make this WGC, yet another impactful event. This year, we received more than 150 high quality abstracts that made the selection process challenging, but rewarding. Another exciting news is the addition of Poster Pitches to this year’s program! The goal of poster pitches is to provide each poster presenter the opportunity to introduce themselves and their poster topic to WGC attendees during the conference program ahead of the poster session. Sponsorship and exhibiting opportunities are also available and can be explored
in our prospectus document. We are proud to continue our commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DE&I) initiatives and promote the next generations of leaders by presenting the DE&I and student scholarship programs for the second year in a row. The goal of these programs is to elevate our community by providing an inclusive WGC for all! https://www.grac.org/page/2024wgc
Hear What Past WGC Attendees Think:
We are honored to host some of the most influential industry leaders in WGC. Below are interviews that Ryan Aston, the WGC Communication Chair, conducted with two of the most recognizable names in GRA, who shared their experiences at WGC:
Sierra
Ryan
Sierra Ryan is the Water Resources Manager at the County of Santa Cruz. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies from UC Santa Barbara, and a Master’s degree in Environmental Sustainability from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. After grad school, she came back to her hometown of Santa Cruz and spent eight years working in wetland ecology before starting at the County in 2015. Her programs include overseeing the County’s drinking water program, groundwater sustainability program, fisheries management, and water quality lab.
isions
1. What is your favorite WGC moment?
In 2019, the WGC reception was a casino night. I ended up around a blackjack table with staff from DWR, consulting hydrogeologists, and GSA representatives. It was a great way to get to know fellow groundwater enthusiasts in a different light.
2. What is your favorite panel or presentation you have attended at the WGC?
That’s impossible to answer! I could never choose a specific panel, but I will share that one thing I appreciate about the WGC panels generally is that they usually have a mix of academics, practitioners, and regulators all giving their perspectives on an issue. The differing viewpoints are important as they highlight the complicated, interdisciplinary nature of the work we do, and draw attention to innovative solutions.
3. In what ways has the WGC helped you in your career?
I have attended three WGC events and at each one I have made valuable connections with practitioners who are facing, or have faced and resolved, the same challenges I am working on in my career. I have seen examples of alternative approaches that I can build from, and I have met decision makers who are interested in hearing my opinion. Or maybe they’re not… but I give them my opinion anyway.
4. What do you look forward to seeing more of at the WGC?
The interesting mix of perspectives – State agencies, researchers, consulting firms, GSAs, NGOs – is what keeps me coming back to WGC.
5. In what ways are you excited about the 2024 WGC theme (“A Sustainable Adventure”) and location (Tahoe!)? Tahoe is a case study for the beauty of California that we are trying to protect with the work we do. I do hope to see the theme of “sustainable” on display at the event – no plastic cups and irrigated non-functional turf at the venue would be a nice change from most of the conferences I attend.
Jean Moran
Dr. Jean Moran is a professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at California State University, East Bay. Her research focuses on using naturally-occurring and introduced tracers to examine geochemical and transport processes in groundwater. She has been an author on publications that combined, have over 3,000 citations, and was named Outstanding Researcher at CSU East Bay in 2016. In 2023, Dr. Moran won both the Lifetime Achievement Award from the California Groundwater Resources Association and the George and Miriam Phillips Outstanding Professor Award at CSU East Bay.
1. What is your favorite WGC moment?
Well, it’s hard to beat receiving the Lifetime Achievement Award last year. It was both humbling to join the company of the previous winners, and thrilling to receive the recognition. I was so grateful to GRA, the Awards Committee, students and colleagues who submitted letters for me, and to Murray Einarson, who nominated me and presented the award. A distant second is when Roohi scared me while we were dancing at the silent disco (I didn’t recognize him).
2. What is your favorite panel or presentation you have attended at the WGC?
I enjoy technical presentations that tell a story and I learn something new. For example, last year, I enjoyed hearing from Wes Neely about mapping recharge using geophysical methods and from Karina Arredondo and Laura Foglia about modeling surface water-groundwater interaction in Scott Valley.
3. In what ways has the WGC helped you in your career?
It’s the discussions after talks, during coffee breaks, at lunch, and at posters with people that I know and people that I’m speaking to for the first time that have led to collaborations and learning opportunities. The collaborations that were initiated at GRA meetings have been amazing - productive, interesting, and meaningful projects that have helped my career, led to student projects, and advanced knowledge of the groundwater resource in California. GRA holds a unique position in bringing together consultants, regulators, academics and other researchers, and students – all focused on California’s groundwater.
4. What do you look forward to seeing more of at the WGC? Basically, more of the same. I do hope the organizers maintain a good balance between technical and management/regulatory topics. The student presentations are always a highlight.
5. In what ways are you excited about the 2024 WGC theme (“A Sustainable Adventure”) and location (Tahoe!)?
SGMA has been an adventure and while a great amount of work on basin characterization and modeling has been done, the real adventure will be in the implementation, which is just beginning. Can we implement recharge on the scale envisioned? Can we find substantial new water sources through remediation and recycling? Can we manage climate whiplash for the benefit of the water supply? The natural beauty of the Tahoe area is one of the many reasons I love living and working in California. Never pass up a chance to attend a conference in Tahoe.
PROVIDING INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS FOR MANAGING OUR CRITICAL UNDERGROUND WATER
Related Services
Managed Aquifer Recharge
Hydrogeologic Feasibility Studies
Subsidence Risk Evaluations
Water Resources Modeling
Stormwater Management
PFAS Assessment & Remediation
Water Well Supply Design & Construction
Sustainable Groundwater Management
Groundwater Quality Assessment & Mitigation
Hydro Visions
GeoH2oMysteryPix
by Chris Bonds - DWR, Sacramento Branch Member at Large
GeoH2OMysteryPix is a fun addition to HydroVisions that started in Fall 2022. The idea is simple; I share some questions, some cool supporting geology and/or water resources photo(s) along with a hint, and readers email in their guesses.
In a future issue of HydroVisions, I will share the answer(s) along with some brief background/historical information about the photos and acknowledge the first person(s) to email me the correct answer(s).
GRA looks forward to your enthusiastic participation in GeoH2OMysteryPix.
SPRING 2024 ANSWERS
What is this? Where is it Located?
Hint: This innovative CA structure was built in the mid-20th century.
Congratulations to Scott McReynolds, Senior Environmental Scientist, CA-DWR for providing the following correct response to the Spring 2024 GeoH2OMysteryPix questions:
“Photo is of the twin Hyatt Pumping-Generating Plant Intakes on Lake Oroville. Allows operators to select the depth of water to help control discharge water temperatures to protect the native salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon in the Feather River downstream from the dam. Intake depth is controlled by large, flat plates that are positioned using the blue gantry crane system in the image.”
Background/History: TThe two Temperature Control Intake
Structures at Lake Oroville near the dam’s left embankment were designed and built by DWR between 1962 and 1968. Lake water enters through these intakes and is conveyed to the powerplant through penstocks and branch lines. Hyatt Powerplant is an underground, hydroelectric, pumpinggenerating facility that maximizes power production through pumped storage operation where water, released for power in excess of local and downstream requirements, is returned to storage in Lake Oroville during off-peak periods and is used for generation during peak power demands.
References:
DWR 2024. California Department of Water Resources PIXEL On-line Photo Gallery and Descriptions.
PartinG sHot Hydro Visions
by John Karachewski, PhD
Alpenglow on glacially sculpted Cathedral Peak in the Tuolumne Meadows area of Yosemite National Park. The smooth and rounded lower slopes were glaciated, whereas the jagged spires stood above the ice as nunateks. Cathedral Peak is a classic and popular Yosemite rock-climbing area. John Muir made the first ascent of Cathedral Peak in 1869.
Granitic rocks dominate the geology of Yosemite National Park. There are roughly 35 plutons in the park area, each characterized by a relatively homogeneous composition and texture. A group of plutons that are part of the same magmatic event and thus related is called an intrusive suite which is typically emplaced over about 10 million years and often interpreted as being the roots of a single volcanic system. There are seven intrusive suites in Yosemite National Park. The Tuolumne Intrusive Suite is the youngest and most extensive, occupying about 1/3 of the park’s area. It contains many famous rock types including the Cathedral Peak Granite (about 88 to 87 million years old) and Half Dome Granodiorite. The Cathedral Peak Granite includes unusually large phenocrysts of orthoclase (potassium) feldspar and smaller crystals of quartz, feldspar, and biotite that comprise the groundmass.
Glaciers originating at the crest of the Sierra Nevada flowed down preexisting river canyons numerous times throughout the Quaternary Period (past 2.6 million years). Although the field evidence for older glaciations is incomplete, at least seven distinct glacial periods have been identified in the Sierra Nevada, during the past 1.5 million years.
Yosemite included both alpine icefields and associated valley glaciers. In the Sierra Nevada, the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) is referred to as the Tioga glaciation. The LGM likely involved at least two, and perhaps as many as four, major
glacial advances spanning the interval from approximately 27,000 to 15,000 years ago; with the maximum ice extent occurring about 21,000 to 18,000 years ago.
During the maximum extent of the Tioga glaciation, glaciers and ice fields covered most areas in and around Yosemite National Park above 2,700 meters in elevation, having a profound impact on the landscape. A great icefield occupied the area in and around Tuolumne Meadows, with ice thicknesses exceeding 500 meters. The glaciers did not completely cover the mountains; peaks and ridges that projected above the ice are called nunataks (an Eskimo term meaning “lonely peak”). Glaciers carved and sharpened these bedrock islands as they plucked away at their sides. In the Tuolumne Meadows area, examples of nunataks include Cathedral Peak, Unicorn Peak, and Matthes Crest.
Glaciation had a profound impact on the Yosemite landscape including the distribution of many geological, hydrological, and ecological features. Tarns, which are lakes occupying bedrock depressions scoured out by glaciers, are a good indicator of the extent of Tioga-age ice. In contrast, groves of Giant Sequoia on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada are located only outside of the Tioga-age ice extent. This distinction is likely because glaciers scoured most of the soil from areas within the ice extent, leaving behind large expanses of bare granite or bouldery till deposits that are not amenable to the growth of Giant Sequoia.
isions
Photographed by John A. Karachewski, PhD, along the John Muir Trail in July 2010. The GPS coordinated of the photograph are 37.843055° and -119.413532°. Additional information about the geology of the park is available in Geology Underfoot in Yosemite National Park, The Geologic Story of Yosemite National Park (pdf), Yosemite National Park Geologic Resources Inventory Report (pdf), and Extent of the Last Glacial Maximum (Tioga) glaciation in Yosemite National Park and vicinity, California.
t H ank y ou t o o ur c ontributors
Ryan Aston is a Senior Consultant at SCI Consulting Group working with Groundwater Sustainability Agencies in pursuing funding for GSP implementation, a critical and challenging task for water management in the state. I have successfully applied my quantitative and qualitative research skills to identify and secure multiple funding sources for my clients, as well as to evaluate and improve their financial and operational performance. I also enjoy working with various types of special districts, cities, and counties, on a diverse range of project types, such as revenue enhancement, strategic planning, and public engagement.
Jim Blanke, PE, PG, CHG, PMP, is a professional engineer, professional geologist, and certified hydrogeologist with over two decades of extensive experience in groundwater management in California at Woodard & Curran. He has authored groundwater sustainability plans, developed technical guidance for various groundwater efforts, developed and implemented groundwater ordinances, expanded monitoring networks, and provided technical assistance for water transfers, recharge, and banking.
Dan Bryant, PhD, is Woodard & Curran’s National Practice Leader for Emerging Contaminants. Dan has 28 years of geochemistry and in-situ remediation experience that crosses the spectrum from fractured bedrock to unsaturated shallow soil, with contaminants including metals, chlorinated solvents, petroleum hydrocarbons, explosives, PAHs, and emerging contaminants including 1,4-dioxane and PFAS. Dan has three issued and one pending patent for in-situ remedies for metals, chlorinated solvents, and PFAS. Dan is a licensed geologist in Missouri, Georgia, New York, and Indiana. He has bachelor's and master's degrees in geology from the University of Florida, and master’s and Ph.D. degrees in geoscience (with a focus in geochemistry) from Columbia University.
Chris Bonds is a Senior Engineering Geologist (Specialist) with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) in Sacramento. Since 2001, he has been involved in a variety of statewide projects including groundwater exploration, management, monitoring, modeling, policy, research, and water transfers. He has over 30 years of professional work experience in the private and public sectors in California, Hawaii, and Alaska and is a Professional Geologist and Certified Hydrogeologist. Chris received two Geology degrees from California State Universities. He has been a member of GRAC since 2010, a Sacramento Branch Officer since 2017, and has presented at numerous GRAC events since 2004.
Trevor Jones is a Hydrogeologist at Dudek with experience developing numerical models to simulate flow and transport of reactive solutes in heterogeneous media. Currently helping assess large-scale groundwater models that help guide sustainable management of California groundwater basins.
John Karachewski, PhD, retired recently from the California-EPA in Berkeley after serving as geologist for many years in the Geological Support Branch of the Permitting & Corrective Action Division for Hazardous Waste Management. John has conducted geology and environmental projects from Colorado to Alaska to Midway Island and throughout California. He leads numerous geology field trips for the Field Institute and also enjoys teaching at Diablo Valley College. John enjoys photographing landscapes during the magic light of sunrise and sunset. Since 2009, John has written quarterly photo essays for Hydrovisions.
Christy Swindling Kennedy, PE, PG, CHG, is a hydrogeologist, water resources engineer, and strategy lead for Woodard & Curran. She has served in numerous roles such as engineering, operations, people leadership, and was the CMO for RMC Water & Environment. She has over 20 years in the consulting engineering business focused on water management and resiliency. With her technical background in hydrogeology and water resources engineering coupled with her business development expertise, she serves as an advisor to a water industry-focused accelerator and two venture funds.
John McHugh started his career at CH2M Hill in 1990 (Oakland and Santa Ana), conducting hydrogeologic investigations, then in 1993 joined the Alameda County Water District where he regulated hazardous release sites and managed monitoring well installation and groundwater sampling programs. In 2003 he joined the Santa Clara Valley Water District and continued to regulate hazardous release sites and worked on various water resources and water quality projects. In 2016 he started conducing asset management. Currently John is responsible for the pipeline asset management program, and a raw water master plan.
Jean Moran, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at California State University, East Bay. Her research focuses on using naturally-occurring and introduced tracers to examine geochemical and transport processes in groundwater. She has been an author on publications that combined, have over 3,000 citations, and was named Outstanding Researcher at CSU East Bay in 2016. In 2023, Dr. Moran won both the Lifetime Achievement Award from the California Groundwater Resources Association and the George and Miriam Phillips Outstanding Professor Award at CSU East Bay.
Manmeet “Meeta” Pannu, PhD, is a Senior Scientist in the Research and Development (R&D) Department of Orange County Water District (OCWD) at Anaheim, CA. Meeta is currently completing research at OCWD related to PFAS. These projects include evaluation of GAC, IX, and alternative adsorbents to remove PFAS from groundwater during wellhead treatment and managed aquifer recharge via in situ adsorption and alternative methods to measure total PFAS in water samples.
Jim Strandberg is a Senior Hydrogeologist/Project Manager at Woodard & Curran in Walnut Creek, CA. Jim is a member of the firm’s national emerging contaminants team and leads PFAS projects across the state.
John Stults, PhD is an Environmental Engineer with CDM Smith located in Bellevue Research & Testing Laboratory. He completed his PhD research at Colorado School of Mines, studying the transport mechanisms of PFAS in the vadose zone. He specializes in PFAS transport and treatment assessments, numerical modelling, and scalable data analytics.
Chad Taylo is the Vice President and Principal Hydrogeologist at Todd Groundwater specializing in groundwater supply development, management, and monitoring on all scales from individual property to basin wide.
Roohi Toosi, PE, is the President & Principal Engineer at APEX Environmental & Water Resources. He is also a Board Director and a member of several committees within GRA. Over the course of his career, Mr. Toosi has conducted and managed projects for utilities, school districts, municipalities, military bases, private developers, contractors, farmers, water districts, and large consulting firms.
Roscoe Moss Company
