HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.26.22 Drought Impact Analysis Study (2)
From:Loeser, Kamie
To:BOS
Subject:Drought Impact Analysis Study
Date:Thursday, May 26, 2022 9:45:10 AM
Dear Members of the Board,
The Drought Impact Analysis Study Report is now available. The body of the report is about 130 pages with lots of data and figures. The
consultant team will host a webinar next week on June 1, 12-1:30 PM to present the report to the public and answer questions (please register
th
with the link below). Although it will generally be the same information that was presented to you on April 26
(with adjustments as
appropriate), we encourage you to attend or watch it later since it will be recorded. The report will be the main agenda item for discussion at
th
the next Drought Task Force (DTF) meeting on June 7 at 1 pm. The DTF will be identifying possible County actions in response to the current
th
drought emergency; Department staff will present their recommendations at your June 14 Board meeting. The study will also be discussed at
th
the next Water Commission meeting on June 8 for any additional potential recommendations.
Drought Impact Analysis Study Available:
http://www.buttecounty.net/wrcdocs/Reports/SpecialProjects/2021DroughtImpacts/Butte%20County_Drought_Impact_Analysis_May_2022.pdf
Please register in advance for this webinar:
https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_ZAtBkqs3QEaujSSh_L8nDw
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kamie N. Loeser
Director
Dept. of Water and Resource Conservation
Butte County
308 Nelson Avenue
Oroville, CA 95965-3302
DROUGHT IMPACT ANALYSIS STUDY
Butte County Department of Water and
Resource Conservation
REPORT | May 2022
MAY 2022
DROUGHT IMPACT ANALYSIS STUDY
BUTTE COUNTY, CA
PREPARED FOR
BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
WATER AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION
PREPARED BY
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers technical team gratefully acknowledges the Butte
County Board of Supervisors for funding this study and the Butte County Department of Water and
Resource Conservation in managing the project.
BUTTECOUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Bill Connelly Tod Kimmelshue
Debra Lucero Doug Teeter
Tami Ritter
MEMBERS OF BUTTE COUNTY COMMUNITY
This study came together with the help of numerous people and agencies across Butte County. We
would like to take this opportunity to thanks those people and agencies here:
Department of Water Resources
Local Small Growers
Domestic Well Owners
Butte County Staff
Water Districts
California Water Services
California State University – Chico
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies
Cal Fire
United Stated Bureau of Reclamation
PLANNING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT
Eddy Teasdale, LSCE Anita Chaudhry, Department of
Economics - CSU, Chico
Jacques Debra, LSCE
Janine Stone, Department of
Cab Esposito, LSCE
Economics - CSU, Chico
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1
Chapter 1 – Setting ................................................................................................................................... 2
Chapter 2 – Overview of 2021 Conditions ................................................................................................ 2
Chapter 3 – Water Transfer Programs in the Northern Sacramento Valley ............................................ 3
Chapter 4 – Estimated of 2021 Groundwater Demand ............................................................................ 4
Chapter 5 – Evaluation of Groundwater Level Conditions in the Northern Sacramento
Valley. ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
Chapter 6 – Evaluation of Drought Impacts ............................................................................................. 6
Chapter 7 – Next Steps to Improve Drought Resiliency ........................................................................... 7
1. Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Overview of 2021 Conditions .................................................................................................................... 6
2.1. Climate ............................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2. Streamflow ........................................................................................................................................ 8
2.3. Groundwater Elevation ................................................................................................................... 13
2.4. Reservoir Levels ............................................................................................................................... 15
2.5. Reported Dry Wells .......................................................................................................................... 16
2.6. Well Completion Reports ................................................................................................................ 18
2.7. Agricultural Acreages ....................................................................................................................... 19
2.8. Drought Restrictions ........................................................................................................................ 21
2.9. Ecosystem Response ....................................................................................................................... 22
3. Water Transfer Programs in the Northern Sacramento Valley .............................................................. 24
3.1. Water Transfers ............................................................................................................................... 26
3.2. Water Transfer Costs ....................................................................................................................... 28
3.3. Cumulative Impacts of Water Transfers .......................................................................................... 30
4. Estimates of 2021 Groundwater Demand .............................................................................................. 33
4.1. Groundwater Demand Estimation .................................................................................................. 33
4.2. Groundwater Pumping in the Northern Sacramento Valley ........................................................... 40
5. Evaluation of Groundwater Level Conditions in the Northern Sacramento Valley ................................ 45
5.1. Summary of Aquifer Change Conditions ......................................................................................... 45
5.2. Groundwater Well Summary ........................................................................................................... 65
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
I
May 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
6. Evaluation of Drought Impacts ............................................................................................................... 77
6.1. Economic Framework for Understanding County-wide Costs of Drought ...................................... 77
6.2. Agricultural Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 78
6.3. Municipal and Industrial Impacts .................................................................................................... 88
6.4. Outdoor Recreation Impacts ........................................................................................................... 89
6.5. Impacts to Rural Domestic Water Users ......................................................................................... 93
6.6. Government ..................................................................................................................................... 98
6.7. Environmental Impacts and Associated Non-Market Effects .......................................................... 99
7. Next Steps to Improve Drought Resiliency ........................................................................................... 102
7.1. Assess Drought Risks by User and Type of Use ............................................................................. 102
7.2. Integrate Regional Policies to Strengthen Drought Response ...................................................... 106
7.3. Develop Drought Response Metrics to Minimize Drought Impacts .............................................. 108
7.4. Data Gaps and Additional Studies in Butte County ....................................................................... 108
8. References ............................................................................................................................................ 113
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Mean Yearly Surface Flows of Selected Stations (mean CFS) ...................................................... 9
Table 2-2. Average Groundwater Elevation Changes from 2020 to 2021 for Wells 100 to 450
feet deep (feet) ....................................................................................................................... 14
Table 2-3. Average Groundwater Elevation Changes from 2020 to 2021 for Wells 200 to 600
feet deep (feet) in Select Irrigation Districts ........................................................................... 14
Table 2-4. Dry Wells Reported from DWR My Dry Well (updated March 15, 2022) .................................. 16
Table 2-5. Number of Well Completions in Butte County by Sector .......................................................... 19
Table 2-6. Median Depth of New Wells in Butte County by Sector (feet) .................................................. 19
Table 2-7. Total Drilled Feet of New Wells in Butte County by Sector (feet) ............................................. 19
Table 2-8. Agricultural Acreages for Major Crop Types in Butte County and Subbasins for WY
2021 ......................................................................................................................................... 20
Table 2-9. Mapped vs. Predicted Fallowed Fields in 2015 .......................................................................... 21
Table 3-1. Agencies in the NSV Participating in Water Transfers in WY 2021 ............................................ 25
Table 3-2. Groundwater Substitution Transfers Greater than 5,000 AF .................................................... 27
Table 3-3. Crop Idling Transfers Greater than 5,000 AF ............................................................................. 27
Table 3-4. Average Price of NOD-SOD Water Transfers in Butte County and the Sacramento
Valley ....................................................................................................................................... 29
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
II
May 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 3-5. Average Price of NOD-SOD Water Transfers by Transfer Type in the Sacramento
Valley ....................................................................................................................................... 29
Table 3-6. Impacts to Water Resources by Water Transfer Agency ........................................................... 31
Table 3-7. Impacts to Groundwater Water Resources by Subbasin ........................................................... 31
Table 4-1. Pumping and Surface Water Deliveries in WY 2021 for Butte County WBS .............................. 37
Table 4-2. 2021 Municipal Groundwater Pumping ..................................................................................... 38
Table 4-3. Domestic Groundwater Pumping Estimate for 2021 ................................................................. 40
Table 4-4. Pumping by GSP Subbasin .......................................................................................................... 40
Table 4-5. Maximum Voluntary Groundwater Pumping Amounts by Agency ........................................... 42
Table 4-6. Volume of Water Purchased by USBR for Select Agencies ........................................................ 42
Table 4-7. Curtailed Water Rights on August 20, 2021 ............................................................................... 43
Table 5-1. Summary of Vulnerable Wells Analysis ...................................................................................... 71
Table 5-2. Summary of Vulnerable Wells Analysis ...................................................................................... 76
Table 6-1. Estimated pumping costs for rice, almonds, and walnuts in 2021 ............................................ 83
Table 6-2. Changes in Groundwater Levels, total pumping costs, and changes in costs per acre
for Butte County sub-regions .................................................................................................. 85
Table 6-3. Effect of Oroville’s Boat Ramps Closures on Recreation Person Days, 2016- 21* .................... 92
Table 6-4. Costs Borne by Residents Experiencing a Dry Well .................................................................... 96
Table 7-1. Summary of Regional Water Management Legislation ........................................................... 107
Table 7-2. Drought Response Metrics to Minimize Drought Impacts ...................................................... 108
Table 7-3. Drought Cycle Updates ............................................................................................................ 109
Table 7-4. Drought Cycle Updates ............................................................................................................ 110
Table 7-5. Drought Funding Opportunities ............................................................................................... 111
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Butte County and GSP Subbasin Boundaries .............................................................................. 3
Figure 1-2. Northern Sacramento Valley (NSV) Counties of Interest ........................................................... 4
Figure 1-3. GSP Subbasins in the Northern Sacramento Valley .................................................................... 5
Figure 2-1. Summary of Durham CIMIS Station ............................................................................................ 7
Figure 2-2. Climate Summary from the Northern Sierra 8 Station Index ..................................................... 7
Figure 2-3. Location Map of Stream Monitoring .......................................................................................... 9
Figure 2-4. Flow in Butte Creek at the BCD Station .................................................................................... 10
Figure 2-5. Flow in Big Chico Creek at the BIC Stations .............................................................................. 11
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
III
May 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 2-6. Flow in the Feather River at the GRL Station ............................................................................ 12
Figure 2-7. Flow in the Sacramento River at ORD Station .......................................................................... 13
Figure 2-8 Elevation of Lake Oroville from WY 2008 through WY 2021 ..................................................... 15
Figure 2-9. Elevation of Lake Oroville During Recent Dry Years ................................................................. 16
Figure 2-10. Dry Wells Reported in Butte County During Calendar Year 2021 .......................................... 17
Figure 2-11. Dry Wells Reported in Butte County in 2022, from January 1 through March 15 ................. 18
Figure 3-1. Agencies Participating in Water Transfer as Seller’s ................................................................ 24
Figure 3-2. Groundwater Substitution Transfers ........................................................................................ 26
Figure 3-3. Crop Idling Transfers ................................................................................................................. 27
Figure 3-4. Reservoir Release Transfers ...................................................................................................... 28
Figure 3-5. Average Price of Water Transfers by Transfer Type ................................................................. 30
Figure 3-6. Impacts to Groundwater Resources from Transfers ................................................................ 32
Figure 3-7. Total Impact of Transfers as Percent of Total Pumping for each GSP Subbasin ...................... 32
Figure 4-1. Water Balance Subregions (WBS) Used in Agricultural Groundwater Demand
Estimates ................................................................................................................................. 34
Figure 4-2. Estimated Total Agricultural Groundwater Pumping in 2021 in acre-feet ............................... 35
Figure 4-3. Estimated Agricultural Groundwater Pumping Rates in acre-feet per acre ............................. 36
Figure 4-4. Pumping as a percent of SY in GSP Subregions ........................................................................ 41
Figure 4-5. Curtailment of Surface Water in Butte, Vina, and Wyandotte Creek GSP Subbasins
on August 20, 2021 .................................................................................................................. 44
Figure 5-1. GSP Subbasins in the NSV ......................................................................................................... 46
Figure 5-2. Spring 2021 Groundwater Elevation for Wells Perforated at less than 200 feet bgs ............... 47
Figure 5-3. Spring 2021 Depth to Groundwater for Wells Perforated at less than 200 feet bgs ............... 48
Figure 5-4. Spring 2019 to Spring 2021 Groundwater Changes for Wells Perforated at less than
200 feet bgs ............................................................................................................................. 49
Figure 5-5. Fall 2021 Groundwater Elevation for Wells Perforated at less than 200 feet bgs ................... 50
Figure 5-6. Fall 2021 Depth to Groundwater Elevation for Wells Perforated at less than 200
feet bgs .................................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 5-7. Fall 2019 to Fall 2021 Groundwater Changes for Wells Perforated at less than 200
Feet bgs ................................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 5-8. Spring 2021 Groundwater Elevation for Wells Perforated Between 200 and 600
Feet bgs ................................................................................................................................... 53
Figure 5-9. Spring 2021 Depth to Groundwater for Wells Perforated Between 200 and 600
Feet bgs ................................................................................................................................... 54
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
IV
May 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 5-10. Spring 2019 to Spring 2021 Groundwater Changes for Wells Perforated Between
200 and 600 Feet bgs .............................................................................................................. 55
Figure 5-11. Fall 2021 Groundwater Elevation for Wells Perforated Between 200 and 600 Feet
bgs ........................................................................................................................................... 56
Figure 5-12. Fall 2021 Depth to Groundwater for Wells Perforated Between 200 and 600 Feet
bgs ........................................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 5-13. Fall 2019 to Fall 2021 Groundwater Changes for Wells Perforated Between 200
and 600 Feet bgs ..................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 5-14. Spring 2021 Groundwater Elevation for Wells Perforated Greater Than 600 Feet
bgs ........................................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 5-15. Spring 2021 Depth to Groundwater for Wells Perforated Greater Than 600 Feet
bgs ........................................................................................................................................... 60
Figure 5-16. Spring 2019 to Spring 2021 Groundwater Changes for Wells Perforated Greater
Than 600 Feet bgs ................................................................................................................... 61
Figure 5-17. Fall 2021 Groundwater Elevation for Wells Perforated Greater Than 600 Feet bgs
................................................................................................................................................. 62
Figure 5-18. Fall 2021 Depth to Groundwater for Wells Perforated Greater Than 600 Feet bgs
................................................................................................................................................. 63
Figure 5-19. Fall 2019 to Fall 2021 Groundwater Changes for Wells Perforated Greater Than
600 Feet bgs ............................................................................................................................ 64
Figure 5-20. Well Depths by Year Completed and Subbasin ...................................................................... 66
Figure 5-21. Explanation of Boxplot Data and Visualization ....................................................................... 66
Figure 5-22. Vulnerable Wells in 2021 Based on Groundwater Level Elevations and Well
Construction Details ................................................................................................................ 67
Figure 5-23. Vulnerable Wells in 2022 Based on Drawdowns Similar to 2020-2021 (Moderate)
and Well Construction Details ................................................................................................. 68
Figure 5-24. Vulnerable Wells in 2022 Based on Drawdowns Similar to 2019-2021 (Extreme)
and Well Construction Details ................................................................................................. 69
Figure 5-25. Vulnerable Wells in 2022 for All Scenarios ............................................................................. 70
Figure 5-26. Agricultural Well Depths by Subbasin .................................................................................... 72
Figure 5-27. Total Number of Agricultural Wells Drilled by Subbasin ........................................................ 72
Figure 5-28. Vulnerable Agricultural Wells in 2021 Based on Groundwater Level Elevations and
Well Construction Details ........................................................................................................ 73
Figure 5-29. Vulnerable Agricultural Wells in 2022 Based on Drawdowns Similar to 2020-2021
(Moderate) and Well Construction Details ............................................................................. 74
Figure 5-30. Vulnerable Agricultural Wells in 2022 Based on Drawdowns Similar to 2019-2021
(Extreme) and Well Construction Details ................................................................................ 75
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
V
May 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 5-31. Vulnerable Wells in 2022 for All Scenarios ............................................................................. 76
Figure 6-1. Economic Impacts of Drought .................................................................................................. 77
Figure 6-2. Average 10-year Agricultural Revenue by Land Use Class – Based on Crop Reports
(2010-2020) Adjusted for Inflation .......................................................................................... 79
Figure 6-3. Area in Rice and Orchards in Butte County .............................................................................. 80
Figure 6-4. Revenue per acre for Rice. Almonds, and Walnuts in Butte County ........................................ 81
Figure 6-5. Water Transferred from Districts in Butte County* and Sacramento Valley, 2010-
2021 ......................................................................................................................................... 86
Figure 6-6. Price Received of Water Transferred from Sacramento Valley, 2010-2021 ............................ 87
Figure 6-7. Peak Summer (July) Water Use in Chico ................................................................................... 89
Figure 6-8. Depth of New Domestic Wells Drilled in Butte County ............................................................ 94
Figure 6-9. Butte County Residents’ Response “Was the Problem Resolved?” ......................................... 95
Figure 6-10. Average Water Bills in California’s Urban Water Supply System ........................................... 97
Figure 7-1. Risk Assessment Framework .................................................................................................. 102
Figure 7-2. Indicators Used to Estimate Each Component of the Risk Framework (Exposure,
Vulnerability, Observed Shortage) ........................................................................................ 103
Figure 7-3. DWR Shortage Risk Explorer for Small Water Suppliers ......................................................... 104
Figure 7-4. DWR Drought and Water Shortage Risk Explorer for Self-Supplied Communities ................. 105
APPENDICES
Appendix A DWR Groundwater Level Change Maps – Spring 2021
Appendix B DWR Groundwater Level Change Maps – Summer 2022
Appendix C Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Resolution No. 2021-09
Appendix D Estimate of Pumping Costs
Appendix E Small Water Systems and Rural Communities Drought and Water Shortage
Contingency Planning and Risk Assessment
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
VI
May 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym Meaning
BBGM Butte Basin Groundwater Model
BWD Butte Water District
Cal Fire California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
Cal Water California Water Services
CAWSC California Water Science Center
CI Crop idling
CIMIS California Irrigation Management Information System
CVP Central Valley Project
Delta Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
DWR Department of Water Resources
EA Environmental assessment
EMWC East Side Mutual Water Company
EOC Emergency operations center
ET Evapotranspiration
GCIDGlenn-Colusa Irrigation District
GHMWC Garden Highway Mutual Water Company
GPCD Gallon per capita per day
GSAGroundwater Sustainability Agency
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
GWS Groundwater substitution
Henle Henle Family, LP
IRWM Integrated water resource management
LOSRA Lake Oroville State Recreation Area
NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service
NCMWC Natomas Central Mutual Water Company
NDMINormalized Difference Moisture Index
NDVI Normalized Difference Vegetation Index
NOD North-of-Delta
NSV Northern Sacramento Valley
OSWCROnline System for Well Completion Reports
PCGID Princeton-Codora-Glenn Irrigation District
PGVMWD Pleasant Grove-Verona Mutual Water Company
PID Provident Irrigation District
PMWC Pelger Mutual Water Company
PMWC2 Plumas Mutual Water Company
PRISM Parameter-Elevation Relationships on Independent Slopes Model
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
VII
May 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RD 1004Reclamation District 1004
RD 108 Reclamation District 108
Reserves CSU Ecological Reserves
RR Reservoir releases
SB Senate Bill
SEWDSutter Extension Water District
SFT Sycamore Mutual Water Company
SFWP South Feather Water and Power Agency
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SMWC Sutter Mutual Water Company
SOD South-of-Delta
SRSCSacramento River Settlement Contractors
Study Drought Impact Analysis Study
SW Surface water
SWP State Water Project
SWRCB State Water Resources and Control Board
SY Sustainable Yield
TWSD Thermalito Water and Sewer District
UCANR University of California Agricultural and Natural Resources
USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation
WBS Water Balance Subregions
WCR Well Completion Report
WDL Water Data Library
Windswept Windswept Land & Livestock
WTIMS Water Transfer Information Management System
WY Water Year
WYT Water Year Type
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
VIII
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Executive Summary
Introduction
As drought conditions continue to
persist throughout the western
United States, Butte County not
only wants to assess the overall
impact of the drought, including
the evaluation of the economic
impacts but also continue to
develop efficient and systematic
processes that results in short and
long-term reduction in drought
impacts to the citizens, economy,
and environment in the Northern
Sacramento Valley. The purpose
of the Drought Impact Analysis
Study (Study) is to document 2021
conditions specifically related to
water transfers, groundwater
demand, groundwater levels,
evaluate the economic impacts on
stakeholders and provide
recommendations on next steps
to improve drought resiliency in
the region.
The information from this report can be utilized to facilitate, supplement and
support current Butte County drought preparedness and mitigation planning
efforts. This report follows the outline of chapters on the following pages.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
ES-1
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Chapter 1 – Setting
Chapter 1 provides an overview of the
ground-water basins within Butte
County, summarizes surface water
features (reservoirs, rivers and creeks)
within the wider Northern
Sacramento Valley; provides a brief
discussion of how groundwater
management occurs through local
groundwater sustainability agencies
(GSAs) and how these GSAs align and
manage specific basins with the
Northern Sacramento Valley.
Chapter 2 – Overview of 2021 Conditions
Chapter 2 describes the area basin settings, including current and historical conditions, such as
climate, streamflow, groundwater elevation changes, reservoir levels, reported dry wells, details
on well completion reports, land use (i.e., agricultural acreage), historic and current drought
restrictions ecosystem response and increase fire concerns related to current drought conditions.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
ES-2
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Chapter 3 – Water Transfer Programs in the
Northern Sacramento Valley
Chapter 3 describes how the conveyance of water through
Northern California occurs, which agencies participate in
water transfers, how water transfers are implemented
through different programs (i.e., crop idling, groundwater
substitution, or reservoir releases), and how these
programs are managed. Chapter 3 also details specifics on
where transfers occurred, how much water was
transferred, and the average price received for these
transfers. Lastly, the impacts to water resources are also
detailed in this Chapter.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
ES-3
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Chapter 4 – Estimated of 2021 Groundwater Demand
Chapter 4 describes how groundwater use was estimated in Butte County. Demand is presented
forall stakeholder groups including agricultural, domestic, and municipal (in the Subbasins and
within the Foothills). This chapter also compares 2021 pumping demands to sustainable yield
estimates from previous studies (i.e., recently completed GSPs).
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
ES-4
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Chapter 5 – Evaluation of
Groundwater Level Conditions in the
Northern Sacramento Valley
Chapter 5 discusses how an understanding
of groundwater levels, and the direction of
flow is essential to sustainable groundwater
management. This includes both the spatial
and temporal variations in groundwater.
Historical and current groundwater levels
throughout the Northern Sacramento Valley
were evaluated using data obtained from
public databases. To gain a perspective,
groundwater elevation contour maps and
groundwater change maps (Spring 2019 –
Spring 2021) were created for shallows
wells (perforated less than 200 feet bgs),
intermediate wells (perforated below 200
feet bgs and less than 600 feet bgs) and
deep wells (perforated below 600 feet bgs).
To evaluate the impact of changing
groundwater levels on domestic and
agricultural wells, a well
infrastructure vulnerability analysis
was conducted. This vulnerability
analysis was utilized to assess where
wells (both domestic and agriculture)
could be impacted based on
groundwater levels changes within
the study area.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
ES-5
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Chapter 6 – Evaluation of Drought Impacts
This chapter provides an overall assessment of the economic costs of the 2021 drought, specific
to agriculture, public water supply, domestic wells, government, and ecosystem services (i.e.,
wetland habitat and wildfires). Cost is differentiated between direct and indirect costs. Direct
cost is related to how lack of water affects a specific entity. For example, when farmers’ surface
water supply is curtailed, they risk lower production and/or may supplement irrigation surface
water with groundwater sources. These production-related revenue changes increase
groundwater pumping costs are considered direct costs to growers. If agricultural production
losses are sufficiently high, there could also be indirect costs: if agricultural production falls, sales
for agricultural sector suppliers may fall and employment may decrease in the larger economy,
resulting in changes in overall economic activity.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
ES-6
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Chapter 7 – Next Steps to Improve Drought
Resiliency
This chapter provides an assessment of the drought
risk based on user and type of use, discusses
regional policies to strengthen drought response,
provides guidance on the development of a
drought response metrics to minimize future
drought impacts, includes an approach to filling
data gaps and identifies future funding
opportunities to fund drought resiliency projects.
DROUGHT FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
Funding Sources Programs Work to be Done
EPA
Identify and pursue best
WIFIA
FEDERAL
sources
USBR SMART PROGRAM
Special – ARPA, EOS
SWRCB - State Revolving Fund
I-Bank
Leverage TMF Capacity
Propositions
Tailor project need, type
STATE
Dept. of Conservation
Market timing-terms
DWR Funding – SGMA, IRWM
DWR Funding – Small Comm.
Other
Cost Sharing – other agencies
Develop response actions
Regional Project Scoping
Tailored to response target
LOCAL
Charges/Fees
Coordinate studies with
Cost Share – state/federal
Chico State
programs
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
ES-7
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
1. BACKGROUND
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, California Water Science Center (CAWSC) defines
drought as, “a period of drier-than-normal conditions that results in water-related problems.
When rainfall is less than normal for several weeks, months, or years, the flow of streams and
rivers declines, water levels in lakes and reservoirs fall, and the depth to water in wells increases.
If dry weather persists and water-supply problems develop, the dry period can become a
drought.” Droughts are characterized by hotter temperatures, reduced precipitation, greater
spatial extent, and longer duration.
Short-term drought can typically be considered on a year-to-year basis where the most impact is typically
found in surface water supplies and shallow soil moisture. Within ecosystems, short-term drought will
impact shallow rooted vegetation such as grasses. When drought is experienced for one or two years,
typically groundwater supplies are used to meet demand. When long-term drought occurs, typically after
two years, surface water supplies are further depleted and not replenished, increase in pumping and
lower amounts of recharge will cause groundwater declines, deep rooted plants such as shrubs and trees
begin to succumb to drought stress, and there is increase wildfire risk. Water Year (WY) 2021 was the
second year of drought conditions, with WY 2022 expected to be the third.
Water is one of Butte County’s most important natural resources. Precipitation, surface water and
groundwater contribute to Butte County’s residential, commercial, agricultural, environmental, habitat
and recreational uses. Population growth, continued water demands from agricultural and industrial uses,
and water needs for environmental uses are all crucial needs that compete for the county’s water supply.
This report is built on the ongoing work done by the Butte County Drought Task Force (DTF) and Water
Commission. The need for additional support was discussed by the Water Commission on June 2, 2021
and funding was made available by the Butte County Board of Supervisor’s during Budget Hearings on
June 22, 2021. A drought impact analysis was needed to understand the impacts of the current drought
conditions. A scope of work was developed by the DTF on September 7, 2021 and approved by the Board
on September 28, 2021. This report focuses on assessing the surface water and groundwater systems in
Butte County and the surrounding counties, exploring the established systems for historically handling
drought, such as increased groundwater pumping and water transfers, as well as the economic framework
in which to view these impacts.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
1
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Butte County, and to a larger extent, allof California, has experienced increasing drought conditions
starting in WY 2020. A WY begins October 1 of any given year and extends through September 30 of the
following year. The WY is designated by the calendar year in which it ends. This report focuses on WY
2021, which started October 1, 2020 and ended September 30, 2021.
Butte County is a complex area and includes
foothill communities to the east and intensive
agriculture in the valley floor to the west.
Surface water resources in Butte County lie
within the Sacramento River watershed. The
surface water system consists of numerous
small tributaries as well as Lake Oroville, the
Feather River, and the Sacramento River.
While the majority of the county’s surface
water supply in the county is used for local
agriculture, the surface water supply used by
Butte County residents and businesses
originates in the Feather River watershed and
accumulates in Lake Oroville as part of the
State Water Project.
Groundwater is used for domestic, municipal,
and agricultural uses throughout the county.
With the passing of the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Butte
County consists of three separate Groundwater
Sustainability Plan Subbasins (GSP Subbasins;
Subbasin) including Butte Subbasin, Vina
Subbasin, and Wyandotte Creek Subbasin
(Figure 1-1). Regionally, Butte County shares
borders with Tehama, Glenn, Colusa, Sutter,
Yuba, and Plumas counties; this report includes
all neighboring counties except Plumas as part
of the Northern Sacramento Valley (NSV) region (Figure 1-2).
It is important to note that while the GSP Subbasins (Figure 1-3) are used throughout this report to
quantify pumping or group data, it is outside the scope of this report to provide narrative description of
how GSAs are operating, their progress on meeting sustainable management criteria including if minimum
thresholds were exceeded in WY 2021. Of the three GSP Subbasins that are within Butte County, i.e., Vina,
Butte, and Wyandotte Creek, all subbasins submitted their required annual reports before the
April 1, 2022 deadline to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) which address these topics. They are
1
available online.
1
https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gspar/submitted
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
2
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 1-1. Butte County and GSP Subbasin Boundaries
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
3
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 1-2. Northern Sacramento Valley (NSV) Counties of Interest
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
4
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 1-3. GSP Subbasins in the Northern Sacramento Valley
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
5
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
2. OVERVIEW OF 2021 CONDITIONS
WY 2021 marked the second year of dry conditions in the Sacramento Valley with WY 2022
expected to be the third year of dry conditions in California.
On April 21, 2021 Governor Newsom issued an Emergency Drought Proclamation for Mendocino
and Sonoma counties. Less than one month later on May 10 the drought proclamation extended
to 39 additional counties, including Butte County. Proclamations, declarations, resolutions,
notices, orders, and letters continue to be issued into 2022, a full list is presented on the State
2
Water Resources and Control Board (SWRCB) website.
2.1. Climate
In WY 2021 the Durham CIMIS station recorded a total evapotranspiration (ET) and precipitation of 51.9
and 18.0 inches (Figure 2-1), respectively. The WY 2021 ET recorded is 1.7 inches above the 31-year
average (1990-2021) and precipitation is 3.6 inches below.
The Northern Sierra 8-Station Summary is a collection of eight precipitation gages in the mountains of
Northern California. WY 2021 is the third driest year following 1924 and 1977 in the last 100 years since
measurement began in WY 1921 (Figure 2-2).
2
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drought/drought_orders_proclamations.html
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
6
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 2-1. Summary of Durham CIMIS Station
Figure 2-2. Climate Summary from the Northern Sierra 8 Station Index
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
7
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
2.2. Streamflow
Streamflow is assessed at four
locations in Butte County (Table 2-
1; Figure 2-3). These four locations
represent Butte Creek (BCD;
Figure 2-4), Big Chico Creek (BID;
Figure 2-5), the Feather River
(GRL; Figure 2-6), and the
Sacramento River (ORD; Figure 2-
7). In general, WY 2021 saw low
flow rates across all rivers. Both
the Sacramento and Feather River
are regulated from dam releases
and influenced by the withdrawal
of water rights from the river.
While the total flow in the river
can be indicative of water
availability, it is important to note
that it is only part of the story
during irrigation season. The
highest flow rates in recent years
occurred in WY 2019, with 2021
having the lowest flows except for
the Feather River. Some flow plots
have breaks in the data when no
Big Chico Creek circa 2012
data was recorded at the station.
The United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) submits an annual Sacramento River Temperature
Management Plan pursuant to Order 90-5. The USBR submitted the 2021 plan on May 28, 2021 (USBR,
2021). This annual plan outlines measures that are used to manage cold-water resources from the Shasta
Reservoir to help conserve winter-run Chinook Salmon. Based on water resources forecasting the USBR
classifies each upcoming irrigation season into a tier. Tier 1 is when sufficient cold water is available to
keep the Sacramento River at 53.5°F or colder from May 15 through October 31. Tier 4 is when there is
not enough cold water to maintain a temperature of 56°F or colder and intervention measures are
considered. In May 2021, WY 2021 was forecasted to be a Tier 4 year. Currently, WY 2022 is again
projected to be in Tier 4 (USBR, 2022).
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
8
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Table 2-1. Mean Yearly Surface Flows of Selected Stations (mean CFS)
20142015201620172018201920202021
Station River
(C) (C) (BN) (W) (BN) (W) (D) (C)
BCD Butte Creek 104 123 293 786 203 417 146 80
BID Big Chico Creek 42 524 731 859 547 451 61 36
GRL Feather River 1,337 1,415 3,349 11,540 3,013 5,471 2,341 1,748
ORD Sacramento River 5,771 7,167 9,715 22,110 7,185 16,679 7,081 5,266
Figure 2-3. Location Map of Stream Monitoring
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
9
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 2-4. Flow in Butte Creek at the BCD Station
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
10
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 2-5. Flow in Big Chico Creek at the BIC Stations
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
11
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 2-6. Flow in the Feather River at the GRL Station
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
12
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 2-7. Flow in the Sacramento River at ORD Station
2.3. Groundwater Elevation
Groundwater elevation change maps for Spring, Summer, and Fall, are produced annually by DWR. In
general, groundwater elevations in Butte County measured in both the Spring and Fall were lower in 2021
than 2020. Groundwater elevation change maps for Spring and Summer 2021 are included as Appendix A
and Appendix B, respectively. A similar approach as outlined by DWR was used to estimate the changes
in groundwater as presented in Table 2-2. Additional information and analysis on groundwater level
changes is presented in Section 4 of this report.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
13
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Table 2-2. Average Groundwater Elevation Changes from 2020 to 2021
for Wells 100 to 450 feet deep (feet)
Subbasin Spring Summer Fall
Average(Min, Max)Average(Min, Max)Average(Min, Max)
Vina Subbasin -4.7 (-9.3, --) -5.5 (-9.8, 0.5) -5.8 (-21.9, 8.9)
Wyandotte Creek
-2.7 (-13.0, 7.0) -7.1 (-15.2, --) -3.3 (-9.1, 0.1)
Subbasin
Butte Subbasin 5.2 (-5.2, 1.6) -5.4 (-16.3, 1.5) -6.4 (-18.3, 7.5)
The minimum and maximum changes are presented as decreases or increases in groundwater elevation,
respectively. When ‘--’ is presented, no well in the area had an increase in groundwater elevation.
Comparing 2020 to 2021 (Table 2-2) average Spring groundwater elevation measurements are higher in
the Butte Subbasin; however they are lower in Vina and Wyandotte Creek. A lower groundwater level in
Spring can typically be attributed to less recharge and recovery during the winter months, corresponding
to the first 6 months of a Water Year. All three Subbasins experienced lower groundwater elevations than
in 2020 during the Summer and Fall measurements.
Groundwater elevations were also compared, using the same methodology as above, within select
irrigation districts. Table 2-3 provides an overview of the one-year change in groundwater levels for select
irrigation districts within the NSV. Maps of irrigation districts can be found in Section 3. The selected
irrigation districts have lower or approximately the same water levels in Spring 2021 as compared to
Spring 2020. All irrigation districts have an average decline in water levels during the Summer and Fall
measurements, with Butte Water District and Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District having localized increases.
Table 2-3. Average Groundwater Elevation Changes from 2020 to 2021
for Wells 200 to 600 feet deep (feet) in Select Irrigation Districts
Spring Summer Fall
Irrigation District
Average (Min, Max) Average (Min, Max) Average (Min, Max)
Butte Water District -1.2 (-2.4,--)-7.5 (-9.5, --) -3.2 (-5.6, 3.7)
Glenn-Colusa
-3.5 (-9.9, .1) -8.8 (-20,--) -6.1 (-20.6, 1.4)
Irrigation District
Reclamation District -1.1 (-1.4, --) -17.8 (-25,--) -13.9 (-18.3, --)
No. 1004
Reclamation District -3.2 (-7.1, --) -18.3 (-32,--) -9.4 (-14.1, --)
No. 108
Richvale Irrigation 0 (-0.2, 0.1) -8.6 (-10.1,--) -5.2 (-5.9, --)
District
Western Canal 0.3 (-0.9, 1.6) -4.5 (-9.2,--) -3.0 (-7.0, --)
Water District
The minimum and maximum changes are presented as decreases or increases in groundwater elevation,
respectively. When ‘--’ is presented, no well in the area had an increase in groundwater elevation.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
14
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
2.4. Reservoir Levels
Lake Oroville is the major reservoir in Butte County. It is a major source of recreation, includes three power
plants, a fishery, and it is the State Water Project’s largest reservoir. Lake Oroville reservoir levels ended
at historic low water levels in WY 2021 (Figure 2-8). During recent dry years, WY 2021 shows less recovery
during the winter months and similar drawdowns during the irrigation season (Figure 2-9).
Figure 2-8 Elevation of Lake Oroville from WY 2008 through WY 2021
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
15
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 2-9. Elevation of Lake Oroville During Recent Dry Years
2.5.Reported Dry Wells
Private well owner reporting of dry wells is conducted through DWR Household Water Supply Shortage
Reporting System (mydrywell.water.ca.gov; “My Dry Well”). The reporting of dry or diminished capacity
wells is voluntary, no verification or follow up is done at the state level. There are 20 questions including
primary usage of well, approximate issue start date, city, county, well depth, well depth, and was it
resolved, and additional questions. There were 44 reported dry or diminished wells in Butte County in
Calendar Year 2021 (Table 2-4; Figure 2-10). The first two and a half months of 2022 saw five reported
dry or diminished wells in Butte County (Table 2-4; Figure 2-11). Over half of the wells reported occurred
within the foothills of Butte County.
Table 2-4. Dry Wells Reported from DWR My Dry Well (updated March 15, 2022)
20142015 2016 2017 2018 20192020 2021 2022
Subregion
(C)(C) (BN) (W) (BN) (W) (D) (C) (C)
Vina Subbasin 2 2 -- -- 1 -- -- 10 1
Wyandotte Creek
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5 --
Subbasin
Butte Subbasin -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Foothills 5 9 1 -- -- -- -- 28 4
Total Reported* 7 11 1 -- 1 -- -- 44* 5
*Total reported wells may not align with Subregion subtotals due to a lack of geographical information provided.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
16
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Starting mid-year 2021 Butte County Public Health collected information on new or deepening well
permits in response to dry or diminished capacity. The well permit data includes nearby city and if the
permit is for a large diameter (greater than 8-inch diameter) well or small diameter (8-inches or less
diameter) well. There were 21 well permits issued in response to dry well conditions in Butte County from
August to December 2021, 20 small diameter wells and one large diameter well with 15 near Chico, 4 near
Durham, and 2 near Cohasset.
In addition, 25 households were annexed to the California Water Services (Cal Water) Chico municipal
water system due to a dry or a diminished capacity domestic well in 2021. It is unknown if any of those
25 customers are accounted for in the My Dry Well reporting system.
Figure 2-10. Dry Wells Reported in Butte County During Calendar Year 2021
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
17
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 2-11. Dry Wells Reported in Butte County in 2022, from January 1 through March 15
2.6. Well Completion Reports
Well completion reports are submitted to DWR within 60 days of completed drilling. Information on well
completion is from the DWR Online System for Well Completion Reports (OSWCR; DWR, 2022). Over the
past 8 years, Butte County has averaged the installation of 20 agricultural wells and 100 domestic wells
per year (Table 2-5). Agricultural wells will typically be a larger diameter and installed to deeper depths
than domestic wells (Table 2-6). Even though domestic wells are installed at a shallower depth, due to the
number of domestic wells drilled, total domestic well drilling feet ranges from 2.5-5 times more than in
agricultural wells (Table 2-7). Additional information on well depths over time and well vulnerabilities is
presented in Section 5.2.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
18
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Table 2-5. Number of Well Completions in Butte County by Sector
Sector20142015201620172018201920202021
(C) (C) (BN) (W) (BN) (W) (D)(C)
Agriculture 29 31 22 13 15 24 13 18
Domestic 164 135 78 53 61 113 118 87
Public or
2 2 5 1 0 0 2 2
Industrial
Table 2-6. Median Depth of New Wells in Butte County by Sector (feet)
Sector201420152016 20172018 2019 2020 2021
(C) (C) (BN) (W) (BN) (W) (D)(C)
Agriculture 365 520 430 400 380 377 310 385
Domestic 280 300 340 250 240 250 360 300
Public or
258 376 520 300 -- -- 155 190
Industrial
Table 2-7. Total Drilled Feet of New Wells in Butte County by Sector (feet)
Sector201420152016 20172018 2019 2020 2021
(C) (C) (BN) (W) (BN) (W) (D)(C)
Agriculture 11,772 16,355 10,925 5,286 4,507 9,547 4,715 6,004
Domestic 52,572 44,780 27,877 15,176 19,053 34,953 45,141 30,508
Public or
515 752 2,617 300 -- -- 310 380
Industrial
2.7. Agricultural Acreages
Land use trends in Butte County were examined based on the 20-Year Land and Water Use Change in
Butte County and the Vina Subbasin (1999-2019) (Land IQ, 2021) as well as the Annual Butte County Crop
Survey (Butte County Agricultural Commission, 2008-2020). The annual crop survey shows the agricultural
production and agricultural value in Butte County for a given calendar year. Additional discussion on
agricultural revenues is presented in Section 6.2. The individual crop surveys were used to estimate trends
over time in Butte County. Land use classifications were kept consistent with the Butte Basin Groundwater
Model (BBGM) land use classes. According to Land IQ, 2021, from 1999 to 2019 agricultural land in Butte
County contracted by 12,366 acres or 5%.
Agricultural acreages in 2021 were estimated from the 2018 Land IQ Land Use Survey (DWR, 2021)
updated to account for fallowed rice fields (Section 2.7.1) and preliminary accounting of land use from
the Butte County Agricultural Commission. Land IQ has produced land use maps for the agricultural
regions of California in 2014 (DWR, 2017) and 2016 (DWR, 2019).
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
19
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Table 2-8. Agricultural Acreages for Major Crop Types in Butte County and
Subbasins for WY 2021
Land UseButte County Butte, Vina, and Wyandotte Creek Subbasin
(Acres 1,000x) (Acres 1,000x)
Rice 77 103
Walnuts4962
Idle or Fallow 33 41
Almonds 35 35
Deciduous 17 19
Grain 5 6
Pasture5 5
These estimates are based on Land IQ survey data and do not match acreages presented by the Butte
County Agricultural Commission. This may be due to how per field acreages are calculated.
Butte Subbasin extends into Colusa and Glenn Counties which explains why acreages in the Subbasin
area can be greater than Butte County totals.
2.7.1. Rice Fallowing Acreage
Rice fallowing in the NSV is a common practice
when crop idling occurs or during curtailments
during dry or critical years when surface water
supplies are not available to grow the crop.
Estimating the total acreage of fallowed rice
can be evaluated through land use survey’s,
conducting interviews with irrigation districts,
or estimating based on annual crop reports.
This study focused on remote sensing
techniques to estimate the spatial distribution
of rice fallowing as well as total acreages.
3
Remotely sensed data from Landsat 8 was
used to look at the Normalized Difference
Moisture Index (NDMI) and the Normalized
Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI). NDMI
measures the amount of water stress a plant
is having and NDVI measures the amount of
vigor, or the amount of green, that a plant has.
Both indices are measured between -1 and 1.
Since rice is a flood irrigated crop, both the
NDMI and NDVI should be high when
3
https://landsatlook.usgs.gov/explore
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
20
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
comparing against fallowed fields. Based on Land IQ 2018 mapping (DWR, 2021) of rice fields, the July
field average of NDMI and NDVI were used to estimate if that field was fallow. When the NDMI and NDVI
were above 0.2 and 0.55, respectively, that field was assumed to be planted and if not, that field was
assumed to be fallow. Based on these criteria, there were approximately 98,000 acres of planted rice and
40,000 acres of fallowed rice within the three GSP Subbasins in WY 2021, which includes portions of the
Butte Subbasin within Glenn County and Colusa County.
Verification of this method was conducted for WY 2015. DWR conducted a field survey of land use (DWR,
2015), the survey included additional information on rice fields, including if the fields were fallowed. This
methodology was applied to 1,858 mapped rice fields, of which 458 were mapped as fallowed. The
method had an accuracy of 98.1%. Field counts of mapped vs predicted fallowed fields are presented in
Table 2-9. Of the 1,858 rice fields in 2015, 455 were correctly identified as fallowed and 1,367 were
correctly identified as planted. For fields not correctly identified, three are considered false positives
where it was predicted to be planted but mapped as fallowed and 33 fields were false-negative where the
field was mapped as planted but predicted as fallowed, based on the NDVI and NDMI.
Table 2-9. Mapped vs. Predicted Fallowed Fields in 2015
--
Mapped Fallow Mapped Planted
Predicted Fallow 455 33
Predicted Planted 3 1,367
2.8. Drought Restrictions
The California drought stressed multiple areas of the State during WY 2021. Drought declarations and
management actions have taken place at the state level. Within the NSV, there are two contractor groups,
4
the Sacramento River Settlement Contractors (SRSC) and the Feather River Contractors. The SRSC is a
nonprofit mutual benefit corporation that protects its members water rights, water supplies, and
contracts. The major agencies listed as members include the Glenn – Colusa Irrigation District,
Reclamation District 108, Sutter Mutual Water company, Anderson – Cottonwood Irrigation District,
Reclamation District 1004, Princeton – Codora – Glenn Irrigation District, and others. The Feather River
Contractors is a group of irrigation districts that have negotiated terms with DWR with the main members
in the NSV being Western Canal Water District, Butte Water District, Richvale Irrigation District,
Biggs-West Gridley Water District, among others. Below is a general timeline of drought restrictions within
the State of California, with additional dates for groups in the NSV.
December 1, 2020: State Water Project (SWP) announces initial allocation of 10%.
March 23, 2021: SWP announces final 5% allocation.
April 10, 2021: Feather River Contractors received 50% curtailment from DWR.
May 20, 2021: Governor Newsom declared a drought emergency for 41 counties.
4
https://www.sacriversc.org/
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
21
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
May 26, 2021: USBR reduced CVP water users to be 0% for agricultural water service contractors
and 25% for M&I water service contractors.
May 28, 2021: Final Temperature Management Plan for the Sacramento River (2021).
o The Sacramento River Settlement Contractors agree to pump additional groundwater to
leave surface water in stream for beneficial uses.
August 20, 2021: The SWRCB issued curtailment orders to over 4,000 water rights holders in
California.
March 28, 2022: Governor Newsom issued Executive Order No. 7-77 meant to provide guidance
on emergency drought relief.
2.9. Ecosystem Response
Ecosystem response to drought is difficult to summarize and quantify into a single measure. As of the
writing of this report, there has been no assessment of ecosystem impacts from the 2021 drought year in
the Sacramento Valley. A preliminary report detailing some of the ecological impacts within the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Drought MAST, 2022) is available. Within the Delta specifically, the major
drought effects are:
Reduced flow.
Increased temperature.
Increased water clarity.
Some increased nutrient concentrations.
Most pelagic fish decline.
Changes in salmon migration patterns.
Within the Northern Sacramento Valley analogous assessments can be made based on previous droughts
in California, specifically the 2012-2016 drought. Lund et al. (2018) provides a retrospective on the
previous drought stating that the drought most impacted ecosystems. Some of the impacts and
conclusions are listed below:
Hydropower reductions due to lower reservoir levels and runoff.
Death of 102 million forest trees due to reduced soil moisture and higher temperatures.
Salmon populations were impacted by increased temperatures and low flows.
Juvenile salmon populations were heavily augmented from hatchery releases during 2014 and
2015.
Decrease in managed wetland acreage due to decrease in water allocations.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
22
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Director of the CSU Ecological Reserves (Reserves) and active land steward Eli Goodsellprovided an
interview to give a narrative of ecosystem impacts that he has observed on the Reserves. He has observed
that salmonid habitat in streams has degraded with an increase in stream temperature and low flows.
Wet meadows that typically provide recharge and flow into early summer are drier than expected and will
not provide the summer habitat that are typically relied on. To combat lack of water, the Reserves have
placed numerous 350-gallon wildlife guzzlers in 2021 to provide water to wildlife. It is expected they will
need to be filled once a month during 2022 to maintain enough water for wildlife.
Moving into 2022, vegetation is dry with record setting dry wood and debris, known as fuels, in the
foothills. These fuels represent increased fire danger. Stress from the ongoing drought has caused greater
than expected dieback of grey pines, ponderosa pines, manzanita, bay, and oak in the foothills.
Based on conversations with local representatives of the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (Cal Fire) local conditions within Butte County have high fire potential. Tree mortality from
drought as well as induced from major fire events in the county are providing a source of increased fuel
for any future fire(s) in the region.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
23
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
3. WATER TRANSFER PROGRAMS IN THE NORTHERN SACRAMENTO
VALLEY
The conveyance of water from Northern California to Southern California relies on the
movement of water through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) by way of the State
Water Project (SWP) and federal Central Valley Project (CVP). The majority of water transfers
occur from North-of-Delta (NOD) to South-of-Delta (SOD) due to the availability of water in the
NOD and the price of water in the SOD. However, regional transfers also occur such as between
the Glenn Colusa Irrigation District and the Tehama Colusa Canal Authority, both located within
the Sacramento Valley.
Temporary water transfers in California are implemented through one of three actions: crop idling (CI),
groundwater substitution (GWS), or reservoir releases (RR). All temporary water transfers are approved
by DWR and recorded on the Water Transfer Information Management System (WTIMS). Water transfers
are conducted at the water agency level and approved at the State level. A list of agencies that conducted
water transfers are presented in Table 3-1 and shown in Figure 3-1.
This report focuses on 1-year temporary water transfers that occurred by agencies within the NSV.
Figure 3-1. Agencies Participating in Water Transfer as Seller’s
Full Agency Name Provided in Table 1
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
24
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Table 3-1. Agencies in the NSV Participating in Water Transfers in WY 2021
County Water Type of
Agency Name GSP Subbasin
Transferred From Transfer’s
Butte Water District (BWD)* Butte, Sutter GWS Butte, Sutter
Canal Farms Colusa GWS Colusa
East Side Mutual Water Company
Colusa GWS Colusa
(EMWC)
Garden Highway Mutual Water
Sutter GWS Sutter
Company (GHMWC)
Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (GCID) Colusa, Glenn GSW, CI Colusa, Corning
Henle Family, LP (Henle) Sutter GWS Sutter
Lewis Ranch (Lewis Ranch) Colusa CI Butte, Colusa
Natomas Central Mutual Water Yolo**, North
Sacramento, Sutter GWS
Company (NCMWC) American**
Pelger Mutual Water Company
Sutter GWS Sutter
(PMWC)
Pelger Road 1700 LLC (Pelger Rd 1700) Sutter GWS, CI Sutter
Pleasant Grove-Verona Mutual Water
Sutter GWS, CI North American**
Company (PGVMWD)
Plumas Mutual Water Company
Yuba GWS South Yuba
(PMWC2)
Princeton-Codora-Glenn Irrigation
Colusa, Glenn GWS, CI Colusa
District (PCGID)
Provident Irrigation District (PID) Colusa, Glenn GWS, CI Colusa
Reclamation District 1004 (RD 1004) Colusa, Glenn CI Butte
Reclamation District 108 (RD 108) Sutter, Colusa, Yolo CI, GWS Colusa
South Feather Water and Power North Yuba,
Butte, Plumas RR
Agency (SFWP) Wyandotte Creek
Sutter Extension Water District
Sutter GWS Sutter
(SEWD)
Sutter Mutual Water Company
Sutter GWS, CI Sutter
(SMWC)
Sycamore Mutual Water Company
Colusa CI Colusa
(SFT)
T&P Farms (T&P Farms)Colusa GWS Colusa
Thermalito Water and Sewer District Butte, Vina,
Butte RR
(TWSD) Wyandotte Creek
Windswept Land & Livestock
Sutter GWS Sutter
(Windswept)
* Many districts cross GSP boundaries. Water transfers can be completed in separate counties for a single
water district, such as BWD only transferring from Sutter County.
** North American and Yolo Subbasins are not included on maps as they fall outside of the project counties.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
25
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
3.1. Water Transfers
5
All data for volumes of water transferred by water district is provided to the public by DWR. No GWS or
CI transfers were conducted within Butte County in WY 2021. In part this is due to Butte County Chapter
33 which requires a permit for any GWS transfers, as of the end of 2021, no permits have been applied
for. In addition, the Feather River Contractors are subject to curtailment under certain circumstances
related to dry hydrologic conditions. In Butte County, if their DWR administered diversions are curtailed,
the agencies do not participate in CI transfers. Figure 3-2 and Table 3-2 show the spatial distribution of
GWS transfers as well as listing all agencies in the NSV that transferred over 5,000 AF of water. Figure 3-3
and Table 3-3 show the spatial distribution of CI transfers as well as listing all agencies in the NSV that
transferred over 5,000 AF of water.
Groundwater substitution transfers are markedly less than crop idling transfers, the estimating of impacts
from these transfers is conducted in Section 3.3. Reclamation District 108 and the Butte Water District
are the nearest agencies participating in transfers, the majority of agencies can be found further south.
The Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District conducts both GWS and CI and conducted the largest CI transfer in
the NSV.
Figure 3-2. Groundwater Substitution Transfers
5
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/State-Water-Project/Management/Water-Transfers
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
26
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Table 3-2. Groundwater Substitution Transfers Greater than 5,000 AF
Agency NameWater Transferred (AF)
Natomas Central Mutual Water Company (NCMWC) 16,469
Sutter Mutual Water Company (SMWC) 16,239
Reclamation District 108 (RD 108) 12,287
Pleasant Grove-Verona Mutual Water Company (PGVMWD) 11,075
Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (GCID)8,334
Figure 3-3. Crop Idling Transfers
Table 3-3. Crop Idling Transfers Greater than 5,000 AF
Agency NameWater Transferred (AF)
Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (GCID)43,852
Reclamation District 108 (RD 108) 31,126
Sutter Mutual Water Company (SMWC) 15,471
Reclamation District 1004 (RD 1004) 12,228
Provident Irrigation District (PID) 5,309
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
27
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 3-4. Reservoir Release Transfers
3.2. Water Transfer Costs
Water transfer prices conducted on a year-to-year basis (i.e., spot market) are set based on water year
type and water availability. Typically, water transfer prices and trading increase during dry to critical years.
The price of water transferred from NOD to SOD for the Sacramento Valley and Butte County specifically
are shown in Table 3-4 and the average price by transfer type is shown in Table 3-5. For context in this
report the Sacramento Valley includes Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Sutter, Placer, Sacramento, Shasta,
Yolo, and Yuba counties.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
28
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Table 3-4. Average Price of NOD-SOD Water Transfers in Butte County
and the Sacramento Valley
YearButte County ($/AF) Sacramento Valley ($/AF)
2010 250 236
2011 -- --
2012 200 200
2013 50 180
2014 600 526
2015 700 671
2016 -- --
2017 -- --
2018 400 392
2019 -- --
2020 -- 348
2021 700 592
Table 3-5. Average Price of NOD-SOD Water Transfers by Transfer Type
in the Sacramento Valley
Groundwater Reservoir Release
Year Crop Idling ($/AF)
Substitution ($/AF) ($/AF)
2010 250 225 200
2011 -- -- --
2012 200 -- --
2013 -- 190 109
2014 569 540 292
2015 674 681 660
2016 -- -- --
2017------
2018 400 417 322
2019 -- -- --
2020 -- 347 350
2021 575 589 675
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
29
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 3-5. Average Price of Water Transfers by Transfer Type
The economic impact of water transfer is further discussed in Section 6.1.
3.3. Cumulative Impacts of Water Transfers
To estimate the impact of water transfers to local water resources, it was assumed that only two main
mechanisms would be impactful. These mechanisms are the diminished applied water infiltration from
crop idling and additional groundwater withdrawals during groundwater substitution. For this analysis we
assume that there is a 15% deep percolation of applied water for both surface water and groundwater
applications. Based on this assumption, for crop idling transfers in an irrigation district, 15% of the total
crop idling acre-feet transfer will no longer be groundwater recharge. For groundwater substitution in an
irrigation district, 85% of the total transfer is assumed to leave the system, based on the assumption that
15% would return as deep percolation. Using these assumptions, we can estimate the water that will no
longer be available locally for use. This approach ignores the total size of the agency participating in
transfers. To provide additional context, the total impacts are summed by GSP Subbasin and compared to
total groundwater pumped.
Based on this approach, water transfers during the 2021 irrigation season in the NSV account for nearly
94,000 ac-ft of water impacts to the groundwater system. Impacts range from less than 100 ac-ft to over
16,000 ac-ft of impacts (Table 3-6). Of Subbasins within the project area, only Butte, Colusa, South Yuba,
and Sutter had groundwater substitutions and crop idling in 2021. Summed by GSP Subbasin, impacts range
from 1,700 to 36,500 ac-ft of local impacts or 1 to 17 percent of total pumping (Table 3-7). The greatest
amount of impacts occurred west of Butte County in the Colusa Subbasin (Figure 3-6) and the area with the
greatest percentage of pumping occurred south of the county (Figure 3-7) in the Sutter Subbasin.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
30
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Table 3-6. Impacts to WaterResources by Water Transfer Agency
Total Impact to
Groundwater Substitution Crop Idling Transfers
Groundwater
Agency Name
Transfers (ac-ft) Impact (af-ft) Impact
System (ac-ft)
Butte WD 3,251 3,251 --
Canal Farms523523--
East Side MWC 524 524 --
Garden Hwy MWC1,544 1,544 --
Glenn-Colusa ID 13,730 7,084 6,646
Henle Family LP425425--
Lewis Ranch 89 -- 89
Natomas Cent MWC 13,999 13,999 --
Pelger MWC 3,188 3,188 --
Pelger Rd 1700 2,165 2,032 132
Pleasant GV MWC 10,063 9,414 649
Plumas MWC 1,700 1,700 --
Princeton-CG ID 2,205 1,808 397
Provident ID 2,920 2,124 796
RD 1004 1,834 -- 1,834
RD 10815,113 10,444 4,669
Sutter Ext WD 2,966 2,966 --
Sutter MWC 16,124 13,803 2,321
Sycamore MWC 532 -- 532
T&P Farms867 867 --
Windswept 1,220 1,220 --
Table 3-7. Impacts to Groundwater Water Resources by Subbasin
Total Impact to
Total Pumping in Impact as Percent of Total
GSP Subbasin Groundwater System
Subbasin (ac-ft) Pumping (%)
(ac-ft)
Butte 1,834 280,700 1
Colusa 36,503 977,200 4
South Yuba 1,700 155,860 1
Sutter30,883 179,300 17
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
31
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 3-6. Impacts to Groundwater Resources from Transfers
Figure 3-7. Total Impact of Transfers as Percent of Total Pumping for each GSP Subbasin
This analysis is only focused on DWR approved 1-year transfers. Additional pumping programs occurring
in the NSV, such as the voluntary groundwater pumping program initiated by USBR for cold-water storage
requirements in Shasta Reservoir, is discussed in Section 4.2.2. Additional information on the economic
impacts of water transfers will be discussed in Section 6.2.3.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
32
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
4. ESTIMATES OF 2021 GROUNDWATER DEMAND
Three sectors of groundwater use were estimated in Butte County, these are agricultural
groundwater use within thethree GSP Subbasins, municipal water production, and domestic well
pumping. Estimation methodology for agricultural groundwater use is detailed in Section 4.1.1.
Municipal water use was collected from individual agencies in Butte County and listed in Section
4.1.2. Domestic groundwater use is considered water from a “domestic well”, defined as a well
used to supply water for the domestic needs of an individual residence or a water system that is
not a public water system and that has no more than four service connections (Health & Saf.
Code, § 116681, subd. (g).). These estimates are detailed in Section 4.1.2 and Section 4.1.3.
Impacts to domestic water users is further explored in Section 6.5 of this report.
4.1. Groundwater Demand Estimation
4.1.1. Agricultural Demand
Agricultural groundwater use was estimated using a simplified water balance approach which
incorporates reference evapotranspiration (ET), land use, precipitation, and surface water supplies. The
water balance is conducted on a monthly time-step. Surface water supplies and pumping are aggregated
based on Water Balance Subregions (WBS) and are based on the Butte Basin Groundwater Model (BBGM;
Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation, 2021) (Figure 4-1). Soil moisture is
assumed to have no carry-over from month to month. Recharge based on applied water was not
estimated.
Reference ET was taken from the California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) Durham
Station. Land use was from Land IQ 2018 (DWR, 2021) land use survey. Land use was updated to be the
current year by accounting for fallowed rice fields (Section 2.7.1). It was assumed that the remaining
irrigated land uses did not change from 2018 to 2021. Butte County specific crop coefficients and irrigation
efficiencies were taken from the BBGM. Precipitation data was utilized from the Parameter-Elevation
Relationships on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM) 4-km monthly data.
To account for differences in acreages, precipitation, reference ET, and other factors accounted for in
calibration of the BBGM, a linear adjustment was made to the total monthly water demand per WBS in
the simplified water balance to better reflect estimates in the BBGM.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
33
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Surface water deliveries for WY 2019 and WY 2020 are done through Water Year Type (WYT) estimation.
The Sacramento Valley WYT for WY 2019 was “Wet”, and an of average monthly delivery from WY 2006,
2011, and 2017 was used. The Sacramento Valley WYT for WY 2020 was “Dry” and an average of monthly
delivery from WY 2007, 2009, and 2013 was used.
Water deliveries in WY 2021 are taken from multiple sources. For the Western Canal Water District, Richvale
Irrigation District, Biggs-West Gridley Water District, and Butte Water District deliveries were estimated
based on publicly available surface water (SW) diversions information. These diversions are available from
requirements outlined in Senate Bill (SB) 88 which requires all water right holders who have previously or
intend to divert in excess of 10 ac-ft per year measure and report the water they divert. Other areas in the
BBGM area did not report SW diversions, these include areas outside of irrigation districts in the Butte
Subbasin, Reclamation District 100, the Vina Subbasin, and the Wyandotte Creek Subbasin. Diversions in
these areas were estimated based on a review of riparian water diversion from 2018-2020, total
appropriative water rights in the region, and a review of diversion inputs in the BBGM. Diversion estimates
from the above steps were then scaled to match diminished diversion in the Sacramento Valley.
Figure 4-1. Water Balance Subregions (WBS) Used in Agricultural Groundwater
Demand Estimates
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
34
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 4-2. Estimated Total Agricultural Groundwater Pumping in 2021 in acre-feet
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
35
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 4-3. Estimated Agricultural Groundwater Pumping Rates in acre-feet per acre
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
36
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Table 4-1. Pumping and Surface Water Deliveries in WY 2021 for Butte County WBS
BBGM WBS GSP Subbasin SW Delivery GW Pumping SW Estimation Method
2 Vina - 109,400 Estimated
4 Butte 15,000 12,400 Estimated
5 Vina 2,400 78,600 Estimated
6Vina7,30026,800Estimated
7 Vina - 100 Estimated
9 Vina - 27,500 Estimated
10 Butte 200 9,100 Estimated
11 Butte 29,000 22,200 Estimated
12Butte59,0006,900SB88
13Butte140,60014,400SB88
14 Butte 46,200 87,800 Estimated
15 Butte 81,500 8,200 SB88
16 Butte 131,000 18,000 SB88
17 Butte 1,100 18,500 Estimated
18 Butte 140,700 9,800 SB88
19 Butte 20,000 13,000 Estimated
20 Butte 47,700 16,700 SB88
21 Wyandotte 8,400 44,600 Estimated
22 Butte 64,300 41,000 Estimated
4.1.2. Domestic and Municipal Demand - Valley Floor
Dispersed domestic, i.e., household, groundwater pumping in the Butte County valley floor was estimated
using the number and type of residential parcels and baseline/2020 gallon per capita per day (GPCD) water
use from Chico-Hamilton City District’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (California Water Services
Company, Chico-Hamilton City District, 2020).
Valley floor parcels were selected if their centers are located inside the Central Valley Basin and outside
service area boundaries from the Division of Drinking Water of the California Water Resources Control
Board and the California Environmental Health Tracking Program. Residential parcels were selected from
the valley floor parcels using the General Plan Zoning Codes “FR – Foothills Residential”, “MDR – Medium
Density Residential”, “MHDR – Medium-High Density Residential”, “RR – Rural Residential”, and “VLDR –
Very Low Density Residential”.
Valley residential and rural residential parcels were considered to have households of 2.57 persons on
average, as determined by the U.S Census Bureau for Butte County. Very low-density residential parcels
may contain up to 1 household per acre and were estimated to have household densities of
0.5 households per acre (1.29 persons per acre, when adjusted for persons per household).
Medium-density residential parcels may contain up to 6 households per acre and were estimated to have
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
37
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
populations of 15.42 persons per acre. Medium-high-density residential parcels may contain up to
20 households per acre and were estimated to have populations of 25.7 persons per acre.
There are a total of 3,444 residential parcels outside of water service areas on the valley floor, with an
estimated population of 14,082 people. Using 2020’s usage of 184 GPCD, there was an estimated 2,904
acre-ft of groundwater pumping on residential parcels.
The Department of Water Resources Well Completion Report dataset indicates 3,474 domestic wells likely
to be used throughout the valley floor. Only new construction wells installed outside of service boundaries
and after 1970 were considered, assuming a well lifetime of 50 years. 1,303 of the domestic wells are
located within 250 feet of residential parcels. The number of residential parcels and wells near residential
parcels differ as some domestic wells may not appear in the well completion report dataset, multiple
parcels may utilize the same domestic well, and some parcels mapped outside of public water service
boundaries may still be provided public water.
1,443 of the domestic well completion reports have partial APNs which were formatted and joined to
residential and agricultural parcels where possible. Only joins to parcels located within 1 mile of the
original well location were accepted, resulting in 495 joins to agricultural parcels and 384 joins to
residential parcels, a roughly 5:4 ratio. At a similar ratio, 1,947 of the domestic wells are located within
250 feet of an agricultural parcel and not within 250 feet of a residential parcel. Assuming these
1,947 domestic wells are used for residents on agricultural parcels, and assuming 2.57 persons per
household, there are 5,004 additional persons using domestic wells on agricultural parcels on the valley
floor.
Using 2020’s usage of 184 GPCD, there was an estimated 1,032 acre-ft of domestic groundwater pumping
on agricultural parcels. Total domestic pumping estimates are detailed in Table 4-3.
Municipal groundwater pumping was solicited from the municipal agencies and reported here as an
annual total (Table 4-2).
Table 4-2. 2021 Municipal Groundwater Pumping
Pumping (ac-ft)
City of Biggs 400
City of Gridley 1,800
Cal Water - Oroville 9
Thermalito Water and Sewer District 624
Cal Water – Chico 22,640
Durham Irrigation District 640
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
38
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
4.1.3. Domestic Demand - Foothills
Dispersed groundwater pumping in Butte
County foothills and mountains was
estimated using the number and type of
residential parcels and baseline gallon per
capita per day (GPCD) water use from
Paradise Irrigation District’s 2020 Urban
Water Management Plan.
Foothill and mountain parcels were
selected if their parcels are centered
outside of both the Central Valley Basin
and the California Water Resources
Control Board Division of Drinking Water
service area boundaries. Residential
parcels were selected from the foothill
parcels using the General Plan Zoning Codes “FR – Foothills Residential”, “LDR – Low Density Residential”,
“MDR – Medium Density Residential”, “RR – Rural Residential”, and “VLDR – Very Low Density
Residential”.
Foothills residential and rural residential parcel household information is based on the 2020 Urban Water
Management Plan. Parcels have average households of 2.19 persons. Very low-density residential parcels
may contain up to 1 household per acre and were estimated to have household densities of
0.5 households per acre (1.1 persons per acre, when adjusted for persons per household). Low-density
residential parcels may contain up to 3 households per acre and were estimated to have populations of
4.38 persons per acre. Medium-density residential parcels may contain up to 6 households per acre and
were estimated to have populations of 9.89 persons per acre.
There are a total of 11,711 residential parcels outside of water service areas in the foothills and
mountains, with an estimated population of 27,834 people. Using the 2020 Urban Water Management
Plan’s 10-year baseline per capita usage of 265 GPCD, there is an estimated annual dispersed groundwater
pumping of 8,262 acre-ft.
The Department of Water Resources Well Completion Report (WCR) dataset indicates 6,115 domestic
wells likely to be used throughout the foothills and mountains. Only new construction wells installed
outside of service boundaries and after 1970 were considered in this analysis, assuming a well lifetime of
50 years. Total domestic pumping estimates are detailed in Table 4-3.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
39
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Table 4-3. Domestic Groundwater Pumping Estimate for 2021
Wyandotte
Butte Vina Foothills
Creek
Estimated Number of Domestic Well Users
2,867 11,041 5,296 27,834
(population)
2020 Water Use (gallons per capita per day) 184 184 184 265
Domestic Groundwater Use (acre-ft, 2021) 591 2,277 1,092 8,262
4.2. Groundwater Pumping in the Northern Sacramento Valley
4.2.1. GSP Pumping Estimation and Specific Yields
Based on 2021 GSP Annual Reports, the estimated total groundwater pumping by GSP Subbasins are
presented below (Table 4-4; Figure 4-4). The annual pumping in 2021 is put into perspective through
comparison of the Sustainable Yield (SY) as published in individual GSP’s for each of the Subbasins. It is
important to note that during dry or critical years, groundwater pumping may exceed the SY and that the
SY is estimated as a long-term average of pumping in a region. In any given year, a subbasin will meet
demand through a mixture of surface water, either natural or allocated, and groundwater pumping.
During years when surface water is reduced, groundwater is pumped to meet additional demands. This
impacts each subbasin differently, depending on the total surface water rights, the reliability of those
surface water, and availability of groundwater. For instance, a subbasin dominated by groundwater for
agricultural demand in a drought will lead to a slight increase in groundwater production. Surface water
dominated subbasins exhibit larger increase in groundwater production during drought periods.
Therefore, subbasin with higher percentages of SY in Table 4-4 are subbasins that are typically less reliant
on groundwater and have relatively reliable and significant surface water supplies, on average.
Table 4-4. Pumping by GSP Subbasin
Pumping – 2021 Sustainable
GSP Subbasins Percent of SY
(ac-ft) Yield (ac-ft)
North Yuba 62,650 93,000 -33%
Wyandotte Creek 46,333 47,090 -2%
Sutter 179,300 182,000 -1%
Red Bluff 147,900 150,000 -1%
South Yuba 155,860 146,000 7%
Vina 267,980 243,500 10%
Corning 257,200 171,800 50%
Los Molinos 43,490 28,000 55%
Butte 280,700 161,600 74%
Colusa 977,200 500,000 95%
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
40
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 4-4. Pumping as a percent of SY in GSP Subregions
4.2.2.Additional Pumping
On May 28, 2021, the Final Temperature Management Plan was submitted by the Bureau of Reclamation.
The plan outlined current conditions and ongoing coordination to manage the water resources including
additional pumping by the Sacramento River Settlement Contractors (SRSC) to reduce surface water
diversions. The need for additional pumping was required to protect cold water resources in the Shasta
Reservoir that was required for late season fish migration. In July the USBR conducted an environmental
assessment (EA) of additional pumping (USBR, 2021b). The action to pump additional groundwater is
completely voluntary on the part of the agency and USBR agreed to reimburse some of the cost of
pumping. Table 4-5 is modified from EA report and shows the total amount of voluntary groundwater
pumping.
In discussions with participating agencies and USBR, as of the writing of this report, no summary report
from the USBR detailing the extent of this program exist. In addition, no Supplemental Groundwater
Pumping reports from SRSC agencies were written in regard to this program. Based on conversations with
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
41
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
USBRpersonnel, a total purchased volume of 23,358 ac-ft was purchased from SRSC agencies in 2021.
Based on communication with staff from individual agencies, the verified reported totals by agency is
reported in Table 4-6, including the total purchased volume by USBR.
Table 4-5. Maximum Voluntary Groundwater Pumping Amounts by Agency
Agency Potential Maximum Pumping (ac-ft)*
Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District3,000
Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District 25,000
Princeton-Codora-Glenn Irrigation District 8,000
Provident Irrigation District8,000
Reclamation District 108 12,500
Reclamation District 1004 4,300
River Garden Farms 3,000
Sycamore Mutual Water Company 3,000
* This amount is the total approved pumping based on the Environmental Assessment report.
The approved volume does not guarantee participation in the program. Actual pumping
volumes as well as volume reimbursed by USBR vary from these numbers.
Table 4-6. Volume of Water Purchased by USBR for Select Agencies
AgencyWater Purchased by USBR(ac-ft)*
Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District* 0
Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District* 6,882
Reclamation District 108* 3,001
Reclamation District 1004* 4,301
Total Purchased by USBR** 23,358
*Volume of water sold by individual agencies is based on conversations with individual agency
staff.
**Total volume of water purchased is based on conversations with USBR staff.
The Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District passed the 2021 Emergency Groundwater Production Program
(Appendix C) that allows for up to 25,000 ac-ft of groundwater pumping in lieu of surface water diversions.
The GCID voluntarily implemented this program in 2021. In the implementation of this program, GCID
pumped the full 25,000 ac-ft of water even though they were only reimbursed for less than 7,000 ac-ft.
The additional pumping of 25,000 ac-ft from GCID is 48% of the total amount of water sold as transfers.
When compared to the total pumping in the Colusa Subbasin, the additional pumping accounts for a 2.5%
increase. Based on communication with staff, Reclamation District 108 and 1004 sold an additional
3,001 and 4,301 ac-ft, respectively, to the USBR program. This amount of pumping, in relation to the
temporary water transfers conducted by the agencies, accounts for 7% and 35% of the total transferred
volume.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
42
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Of the GSP Subbasins in the NSV (Figure 4-4) the estimated groundwater pumped during 2021 was
2.4 million ac-ft. The purchased total by USBR of 23,358 accounts for 1% of the total pumping and if the
full 60,000 ac-ft of water was to be pumped, it would have accounted for 2.5% of total pumping.
The regional impact of the additional pumping is considered negligible when compared to the total
amount of groundwater pumping that was conducted in response to critical drought conditions. Assessing
local impacts outside of Butte County, where the pumping occurred, is beyond the scope of this report.
In addition, it is beyond the scope of this report to assess the success or shortfalls of this program as it
relates to cold water storage or the impacts to the beneficial purposes as outlined in the EA.
4.2.3. Curtailments in the Northern Sacramento Valley
On August 20, 2021 surface water use was curtailed across the state. The curtailment order included the
entire Butte County, including upstream rights (Figure 4-5). In Butte County there are 527 water rights
listed in the SWRCB site, of which 274 were curtailed (Table 4-7). No riparian rights were curtailed in Butte
County.
Table 4-7. Curtailed Water Rights on August 20, 2021
Curtailment Status Butte Butte Vina Subbasin Wyandotte Creek Subbasin
County Subbasin
Curtailed 274 70 49 13
Not Curtailed 253 31 11 4
6
Curtailment status can be accessed on the SWRCB webpage and is updated weekly. Curtailments in Butte
County decreased to 6 curtailed water rights on September 3, 2021 with no curtailed water rights
beginning October 19, 2021.
6
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drought/respond_to_your_curtailment_order.html
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
43
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 4-5. Curtailment of Surface Water in Butte, Vina, and Wyandotte Creek GSP Subbasins
on August 20, 2021
4.2.4. Drought Relief Waterbird Program
In response to recent droughts and concerns related to the Pacific Flyway, The California rice industry has
teamed up with DWR to fund a special Drought Relief Waterbird Program. The objective of the program
is to create waterbird habitat by utilizing groundwater wells to flood rice fields in the winter. In normal
years, the rice industry provides 270,000 acres to support 7 to 10 million migratory waterbirds. During
current drought conditions, which result in restrictions on surface water use to support land flooding,
there could be a drastic reduction in bird habitat. The partnership between the California rice industry
and DWR hope to increase the number of flooded acres to support waterbirds habitat.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
44
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
5. EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER LEVEL CONDITIONS IN THE
NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY
Groundwater elevations are based on many variables, including aquifer system, hydrogeology,
topography, and local gradients. Typically, groundwater elevations are interpolated from point
data from individual monitoring wells in an area. Because groundwaterelevations are
interpolated and there are many unknowns about what is happening between measurement
points, these maps are presented to show general trends with the knowledge that local
conditions may vary.
5.1. Summary of Aquifer Change Conditions
Groundwater elevations and depth to groundwater calculations are conducted on data from the Water
Data Library (WDL) (DWR, 2022b). Interpolated surfaces were calculated through inverse-weighted-
distance (IDW) methods. Groundwater elevations are based on depth to water measurements and on the
recorded ground surface elevation within the WDL datasets. Groundwater elevation change maps are
created by only using wells with repeated measurements in the identified years and seasons. These are
typically Fall or Spring in 2019, 2020, or 2021.
The extent of groundwater change is conducted through the NSV counties, but due to data limitations it
is further limited to the 12 GSP Subbasins located within the valley floor. These Subbasins are Antelope,
Bend, Butte, Colusa, Corning, Los Molinos, North Yuba, Red Bluff, South Yuba, Sutter, Vina, and Wyandotte
Creek (Figure 5-1).
Spring and Fall measurements correspond to any groundwater elevations taken during March or October,
respectively. If there are multiple measurements taken during that time, the average groundwater
elevation of the measurement is used. This analysis is done by season, Spring or Fall, and by depth of
screened interval. The depths of screened intervals correspond to shallow wells that are less than 200 feet
bgs, intermediate wells that are between 200 and 600 ft bgs, or deep wells that are greater than 600 feet
bgs. For each season and well depth there are three maps presented, a groundwater elevation map shown
in a yellow to green to blue gradient, depth to groundwater shown in a yellow to green gradient, and a
2019 to 2021 change map shown in red to yellow to blue gradient where red is lower levels and blue is
higher levels in 2021. These colors were chosen to be red-green color vision impairment friendly.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
45
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 5-1. GSP Subbasins in the NSV
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
46
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
5.1.1. Shallow Wells in Spring
Groundwater gradients in shallow wells flow from north to south in the NSV (Figure 5-2). Depth to water
measurements range from 0 feet bgs in the Red Bluff Subbasin to 173 feet bgs in Colusa Subbasin
(Figure 5-3). From Spring 2019 to Spring 2020, groundwater elevations have, on average, declined by
10 feet across the NSV (Figure 5-4). The declines range from 15 feet in the Corning Subbasin to 1 foot in
Wyandotte Creek Subbasin.
Figure 5-2. Spring 2021 Groundwater Elevation for Wells Perforated at less than 200 feet bgs
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
47
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 5-3. Spring 2021 Depth to Groundwater for Wells Perforated at less than 200 feet bgs
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
48
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 5-4. Spring 2019 to Spring 2021 Groundwater Changes for Wells Perforated at less than
200 feet bgs
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
49
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
5.1.2. Shallow Wells in Fall
Groundwater gradients in shallow wells flow from north to south in the NSV in Fall 2021 (Figure 5-5).
Localized depressions are evident near the western boundary of the valley. Depth to water measurements
range from 0 feet bgs in the Red Bluff Subbasin to 192 feet bgs in Colusa Subbasin (Figure 5-6). From Fall
2019 to Fall 2021, groundwater elevations have, on average, declined by 14 feet across the NSV
(Figure 5-7). The declines range from 22 feet in the Sutter Subbasin to 2 feet in Los Molinos Subbasin.
Figure 5-5. Fall 2021 Groundwater Elevation for Wells Perforated at less than 200 feet bgs
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
50
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 5-6. Fall 2021 Depth to Groundwater Elevation for Wells Perforated at less than
200 feet bgs
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
51
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 5-7. Fall 2019 to Fall 2021 Groundwater Changes for Wells Perforated at less than 200
Feet bgs
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
52
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
5.1.3. Intermediate Wells in Spring
Intermediate well depths are any wells perforated below 200 feet bgs and less than 600 feet bgs.
Groundwater gradients in intermediate wells flow from north to south in the NSV (Figure 5-8). Depths to
water measurements range from 2 feet bgs in the Butte Subbasin to 293 feet bgs in Colusa Subbasin
(Figure 5-9). From Spring 2019 to Spring 2020, groundwater elevations have, on average, declined by
10 feet across the NSV (Figure 5-10). The declines range from 14 feet in the Corning Subbasin to 2 foot in
Wyandotte Creek Subbasin.
Figure 5-8. Spring 2021 Groundwater Elevation for Wells Perforated
Between 200 and 600 Feet bgs
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
53
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 5-9. Spring 2021 Depth to Groundwater for Wells Perforated
Between 200 and 600 Feet bgs
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
54
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 5-10. Spring 2019 to Spring 2021 Groundwater Changes for Wells Perforated Between
200 and 600 Feet bgs
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
55
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
5.1.4. Intermediate Wells in Fall
Groundwater gradients in intermediate wells flow from north to south in the NSV in Fall 2021
(Figure 5-11). Localized depressions are evident near the western boundary of the valley. Depths to water
measurements range from 3 feet bgs in the Sutter Subbasin to 264 feet bgs in Colusa Subbasin
(Figure 5-12). From Fall 2019 to Fall 2021, groundwater elevations have, on average, declined by 15 feet
across the NSV (Figure 5-13). The declines range from 19 feet in the Colusa Subbasin to 4 feet in Los
Molinos Subbasin.
Figure 5-11. Fall 2021 Groundwater Elevation for Wells Perforated
Between 200 and 600 Feet bgs
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
56
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 5-12. Fall 2021 Depth to Groundwater for Wells Perforated
Between 200 and 600 Feet bgs
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
57
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 5-13. Fall 2019 to Fall 2021 Groundwater Changes for Wells Perforated
Between 200 and 600 Feet bgs
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
58
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
5.1.5. Deep Wells in Spring
Deep well depths are any wells perforated below 600 feet bgs. Groundwater gradients in deep wells flow
from north to south in the NSV (Figure 5-14). Depths to water measurements range from 0 feet bgs in the
Butte Subbasin to 293 feet bgs in Colusa Subbasin (Figure 5-15). From Spring 2019 to Spring 2021,
groundwater elevations have, on average, declined by 8 feet across the NSV (Figure 5-16). The declines
range from 10 feet in the Colusa Subbasin to 3 feet in Los Molinos Subbasin.
Figure 5-14. Spring 2021 Groundwater Elevation for Wells Perforated
Greater Than 600 Feet bgs
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
59
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 5-15. Spring 2021 Depth to Groundwater for Wells Perforated
Greater Than 600 Feet bgs
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
60
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 5-16. Spring 2019 to Spring 2021 Groundwater Changes for Wells Perforated
Greater Than 600 Feet bgs
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
61
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
5.1.6. Deep Wells in Fall
Groundwater gradients in deep wells flow from north to south in the NSV in Fall 2021 (Figure 5-17).
Localized depressions are evident near the western and south-western boundaries. Depths to water
measurements range from 0 feet bgs in the Colusa Subbasin to 276 feet bgs in Colusa Subbasin
(Figure 5-18). From Fall 2019 to Fall 2021, groundwater elevations have, on average, declined by 22 feet
across the NSV (Figure 5-19). The declines range from 31 feet in the Colusa Subbasin to 4 feet in Los
Molinos Subbasin.
Figure 5-17. Fall 2021 Groundwater Elevation for Wells Perforated Greater Than 600 Feet bgs
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
62
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 5-18. Fall 2021 Depth to Groundwater for Wells Perforated Greater Than 600 Feet bgs
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
63
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 5-19. Fall 2019 to Fall 2021 Groundwater Changes for Wells Perforated
Greater Than 600 Feet bgs
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
64
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
5.2. Groundwater Well Summary
5.2.1. Shallow Domestic Well Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Dry or diminished capacity wells providing water for household use can cause hardship to those that
experience it (Section 6.5). To evaluate the potential magnitude and location of dry wells, a vulnerability
analysis was conducted. The typical lifespan of a small water well is estimated to be about 50 years
based on the durability and longevity of typical domestic well materials, which are commonly
constructed of PVC casing. Using a conservative estimate of a 40-year lifespan, wells drilled prior to
1980 were considered unlikely to still be in operation or nearing the end of their lifespan and are
excluded from this vulnerability analysis.
To assess where vulnerable wells may be located the future groundwater levels were estimated. In Butte
County the groundwater changes from Fall 2020 to 2021 and Fall 2019 to 2021 are used to project
groundwater elevations forward from 2021 to 2022 where 2020-2021 is the moderate change and 2019-
2021 is considered the extreme change. The OSWCR database is used to estimate the total completed
depth of wells in Butte County. Due to lack of groundwater level measurements in the foothills of Butte
County, this analysis is only done in the three GSP Subbasins. In addition, due to the fractured bedrock
aquifer system located within the foothills, this type of analysis would not be applicable to those areas.
Fractured aquifers are more complex than sedimentary basins, like the Central Valley, and the
assumptions of continuity between wells may not be valid. Therefore, a groundwater level monitoring
network is not established nor would be appropriate for the foothill areas.
There are six main assumptions being used to conduct this analysis:
1. Wells drilled in 1980 and later are used. Well installation that occurred before 1980 are assumed
to be nearing the end of their operational life and are therefore excluded.
2. If the groundwater elevation is lower than 10 feet from the bottom of the well, it is considered to
be dry or have diminished capacity.
3. The OSWCR dataset was not investigated for wells that were deconstructed, abandoned, or are
no longer operational. Therefore, it is probable that some wells identified in this vulnerability
analysis are already non-functioning.
4. Only wells on the valley floor are considered.
5. Aquifer changes in the shallow zone, i.e., less than 200 feet deep, are considered. Methodology
in estimating groundwater level change is detailed in Section 4.1.
6. Based on groundwater elevations mapped in Fall 2020, there are 285 wells that should have been
dry during that time. Since no wells were reported dry in Fall 2020, it is assumed that these wells
are no longer in operation and are removed from the analysis.
By plotting the total completed depth of newly constructed domestic wells (Figure 5-20) trends
concerning the overall depth can be seen. Figure 5-20 shows boxplots of domestic well depths completed
in a particular calendar year. The blue line shows the overall trend for each subbasin and for the Foothill
area outside of the subbasin. Domestic well depths have been steadily increasing in the Vina Subbasin and
the Foothills. Domestic well depths in Butte and Wyandotte Creek Subbasins have remained steady over
the past 40 years. Additional information on how to interpret boxplots is presented in Figure 5-21.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
65
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 5-20. Well Depths by Year Completed and Subbasin
Figure 5-21. Explanation of Boxplot Data and Visualization
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
66
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 5-22. Vulnerable Wells in 2021 Based on Groundwater Level Elevations and Well
Construction Details
Based on the approach outlined above, there are 66 wells that should have had dry or diminished capacity
in Fall 2021 (Figure 5-22). Well locations are from the OSWCR where many wells are approximately
located, which causes overlapping points on the map. Due to uncertainties in groundwater elevations, it
is possible that they did not go dry in 2021 and are therefore vulnerable to dry or diminished conditions
in 2022. Of those 66 wells, 58% of them were drilled in the 1980’s. Data was not cross-referenced with
well’s reported in the My Dry Well database or with locations of properties annexed to Cal Water services.
Table 5-1 provides a summary of vulnerable dry wells.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
67
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 5-23. Vulnerable Wells in 2022 Based on Drawdowns Similar to 2020-2021 (Moderate)
and Well Construction Details
When groundwater level changes from 2020-2021 are superimposed on the 2021 groundwater levels, to
simulate moderate change in groundwater levels, there are 44 additional vulnerable wells (Figure 5-23).
The areas in which the vulnerabilities are located remain the same from Figure 5-23 with the majority
located in Durham to north of Chico with additional wells near Oroville.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
68
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 5-24. Vulnerable Wells in 2022 Based on Drawdowns Similar to 2019-2021 (Extreme)
and Well Construction Details
When groundwater level changes from 2019-2021 are superimposed on the 2021 groundwater levels, to
simulate extreme change in groundwater levels, there are 29 additional vulnerable wells (Figure 5-24).
The areas in which the vulnerabilities are located have expanded from Figure 5-24 including additional
wells in the Durham area and north of Chico.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
69
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 5-25. Vulnerable Wells in 2022 for All Scenarios
When all three analyses are considered together there are a total of 139 vulnerable wells. Of the
139 vulnerable wells, over 90% of them are located within the GSP Vina Subbasin and 55% of them were
drilled in the 1980’s. This analysis does not include the Butte County Foothills were the majority of
reported dry wells occurred in 2021, based on DWR My Dry Well (Section 1.5).
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
70
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Table 5-1. Summary of Vulnerable Wells Analysis
Scenario Butte Subbasin Vina Subbasin Wyandotte Creek Subbasin
Vulnerable in 2021 1 62 3
Vulnerable 2022 -
Moderate 2 40 2
Vulnerable 2022 -
Moderate 1 24 4
5.2.2. Agricultural Well Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Dry or diminished capacity wells providing agricultural water can have major implications to growers as
well as habitat for migratory birds. To evaluate the potential magnitude and location of dry agricultural
wells, a vulnerability analysis was conducted. The methodology is similar to Section 5.2.1, with key
differences outlined below:
Agricultural wells drilled after 1960 are included in the analysis due to the typical construction
differences between domestic and agricultural wells.
Groundwater level changes in intermediate well depths, i.e., 200 to 600 feet below ground
surface, (Section 5.1) were used to extrapolate aquifer changes.
By plotting the total completed depth of newly constructed agricultural wells (Figure 5-26) trends
concerning the overall depth can be seen. The blue line shows the overall trend for each subbasin. Data
gaps are evident in the foothills and Wyandotte Creek when there were no agricultural wells drilled
(Figure 5-27). While there is variability between years of depth of agricultural wells, the foothills and
Wyandotte Creek Subbasin remain steady from 2000-2020. Butte shows slight increases in agricultural
well depths while in the last 10 years there has been a steep increase in total depth of agricultural wells
in the Vina Subbasin. Information on how to interpret boxplots is presented in Figure 5-21. The number
of wells installed in the Butte Subbasin show three distinct times of greater installation. These are in the
late 70’s and early 80’s, early 90’s, and during the 2012-2016 drought (Figure 5-27). The Vina Subbasin
peaked with number of agricultural wells installed in the late 70’s and early 80’s with no similar peaks in
subsequent years.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
71
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 5-26. Agricultural Well Depths by Subbasin
Figure 5-27. Total Number of Agricultural Wells Drilled by Subbasin
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
72
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 5-28. Vulnerable Agricultural Wells in 2021 Based on Groundwater Level Elevations
and Well Construction Details
Based on the approach outlined above, there is one well that should have had dry or diminished capacity
in Fall 2021 (Figure 5-28). Due to uncertainties in groundwater elevations, it is possible that they did not
go dry in 2021 and are therefore vulnerable to dry or diminished conditions in 2022. The single well
identified was drilled in the 1980's and is located in the Vina Subbasin. Data was not cross-referenced with
any other data sets. Table 5-2 provides a summary of vulnerable agricultural wells.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
73
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 5-29. Vulnerable Agricultural Wells in 2022 Based on Drawdowns Similar to 2020-2021
(Moderate) and Well Construction Details
When groundwater level changes from 2020-2021 are superimposed on the 2021 groundwater levels, to
simulate moderate change in groundwater levels, there are seven additional vulnerable wells
(Figure 5-29). Due to poor spatial resolution of well completion reports, multiple wells are overlain and
cannot be differentiated on the map. There are five vulnerable wells in the Butte Subbasin that were
completed in the 60’s and 70’s. In the Vina Subbasin there are two vulnerable wells located in the Durham
area, one completed in the 60’s and the other in the 80’s.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
74
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 5-30. Vulnerable Agricultural Wells in 2022 Based on Drawdowns Similar to 2019-2021
(Extreme) and Well Construction Details
When groundwater level changes from 2019-2021 are superimposed on the 2021 groundwater levels, to
simulate extreme change in groundwater levels, there are 14 additional vulnerable agricultural wells
(Figure 5-30). The area where the most vulnerabilities are is within the Butte Subbasin, located near the
cities of Biggs and Gridley, which account for 13 of vulnerable wells. The 13 wells were drilled in the 1960’s,
1970’s, and 1980’s. The fourteenth vulnerable well is located in the Vina Subbasin, east of Durham and
was completed in the 1970’s.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
75
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 5-31. Vulnerable Wells in 2022 for All Scenarios
When all three analyses are considered together there are a total of 22 vulnerable wells. Of the
22 vulnerable wells, over 80% of them are located within the Butte Subbasin, heavily concentrated in the
Biggs and Gridley area. The remaining four identified vulnerable wells are in the Vina Subbasin. Vulnerable
agricultural wells were all completed prior to 1990’s.
Table 5-2. Summary of Vulnerable Wells Analysis
Scenario Butte Subbasin Vina Subbasin Wyandotte Creek Subbasin
Vulnerable in 2021 0 1 0
Vulnerable 2022 -
5 2 0
Moderate
Vulnerable 2022 -
13 1 0
Moderate
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
76
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
6. EVALUATION OF DROUGHT IMPACTS
This chapter provides an overall assessment of the economic effects of the 2021 drought in Butte
County. The report categorizes and quantifies economic effects for the main water-using sectors
of the economy and water using groups. For each sector, revenues or costs for 2021 are
compared with prior years. Publicly available data were augmented with proprietary data from
WestWater Inc. and interviews with community members and county staff.
6.1. Economic Framework for Understanding County-wide Costs of Drought
Drought is a complex phenomenon with several and wide economic implications. Figure 6-1 shows the
different pathways to economic impacts of a drought in Butte County. The pathways are interrelated given
that economies are complex systems with different feedback effects.
Figure 6-1. Economic Impacts of Drought
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
77
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 6-1 differentiates between two types of costs, direct and indirect. The direct cost is related to how
lack of water affects economic agents in different sectors such as agriculture; households (who rely on
domestic wells); households (who receive water from public water supply); government; and the
environment. For example, when farmers’ surface water supply is curtailed, they risk lower production
and/or may supplement irrigation surface water with groundwater sources. These production-related
revenue changes increase groundwater pumping costs and are considered direct costs to growers. If
agricultural production losses are sufficiently high, there could also be indirect costs: if agricultural
production falls, sales for agricultural sector suppliers may fall and employment may decrease in the larger
economy, resulting in changes in overall economic activity.
In the domestic well sector, interruptions in domestic well supplies lead to direct costs for well owners
when they must secure replacement water supplies via water haulers or Butte County emergency filling
station, or pay a pump contractor to lower their pump or even drill a new well. In addition to direct market
costs, households face time and inconvenience costs which are not easily observed in monetary terms but
reduce household well-being. These are non-market costs, changes in welfare that are not quantified via
market prices.
In the environmental sector, non-market environmental impacts are one of the major negative effects of
drought. For example, lower water levels in Lake Oroville may reduce the number of recreational visitors
thus reducing the associated economic activity in the County that outdoor recreational visitors generate.
In addition, visitors who would have visited the lake lose welfare when they have to find a substitute
recreation location.
6.2. Agricultural Impacts
This section organizes the drought effects in the agricultural sector as follows: farm revenues, costs of
additional groundwater pumping, and water transfers.
6.2.1. Agricultural Revenues
Per acre farm revenues vary widely in the county. Ten-year average data for 2010-2020 shows values
range from <$1,000/acre for miscellaneous small-acreage field and grain crops to $4,656/acre for walnuts,
$5,180/acre for kiwi, peaches, pistachios and plums, $3,948/acre for almonds and $1,633/acre for rice.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
78
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 6-2. Average 10-year Agricultural Revenue by Land Use Class – Based on Crop Reports
(2010-2020) Adjusted for Inflation
Figure 6-3 shows the acres of rice and orchards in Butte County, 2010-2021. Average rice acreage in Butte
County for 2010-20 is 92,880 acres, and in 2021 the rice acreage in Butte County was slightly higher at
94,500 acres. These acreages are based on the Butte County Agricultural Commissioner’s Annual Crop
Reports.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
79
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 6-3. Area in Rice and Orchards in Butte County
The lowest rice acreage in the last 11 years was in 2014 at 77,800 acres. 2014 was a critically dry year in
the entire state and Butte County water districts participated in state-wide water transfers via crop idling,
which contributed to reduced rice acreage. In 2015, as dry conditions persisted, districts’ surface water
allocations were cut by 50%. Many rice-growing districts did not participate in water transfers, and
groundwater pumping was used by rice growers to supplement surface water supplies. As a result of all
these effects, 2015 rice acreage was lower than the average, at 87,700 acres. In 2021, the surface water
allocation for districts was curtailed by up to 50%; as in 2015, there were no crop-idling-based transfers,
and rice farmers used groundwater to meet their irrigation demands. Surface water curtailments,
combined with high rice prices, limited total rice crop idling to 94,500 acres.
Acreage of orchards has seen a modest increase in Butte County, partly driven by increase in nut prices.
The average acreage for orchards for 2010-20 is 105,954 acres, and for 2021 the total acreage is 110,222
acres. Orchards include more than a dozen varieties of fruit and nut tree crops, with the largest acreage
in almonds and walnuts. A closer examination of the source of increased acreage in the orchard groups
reveals that walnuts are the main source of increase in the orchard acreage, as observed in Figure 6-3.
Total acreage of walnuts has increased from 37,670 acres in 2010 to 57,000 in 2021, while almond acreage
has remained relatively stable at around 40,000 acres in this time period.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
80
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Figure 6-4 presents data on per-acre revenue (inflation adjusted) of three of the main crops in Butte
County, rice, almonds, and walnuts, for 2010-21. Revenue per acre is calculated as the product of annual
values for price received ($ per unit) and yield (units produced per acre). While yields have been relatively
stable for rice, walnut yield has fluctuated because of drought-induced crop freeze and variability in the
price of walnuts in the global market. In the 2021 California Walnut Objective Measurement Report,
released by USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the main source of inter-year variation
in revenues is the changes in price received for walnuts. The 2010-2021 average walnuts revenue per acre
is $4,645, and has fluctuated considerably, peaking at $6,928 per acre in 2013 to $2,112 in 2020. Per-acre
walnut revenue in 2021 was $2,216. The 2020-21 average per-acre almond revenue was $4,227, with a
peak at $7,024 per acre in 2014. Revenues for almonds were $3,585 per acre in 2021.Last, the per-acre
2010-21 average rice revenue is $1,898; rice revenues have been relatively stable compared to walnuts
and almonds. The lowest value for rice in the last 10 years was $1,403 per acre in 2016. In 2021 rice
revenue was $2,067 per acre.
Figure 6-4. Revenue per acre for Rice. Almonds,and Walnuts in Butte County
It can be concluded that the 2021 drought has had relatively small effect on agricultural revenues in Butte
County. Overall crop acreages did not decrease this year because farmers have relied on groundwater to
meet the shortage in surface water supplies. While acreages have not been affected, pumping costs have
contributed to increases in costs of agricultural production. Increases in costs that cannot be passed on
to the consumer means reduced profits or net returns per acre for farmers. While data on crop yields and
prices are readily available, data on all costs of production are not readily available. Conversations with
growers in Butte County revealed that costs of pumping groundwater were higher in 2021 (Section 6.2.2).
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
81
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
Taking a longer-term perspective on cumulative impacts of recurrent droughts, we note that over the
course of a 20-year period, 1999-2019, there was a net decrease of 12,366 acres of agricultural land use
in the county (Land IQ, 2021). Water shortages are one of the factors that affect agricultural acreage. Crop
prices, global markets, costs of inputs such as fertilizer, as well as government policies such as for land
conservation all play an important role in agricultural profits and thus farmers’ decisions in what to plant
and/or whether to keep land in agriculture. Further work can be done to isolate the effect of drought on
agricultural land use change in the County.
6.2.2. Groundwater Use and Costs
Agricultural water use in the County is differentiated largely along crop lines. Rice is grown primarily with
surface water supplies, while orchards are primarily irrigated with groundwater. In dry years, irrigation
demand from groundwater increases for rice growers if Feather River Contractors’ water allocations are
curtailed, as was the case in 2021, discussed above. Irrigation demand for orchard growers can also
increase if winter months have been dry and some irrigation is needed to regulate tree temperature and
prevent freeze damage. Therefore, in dry years, for both field and tree crops, groundwater pumping and
associated energy costs are higher. Back-of-the-envelope calculations of energy costs of groundwater
pumping are presented below. Comparison of costs for 2015-2021 with 2021 can shed light on the effect
of 2021 drought on energy costs for field versus orchard crops. These calculations show how pumping
costs change as a function of groundwater levels and are meant to be an illustrative example of potential
impacts of drought on growers’ costs.
Well permit report data from the DWR was used to develop a pumping cost model. Table 6-1 shows
estimated pumping costs for rice, almonds, and walnuts in 2021 as a function of a grower’s static water
level, the water requirements of the crop (based on ET data from 2021), the amount of recorded
7
precipitation in the 2021 water year, and the charge per kWh of electricity from PG&E. Actual static water
levels in the well permit report data for Butte County range from approximately 10 feet below the ground
surface to over 80 feet, with a median of approximately 20 feet in 2021. Our estimation methods and
assumptions are described in full in Appendix D. Admittedly, observed water levels after a well’s
completion would be an ideal measure of groundwater levels; the precision of the calculations presented
here could be improved as better water level data becomes available. It should also be noted that we had
to make assumptions regarding the efficiency of water application, average energy prices faced by
farmers, and farmers’ water-use practices. However, our goal in estimation was to show how costs vary
as a function of groundwater levels in Butte County. While the estimates here have an inherent range of
uncertainty, they show the potential range of costs faced by farmers who pumped additional groundwater
during the 2021 drought.
7
Values in this table represent a lower bound on costs based on the assumption that growers do not pump water
during peak demand times with higher PG&E rates; thus, these values represent an absolute lower bound on
potential costs, or essentially the costs/acre based on the marginal (per unit) cost of electricity, as opposed to the
total costs inclusive of fixed costs and fees. Appendix D shows estimated costs based on PG&E’s “effective cost of
electricity,” approximately $0.30/kWh, inclusive of all fees beyond the per-kilowatt hour cost of electricity.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
82
May 2022
May 2022
, 100%
10
133.95150.83167.72184.61201.49218.38235.27252.15
AlmondsGroundwater
, 100%
9
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
108.45122.13135.80149.47163.15176.82190.49204.16
ET reporting for Durham and Biggs stations
WalnutsGroundwater
)
UCANR
=34.83 inches required
(
47.2653.2259.1865.1371.0977.0583.0188.97
irrigation
1, 2021
Rice, 25% Groundwater
83
94.52
106.44118.35130.27142.19154.10166.02177.93
% efficiency sprinkler
Rice, 50% Groundwater
.
, 85
st
1
in 2021
189.04212.87236.71260.54284.37308.20332.04355.87
100%
,
8
1. Estimated pumping costs for rice, almonds, and walnuts in 2021
-
RiceGroundwater
Table 6
0
37.3642.0746.7851.4956.260.9165.6270.33
Cost/Acre foot ($)
42.5 inches a year, 70% efficiency for flood irrigation
requirements are an average of University of California Agricultural and Natural Resources
1020304050607080
4.32 inches ET requirement, 7.75 inches** precipitation 1, 85% efficiency for sprinkler irrigation=43.02 inches required
4
Static Water Level (ft)Crop water Precipitation from UCANR Butte County monitoring stations, totaled for WY beginning Oct. ET requirement of 37.36 inches ET requirement, 7.75** inches
of precipitation
in Butte county. ET requirements are estimated through October
Drought Impact AnalysisButte County, CA 8910
Drought Impact Analysis
Butte County, CA
For rice growers, year-to-year variability in groundwater levels causes minor changes to agricultural water
users’ costs in comparison to the decision to pump or not pump groundwater. Based on the mean static
water levels from the well permit reports, the average rice farmer could expect to pay approximately
$40-$50 per acre foot of water pumped, necessitating a cost of $260-$280 per irrigated acre if a rice
farmer were using one hundred percent groundwater. This assumes constant energy prices in the lowest
tier of pricing for agricultural use in summer of 2021, $0.23/kWh, thus representing a lower bound on
farmers’ potential pumping costs.
In reality, farmers received only a 50% curtailment from the state, and many have alternative sources of
surface water, so the effective pumping cost per acre may be reduced in half. Orchards, however, use one
hundred percent groundwater. Annual irrigation requirements, less the amount of precipitation received
and stored in the soils for the trees, determine the amount of water growers must pump. Butte County
totaled only 7.75 inches of precipitation in the 2021 water year, necessitating approximately 30 and
37 inches of pumped irrigation water for walnuts and almonds, respectively. If we assume a sprinkler
irrigation efficiency of 85%, this equates to roughly 34 and 43 inches of water required for walnuts and
almonds, respectively. For the median static water level of 20 feet below ground surface, the costs of
irrigating walnuts and almonds are roughly $135/acre and $167/acre, respectively. Again, costs in Table
6-1 represent a lower bound assuming constant energy prices and not including fixed costs of energy.
Appendix D shows projected “effective costs” for farmers, the per acre cost of pumping assuming a
$0.30/kWh electricity price. $0.30 is the “effective” energy price from PG&E for agricultural producers,
inclusive of flat rates and average pumping during peak hours, etc.
During drought, pumping costs increase not only if farmers need to pump a larger volume of water, but
also if static water levels decrease, increasing the energy costs of lifting that volume of water to the
surface. Given that changes in groundwater levels vary across Butte County, the change in pumping costs
resulting from changes in static water levels varies as well. Table 6-2 shows changes in groundwater levels,
11
total pumping costs, and water elevation-related changes in costs per acre for Butte County sub regions.
As seen in Table 6-2, these values vary greatly across sub regions, from roughly $1 per acre in Richvale
and Western Canal, to $80 per acre in Butte Sink.
Conversations with growers in the County revealed that costs of water are typically 5-10% of total
production costs. These estimates are from a few interviews and due to limited scope of this study, we
could not collect data from a representative sample of growers. Growers we did interview also stated that
pandemic-related supply chain issues have greatly increased the costs of farming inputs other than
groundwater, part of the reason groundwater is a relatively low share of total costs.
11
These values were found by taking the average change in groundwater levels by sub region (feet elevation
change) and multiplying this by our estimated $0.47 per acre foot marginal cost of a foot of elevation change to
find the cost pumping costs, per acre foot, associated with changes in groundwater levels from the 2020 to 2021
water years. We then multiply this cost per acre foot by the total amount of pumping (from the groundwater
model) in each sub basin in 2021 to find total costs per sub region. Dividing this total cost by the acreage in each
sub region gives us the marginal change in pumping cost (per acre) that can be attributed to the observed changes
in groundwater elevation in 2021.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
84
May 2022
May 2022
regions
-
3.78
8.736.549.090.830.780.691.430.633.30
-
11.3514.5012.3080.0920.82
Acre Change in
-
Per
Pumping Costs ($/Acre)
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
72
9 95
9
Acreage
70
egion
R
883
60607487285
4606
36065281811230227123365
13773071546156101290
Sub
Irrigated
3
8
37
29
93
849609940698
40
,
662,10,25155,999725583,
,
,,,,45,,73,
,,
99
17
39681021437051
314
-
319105413268
Change in Pumping
85
Costs for 2021 ($)
otal
for additional information.
T
Section 4.1
6
52
5.4
6.87.75.38.03.13.12.5.1.22.4
2.0
-
10.011.13.9
----------
---
Levels (feet)
Change in Groundwater
COLUSA
-
M+T
VINA
Name
BUTTE
ESQUON
RICHVALE
CHEROKEE
BUTTE SINK
THERMALITO
NORTH YUBA
RECL DIST 1004
Changes in Groundwater Levels, total pumping costs, and changes in costs per acre for Butte County sub
WESTERN CANALWESTERN CANALWESTERN CANAL
DURHAM/DAYTON
2.
-
UNORG GLENN
Impact Analysis
regions are based on the BBGM water balance subregions, see
-
Table 6
24569
12131415161719202122
Sub
region
*Sub*Sub region 7 (Vina): no wells, no pumping *Sub regions 10 and 11: no wells, can assume same as sub regions 4 and 12, respectively
Drought Butte County, CA
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
6.2.3. Water Transfers
There was no crop-idling (CI)-based water transfers from Butte County in 2021. According to the DWR’s
Water Transfer database for Butte County, South Feather Water and Power Agency (SFWPA) and
Thermalito Water and Sewer District (TWSD) transferred 11,500 AF of water via reservoir releases.
Figure 6-5 shows the volume transferred by districts in Butte County, including districts that have some
12
areas in neighboring counties. Districts in Butte County are important source regions for the state-wide
water market. In 2021, although overall transfer volume from Sacramento Valley was amongst the highest
in the last decade, there is limited supply from districts in Butte County.
Figure 6-5. Water Transferred from Districts in Butte County* and Sacramento Valley,
2010-2021
The impacts of water transfers in source regions has concerned state policy makers and local communities,
as there is a broad consensus that source communities can suffer from negative effects of water transfers.
For example, loss of agricultural economic activity can decrease local employment, and groundwater may
12
District boundaries do not always match with county boundaries. Two notable cases in Butte County are Butte
Water District, which lies in Butte and Sutter Counties, and Western Canal Water District, which lies in Butte and
Glenn counties. The data available for water transfer volumes is by District, not by location within the county
which can our assignment of economic effects of water transfers to Butte County. For example, if 100 acres were
idled for water transfers by Western Canal Water District, some of those acres may lie in Glenn County, or if 5000
acre-feet of water was transferred by Butte Water District via groundwater substitution, the pumping occurred in
Sutter County.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
86
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
be degradedif groundwater substitution is used. However, the severity, longevity, and distribution of these
effects are not well understood. While a full review of this literature on the effects of transfers is beyond the
scope of this study, there are two important water transfer restrictions that limit the degree of economic
and environmental harm to the county from water transfers (Chaudhry and Fairbanks, 2022). First, area
fallowed for transfers cannot be in excess of 20% of the District area. California Water Code §1745.05(b)
states that no more than 20% of irrigable area within a district can be fallowed for water transfers. Second,
Butte County's Chapter 33, which requires a permit for groundwater substitution for transfers, has also
limited GWS-based transfers in the county; no permit has ever been applied for. Both restrictions have
limited the negative economic and environmental impact of CI-based transfers in Butte County. Also,
observing previous transfer behavior, districts in Butte County have not participated in crop-idling-based
water transfers in years when their surface water supply is curtailed, as in 2021. The Feather River
Contractors in Butte County experienced up to 50% curtailments in their water allocations.
Figure 6-6. Price Received of Water Transferred from Sacramento Valley, 2010-2021
Figure 6-6 shows the variation in price of water received from water transfers. Price of water traded in
the water market fluctuates from year to year. In dry years, price of water is higher and result in larger
volumes of water transferred from Sacramento Valley. These price data allow a rough comparison of
return from rice production vs. CI-based transfers. For example, In 2018, transfer revenue based on
13
average SV water prices was $1,197 per acre, while rice net return in California (Childs et al., 2020) was
13
In 2018 (inflation adjusted) price by CI-based transfer was $363/AF. Price x 3.3 gives the per acre revenue from
water transfer. ETAW for rice-idling based transfers is 3.3 acre-feet per acre. Revenue from transfer may not accrue
entirely to the farmer/landowner, it may also include transfer management fees or other transaction costs involved in
water transfers.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
87
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
$283 per acre. Returns to farmers arehigherfrom transfers thaninrice productionand broader economic
impacts in Butte County will depend on how water transfer revenues are spent.
6.3. Municipal and Industrial Impacts
There are numerous municipal water providers in Butte County. Municipal water providers with over
3,000 connections are required to submit urban water management plans (which include drought
contingency planning) to DWR. In their drought planning assessments, none of the largest municipal
providers (California Water Service Company (Cal Water) Chico district; Cal Water Oroville District;
Paradise Irrigation District; City of Biggs; City of Gridley) project any shortfalls in water demand even in
the event of a severe five-year drought. This is due to the stability of their groundwater supplies
(Cal Water Chico, Biggs, Gridley) and reliability of surface water (Cal Water Oroville). Other providers in
the area supply water to both agricultural and municipal users (e.g., South Feather Water and Power --
surface water; Thermalito Water and Sewer District--surface and groundwater). However, these users also
predict supplies in excess of demands, even if drought continues. This does not mean, however, that water
providers are not at all affected by drought. Many have plans to drill new wells or use demand-side
management programs (e.g., conservation pricing, watering restrictions) to increase water supply
reliability and decrease future water demands.
Given that it is the largest municipal water provider in Butte County, we discuss the implications of the
2021 drought for Cal Water. Cal Water Chico serves water to 109,723 customers (as of 2020) using water
from the Vina subbasin in Butte County. As of 2021, deliveries of water totaled 22,040-acre feet,
compared to 22,557-acre feet in 2020. Approximately 15,000-acre feet is delivered to single-family and
multi-family residences, and the remaining to commercial/government/industrial water uses. Per-capita
water use (gallons per capita per day) has declined from 287 gpcd in 2000 to an annual average of
177 gpcd in 2021. Figure 6-7 shows gpcd in July from years 2015-2021; as seen, demand hit a low due to
state mandated conservation in 2015 and stayed relatively constant after conservation requirements
were lifted in 2016, despite the severity of drought in 2021.
Due to the stability of Cal Water’s groundwater source, the utility’s ability to deliver water was not
affected by the 2021 drought, and Cal Water does not project any shortages to materialize even if severe
drought were to continue for the next five years. Cal Water’s urban water management plan forecasts
water demands of up to 25,000-acre feet a year in the event of multi-year drought. However, no additional
supply projects are planned at this time, though the utility does have water rights to 27,000-acre feet of
surface water from the State Water Project. Long term, it is also considering connecting to the Paradise
Irrigation District, which would increase surface water supplies. However, as of 2021, Cal Water does not
project it would need to use tools other than demand side management (conservation programs, pricing,
water waste ordinances, minimizing distribution losses) in order to meet drought-related demands.
Cal Water did annex 25 customers onto their distribution system after these customers’ wells went dry in
2021. Associated costs are approximately $3,000-$10,000 per residence, depending upon the distance
from the water main to the property. Customers who did not have a main fronting their property must
pay for main extensions.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
88
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
Figure 6-7. Peak Summer (July) Water Use in Chico
6.4. Outdoor Recreation Impacts
Outdoor recreation is an important economic sector and there are important economic, social and health
benefits of outdoor recreation to the community. Outdoor recreation generates market and non-market
14
benefits for communities. One measure of the economic contributions to the local economy of outdoor
recreation is the total local spending of visitors and sales from local retailers, hotels and restaurants. A
study conducted of outdoor recreation on Sacramento River found that the total economic value of
outdoor recreation was well in excess of $150 million/year (Tsournos et al., 2016). This study was
conducted by surveying outdoor recreational visitors for hiking, fishing, birdwatching etc. at more than
two dozen publicly accessible sites along the river over a course of one year. Butte County shares a long
stretch of the Sacramento River with Glenn County and has 11 of these sites, so it stands to argue that the
economic value of outdoor recreational activity to Butte County is a big part of this $150 million. During
2021, due to Covid-19, evidence from several locations around the country indicates that park visitation
was higher than usual (Alizadehtazi et al, 2020) which could contribute to higher economic value.
14
The economic value of any given recreation activity is a monetary measure of the economic benefits received by
an individual or group doing that activity. For any one individual, the net economic value of a given recreation activity
is measured as the maximum amount the individual is willing to pay to participate in the activity, less the actual cost
incurred by the individual to participate in that activity. Benefit-cost analysis can include both market and nonmarket
values. Market values are those that are readily identifiable and addressed in typical market transactions and usually
involve observable prices or the transfer of money, such as the construction costs and entrance fees. Nonmarket
values are those that are not addressed or represented in typical market transactions and can include things such as
the value someone has for the opportunity to view nature or the loss of well-being from residents who must endure
more traffic from people engaging in recreation.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
89
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
Another important location
for outdoor recreation in
Butte County is Lake
Oroville. Lake Oroville, part
of the California State Water
Project, is managed by the
California Department of
Parks and Recreation and
provides roughly 2,925 acres
of land dedicated to
recreation, with another
21,000 acres of water
surface open to recreation.
Facilities include numerous
day-use areas for hiking,
biking fishing, camping, and
boating. 11,700 acres of this
Hooker Oak Park, Chico, CA; image from here
belong to the Oroville Wildlife
Area, a riparian habitat that hosts over 100 species of birds and allows for birdwatching, hunting, and
recreating on a vast trail network.
The DWR estimates the number of recreation person days (number of people who visit for at least a
portion of a day) using traffic counter data, where vehicle count estimates are multiplied by factors of
1.5-3, depending upon the recreation area and time of year, to account for the number of persons per
vehicle (California Department of Water Resources, 2020). Total trip days to the Lake Oroville State
Recreation Area (LOSRA) 2017 and 2018 were 1.25 and 1.15 million visitors; this fell to 1.06 and
0.99 million visitors in years 2019 and 2020. However, 2021 values were not available at the time of this
report. Of this roughly 1 million visits in recent years, approximately 250,000 visits were to the Oroville
Wildlife Area.
Recreation days directly generate economic activity when county/non-county residents spend money in
order to visit Lake Oroville (gas, lodging, state park entrance fees). Additionally, they generate non-market
value, the monetary value of the recreation experiences provided by the LOSRA. Research by
Rosenberger, et al. (2017) at the National Forest Service estimates the mean value for a recreation fishing,
hiking, and motorized boating days are approximately $72, $78, and $42, respectively (as of 2016). The
Rosenberger work is a meta-analysis analyzing over 422 previous studies completed from 1958-2015 to
calculate mean values for different types of recreation person days. It should be noted that these values
vary across geographic locations and range from a minimum of approximately $5-$437 for motorized
boating. Quantifying these non-market values specific to Butte County is beyond scope of this study but
could be accomplished with further work.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
90
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
Data on the number of recreation days at Lake Oroville were impacted greatly by a number of
unprecedented events that occurred from 2017-2021. These events include the following: closure of
Oroville dam spillway for construction projects after the flooding in 2017; closures of recreation areas due
to fires (2018-2021); state-mandated covid closures in 2020; and other construction projects. Visits were
also likely impacted by air quality during these years’ prolonged fire seasons, and, though the area was
open in 2021, the covid pandemic suppressed visitation rates in 2021 to some extent. All these factors
impacting visitation rates make it difficult to isolate and quantify the impact of the drought.
In an attempt to get a sense of the changes in recreation days due to drought, our approach was to
examine changes in visitation to the boat ramp areas in Lake Oroville. Many of the boat ramps were closed
for the entire recreation season (May16-September 16) in 2021. As of July 16, there was only one boat
ramp (at the spillway); this ramp closed on August 6. At this time, water levels dropped below the record
low of 645 feet, set in 1977. We compare visitation to the boat ramp sites during each of their closure
periods in 2021 to visitation rates in 2016, the last “normal” year where all boat ramps were open during
15
the recreation season, and prior to the flood/fire/covid disruptions. Though this methodology does not
allow us to say that all changes in visitation in 2021 relative to 2016 can be attributed to the drought,
comparing attendance when the specific boat ramps were open versus closed is our best attempt at
isolating the impact of the drought on visitation rates, given all the noise in the data. Table 6-3 shows
Oroville’s main boat launch ramps; the dates of their closures during the recreation season; and the
visitation to those sites in 2016 and 2021.
15
At the time this report was written, the State of California Department of Water Resources had not yet completed
its report summarizing visitation to the Lake Oroville State Recreation Area (those reports are compiled every two
years). However, DWR provided us with the raw trip counter data to the various boat launches. We implemented
DWR’s methodology for using recreation season, weekday, and weekend multipliers at each site to convert the raw
vehicle counter data to recreation person days.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
91
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
Table 6-3. Effect of Oroville’s Boat Ramps Closures on
Recreation Person Days, 2016- 21*
Recreation Total Person Days Difference in
Boat Launch Total Person Days
Season for Same Period in Recreation
SiteDuring Closure Period
Closures, 2021 2016 Person Days
Loafer Creek 7/15-9/15 23,803* 19,446
Spillway 8/6-9/15 6,733 30,960 24,228
Bidwell
7/27-9/16 22,805 32,258 9,453
Canyon
Lime Saddle 6/1-9/16 20,955 78,976 58,022
Enterprise* 5/16-9/15 7,205 3,873**
91,702 days
Total Decreased Recreation Person Days
($3,851,702)
* Construction at Loafer creek (and associated increased traffic) increases vehicle counts in 2021
**Enterprise traffic counters experienced failure in May, June, and July if 2016.
We calculate a “difference in recreation days, the difference between the number of recreation days in
2016 and the number of days in 2021. This difference is assumed to be at least partially attributable to
the drought. Unfortunately, these values for the Loafer Creek and Enterprise boat ramps are misleading
given construction projects that increased trip counts in 2021 at Loafer Creek, and failure of the Enterprise
trip counters in 2016. However, using just the Spillway, Bidwell Canyon, and Lime Saddle Boat ramps, we
estimate 91,702 fewer recreation person days for 2021 relative to 2016. Assuming a value of $42 per day
16
of motorized boating (Rosenberger et al., 2017), this is a loss of $3,851,702 in consumer values. Of
course, this is just one type of recreation value, but this number gives a sense of the magnitude of
potential lost recreation value attributable to the drought.
In addition to the non-market costs of reduced water levels described above, state and federal funds are
being used for numerous ongoing construction projects to renovate boat ramps in light of low water
levels. Projects include the Lime Saddle Marina low water access improvements ($2 million); Loafer Creek
Recreation Area boat ramp extension ($13 million spent as of 2020); and Bidwell Canyon Marina low water
access improvements. Though these projects are not funded by the county, they may impact the local
economy both by generating economic activity during their construction, and by increasing visitation to
Lake Oroville after their completion.
Finally, a full accounting of the impact of Lake Oroville would consider other market and non-market costs
associated with declining water levels at the lake –e.g., changes in wildlife habitat, water supply security,
flood protection, electricity generation (the hydroelectric plant at lake Oroville closed on Sept. 6, 2021
due to low water levels). Further studies could be done to measure these costs.
16
This assumes individuals do not use other areas of the LOSRA (e.g., the fore bays) as alternatives to the main
th
boat launches. The 2019-2021 13 Biennial Report for Lake Oroville found that recreation usage did increase
somewhat the fore bay recreation areas as water levels declined in Lake Oroville.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
92
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
6.5. Impacts to Rural Domestic Water Users
“Domestic well” means a groundwater well used to supply water for the domestic needs of an individual
residence or a water system that is not a public water system and that has no more than four service
connections (Health & Saf. Code, § 116681, subd. (g).). According to a recent estimate, 54,888 people rely
1718
on domestic wells in Butte County in (Pace et al., 2022). Based on U.S. Census information on Butte
County population of 208,309, this means about 26% of the County population relies on domestic wells
to meet its household water needs.
Domestic wells are shallower than agricultural wells. Median depth of all domestic wells in the last 40
years (1980-2021) in the county is 200 feet. At least 25% of the wells are shallower than 125 feet. Most of
the shallower wells are older, i.e., constructed before 2000. Shallower wells are at a greater risk of going
dry in drought years. The depth of new domestic wells has increased over 1980-2021 time period as
shown in Figure 6-8. Since 1980, about 33 wells on average are constructed every year with an average
depth of about 256 feet over this entire period. In 2021, 25 new domestic wells were constructed, with
an average depth of 330 feet. Controlling for location, the data shows that the average depth of new
19
domestic wells increased by about 3.85 feet per year. Since depth of a well is a key determinant of its
cost, one implication of increase in well depths is that the total cost of drilling a new well has increased
dramatically. Moreover, cost per foot of drilling has also increased in recent years partly due to pandemic-
induced supply chain issues and drought-induced high demand of new wells, further increasing the total
cost of a new well. According to information from a well driller in Butte County, well drilling cost for a
domestic well (5-inch diameter) was $30/foot in 2019 and in 2022 has increased to $70/foot.
17
Estimates by USGS show that 4% of the California residents rely on domestic wells and 96% rely public water
supply systems for household uses (Dieter et al., 2015). Finer-scaled, county-level, estimates of population relying
on domestic wells are not readily available. We obtained this estimate of 54,888 from Dr. Clare Pace via personal
communication, based on her research published in Pace et al., (2022) which used American Community Survey
2016-2019 population data a process of dasymetric mapping.
18
Population estimates for domestic well users detailed in Section 4.1 of this report estimate 7,850 fewer people on
domestic wells. This difference is considered reasonable when difference in methodology between the two
estimates is taken into account.
19
Well depth can vary by location so this increase was calculated by comparing wells dug over time in the same
township-range.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
93
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
Figure 6-8. Depth of New Domestic Wells Drilled in Butte County
In 2014, the State created a reporting system called My Dry Well to get data directly from households
regarding their risk of water supply shortages, which contains a series of questions for households
regarding their domestic wells. In 2021 there were 44 cases of domestic wells going dry or significant
reduction in water levels were reported in Butte County in the My Dry Well database . The median depth
of these wells, when reported, was 78 feet. As mentioned above, these wells are relatively older and
shallower wells. The pie chart shown in Figure 6-9 shows the distribution of responses to the question
“Was the problem resolved?”, which is one of the questions in the My Dry Well reporting system. All
responses indicated that it was not yet resolved. The largest number of respondents indicated that they
were trucking water (38%), followed by 20% who indicated that cost of solution was prohibitive, and 16%
indicated that they were on the waitlist for a well. The category, ‘Other’ which had 16% of the response
includes a variety of responses that could not be grouped in the other 4 categories such as “Intermittent
water table level, but quality still continues to decrease” or “No, still in shock” or “No unable to get water
hauled or from neighbors.”
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
94
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
Figure 6-9.Butte County Residents’ Response “Was the Problem Resolved?”
In the absence of better data on the
counts and experiences of residents
experiencing dry wells, these data
from My Dry Well database are
quite useful. But we should be
cautious in generalizing these data
to the entire county for two
reasons: First, because My Dry Well
data collection has started recently
and these data are reported
voluntarily, all dry well cases are
likely not reported. Thus, 44 cases
are likely an undercount of the
number of dry wells experienced in
the county in 2021. Second, there
may be a selection bias in the
reported cases. In other words, residents with higher education and/or access to computer and internet
are more likely to participate in voluntary online reporting. In some cases, Butte County staff has assisted
residents who called in to the County office with online reporting on the MyDry Well system. Overall,
however, the sample of 44 cases may not be representative of the population of residents experiencing
hardship from dry wells.
Our interviews with the county staff and residents who have experienced dry wells, gives a rather clear
and grim picture of the types of costs to residents when they experience interrupted water supply from
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
95
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
their wells. Below, we describe these costs and note while these cost estimates are based on a very limited
number of interviews (due to the time constraints and the scope of this study), a comprehensive study
would be needed to estimate representative coping costs related to the erratic, unsafe, and inadequate
water supply amongst Butte County residents, particularly in the Foothill areas, and cost-effective
solutions to meet this need.
Table 6-4 shows that households pay two kinds of direct costs to cope with water supply interruptions:
(1) Residential water-related Infrastructure modification or enhancement, and (2) Securing alternative
water supplies. The first category includes drilling a new well or deepening the existing well. Using the
estimate of $70 per foot for the average depth dug in Butte County in 2021 means cost of a new well is
$23,000, excluding the cost of materials. This option may be cost prohibitive for some residents. Some
residents may find it feasible to lower the pump to improve their water supply. Installing water storage at
their residents may be a medium-term fix for most households. This storage maybe be filled by their well,
when supplying, and/or from water haulers. The second option, which may be necessary in the short-
term, is to secure water from either water haulers or the county’s water filling station. For example, one
information source cited $300 for a 2,600-gallon truck delivery of water. Another information source cited
$250 for 2,000 gallons of water truck delivery to home. Both approximate to about 12 cents per gallon.
At the county’s water filling station, water was distributed free of charge (to be discussed next). Interviews
with county residents made it clear that while county was distributing water for free, there were other
constraints faced by residents that made this option not cost-free for them. For example, timings of the
filling station were a few hours during working days, cost of containers to fill with water, and cost of
transporting containers from the filling station to their residence. Interviews also revealed the burden
faced by the residents from constantly monitoring their water levels, water storage at home, and
identifying and securing alternative supplies significantly impacted their well-being.
Table 6-4. Costs Borne by Residents Experiencing a Dry Well
Cost Category Illustrative Costs
Residential water-related Infrastructure modification or enhancement:
$70/foot @330 feet = $23,000 + costs
of materials. Current wait times for a
a.Drilling a new well
new well is 18 months-2 years.
$250-$300
b.Lowering the water pump
$1500-$2000 for 2500 gallons
c. Installing on-site water storage
Securing alternative water supplies:
$0.12-$0.13/gallon for 2,000-2,600
d. Purchasing water from water haulers
gallons truck delivery.
Varies. $20/5 gallons - $250/55
e. Purchasing water jugs/tanks for hauling County’s
gallons
water filling station
f. Fuel costs for transporting water County’s water
Varies
stations
Varies
g.Time, information, and inconvenience costs
Source: Interviews with County residents, water haulers, and County staff.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
96
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
We can use some back-of-the-envelope calculations to get a perspective of how some of these out-of-
pocket costs of residents with a dry well compare with water costs of other residential water users. For
a household of 2 individuals that relies solely on hauled water for its potable water needs, using the
20
48 gallons per person per day use for indoor use, this means a monthly cost of $346 for potable water
for the household. This estimate excludes the cost of installing on-site storage or transportation costs.
That is a significantly higher cost of potable water in the State. Figure 6-10 below from Chapelle and
Hanak (2021) reveals that only 4% of the households in California pay more than $120 per month for
drinking water.
Source: Chapelle and Hanak (2021)
Figure 6-10.Average Water Bills in California’s Urban Water Supply System
20
The Department of Water Resources and the State Water Resources Control Board estimate that current
statewide median indoor residential water use is 48 gallons per capita per day, and that a quarter of California
households already use less than 42 gallons. Indoor residential water use is expected to decline even in the absence
of legislation lowering the residential indoor standard due to plumbing code requirements and more efficient
appliances and fixtures being used in existing and new homes. DWR and the Board recommends that urban water
suppliers achieve an indoor water use efficiency standard of 55 gallons per capita per day by 2023 (DWR, 2021)
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
97
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
In 2021, Butte County operated an emergency program to provide potable water to county residents. In
order to use this service, people needed to have a tank or jug and a way to haul the water to their
residence. The filling station distributed free water from Sept 2021-Jan 2022. According to county records,
as of Dec 10, 2021 there were a total of 139 visits to fill water at this station from 13 unique households.
County records also show that most of these households were in the foothill communities of Forest Ranch,
Cohasset, and Berry Creek. According to information collected from the county, including the cost of the
water and equipment, the cost to the county of the water filling station was $1,145. Additional costs
incurred by the county is the planning and staff time to do these activities (Section 6.6)
Finally, bringing domestic well owners within Cal Water’s public water supply system or other community
water system, as available, could be a least cost option for some households. Information received from
Cal Water revealed that 25 customers in Chico added to Cal Water system after wells went dry in winter
2021. Cost per customer, based on information received from Cal Water, is $3000-10,000, depending
upon how far the residence is from the main line.
6.6. Government
Drought mitigation and emergency response can create a significant burden on the fiscal resources of
local governments. These costs are important to consider in the overall assessment of drought costs
because drought mitigation activities in the short run and planning for recurrent droughts in the medium
run divert funds from other uses. In some cases, county staff can secure outside funding from state or
federal sources to cover these costs but securing these funds on an ongoing basis itself is a diversion of
scarce time and resources. Overall, in the longer term, drought mitigation and planning can be a
considerable burden on rural counties.
A full analysis of how the county budget is affected by drought is beyond the scope of this study but
provided herein are some illustrative examples from 2021. For example, operating the water filling station
for residents experiencing a dry well includes the cost of water, equipment, and staff time. Based on data
received from the county, total costs for water and equipment, as of December 10, 2021 were
$1,100-$1,200. Not included in this cost estimate is volunteer hours; the county clocked about 140 hours
for the water station. This program is likely to be continued for a longer period in 2022 and given the
likelihood of more dry wells in 2022, the cost of the water filling station program may increase. Staff time
for emergency operations center (EOC), (recorded staff time: $6,678 thru end of Dec 2021), staff time for
managing the county’s Table A allocation, which meant extra staff time to deal with complications due to
drought conditions (estimated cost for staff time is upwards of $2,500). Drought impact evaluations (this
study is an example), development of grant proposals to seek outside assistance to cover these expenses,
and staff time to manage these projects should all be considered as costs to the county government. Last,
the county has received $1.16 million dollars in DWR grant funding under the Small Community Grant
Relief program. This grant will fund projects for failing wells, including emergency water filling stations,
emergency water hauling for residents with storage tanks, and instillation of temporary storage tanks for
residents who cannot currently store water.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
98
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
6.7. Environmental Impacts and Associated Non-Market Effects
Historically, drought has been viewed in terms of its agricultural, hydrological, and socioeconomic impact
and how drought affects ecosystems and the services they provide to human communities has not often
discussed. Non-market impacts of the drought are effects that cannot be quantified using readily available
market prices—e.g., preserving wetland habitats has a real value to society. However, this is not a typical
“good” or a “service” that an individual can purchase in a market of goods and service and no observable
market price that can reveal its true value to society. Section 6.4. presented outdoor recreational impacts,
which are one of the ways ecosystem services are impacted by drought. Although quantifying all
environmental effects of the drought is a task beyond the scope of this report, here, we give examples of
additional potential environmental impacts to the environment, specifically effects on wetland habitats
and wildfire.
6.7.1. Wetland Habitat
Flooded winter rice fields in California’s Central and Sacramento Valleys provide critical habitat for roughly
230 wildlife species along the Pacific Flyway, a 4,000-mile-long bird migration route. As of fall 2021, the
California Rice Commission projected that fewer than 100,000 acres of rice would be flooded for winter
decomposition, compared to 300,000 in a non-drought year (McCreary and Johnson, 2021).
Market costs of the drought on wetland habitats include funds spent by the state to incentivize farmers
to pump groundwater and flood their fields post-harvest. In 2021, the DWR invested $8 million dollars in
its “Drought Relief Waterbird Program,” which compensated farmers for groundwater pumping costs if
they flooded their fields from November 1 through January 31, 2022, with 2-8 inches of groundwater
(California Rice Commission, 2021). In 2021, Butte County participation in the program included 22,800
rice acres and 2,950 wetland acres; the cost per acre of these programs is confidential information not
available for this report.
In addition to the direct costs of funding programs aimed at supporting habitat along the Pacific Flyway,
a complete analysis of the impact of drought on wetland ecosystems would estimate their non-market
value. This value includes both the value of providing these habitats for bird species; the value of the
ecosystem as a whole; and the value of the wetlands for recreation/birdwatching. As an example, previous
work on the value of birdwatching for waterfowl estimates consumers receive approximately $30 in value
a day for this activity (Loomis et al., 2018).
6.7.2. Wildfire
Wildfire, a critical ecosystem process, is a global phenomenon with natural (lightning) and human-caused
sources of ignition. During drought conditions, fuels for wildfire, such as grasses and trees, can dry out
and become more flammable. Drought can also increase the probability of ignition and the rate at which
fire spreads. Drought can be intensified by unusually warm temperatures. When combined with very low
precipitation and snowpack, extreme heat can lead to decreased streamflow, dry soils, and large-scale
tree deaths. These conditions create increased potential for extreme wildfires that spread rapidly, burn
with more severity, and are costly to suppress.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
99
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
Prolonged drought in California has dramatically increased the frequency of wildfires; in fact, ten of the
most destructive fires in the state’s history have occurred since 2018 (Cal Fire, 2022). Though we cannot
quantify the extent to which 2021 drought increased fire risk and associated economic costs, we know
the incredibly dry conditions likely increased the severity of the Dixie Fire, which burned approximately
963,309 acres of land in Butte, Plumas, Tehama, Lassen, and Shasta counties and was California’s largest
single (non-complex) fire on record.
Costs associated with wildfire include both market and non-market costs. Market costs can be further
broken down into direct and indirect costs. Direct expenditures include (but are not limited to) the
following:
the value of properties lost in fires; the costs of the firefight to local firefighting agencies,
including all costs of labor and equipment;
“defensive expenditures,” meaning household spending on masks, air purifiers, etc.; health
costs in the form of increased emergency room visits, hospital visits, and use of medications;
lost work hours when the air quality index reaches unhealthy levels;
and costs of air quality monitoring.
Indirect costs result when the wildfires
cause longer-term disruptions in
production of goods and services in the
local economy, which then impact the
larger state and national economies.
Last, non-market costs of fires are costs
we cannot observe based on market
transactions. Examples include lives
lost; welfare losses associated with poor
air quality in the short run; long-term
effects of wildfire smoke on health;
increased carbon emissions and lost
ecological habitats; and effects on water
quality and soil stability.
Though no work has yet been done to
quantify the economic cost of 2021
wildfires in Butte County, previous work
(Wang, et al., 2021) estimates the
impact of the 2018 Camp Fire. The Camp Fire in November of 2018 destroyed over 18,000 buildings and
led to 85 deaths in Butte County, making it the most destructive and deadly fire in California’s history.
Thus, the economic impact of this fire is likely larger than that of 2021 fires, but it still gives us a sense of
the potential magnitude of the fire-related impacts on the economy. Wang et al. (2021) break total
economic losses into the categories of capital losses; health costs; and indirect losses (which includes
supply chain disruptions that affect both California and the national economy). The researchers find that
Butte County had the largest losses of all California’s counties, totaling $23.2 billion dollars. Much of these
losses result from the loss of life and property in the Camp Fire, but an estimated $5.6 billion of these
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
100
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
losses were indirect losses (disruptions to the supply chain). This work does not estimate non-market
impacts on the environment/household welfare, which means that it understates the true cost of
wildfires.
6.7.3.Ecosystems
Lastly, drought causes numerous other non-market impacts to the environment—changes in stream
flows, ecosystems, habitats, air and water quality. Quantifying these non-market costs, which are vast
despite the fact that they do not have a clear dollar value, could be achieved via future work such as non-
market valuation surveys. Reductions in water available to natural systems are increasingly exacerbated
by human water use. This situation leads to ecological impacts from drought that ripple through
communities which depend on those ecosystems for critical goods and services. Despite the high costs to
both nature and people, current drought research, management, and policy perspectives often fail to
evaluate how drought affects ecosystems and the “natural capital” they provide to human communities.
The term ecological drought has been employed relatively recently to capture this emphasis on how
drought impacts ecosystems. Ecological drought may be driven by natural phenomena, such as lack of
rainfall or warming temperatures, and it may result in or be exacerbated by multiple competing demands
on existing limited water supplies. Ecological drought encompasses and emphasizes the environmental
consequences of drought. Examples of drought impacts to ecological systems may include:
Reduced plant growth over a season or permanently
Local species reduction or extinction
Landscape-level transitions, such as forest conversion to non-forested vegetation, which may in
turn reduce water retention in soils
Increases in fire and insect outbreaks
altered rates of carbon, nutrient, and water cycling;
freshwater ecosystems may change flow regimes, increase water temperature, and deteriorate
water quality, which may result in fish kills
reduced opportunities for recreation
decreased hydropower production
Thus, land use and water allocation decisions may drive or exacerbate ecological drought; for example,
modification of hydrological processes to store water prior to drought may reduce water available to
ecosystems. Integrating ecological drought into decision-making is an essential step toward addressing
the rising risk of drought in the 21st century. However, ecological drought is a relatively new concept, and
it requires development before it can be truly integrated into decision-making efforts to prepare for and
respond to drought(NIDIS).
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
101
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
7. NEXT STEPS TO IMPROVE DROUGHT RESILIENCY
7.1. Assess Drought Risks by User and Type of Use
Risk assessment is the best approach to determine how Butte County can identify, mitigate, and manage
drought related risk for the agricultural, urban, domestic, and environmental uses (including recreation)
and sectors. The DWR has developed helpful guidance in this area that the County can use to guide its
policy approach to drought assessments and response. CWC Section 10609.42(a) required DWR, in
consultation with other agencies and stakeholders, to identify small water suppliers and rural
communities (areas of households on private supplies, also called “self-supplied communities in this
report”) that may be at risk of drought and water shortage. DWR has since notified counties and
groundwater sustainability agencies (GSA) of suppliers or communities that may be at risk within its
jurisdiction and has made the information publicly accessible on the website. DWR accomplished this task
during the 2020-2022 period.
DWR, using identified indicators, datasets, and
methods used for the analyses, developed tools that
can be used in Butte County to assess drought and
water shortage vulnerability for small water systems
on an as-needed basis. The risk assessment represents
the relative risk at the time of the evaluation. As water
systems improve water supply reliability and drought
risk the risk score would improve to reflect
improvements by entity. Small systems and domestic
systems should be a major focus of drought mitigation
and should be a high priority in developing county
programs and policy to reduce the impact of future
water shortage conditions. The risk assessment
framework is based on the Disaster Risk Management
Framework characterized in the exhibit below.
Figure 7-1. Risk Assessment Framework
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
102
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
The risk of drought and water shortage
vulnerability is recognized as a problem
derived from a combination of hydrological
and sociological factors. The indicators of
risk and methods adopted into the drought
vulnerability explorer tools developed as
part of this DWR project evolved in close
coordination DWR, SWRCB, CDAG, and
other state and local agencies and
stakeholders. The aggregation method to
combine these indicators and the overall
process which addresses the three types of
risk.
Figure 7-2. Indicators Used to Estimate Each
Component of the Risk Framework (Exposure,
Vulnerability, Observed Shortage)
This was the first statewide systematic and holistic effort to consider drought and water shortage risk to
small water suppliers and households. As with any first major effort, it is important to recognize that the
indicators and construction of the scoring should be revised as more data becomes readily available and
knowledge advances on droughts and water resilience. The scoring system should allow for monitoring
changes in risk over time. At the same time, as the collective understanding of what risk of drought and
water shortage advances, so too should the scoring system. Understanding and perspectives on drought
may be informed by future drought experiences. The link below is an interactive tool that allows small
water systems to determine their relative risk based on weighted scoring criteria embedded in the tool
below. High scores indicate high risk (e.g., a score of 99 is high risk). The DWR methodology and results
21
are included as Appendix E. Example output of the Drought and Water Shortage Risk Explorer for both
2223
small water suppliers and self-supplied communities are included as Figure 7-3, and Figure 7-4,
respectively. Websites are provided in the footnotes below.
21
https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Urban-Water-Use-
Efficiency/CDAG/PART-2-CDAG-Report-Final.pdf
22
https://tableau.cnra.ca.gov/t/DWR_IntegratedDataAnalysisBranch/views/SmallWaterSystemRisk-
March2021/Dashboard
23
https://tableau.cnra.ca.gov/t/DWR_IntegratedDataAnalysisBranch/views/DWRDroughtRiskExplorer-
RuralCommunitesMarch2021/Dashboard
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
103
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
Figure 7-3. DWR Shortage Risk Explorer for Small Water Suppliers
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
104
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
Figure 7-4. DWR Drought and Water Shortage Risk Explorer for Self-Supplied Communities
Butte County can review the risk scores for water systems in the county and use them as a screening tool
to identify higher risk systems in terms of water shortage risk and drought resiliency for planning drought
response policies to mitigate risk during future drought cycles.
DWR intends to update the scoring criteria as more information becomes available including water
systems that address system risks to improve their scoring results. Low scoring systems would be good
candidates for additional assistance, TMF capacity building, and future funding to improve drought
resiliency.
Risk scoring approaches could be developed for other water uses and sectors in the county based on the
study results and recommendations to identify high risk water sources to reduce future drought impacts
on residents and business activity.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
105
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
7.2. Integrate Regional Policies to Strengthen Drought Response
California has been working to address regular drought cycles over the past century with approximately
35% of years being classified as critical or dry years, and close to 50% of years classified as below normal
(including critical and dry years). DWR has been addressing its limited water supply situation through the
California Water Plan Update process that encourages water portfolio resiliency with a focus on water
supply diversification, additional recycled water, improved efficiency, and groundwater recharge. And
more recently DWR has been developing a policy framework to improve and enhance drought planning
and management at the County level throughout the state with a focus on addressing small water system
risk with additional drought planning for agencies with 1,000-2,999 connections and further assistance
for very small systems (15-999).
Butte County has an established water resource program which includes a wide variety of drought
planning and management activities. Droughts are a normal, recurrent, and insidious climatic event.
Although it has many different definitions, a drought usually originates from a deficiency of precipitation
over a season or more. Drought is a physical phenomenon that affects society’s water supply and water
demand associated with agricultural, urban, and environmental uses. Regional water management efforts
have gained significant momentum since passage of the 2002 Integrated Water Resource Planning Act
and 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act which have added complexity to the County’s water
resource planning efforts. An overview of regional aspects is summarized below.
2002 Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act (SB 1672)
Required the development of integrated water resource management (IRWM) groups to develop regional
water management plans to integrate resource planning and improve collaboration within watersheds.
Butte County participates in the Northern Sacramento Valley IRWM with overlap in the Upper Feather
River IRWM group. The Northern Sacramento Valley IRWM Plan was last updated and adopted in March
2020. The expectation is that this document will be updated every five years with the next updated
expected in 2025 providing an opportunity to integrate any County drought policy updates during the
process.
2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SB 1168/1319, AB 1739)
Required the establishment of Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) who were responsible for
preparing Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) in subbasins specified as medium, high, or critically
over drafted. There are three (3) GSPs prepared in the County: Vina, Wyandotte Creek and Butte Subbasin
that have been adopted and submitted to DWR for review in accordance with the January 31, 2022
submittal deadline. As required by the legislation, these GSPs will be updated every five years with the
next update expected in 2027 providing an opportunity to integrate any County drought policy updates
during the process.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
106
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
Table 7-1. Summary of Regional Water Management Legislation
2026 2027
2025
202220232024
County Drought Policy
x x x
Updates
2002 Integrated
Regional Water
x x x
Management Planning
Act (SB 1672)
IRWMP Updates (*)
2014 Sustainable
Groundwater
Management Act (SB x x x
1168/1319, AB 1739)
GSP Updates (**)
Note:
*There are two IRWMPs that will be updated by 2025 by Northern Sacramento Valley and Upper Feather River IRWM
groups.
**There are three (3) GSPs that will be updated by 2027 by the Vina, Wyandotte Creek and Butte Subbasin GSAs.
The recommended approach for integrating enhanced Butte County drought planning and management
actions into the IRWM and SGMA legislative efforts cited above is to plan County policy updates during
the 2022-24 period (consistent with IRWM and SGMA goals and objectives) so that when IRWMP and
GSPs are updated the County will be prepared to integrate their updated drought-related policies
accordingly.
The County should update its Drought Preparedness Plan and integrate updated DWR policies related to
County coordination and small system resiliency to improve drought response and minimize future
drought impacts.
The County will need to be engaged in and coordinate through the IRWM and GSA processes on a regular
basis to ensure that its priorities are included in future updates.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
107
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
7.3. Develop Drought Response Metrics to Minimize Drought Impacts
Butte County can develop new drought response metrics based on data and observations from the 2012-
16 and current drought cycles that may provide early warning benefits to avoid potential groundwater
impacts during multi-year drought events. The recommended metrics to consider are as follows:
Table 7-2. Drought Response Metrics to Minimize Drought Impacts
Land Use Normal Year Criteria Critically Dry/Multiple Dry Year
Normal Year Level
Groundwater Level
Track Trend
Index – Shallow Critical Dry Year Level
Action Level
Aquifer
# Wells
Groundwater Level
Normal Year Level
Index – Track Trend
Critical Dry Year Level
Intermediate Action Level
Monitoring Network
Aquifer
Normal Year Level
Track Trend
Dry Well and Failure
Critical Dry Year Level
Index
Action Level
# Dry Wells/Failures
Development of metrics will require specifying data requirements and gaps, identifying baseline
conditions or benchmarks, thresholds, establishing risk thresholds that trigger actions, and creation of
specific actions that reduce drought risk. The metrics should also attempt to differentiate between
drought driven data vs. other data independent of water conditions. It is recommended that the County
develop these metrics demarcating between the valley and foothill areas of the basin since different
metrics may apply in assessing drought risk and identifying appropriate drought mitigation measures.
Metrics can be developed and turned into tracking tools that are posted on the County’s website so that
affected stakeholders can benefit from the information.
7.4. Data Gaps and Additional Studies in Butte County
Moving from responding to a drought cycle to managing a drought cycle will take some work to develop
policy, programs, and integrate water resource planning on a broad scale in the county. A few ideas for
moving forward in this direction are discussed below. Some successful pre-drought planning and
investments in urban areas has been accomplished over the past twenty years in some parts of the state
(e.g., reductions in per-capita water use and added recycled water sources statewide), including more
effective coordination between state, county and local agencies through enhanced efforts by both DWR
and the SWRCB. More work has been done to improve the resiliency in smaller systems and communities,
and there is more of a spotlight on the domestic well front. Well failures and dry wells have been a
significant drought impact as tracked by DWR since 2020 over the past two years throughout California.
New policies will be needed at the County level to identify their drought risks and develop long term
policies to mitigate future drought impacts to address both ongoing and future droughts. The following
areas merit close attention for future actions.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
108
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
7.4.1. Manage Water More Tightly, with Better Information
This report characterizes some of the water resource data sets that are available to assess, evaluate and
mitigate drought conditions in the region. There are data gaps that could be filled to provide better
information to water managers in a timely manner that could facilitate proactive drought management
policy before impacts become too severe.
Table 7-3. Drought Cycle Updates
Water Source Data Sets Data Gaps
Shallow Annual data SGMA/GSA Networks
groundwater
Seasonal data On-going monitoring sites
Trend Analysis Level and Quality Data
Levels only Index Development
Level and quality data Groundwater Extractions
Intermediate Annual data SGMA/GSA Networks
Groundwater
Seasonal data On-going monitoring sites
Trend Analysis Level and Quality Data
Levels only Index Development
Level and quality data Groundwater Extractions
Foothill Area Well depths SGMA/GSA Networks
Groundwater
Existing data gaps
Production capacities
Annual & Seasonal data changes New data to collect
Level data Well replacement criteria
Quality data Storage needs
Surface Water Annual deliveries Multi-Dry Year Resiliency
Surface Water Water Transfers Quantities, delivery schedules
Intra-County Very limited Updated Water Portfolios
Transfers
Transfer Arrangements
Infrastructure Limitations
Groundwater Limited Storage Areas
Recharge
Delivery Areas
Facility Needs
Quantities and Timing
This table is preliminary and will be modified based on input from the County including overlaying data
gaps with GSP monitoring networks and data gaps to optimize and synthesize additional groundwater
data and information collected to improve the long-term sustainability of the subbasin.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
109
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
7.4.2. Public Outreach and Engagement
Engaging water users in the conversation about being better prepared to respond to future droughts is
critical for getting stakeholders involved and invested in the process. The county can leverage these
activities already in place related to the IRWMP and GSP regional processes. And work to coordinate with
water users in the watershed to help fill data gaps and provide useful data to mitigate future drought
impacts.
Public outreach should be developed to support the major drought planning and response elements
(Table 7-4).
Table 7-4. Drought Cycle Updates
Drought Cycle
Key Elements Work To Be Done
Stage
Pre-Drought Update policies/drought plans Update County Drought Plan
Risk Assessment Identify High Risk Users
Drought Response Develop response measures Identify Drought Triggers
Address different users Tailor to use/user class
Drought Mitigation Calculated response measures Develop response actions
Prioritization Tailored to response target
Public response to drought conditions is the key to success so that drought impacts can be mitigated
during a given drought cycle. This involves in person, direct mail, website, e-notifications, newspaper,
newsletters, public workshops, special meetings, and communication branding through an established
drought response team to keep stakeholders apprised of drought response and mitigation success (e.g.,
are goals or targets being met). The Drought Task Force should include Emergency Operations,
Administration, Water Resources, Finance, and Public Works staff, local agencies and water professionals,
and others that can achieve an effective public outreach program. The County’s update of its Drought
Preparedness Plan would include or expand Outreach strategies to coincide with drought response
triggers and corresponding actions to mitigate future drought impacts on all users.
7.4.3. Drought Related Funding Opportunities
The County is already pro-actively pursuing various funding opportunities to fund drought resiliency
projects including through the SWRCB Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), DWR Small
Community Drought Relief Program, SAFER Program for small communities, and others. The County
should continue to pursue outside grant funding opportunities and leverage outside funding sources to
update key drought policy and management objectives (Table 7-5).
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
110
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
Table 7-5. Drought Funding Opportunities
Funding ProgramsWork To Done
Sources
Funding Programs Work To Done
Sources
Federal EPA Identify/pursue best sources
WIFIA
USBR SMART PROGRAM
Special – ARPA, EOS
State SWRCB - State Revolving Fund Leverage TMF Capacity
I-Bank Tailor project need/type
Propositions Market timing-terms
Dept. of Conservation
DWR Funding – SGMA, IRWM
DWR Funding – Small Comm.
Other
LSCE recommends that the County pursue the County priorities and regional watershed needs through
Federal and State funding sources. And consider local approaches to augment outside funding
opportunities. The goal would be to use these funding sources and grants to improve the County’s drought
resiliency with a focus on regional water opportunities and small systems and domestic wells mitigation
programs. LSCE recommends that the County consider submitting an application to the currently available
County-wide and Regional Funding Program in 2022 to fund a Small System and Domestic Well
Replacement Program to mitigate some of the impacts felt by small well users during the current drought
cycle. These funds are available now and may not be on a regular basis. High risk small systems and
domestic wells experiencing reliability issues would be the priority for funding with phasing
recommended.
The County’s Drought Task Force would be responsible for developing the recommendations to comply
with the provisions of Drought Plan and SB 552 (approved on September 23, 2021, Senate Bill (SB) 552 -
Drought Planning for Small Water Suppliers and Rural Communities), which was signed into law adding a
new section to the Water Code.
These new requirements are expected to improve the ability of Californians to manage future droughts
and help prevent catastrophic impacts on drinking water for communities vulnerable to impacts of climate
change. The bill outlines the new requirements for small water suppliers, county governments, DWR, and
the State Water Board to implement more proactive drought planning and be better prepared for future
water shortage events or dry years.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
111
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
Specifically applicable to Butte County, per SB 552, the County is required to:
Create a standing Drought & Water Shortage Task Force for state small water systems (serving 5
to 14 connections), domestic wells, and other privately supplied homes within the County’s
jurisdiction
Develop a plan demonstration the potential drought and water shortage risk and proposed
interim and long-term solutions for state small water systems and domestic wells.
SB 552 states that both of these requirements may be implemented as part of other existing committees
and/or planning processes.
Consistent and prior to the passage of SB 552, the County adopted the Drought Preparedness and
Mitigation Plan (Drought Plan) on October 26, 2004, the purpose of which is to protect the County from
the effects of drought. In addition, the Drought Plan established a Drought Task Force comprised of
various County Department Directors and other identified stakeholders. Per the Drought Plan, It is the
responsibility of the Drought Task Force to monitor and report on drought forecasts and conditions,
identify resource information gaps and recommendations to address them, and identify and respond to
information needs of other identified working groups.
In addition, the Drought Plan established a continuous monitoring and reporting system, including
monitoring and reporting hydrologic conditions throughout the water year. The Plan also identifies
response and mitigation efforts for urban, agricultural, environmental water uses and specialized needs
of remote communities.
Much of the information in the 2004 Drought Plan is outdated and needs to be updated to reflect current
regulations, including SB 552, specifically with regard to small water systems and domestic well owners.
In addition, the Drought Plan should be revised to incorporate existing County processes and responses
to drought, particularly in light of 2021 drought needs and response activities as well as the Office of
Emergency Management’s anticipated drought relief projects for 2022. These drought relief projects
include emergency water stations, water hauling, and temporary storage tanks.
The data and findings identified in this Drought Impact Analysis Study could be used to refine or identify
new activities for drought response and mitigation.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
112
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
8. REFERENCES
Alizadehtazi, B., Tangtrakul, K., Woerdeman, S., Gussenhoven, A., Mostafavi, N., & Montalto, F. A.
(2020). Urban park usage during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Extreme Events, 7(04), 2150008.
Butte County Department of Agriculture / Weights & Measures, 2008 through 2020. Annual Crop and
Livestock Report. Submitted to the California Department of Food and Agriculture. Available at
https://www.buttecounty.net/agriculturalcommissioner/Documents/Crop-Reports
Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation, 2021. Model Documentation v1.0.
Butte Basin Groundwater Model. 30 November
Caitrin Chappelle and Ellen Hanak (May 2021) “Water Affordability in California” Public Policy Institute
of California
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), County Land Use Dataset , 2015, 2015 Butte County
Land Use Survey.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2017, 2014 California Statewide Agricultural Land Use,
California Department of Water Resources, https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer/
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2019, 2016 California Statewide Agricultural Land Use,
California Department of Water Resources, https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer/
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2021, 2018 California Statewide Agricultural Land Use,
California Department of Water Resources, https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer/
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2022a, Online System for Well Completion Reports
(OSWCR), accessed March 14, 2022, https://data.ca.gov/dataset/well-completion-reports/
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2022b, Water Data Library (WDL), accessed February
25, 2022, https://wdl.water.ca.gov/
Cal Fire (2022). “Top 20 Largest California Wildfires.” Available at:
https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/4jandlhh/top20_acres.pdf.
California Rice Commission (2021). “Drought Relief Waterbird Program.” Available at
https://calricewaterbirds.org/supporting-habitat-programs/.
California Water Services Company, Chico-Hamilton City District (2020). 2020 Urban Water Management
Plan. Available at: https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/CH_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf.
Childs, Nathan, Rice Outlook, RCS-21C, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, April
13, 2021.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
113
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
Childs, N., Raszap, S. S., & McBride, W. D. (2020). US Rice Production Changed Significantly in the New
Millennium, but Remained Profitable. Amber Waves: The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural
Resources, and Rural America, 2020(1490-2020-1031).
Chaudhry, Anita and Dean H. K. Fairbanks. (2022) "Distributional Implications of Supply Constraints in
Water Markets" Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management. 148(7): 04022033
Department of Water Resources (2021) “Results of the Indoor Residential Water Use Study, A Report to
the Legislature Prepared Pursuant to Water Code Section 10609.4(b)”. Available at
https://water.ca.gov/News/News-Releases/2021/Nov-21/State-Agencies-Recommend-Indoor-
Residential-Water-Use-Standard
Dieter C.A., Maupin MA, Caldwell RR, et al. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2015. U.S.
Geological Survey; 2018. doi:10.3133/cir1441
Drought MAST. (2022). Ecological Impacts of Drought on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Preliminary
report. Interagency Ecological Program for the San Francisco Estuary. Sacramento, CA. 230 p.
Land IQ. (2021). 20-Year Land and Water Use Change in Butte County and the Vina Subbasin (1999-
2019).January 28.
Loomis et al. (2018). Do economic values and expenditures for viewing waterfowl in the U.S. differ
among species? Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 23.6. Available at
https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2018.1496371.
Lund, J., Medellin-Azuara, J., Durand, J., Stone, K. (2018). Lessons from California’s 2012-2016 Drought.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 144(10), 04018067.
McCreary and Johnson (2021). “Drought Will Impeirl Wildlife and People Along the Pacific Flyway.” Cal
Matters. Available at https://calmatters.org/commentary/2021/09/drought-will-imperil-wildlife-and-
people-along-the-pacific-flyway/.
Pace, C., Balazs, C., Bangia, K., Depsky, N., Renteria, A., Morello-Frosch, R., & Cushing, L. J. (2022).
Inequities in Drinking Water Quality Among Domestic Well Communities and Community Water
ic health, 112(1), 88-97.
Rosenberger et al. (2017). Recreation Economic Value for Estimating Outdoor Recreation Economic
Benefits from the National Forest System. United States Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest
Research Station General Technical 957. Available at: https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr957.pdf.
State of California Department of Water Resources (2020). The California Department of Water
Resources Thirteenth Biennial Report for the Oroville Facilities. Available at:
https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_number=20210902-5156.
Tsournos, Pete., Ryan G. Miller, Connor B. Franklin, Anita M. Chaudhry. “Economic Value of Recreation
on the Sacramento River: Results of a Year-Long Survey of Recreational Visitors at all Public-Access Sites
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
114
May 2022
Drought Impact Analysis Study
Butte County, CA
on the Sacramento River.” Technical report prepared for the Sacramento River Forum. 2016. Available
at: https://www.sacramentoriver.org/forum/index.php?id=ecomap
United States Bureau of Reclamation, 2015, Coordinated Long-Term Operation of the Central Valley
Project and State Water Project, Final Environmental Impact Statement.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/california_waterfix/ex
hibits/docs/FWA&FWAM/FWA_75.pdf
United States Bureau of Reclamation (2021). Transmittal of 2021 Sacramento River Temperature
Management Plan – Order 90-5. Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drought/sacramento_river/docs/2021/wro90/2021-05-
28_sacramento_river_temp_mgmt_plan_complete.pdf
United States Bureau of Reclamation (2021b). Groundwater Actions to Offset Surface Water Diversions
from the Sacramento River in Response to Drought in 2021. Available at: Environmental Assessment -
Groundwater Actions to Offset Surface Water Diversions from the Sacramento River in Response to
Drought in 2021 (usbr.gov)
United States Bureau of Reclamation (2022). Sacramento River Temperature Management Plan for
Water Year 2022. Available at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drought/sacramento_river/docs/2022-
sac-tmp-final.pdf
Want et al. (2021). Economic Footprint of California Wildfires in 2018. Nature Sustainability, 4, 252-260.
Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00646-7.
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
115
May 2022
APPENDIX A
DWR Groundwater Level Change Maps – Spring 2021
33N 7E
33N 5E33N 6E
33N 3E
33N 2E33N 4E
151
33N 1W
33N 5W33N 3W33N 2W33N 1E
UV 33N 4W
33N 7W33N 6W
33N 8W
33N 9W
33N 10W
299
UV
32N 7E
299
44
UV
UV
299
UV
299
UV
299
UV
32N 6E
32N 5E
!(
Monitoring Well
32N 4E
32N 3E
32N 1W32N 2E
32N 2W
32N 1E
32N 3W
32N 6W32N 5W
32N 9W32N 8W32N 7W299
32N 10W
UV
44
UV
Redding Basin
SHASTA
32N 4W
Redding
3
UV
Subbasin Boundaries
COUNTY
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
-6.1
!Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
Redding/Sacramento
89
31N 7E
UV
44
31N 6E
UV
31N 5E
GW Basin Divide
44
UV
Anderson
NA-7.9-3.25
-2.5
31N 1W
31N 4E
31N 2W
31N 1E
31N 4W31N 3W31N 3E
!31N 2E
31N 7W
31N 8W31N 6W
31N 10W31N 9W
31N 5W
44
UV
44
UV
County Boundaries
Bowman 3.4-12.1-4.55
273
UV
¢
5
§¦¨
Bulletin 118 GW
Enterprise
NA-6.1-5.42 30N 7E
!
-4.8
-2.6
Subbasin Excluded Areas
!
-3.5
89
UV
30N 6E
30N 5E
!
30N 6W
Millville NA-2.5-2.51
30N 11W
30N 4E
30N 3E
30N 1E
30N 2E
30N 2W30N 1W
30N 3W
30N 4W
30N 7W
-1
89
30N 10W30N 9W30N 8W
UV
!
60612!
-0.7
South Battle Creek
NANANA0
30N 5W
Summary
Miles 3.4-12.1-3.913
-7.9
29N 7E
!
29N 2W
29N 4W29N 6E
29N 5E
29N 3E29N 4E
-7.2
36
UV!
29N 1E29N 2E
!-3.7
29N 1W
29N 3W
3.436
UV
29N 6W
29N 7W!
29N 5W
29N 10W29N 8W
29N 9W
36
UV
-12.1
29N 11W!
36
UV
-2.9
!172
29N 2.5W
UV
36
UV
36
UV
28.5N 3W
NOTES
36
UV
36
UV
28N 6E
28N 5E
Note 1:A positive number indicates that groundwater elevations were hiigher in the 28N 4E
28N 3E
3628N 2E
28N 1E
UV
28N 1W
28N 3W current year than in 2011. A negative number indicates that groundwater
28N 5W28N 4W
28N 6W36
28N 7W
28N 8W UV
28N 11W
28N 10W28N 9W
elevations were lower in the current year than in 2011.
28N 2W
Note 2:Statistics are based on the number of wells monitored within each
subbasin.
32
UV
Red
36
UV 36
UV
Note 3:This map may not use all the color ranges shown in table above. Some
36
UV
Bluff
36
UV
wells may not be visible on map due to the close proximity to each other.
27N 6E
27N 2W
27N 5E
27N 4E
27N 3E
27N 2E
-9.4-8.6
!27N 1E
27N 11W27N 1W Note 4:Groundwater level changes are based on measurements taken from wells
27N 5W27N 4W
27N 7W27N 6W
!
27N 8W
27N 9W
27N 10W
with depths of less than 200 ft. Measurements are taken during similar time
27N 3W
periods each year.
!
Note 5:Change in groundwater elevations are based on the actual measured levels of
-6.9
99
Groundwater Elevation Change
UV the hydrostatic level (piezometric surface) of the groundwater at individual well
99
UV
locations.Contoured color ramping is interpolated from these measurements
5
§¨-5.6
¦
-7.4
and should be considered approximate. The accuracy of the estimated contour
26N 6E
!
!26N 5E
26N 4E
26N 3E
> 40 feet higher 26N 2E is directly related to the timing of the measurements, spacing and the distribution
26N 1E
26N 4W
26N 1W
26N 3W
32
26N 6W26N 5W
26N 8W26N 7W UV
26N 9W
26N 10W
of nearby monitoring wells, well construction, and aquifer characteristics.
26N 11W
-13.6
!
26N 2W
Note 6:GW - Groundwater
!
> 35 to 40 feet higher
-0.1
GWE - Groundwater Elevation
bgs - below ground surface
-8.1
-11.6
TEHAMA
!
> 30 to 35 feet higher
!
25N 6E
25N 4E
25N 2E25N 5E
25N 3E
COUNTY
25N 1E
25N 4W25N 1W
25N 6W25N 5W
25N 3W25N 2W
25N 8W25N 7W
25N 10W
25N 9W
-8.8
> 25 to 30 feet higher
!
25N
99
UV
11W-13.4
!
70
99-13.1
UV
-7.3
UV
> 20 to 25 feet higher
-23.2
!
!
-6.8
!-10!
-3.4!
-26.9
24N 4W
24N 3W
!-7.8
!!
24N 3E24N 6E
!24N 5E
24N 2E24N 4E
-32.4
-4.5
> 15 to 20 feet higher
-27.324N 1E
24N24N 1W
24N 6W24N 5W!24N 2W
24N 7W
24N 8W
!
24N 10W
24N 9W
11W-5.2
!
-7.5
Corning
-5.9
!
!
> 10 to 15 feet higher
-25.732
UV
23.5N 2E
!
70
UV
-24.9
> 5 to 10 feet higher
!
-25
-24.5
-23.5
!
-13.423N 4E23N 5E23N 6E
23N 3E
!
23N 2E
-23.4
23N 4W23N 1E
23N
23N 1W!
23N 6W23N 5W23N 3W23N 2W
23N 8W23N 7W99
23N 9W
23N 10W!UV
11W
0 to 5 feet higher
-16.5
99
UV
!
-12.7
!
-7.6
-14.8
!
-27.2
-16.4
!
162!
!
UV
> 0 to 5 feet lower
32
-25.5
UV
32
-10.5
UV-32.7
22N 1E
!
!!
!
70
UV
-14.4
-25.9
16222N 1W
UV
-13.1
-26.2
22N 3W!
-27.2
!
!
!22N 6E
22N 5E
22N 4E
22N 3E
> 5 to 10 feet lower
22N 2E
-30.7
22N
22N 4W32
22N 8W
22N 6W
22N 5W-17.3 UV
22N 7W-15.7
22N 10W
22N 9W Chico
Orland
!32
11W
UV
!-28.6
!
-36.432!
UV
-15.3
162
!
UV 22N 2W
!-12.6
191
-20.3!
UV
!
-9.3
!!32
-23
> 10 to 15 feet lower
UV
!
!
-16
-14.5!
-26.8
-19.7
-29.3
-29.1 BUTTE
!-14.4
-16.8!-7.4
!
162!
UV
!!
21N 2E
GLENN
> 15 to 20 feet lower
99 COUNTY
UV
70
UV
21N 7W
21N 6E
21N 5E
COUNTY
21N 4E
-19.121N 3E
21N
21N 1E
21N 4W21N 2W
21N 10W
21N 6W21N 5W
21N 8W!45-11.7
11W
21N 9W
UV
162
UV
-20.9!
> 20 to 25 feet lower-12.1
-3.9
!
!
!-2.9
!
21N 3W
-12.5
!
-9.9!
-11.7
-21.3
!
-28.6!
191
> 25 to 30 feet lower
!-2.3 UV
-10
!-10.1
!
-51.8!
!
149
!
-6.820N 3.5E
!UV
-48.7
20N 6E
-14.4
!20N 5E
70
-4.3
> 30 to 35 feet lower UV 20N 4E
20N162-1.4
-4
!
UV 20N 2W
20N 4W
20N 3W!
20N 10W20N 7W20N 5W
20N 8W
11W20N 6W
20N 9W!
-3.2
-1.4
20N 2E
-1.1
20N 3E
!
!
-0.5162
!99
UV
UV
> 35 to 40 feet lower-12
-28.545!
20N 1E
UV
!
!
20N 1W
-29.6
162
162
Willows UV
-2.6
UV-0.5
> 40 feet lower
!
70162
!UV
0 UV
!
19N 3E
162
-13.3
-10.3!UV
19N 6E
19N 5E
162
UV 19N 4E
!
!-16.5
!
19N
19N 2E
-1.5
19N 3W19N 1E
!
19N 8W
19N 10W19N 7W19N 5W
11W19N 9W19N 6W
19N 1W
19N 2W
19N 4W
-10.6
162
162 UV
!
UV
-11.6
!
-0.9
!
!
-4.2
70
UV
-8.4
-12.9
18N 2W
-8.8
-0.5
!
!
99
UV
!
!
-0.7
18N 3W
18N 6E
18N 3E
18N 5E
!
-6.4
18N 2E
18N 1E
18N
18N 1W!
18N 4W
18N 10W
18N 9W18N 8W18N 7W18N 6W18N 5W
11W
!
18N 4E
45-15
UV-6.7
!
!
-15.7-6.2
-8.4
-10.2
!
!
!
Gridley
-1.8
-7.7
-3.2
!
17N 4E
5!
!
§¨
¦
17N 3E
-2.2
17N 6E
-10.8
17N 5E
99
!UV
-1.4
!
17N 2E
17N
17N 1E
17N 3W
17N 1W!
17N 4W
17N 10W17N 7W17N 6W17N 5W-8
17N 9W17N 8W
11W
!
17N 2W
-3.7
-4.9
!
!
!
-15.9
70
UV
-7.3
-7.7
!-5.8
!
Live Oak!
-2.9
-6.7
-3.7
!!
!
!
45
!16N 6E
UV
-4.1
16N 5E
!!-6-6.3
-10.8
!
-6.3
20
UV
16N
16N 2E
16N 2W
16N 9W16N 3W-16.116N 1E
16N 8W16N 7W16N 4W
16N 1W
16N 10W16N 6W
16N 5W
11W
!
16N 4E
16N 3E
20
UV
Colusa
20
UV
-4.5
Northern Sacramento Basin Groundwater Subbasins
70
UV!!
99
UV
20
UV
COLUSA
-6.9
-5.8
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
15N 4E
Subbasin NameCOUNTYSUTTER
Williams 15N 6E
!
15N 5E
15N
20
UV
15N 9W
15N 3E
11W
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)15N 2W2015N 1E20
15N 4W
UVUV
15N 10W15N 8W
15N 5W
15N 7W
15N 6W
-0.5 COUNTY
15N 1W
15N 2E
Yuba
!
70
15N 3W
UV
4.9
29
UV
!
AntelopeCity
NA-9.4-8.43
20
UV
-6.8
99
UV
70
!
UV
Bend
NANANA0
14N 6E
14N 5E
-0.9
14N 1E
14N 2E
!
0.2
45
UV
14N14N 4E
!
14N 8W
65
Butte 14N 3E
29 NA-16.5-5.218 UV
11W UV 14N 2W
14N 1W
14N 3W
14N 4W
14N 7W
!
14N 10W-6.2
14N 5W
14N 6W!
-6.3
!
-11.8
2.6
8.7
99!
UV
Colusa 5.1
NA-51.8-15.3
50!
20
!
UV
-0.7
20
-2.1
UV
14N 9W
!
!
20
20
UV
UV
-4.5
Corning
NA-32.7-23.022
-37.4
-5.6
!
!
!-10.9
29
13N 1W
UV
!
175
UV
-12.9
13N 6E
13N
Los Molinos 13N 1E
NA-13.4-7.014!
13N 7W13N 4E
13N 2E13N 3E
13N 2W5-0.2
11W
13N 3W
13N 5W
13N 4W
13N 10W13N 9W13N 6W§¨
¦
!
7013N 5E
UV
13N 8W
65
113-8.8
UV
UV
!
16
UV
281
UV
Red Bluff
NA-13.6-10.34
29
UV 99
UV
-16.5
!
Sutter
0.2-11.8-5.215
45
UV
29
UV 16
UV
-2.6
12N 2E
12N 6E
12N 5E
12N 3W
12N!
Vina
NA-16.5-11.714-2.2
-3.312N 4E
12N 10W
12N 2W12N 1W
12N 3E
12N 8W
11W12N 5W
12N 4W
!-12.7!
12N 7W12N 6W
12N 9W
-21.4
!
!
Wyandotte Creek NA-15.0-7.76
12N 1E
113
UV
101
£
¤
-7.5
45
-6.5
UV
Summary
0.2-51.8-10.4146
!
!
65
11N 10W
99
UV
UV
11N 3E
-13.5
29
11N 2W
UV
!
11N 7W
11N 9W11N 6W
11N 6E
-27.4
1611N 5E
-11.9
UV
11N 4E
11N 8W
11N
11N 1W!
11N 5W!
11N 4W
11N 1E
-10.9
11W
!113
UV 11N 2E
-16.8
101
£
¤
-10.5!
11N 3W
505
!
§¨
¦
-9.3
-10.5-4.8
!
-7.3
-7.2!-5.4!
!
STATE OF CALIFORNIA!
10N 9W!
NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY
10N 1E
10N 6E
10N 5E
10N 1W
-10
-2.6
113
16 UV
29 UV
THE RESOURCES AGENCY UV
!
!
!
10N 4E
PLATE 2S-D
-6.9
101
-3
10N 4W-7.7
10N£
¤10N 8W
CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP
70
-4.4 UV
10N 5W-5.5-4
10N 3W!10N 3E
11W DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES!
-11.6
10N 7W16-0.5
UV
!!
!
-7.3
10N 6W-8.1
!0.5!
!
16
-2.4
UV 10N 2E
!
!
NORTHERN REGION OFFICE
10N 10W
-7.2
!
16
UV
Date:5
SPRING 2011 TO SPRING 2021
!
9N 6E
10N 2W
16§¨
¦
UV
Woodland
September 2021
2440 Main Street
-5.1
128
-0.9
UV
!
1139N 5E
-3.3
UV
Red Bluff, California 96080
SHALLOW WELL DEPTHS 9N 4E
!-7.916
80
UV
9N!
9N 8W9N 5W
9N 2W9N 1W9N 1E9N 2E§¨
9N 7W9N 3E¦
BY:
9N 4W
9N 3W!
9N 6W
9N 10W
(530) 529-7300-6.4
11W
128
UV
G. Lewis
(Well depths less than 200 ft deep bgs)
!
80
§¨
¦
9N 9W
!
https://data.ca.gov/dataset/northern-sacramento-valley-groundwater-elevation-change-maps
33N 7E
33N 5E33N 6E
33N 3E
33N 2E
33N 4E
33N 5W33N 2W33N 1W33N 1E
33N 4W33N 3W
33N 6W
33N 7W
33N 8W
33N 9W
33N 10W
299
U
V
32N 7E
299
U 44
VU
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
32N 6E
!
(
32N 5E
Monitoring Well
32N 4E
32N 3E
32N 1W
32N 2W32N 2E
32N 1E
32N 4W32N 3W
32N 6W
32N 9W32N 8W32N 7W32N 5W
32N 10W
Redding Basin
299
SHASTA
U
V
44
U
V
Redding
Subbasin Boundaries
COUNTY
3
U
V
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
!
-11.7
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
Redding/Sacramento
89
U 31N 7E
V
GW Basin Divide
31N 6E
31N 5E
Anderson
NA 44-5.8-2.79
44
U
UV
V
-13.1
-2.5
!
31N 1W
31N 4W31N 4E
31N 2W
31N 1E
31N 3W!31N 3E
31N 2E
31N 7W
31N 8W31N 6W
31N 10W31N 9W
31N 5W
5
44
County Boundaries
U
V
44
§¦¨U
Bowman V
NA-12.1-4.56
273
¢U
V
-4.8
!
Bulletin 118 GW
Enterprise
NA-13.1-9.93
30N 7E
Subbasin Excluded Areas-2.6
!
89
-3.5
U
V
30N 6E
30N 4W Millville
NA-2.5-2.51
!30N 5E
30N 6W
30N 11W
30N 4E
30N 3E
30N 1E
30N 2E
30N 2W30N 1W
30N 3W
-1.9
-5.8
30N 7W
89
30N 8W
30N 10W30N 9W U
V
60612!
!
!
-0.6
South Battle Creek NANANA0
!
-1.4
30N 5W
MilesSummary NA-13.1-4.919
-2.7
29N 7E
-0.3
-5.7!
!
!
29N 2W
29N 4W29N 6E
-2.3 29N 5E
29N 3E29N 4E
-7.2
36
U!
V
29N 1E29N 2E
!
-3.7
29N 1W
29N 3W
36
U
29N 5W V
29N 6W!
29N 7W
29N 10W29N 8W
29N 9W
36
U
V
-12.1-1.6
!
29N 11W!
36
U
V 0
!
172
29N 2.5W U
V
36
U 36
VU
V
28.5N 3W NOTES
36
U
V
36
U
V
Note 1:A positive number indicates that groundwater elevations were higher in the
28N 6E
28N 5E
28N 4E
3628N 3E
U
V
current year than in 2011. A negative number indicates that groundwater
28N 2E
28N 1E
28N 1W
28N 3W
28N 5W28N 4W
28N 6W36
28N 7W
28N 8W U
V
28N 11W
elevations were lower in the current year than in 2011.
28N 10W
28N 9W
28N 2W
Note 2:Statistics are based on the number of wells monitored within each
subbasin.
-7.5
32
U
V
!
36
U
V
36
U
Note 3:This map may not use all the color ranges shown in table above. Some
V
-4.7
36
U
V
!
wells may not be visible on map due to the close proximity to each other.
Red
27N 6E
27N 2W
27N 5E
-8.5
27N 4E
Note 4:Groundwater level changes are based on measurements taken from wells 27N 3E
!
27N 2E
!-8.6 27N 1E
27N 1W
27N 11W Bluff
27N 5W
27N 4W
27N 7W27N 6W
27N 8W
with depths of 100 to 450 ft. Measurements are taken during similar time
27N 9W
27N 10W
periods each year.
27N 3W
-7.8
-6.9
Note 5:Change in groundwater elevations are based on the actual measured levels of
!
!
Groundwater Elevation Change
the hydrostatic level (piezometric surface) of the groundwater at individual well
99
U
V
locations.Contoured color ramping is interpolated from these measurements
99
U
V
5
and should be considered approximate. The accuracy of the estimated contour
§¦¨
-5.7
-5.6
26N 6E
!
> 40 feet higher!is directly related to the timing of the measurements, spacing and the distribution 26N 5E
26N 4E
26N 3E
26N 2E
26N 1E
26N 4W
26N 1W
26N 3W
26N 5W32
26N 6W
26N 7W U
26N 8W of nearby monitoring wells, well construction, and aquifer characteristics.V
26N 9W
26N 10W
26N 11W
-13.6
-0.1
Note 6:GW - Groundwater
!
> 35 to 40 feet higher!
GWE - Groundwater Elevation
26N 2W
bgs - below ground surface
-15.2
TEHAMA
!
> 30 to 35 feet higher
-10.9
!
COUNTY
25N 6E
25N 4E
25N 2E
25N 3E25N 5E
25N 3W
25N 1E
25N 6W25N 5W25N 4W25N 1W
25N 2W
25N 8W25N 7W
25N 10W
-20.1
25N 9W
> 25 to 30 feet higher
-20.7
!
!
25N
99
U
V
11W
-5.1
-5.5
!
!
!
70
> 20 to 25 feet higher
-6.1 U
!V
-5
-13.4
!-26.8
-23.2!
!
-4.2
!
-13.1
-5.6
!
!
-26.9
!-5.8
-3.7
-4.5
-27.3
!
!
!24N 3E
> 15 to 20 feet higher!24N 6E
24N 2E24N 5E
24N 4E
-32.4
-4.5
Corning
24N 1E
!-5.1
24N24N 3W24N 1W
24N 6W24N 5W
24N 7W!
24N 8W!
!-6.2
24N 10W
24N 9W
11W!-21.6
-5.8
-7.6
!
24N 4W
!
!-27.3
-16.3
24N 2W
> 10 to 15 feet higher
!
!!
!
-25.9
-5.7
-19
-25.7 32
U
V
23.5N 2E
!
70
U
V
> 5 to 10 feet higher
!
-22.8-13.3
-9.1
-28.5
!
!
!
23N 6E
!23N 4E23N 5E
23N 3E
23N 2E
-24.5
23N 4W23N 1E
23N!
23N 1W
23N 6W23N 2W
23N 8W23N 7W23N 5W-23.4
23N 9W
!!
23N 10W-13.4
11W 0 to 5 feet higher
-22.4
-8.6 99
U
V
99
-16
U
V
!
-14.7
23N 3W
!
-12.7
!
!
!
-11.6
-14.8
!-16.4
> 0 to 5 feet lower
162-32.7
!
U
V
32!
U-10.8
V
-25.7
32
U-14.4
V-17.7
-32.7!
0!
-3
!!
!
70
U
22N 1E V
162-25.9
22N 1W
U
V
22N 4W
!
22N 3W
-23.6
!
> 5 to 10 feet lower
-27.2!
22N 6E
22N 4E22N 5E
22N 3E
22N 2E
-21.7
22N
22N 8W32
22N 6W
22N 5W-17.3 U
22N 7W V
!
22N 10W-23.5
22N 9W-15.7
Chico 32
U
11W V
!!
!
32
-36.4
U
V
162
U!
V
-27.8
-12.6
!
191
!
U
!V
-15.9
> 10 to 15 feet lower-26.8 22N 2W
Orland-15.1
!!
-9.3
!
!-14
!
-35.6
-22.4
BUTTE
!
-29.5
-29.1
!
!
-14.4
-55.7-16.8-8.3
!-18.8
GLENN!
162
U!!!
> 15 to 20 feet lower V!
21N 2E
COUNTY
-11.2
-26
70
!
U
21N 7W V
COUNTY
21N 6E
21N 5E
21N 4E
-13.4
21N 3E
21N
-3
21N 2W
21N 10W21N 4W!
21N 3W
21N 6W21N 5W
21N 8W!
11W21N 9W
> 20 to 25 feet lower
162
U
V
!-2
-12.5
45
U!
V
-6.7
-11.5!99
U
V
!
21N 1E
-9.9
!-1-9.8
-21.30
-17.6 191
U
V
!
!
!
> 25 to 30 feet lower
-6.7
!
-10.1
-13.1-6.8
-48.7
-8.2
!-4.6!!
-53.7
!!149
!U 20N 3.5E
!V
-5
-12.4
!
20N 3W70
U
V
> 30 to 35 feet lower 20N 6E
-14.5 20N 5E
-8.7
-54.7 20N 4E
-4.3
20N 3E
20N162
!!
U
V!-1.4
20N 4W!
-4.5
20N 5W
20N 10W20N 8W20N 7W20N 2W
11W20N 6W!
20N 9W
!
-3.2
20N 2E
!
-5.2
-0.3
!162
> 35 to 40 feet lower 99
-37.4 U
UV
V
!
-3
!
45
U
V 20N 1E
!
!
-9.8
-8.4
-31.1
!20N 1W
!
-
5
> 40 feet lower-29.6
162
162 Willows
U
UV
V
-0.4
-4.3
!162
U
V
!
!0
!
19N 3E
-2.3
162
!U
V
19N 6E
19N 5E
0.7
162
U
!19N 4E
V
-9.4
19N!
-1.5
19N 2E
19N 3W19N 1E
!
19N 4W
19N 10W19N 8W
19N 5W
19N 9W19N 7W19N 6W
11W19N 1W
19N 2W
5.4
-5.4-4.4
-10.6
162
U
162 V
!!!!
U
!V
!
-5.9
-0.9
-3.3
!
!
-4.2
70
U
V
18N 2W
-8.8
99
U
V
!
-0.2
-4.9
!
18N 3W
18N 4W
!
18N 6E
18N 3E
18N 1W
18N 5E
-5.7
-6.4
!
18N 2E
18N 1E
18N
!
18N 10W18N 9W18N 8W18N 7W18N 6W18N 5W-0.8-6.7
11W
!
!
18N 4E
45
U
V-15
!
-10.2
!
-8.4
!
Gridley
17N 4E
-3.7
-2
-4.4
!
5!
-5.1
!
!
§¦¨
!
-7.7 17N 3E
17N 6E
-2.9
17N 5E
99
!U
V
-7
17N 2E
17N
17N 1E
17N 4W17N 1W!
-3.5-1.1
17N 10W17N 7W17N 6W17N 5W
17N 9W17N 8W
-9.5
11W
!
!
!
17N 2W
-3.4
-6.6
!
!
-4.9
17N 3W
!
70
U
V-5.4
-7.5
!
-5.3
-7.5!
!-5.8
Live Oak-7.1
-7.7
-5.6
!!
!
!!
-18.9
-6.1
-6.2
!!
!
!
-6.8
-9.6
!
!!!-5.8
!
!
16N 3W-3.7-8.4
-5.4
45
-7.8!16N 6E
U
V
!16N 5E
!
!-6.3
-10.8
!
!-6.5 20
U
V
-6.4
16N
-4.1
16N 2E
16N 2W
16N 9W16N 1E
16N 8W16N 7W16N 4W-8.1
16N 1W
16N 10W16N 6W
16N 5W
11W
-6.9
-9.5
16N 4E!
16N 3E
!
-9.7
0 20
!-1 U
V
Colusa
20
U
V
Northern Sacramento Basin Groundwater Subbasins
-8.3
!
COLUSA 99
U
V
20
U
V
-16.3
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
-5.8
COUNTY!SUTTER
Williams 15N 6E
!
15N 5E
15N
20
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
U
V
20
15N 9W
15N 3E U
V
11W15N 1E20
15N 2W20
U
15N 4W U!-3.2 V
V COUNTY
15N 10W15N 8W
15N 5W
15N 7W
15N 6W!
-8.4 15N 1W
15N 2E
15N 4E
!-8 Yuba
15N 3W
4.8
Antelope
NA-8.6-8.52
70
29
U
UV
V
!
City
20
U
99
V
U
V
-33.2
Bend
NANANA0
!
-23.5
14N 6E
!14N 5E
14N 1E-2.4
!
-2.3
!
45
U
Butte
0.7-9.8-4.320 V
14N14N 4E
14N 8W
65
9.8
14N 3E U
29 V
U 14N 2W
11W V 14N 1W
14N 4W14N 3W
14N 7W
!
14N 10W
14N 5W
14N 6W
-6.2
!
2.3
14N 2E
Colusa NA-55.8-16.6
8
71!
99
U
V
3.7
!
20
!
U
V
1.7
20
-5.7
U
V
-7.2
14N 9W
!!
!
20
U
V
Corning
NA-32.7-23.129
-4.5
-37.4
!
-8
!
!
!
-10.9
175
-5.6
U 29
VU
13N 2W
V
!
13N 1E
Los Molinos NA-13.4-5.920 13N 6E
-15.1
13N
5
13N 5E
13N 7W13N 3E13N 4E
13N 1W!13N 2E
§¦¨
-17.4
11W-3.4
13N 3W
13N 5W
13N 6W13N 4W
13N 10W13N 9W
!!
70
U
V
!
13N 8W
65
113
U
UV
-55.8 V-8.8
5
Red Bluff
NA-20.7-11.99!
16§¦¨
U
281 V
U
V
29-28.1
-11.6
U
V 99
U
V
!
!45
-32.4
U
V
!
-12.8
Sutter NA-10.9-6.012
!
!-11.8
29
U
V
-24.6-19.3
!!
12N 2E
Vina
NA-16.4-11.920
16
12N 6E
U-28.9
V 12N 5E
12N 3W
-5.8
12N
12N 4E
!
-3.5
12N 10W!
12N 2W12N 1W
12N 3E
12N 8W
11W12N 5W
12N 4W!
12N 7W
12N 6W
12N 9W
-7
!
Wyandotte Creek 5.4-15.0-4.77
12N 1E113
U
V
101
£¤
Summary
5.4-55.8-10.3190 45
U
V
-6.5
!
65
11N 10W U
V
99
2911N 1W U
16
UV
VU
V
11N 7W
11N 6W
11N 9W
11N 6E
11N 5E
-27.4
11N 8W11N 4E
11N
!
11N 2W11N 3E
11N 5W11N 4W
11N 1E
-7.3
11W-10.9
11N 3W
!
!
113
U
V
-16.8
10111N 2E
£¤
!
-10.5
!505
§¦¨
-7.1
-13.3
!
!
113
U
V
!-50.4
-5.4
-10.5-10.9
!
!
!
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10N 9W NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY
10N 1E!
10N 6E
0.7
10N 5E
-17.9
10N 1W
-6.4
-10
-2.6!
29!
U
THE RESOURCES AGENCY V!!
-4.9 10N 4E
PLATE 1C-D
16
101
U!
V
10N 4W
10N
£¤
10N 8W
CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP
70
U
10N 5W V
-4.4
10N 3W10N 3E
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
11W
-7.2
10N 7W16
U-11.6!
V!
!
-4
10N 6W!16
U
V
-11
-18-6.2
10N 2E
!
NORTHERN REGION OFFICE
10N 10W!
!!
-7.2-8.1
16
U
V
-19.4 5
SPRING 2011 TO SPRING 2021 Date:
10N 2W
!
Woodland 9N 6E
16§¦¨
U!
V
2440 Main Street
July 2021
!-17
-12.8
128
U
V
!9N 5E
8.5
Red Bluff, California 96080-8.6
-18.5
-28 9N 4E
100 to 450 ft WELL DEPTHS
!
16
80
!U
!V
9N!9N 1E
!
-0.9
9N 8W9N 5W-10.9
9N 1W9N 2E§¦¨
9N 7W9N 2W
BY:
9N 4W-6.5
9N 3W
9N 6W9N 3E
9N 10W(530) 529-7300!
11W
128-6.4
U!
V
A. Scholzen
(Well depths greater than 100 ft and less than 450 ft deep bgs)113
!!U
V
80
§¦¨
-10.1
9N 9W
!
!
https://data.ca.gov/dataset/northern-sacramento-valley-groundwater-elevation-change-maps
33N 7E
33N 5E33N 6E
33N 3E
33N 2E33N 4E
151
33N 1W
33N 5W U 33N 3W33N 2W33N 1E
V 33N 4W
33N 7W33N 6W
33N 8W
33N 9W
33N 10W
299
U
V
32N 7E
299
U 44
VU
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
32N 6E
32N 5E
!
(
Monitoring Well
32N 4E
32N 3E
32N 1W32N 2E
32N 2W
32N 4W32N 1E
32N 3W
32N 6W32N 5W
32N 9W32N 8W32N 7W
32N 10W
299
U
V
Redding Basin
SHASTA 44
U
V
Redding
3
U
V
Subbasin Boundaries
COUNTY
!
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
-11.7
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
5
Redding/Sacramento
§¦¨
89
U 31N 7E
V
31N 6E
31N 5E
GW Basin Divide
4444
-13.1 U
U
VV
Anderson NA-5.8-2.86
!
31N 1W
31N 4E
31N 2W
31N 1E
31N 4W31N 3W31N 3E
31N 2E
31N 7W
31N 8W31N 6W
31N 10W31N 9W
31N 5W
44
U
V
44
U
V
County Boundaries
Bowman
NA-2.7-1.65
-4.8
¢
!
273
U
V
Bulletin 118 GW
-1.1 Enterprise NA-13.1-9.93
30N 7E
!
Subbasin Excluded Areas
89
U
V
30N 6E
30N 5E
30N 6W
Millville
NANANA0
30N 11W
30N 4E
30N 3E
30N 1E
30N 2E
30N 2W30N 1W
30N 3W
30N 4W-5.8
30N 7W
30N 9W30N 8W89
30N 10W U
V
!
!
60612-2.1
South Battle Creek NANANA0
30N 5W
Summary
NA-13.1-4.814
Miles
29N 7E
-0.3
-1.6
-5.7!
!
!
29N 2W
29N 4W29N 6E
-1.8 29N 5E
29N 3E29N 4E
36
U!
V
29N 1E29N 2E
-2.7
29N 1W
29N 3W
36
U
29N 6W V
!
29N 7W
29N 10W29N 8W
29N 9W
36
U
V
-1.6
29N 11W!
29N 5W
36
U
V 0
!
172
29N 2.5W U
V
36
U
V
36
U
V
28.5N 3W
NOTES
36
U
V
36
U
V
-2.2
28N 6E
28N 5E
28N 4E
Note 1:A positive number indicates that groundwater elevations were higher in the
!
28N 3E
36
U
V
28N 2E
28N 1E
28N 1W
28N 3W current year than in 2011. A negative number indicates that groundwater
28N 5W
28N 6W36
28N 7W
U
28N 8W V
28N 11W
28N 10W28N 9W
elevations were lower in the current year than in 2011.
28N 2W
28N 4W
Note 2:Statistics are based on the number of wells monitored within each
subbasin.
-7.5
32
U
V
!
36
U
V
36
U
V 36
U
-4.7 V
Note 3:This map may not use all the color ranges shown in table above. Some
!
wells may not be visible on map due to the close proximity to each other.
36
U
V
27N 6E
27N 2W
27N 5E
-8.5
27N 4E
27N 3E
!
27N 2E
27N 1E
27N 1W
27N 11W Note 4:Groundwater level changes are based on measurements taken from wells
27N 5W
27N 4W
27N 7W27N 6W
!
27N 8W
27N 9W
-8.1
27N 10W
with depths of 200 to 600 ft. Measurements are taken during similar time
Red 27N 3W
periods each year.
-7.8
!
Bluff
Note 5:Change in groundwater elevations are based on the actual measured levels of
99
Groundwater Elevation Change
U
V
the hydrostatic level (piezometric surface) of the groundwater at individual well
99
U
V
locations.Contoured color ramping is interpolated from these measurements
5
§¦¨
-5.7
and should be considered approximate. The accuracy of the estimated contour
26N 6E
!26N 5E
26N 4E
26N 3E
> 40 feet higher 26N 2E
is directly related to the timing of the measurements, spacing and the distribution
26N 1E
26N 4W26N 3W
26N 1W
26N 5W32
26N 6W
U
26N 8W26N 7W V
26N 9W
26N 10W
-10.5
of nearby monitoring wells, well construction, and aquifer characteristics.
!
26N 11W
Note 6:GW - Groundwater
> 35 to 40 feet higher
26N 2W
GWE - Groundwater Elevation
bgs - below ground surface
-8.5-15.2
-14.4
!
!
TEHAMA
!
> 30 to 35 feet higher
-16.4
!
-17.5
!
25N 6E
25N 4E
25N 2E25N 3E25N 5E
COUNTY
25N 3W
25N 1E
25N 4W25N 1W
25N 6W25N 5W
25N 2W
25N 8W25N 7W
25N 10W
-20.1
25N 9W
-20.7
!
> 25 to 30 feet higher
!
25N
99
U
V
11W
-5.1
!
!
70
-26.8
U
!V
-5.1
> 20 to 25 feet higher
!-6.1
!
-4.2
!
!-5.6
-5
!-6.1
!-5.8
-3.7
-4.5
24N 3W
!
!24N 3E
24N 6E
24N 5E
24N 2E24N 4E
Corning
-5.1
> 15 to 20 feet higher
-6.2
24N 1E
24N 4W
24N24N 1W
24N 6W24N 5W
24N 7W!
24N 8W
!
24N 10W
24N 9W
11W
!-21.6
-8.1
-5.8
!
!
-5.7
!
-16.1
24N 2W
!!!
-27.3
!
> 10 to 15 feet higher-28.1
-19
32
U
V
23.5N 2E
70
U
V
> 5 to 10 feet higher
!
-22.8-13.3
-9.1
-30
-28.5
!
!
!
!
23N 6E
23N 4E23N 5E
9923N 3E
U
23N 2E
V
-22.4 23N 1E
23N 4W
23N23N 1W
23N 2W
23N 6W23N 5W23N 3W
23N 8W23N 7W
23N 9W
23N 10W!
11W
0 to 5 feet higher
-8.6
99
-16
U
V
!
-14.7
!
-11.2
!
!
-11.6
!
-32.7
162
U
V
> 0 to 5 feet lower
32!
U-10.8
V
32-28.4
U
V
-17.7
!
22N 1E
!
!
70
0-31.5 U
-3 V
!
16222N 1W
U-17.9
V-27.6
22N 4W
-25.2
22N 3W!
!
!
!
22N 6E
22N 4E22N 5E
-15.2 22N 3E
> 5 to 10 feet lower
22N 2E
22N
-14.3 32
22N 8W
22N 6W22N 5W U
V
22N 7W
22N 10W22N 9W
!32
Orland
U
11W V
!
32
U Chico
V
5
162
-23.5
U
V§¦¨
-27.8
191
!-14
U
V
-15.9 22N 2W
!!
> 10 to 15 feet lower!
32
-35.6 U
V
-22.4
!
-29.5 BUTTE
-17.7
!
!
-26
!-18.8-8.3
-43
!-13.7
162
U!
V!!!
21N 2E
GLENN
-11.2
> 15 to 20 feet lower
COUNTY
-55.7
-10
!70
U
V
21N 7W
!
21N 6E
21N 5E
COUNTY
21N 4E
-12.2
21N 3E
21N
-3
21N 2W!
21N 10W-15.5
21N 5W21N 3W
21N 8W21N 6W!
11W
21N 9W
162!
U-13.8
V-23.4 99
!-2 U
V
> 20 to 25 feet lower
!
45!
U
V
!
21N 4W
!
-7
!
-11.5
-4.9
-9.8
21N 1E
-14.9 191
U
V
-17.6!
!!
-6.7
> 25 to 30 feet lower
-10.8
-11.9
!
1.7!
!
-13.1
-11.4
!
!
!-4.6
-62.6!
!
!149
-15.8!
U 20N 3.5E
V
!-8.2
20N 3W70
U
V
20N 6E
-12.4-14.5 20N 5E
-26
> 30 to 35 feet lower 20N 4E
-54.7
20N 3E
20N162
U!!
V!-3.8
20N 4W
-19.6-4.5
20N 10W20N 7W20N 5W20N 2W
20N 8W
11W20N 6W!
20N 9W
-5
!!
20N 2E
-17.8
-10.4
!-0.3
!162
U
-37.4 V
!
-9.8
> 35 to 40 feet lower-3
!
45
U 20N 1E
V
!
!
99
-8.4 U
V
-31.1
!!20N 1W
!
-10.3
162
162 U
V
U
V
-4.3
> 40 feet lower
Willows-0.4
162
U
70 V
!
U
!V
!
19N 3E
19N 3W
-2.3
162
U
-8.2 V
19N 6E
19N 5E
-0.4
162
U 19N 4E
!
V
-9.4
19N!
19N 2E
19N 1E
19N 4W!
19N 8W
19N 10W
19N 9W19N 7W19N 5W
11W19N 6W
19N 1W
19N 2W
5.4
-5.4-4.4
-12
162
U
!!162!!-1.9 V!
!
U
!V
-14.7
-5.9-1.7
-3.3
!
!
70
U
V
18N 2W
99
U
V
-0.2
-9.3
!
18N 3W
18N 4W!
!!
18N 6E
18N 3E
18N 5E
-4.6
-5.7
18N 4E
-4.9
!
18N 2E
18N18N 1E
18N 1W
18N 10W18N 8W18N 7W
18N 9W18N 6W18N 5W-0.8
11W
!
45
U
V
-2.1
!
Gridley
17N 4E
-3.7
-4.9
-7.7
!
5!
-5.1
!
§¦¨
!
17N 3E
17N 6E
-2.9
17N 5E
99
!
U
V
-7.1
17N 2E
17N
17N 1E
!
17N 4W17N 1W
-3.5-1.1
17N 10W17N 5W
17N 7W17N 6W
17N 8W
17N 9W
-9.4
11W
!!
!
17N 2W
-3.4
-5.7
!
!
17N 3W
-15.3
!
70
U
V
-7.5-5.4
!
-11.5
-7.1!
!
Live Oak
!-5.6
!-6.8
!
-6.1
-18.9
-7.5!!
!
!
-6.2
-7.8
!
-5.8
!!!
16N 3W-8.6!-5.4
45-9.6
!16N 6E
-6.4 U
V
!16N 5E
-6
-7.6
!
20
U
V
16N
16N 2E
16N 2W
16N 9W16N 1E
16N 8W16N 7W16N 4W
16N 10W16N 1W
16N 6W16N 5W
11W
-6.8
-9.5
16N 4E!
16N 3E
!
-9.7
20
!-10 U
V
20
U
V
Northern Sacramento Basin Groundwater SubbasinsColusa
-9.2
70
!
U
V
99
U
V
20
U
V
COLUSA
15N 2E
-16.3
!
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
COUNTYSUTTER
Williams 15N 6E
15N15N 5E
20
U
V
20
15N 9W
15N 1W15N 3E U
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)V
11W15N 1E
15N 2W2020
!U
15N 4W U
VV
15N 10W15N 8W
15N 5W
15N 7W
!
15N 6W COUNTY
-8.4-2.9
15N 4E
-8 Yuba
!
70
15N 3W U
V
29
U
V
Antelope NA-8.5-8.32
City
20
U
V
99
U
V
-33.2
70
U
V
!
-23.5
Bend
NANANA0
!14N 6E
14N 5E
!
-43.5
14N 1E-2.6
!
-2.3
!
14N14N 4E
14N 8W
65
Butte 1.7-12.0-4.1 10.1
20 14N 3E U
29 V
U 14N 2W-27
11W V 14N 1W
14N 4W
14N 7W
45!
14N 10W14N 5W U
14N 6W V!
-35
14N 3W
14N 2E
99
U
V
Colusa
NA-62.6-17.4 4.7
68
20
!!
U
V
-5.72.3
20
U-40
V
-7.2
14N 9W
!!
!
20
U
V
20
U
V
Corning NA-32.7-23.420
-8
!
175
U 29
VU
13N 2W
V
-13.7 13N 5E
13N 1E
13N 6E
!
13N-27.6-7.3
Los Molinos 5
NA-8.1-5.516
13N 7W13N 4E
13N 1W!!13N 2E
§¦¨-3.4
!-7.5
11W-17.4
13N 3W
13N 5W
13N 6W13N 4W
13N 10W13N 9W
!!
70
U
V
13N 8W!
65
U
13N 3E
V
-55.8-8.7
5
!
16§¦¨
U 113
281 V
U
UV
Red Bluff NA V-20.7-13.011
29-28.1
-11.6
U
V
!
!
45
-27 U
V
!
99
U
V
-12.8
Sutter!
NA-27.0-8.410
!
-11.8
29
U
V
-19.3
-31.3
!!
12N 2E
16
12N 6E
U-28.9
V 12N 5E
12N 3W
12N-16.7
Vina NA-16.0-10.820
-2.3 12N 4E
!
12N 10W!
12N 2W12N 1W
12N 8W12N 3E
11W12N 5W
12N 4W!
12N 7W12N 6W
12N 9W
-7
!
-16.8
113
!U
V
Wyandotte Creek
5.4-5.1-1.13
12N 1E
101
£¤
45
U
V
Summary 5.4-62.6-10.2170
65
11N 10W U
V
11N 3E
99
29 U
UV!
V
11N 7W
-3.6
11N 9W11N 6W
11N 6E
11N 8W11N 4E
11N
11N 1W
11N 2W
11N 5W11N 4W
11N 1E
-7.3
16
U
V
11W
11N 3W
!
113
U
V 11N 2E
11N 5E
101
£¤
505
§¦¨
-7.1
-13.3
!
!
10N 1E
113
U
V
-50.4
!
!-17.9
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-10.9
10N 9W NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY
!
10N 6E
0.7
10N 5E
10N 1W
-6.4
!
-14.9!
29!
U
THE RESOURCES AGENCY V
!
3.2
10N 4E
PLATE 1I-D
16
101
U!
V
10N 4W
10N
£¤
10N 8W
CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP
-4.9 70
U
10N 5W V
10N 3W10N 3E
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
11W
10N 7W
16-7.2
U
V
!
10N 6W
16
-18-11-6.2 U
V 10N 2E
NORTHERN REGION OFFICE
10N 10W!
!!
16
U
V
-19.4 5
SPRING 2011 TO SPRING 2021 Date:
10N 2W
9N 6E
16
§¦¨
U
V
!Woodland
August 2021
2440 Main Street
!
-17
128
U-12.8
V
!
8.5 9N 5E
Red Bluff, California 96080
-18.5
INTERMEDIATE WELL DEPTHS-28 9N 4E
-4.9
16
U
!V
!9N 1E
9N
!
9N 8W-10.9 80!
9N 5W9N 2E
9N 7W9N 2W
BY:
9N 4W9N 3W9N 1W-9.1
9N 6W9N 3E
!§¦¨
9N 10W(530) 529-7300!
11W
-8.4
128
U!80
V
A. Scholzen
!113
(Well depths greater than 200 ft and less than 600 ft deep bgs)!
-6.5 U§¦¨
V
-10.1
9N 9W
https://data.ca.gov/dataset/northern-sacramento-valley-groundwater-elevation-change-maps
33N 7E
33N 5E33N 6E
33N 3E
33N 2E33N 4E
151
33N 1W
33N 5W U 33N 3W33N 2W33N 1E
V 33N 4W
33N 7W33N 6W
33N 8W
33N 9W
33N 10W
299
U
V
32N 7E
299
U 44
VU
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
32N 6E
32N 5E
!
(
Monitoring Well
32N 4E
32N 3E
32N 1W32N 2E
32N 2W
32N 1E
32N 3W
32N 6W32N 5W
32N 9W32N 8W32N 7W299
32N 10W U
V
Redding Basin
SHASTA 44
U
V
32N 4W
Redding
3
U
V
Subbasin Boundaries
COUNTY
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
Redding/Sacramento
89
U 31N 7E
V
273
U
V
31N 6E
31N 5E
GW Basin Divide
4444
U
U
VV
Anderson
NA-3.4-3.41
31N 1W
31N 4E
31N 2W
31N 1E
31N 4W31N 3W31N 3E
31N 2E
31N 7W
31N 8W31N 6W
31N 10W31N 9W
31N 5W
44
U
V
44
U
V
County Boundaries
Bowman
NA-13.5-5.73
¢
!
-4.8
Bulletin 118 GW
Enterprise
NA-4.8-4.81
30N 7E
Subbasin Excluded Areas
89
U
V
30N 6E
30N 5E
30N 6W
Millville
NANANA0
30N 11W
30N 4E
30N 3E
30N 1E
30N 2E
30N 2W30N 1W
30N 3W
30N 7W
30N 9W30N 8W89
30N 10W5 U
V
§¦¨
60612
South Battle Creek
NANANA0
30N 4W
30N 5W
Summary
Miles NA-13.5-4.65
29N 7E
-3.4
!
29N 2W
29N 4W29N 6E
29N 5E
29N 3E29N 4E
36
U
V
29N 1E29N 2E
-2.9
29N 1W
29N 3W
36
U
29N 6W29N 5W V
!
29N 7W
29N 10W29N 8W
29N 9W
36
U
V
29N 11W
-0.6
36
U
V
-13.5
!
!
172
29N 2.5W U
V
36
U
V
36
U
V
28.5N 3W
NOTES
36
U
V
36
U
V
28N 6E
28N 5E
28N 4E
Note 1:A positive number indicates that groundwater elevations were higher in the
28N 3E
36
U
V
28N 2E
28N 1E
28N 1W
28N 3W current year than in 2011. A negative number indicates that groundwater
28N 5W28N 4W
28N 6W36
28N 7W
U
28N 8W V
28N 11W
28N 10W28N 9W
elevations were lower in the current year than in 2011.
28N 2W
Note 2:Statistics are based on the number of wells monitored within each
subbasin.
32
U
V
36
U
36
V
U
V
36
U
V
Note 3:This map may not use all the color ranges shown in table above. Some
wells may not be visible on map due to the close proximity to each other.
36
U
V
27N 6E
27N 2W
27N 5E
27N 4E
27N 3E
27N 2E
27N 1E
27N 1W
27N 11W Note 4:Groundwater level changes are based on measurements taken from wells
27N 5W
27N 4W
27N 7W27N 6W
27N 8W
27N 9W
27N 10W
with depths greater than 600 ft. Measurements are taken during similar time
Red 27N 3W
periods each year.
Bluff
Note 5:Change in groundwater elevations are based on the actual measured levels of
99
Groundwater Elevation Change
U
V
the hydrostatic level (piezometric surface) of the groundwater at individual well
99
U
V
locations.Contoured color ramping is interpolated from these measurements
5
§¦¨
and should be considered approximate. The accuracy of the estimated contour
26N 6E
26N 5E
26N 4E
26N 3E
> 40 feet higher 26N 2E
is directly related to the timing of the measurements, spacing and the distribution
26N 1E
26N 4W
26N 1W
26N 3W
26N 5W32
26N 6W
U
26N 8W26N 7W V
26N 9W
26N 10W
of nearby monitoring wells, well construction, and aquifer characteristics.
26N 2W
26N 11W
Note 6:GW - Groundwater
!
-7.8
> 35 to 40 feet higher
GWE - Groundwater Elevation
bgs - below ground surface
-18.2
!
TEHAMA
> 30 to 35 feet higher
25N 6E
25N 4E
25N 2E25N 3E25N 5E
COUNTY
25N 1E
25N 4W25N 1W
25N 6W25N 5W
25N 2W
25N 8W25N 7W
25N 10W
25N 9W
25N 3W
> 25 to 30 feet higher
25N
99
U
V
11W
-5.6
-4.4
!
!
70
99 U
V
U
V
> 20 to 25 feet higher
-5.9
!
!
-5.9
!
-5.6
-6.5
!
24N 3W
24N 3E
24N 6E
24N 5E
24N 2E24N 4E
> 15 to 20 feet higher
-6.5
24N 1E
24N 4W
24N24N 1W
24N 6W24N 5W24N 2W
24N 7W
24N 8W
!
24N 10W
24N 9W
11W
Corning
-9.8
!
-10
-18.6
!
!
> 10 to 15 feet higher-34.8
32
U
V
-51.5
23.5N 2E
!
70
U
V
-16
> 5 to 10 feet higher!
-19.4
!
23N 6E
23N 4E23N 5E
9923N 3E
U
23N 2E
V
23N 1E
23N 4W
23N23N 1W
23N 2W
23N 6W23N 5W23N 3W
23N 8W23N 7W
23N 9W
23N 10W
11W
0 to 5 feet higher 4.3
99-8.4
U!
V
!
-11.2
!0
162
U
V
> 0 to 5 feet lower
32
U
V
32
U
V-12.4-10.5
22N 1E
!
!
70
U
V
-5
16222N 1W
U
V-16.3
-10.5
!
!
22N 6E
22N 4E22N 5E
22N 3E
> 5 to 10 feet lower
22N 2E
Orland
22N22N 4W
32
22N 8W
22N 6W22N 5W U
-10.6 V
22N 7W
-28.7
22N 10W22N 9W
Chico 32
U
11W V
!
!
32
U
V
162
U-16.7
V
-16
22N 3W
!
2.7
191
!
U
V
22N 2W
!
!
-14.5 32
> 10 to 15 feet lower!U
V
!
-14.9
-13.2
-16
-9.8 BUTTE
!
!
-54.4-24.7
-10.5
162
U!
V!!
21N 2E
GLENN
-10.3
> 15 to 20 feet lower
COUNTY
-3
!70
U
!V
21N 7W-24.1
-96.3
21N 6E
!
21N 5E
COUNTY
21N 4E
!
21N 3E
21N-12.8
21N 4W21N 2W
21N 10W
21N 5W21N 3W
21N 8W21N 6W!
45
11W
21N 9W U
V
162
U
V
> 20 to 25 feet lower
-7.6
!
99
U
V
-11.3
21N 1E
!
-13.4
191
U
V
!
-47.9
> 25 to 30 feet lower
!-15
-9.4
!
-46.6
!149
U 20N 3.5E
V
20N 3W70
U
V
20N 6E
20N 5E
-27.1
> 30 to 35 feet lower 20N 4E
20N 3E
20N162
U!
V-6.8
20N 4W
20N 10W20N 7W20N 5W20N 2W
20N 8W
11W20N 6W!
20N 9W
20N 2E
162
U
V
> 35 to 40 feet lower
45
U 20N 1E
V
20N 1W
162 Willows
U 162
VU
-28.5 V
> 40 feet lower
-2.4
162
U
70 V
!
99 U
!V
U
19N 3E
V
162
U
V
19N 6E
19N 5E
162
U 19N 4E
V
-5.3
19N!
19N 2E
19N 3W19N 1E
19N 4W!-0.7
19N 8W
19N 10W
19N 9W19N 7W19N 5W
11W19N 6W
19N 1W
19N 2W
162
U
162!V
U
V
-2.1
70
U
V
18N 2W-4.6
!
99
U
V
-11.5
18N 3W
!
18N 6E
18N 3E
18N 5E
18N 4E
18N 2E
18N18N 1E
18N 4W18N 1W
18N 10W18N 8W18N 7W
18N 9W18N 6W18N 5W
11W
45
U
V
-3.3
!
Gridley
-5
-6.5
-9.7
!
!17N 4E
5
!
§¦¨
17N 3E
17N 6E
17N 5E
-3.8
99
U
17N 2E V
17N
17N 1E
17N 3W!
17N 4W17N 1W
17N 10W17N 5W
17N 7W17N 6W
17N 8W
17N 9W
11W
-4.8
17N 2W
!
-5.6
!
70
U
V
-13.5
!
Live Oak
-8.6
45
16N 6E
-16.4 U
V
!16N 5E
!16N 4E
20
U
V
16N
16N 2E
16N 2W
16N 9W16N 3W16N 1E
16N 8W16N 7W16N 4W
16N 10W16N 1W
16N 6W16N 5W
11W
16N 3E
20
U
V
Colusa
20
U
V
-0.6
Northern Sacramento Basin Groundwater Subbasins
70
!
U
V
99
U
V
20
U
V
COLUSA
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin NameCOUNTYSUTTER
Williams 15N 6E
15N15N 5E
20
U
V
20
15N 9W
15N 3E U
V
11W Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)15N 1E
15N 2W2020
U
15N 4W U
VV
15N 4E
15N 10W15N 8W
15N 5W
15N 7W
15N 6W COUNTY
15N 1W
15N 2E
Yuba
70
15N 3W U
V
29
U
V
Antelope NANANA0 City
20
U
V
99
U
V
70
U
V
Bend
NANANA0
14N 6E
14N 5E
-3.8
14N 1E
!
45
U
V
14N14N 4E
-68.1
14N 8W
65
Butte NA-12.8-5.4 14N 3E U
29 10 V
U!14N 2W
11W V 14N 1W
14N 4W
14N 7W
14N 10W14N 5W
14N 6W
14N 3W
14N 2E
99
U
V
Colusa
NA-96.3-24.8
26
20
U
V
20
U-10.3
V
14N 9W
!
20
U
V
20
U
V
Corning 2.7-51.5-18.210
175
U 29
VU
V
13N 1E
13N 6E
13N-21.9
5-7.8 13N 5E
Los Molinos
NA-9.8-6.49
13N 7W13N 3E13N 4E
13N 1W!13N 2E
13N 2W§¦¨
!
11W
13N 3W
13N 5W
13N 6W13N 4W
13N 10W13N 9W
70
U
V
13N 8W
65
113 U
UV
V-6
5
!
16§¦¨
U
281 V
U
V
Red Bluff NA-18.2-18.21
29
-17.4
U
V 99
U
V
!
-8.1
!
-8.5
Sutter
NA-8.6-5.96!
29
U
V
-23.6
-15.1
!!
12N 2E
45
U
16
V 12N 6E
U
V 12N 5E
12N 3W
12N
Vina 4.3-16.0-10.210
12N 4E
-6.7
12N 10W
12N 2W12N 1W
12N 8W12N 3E
11W12N 5W
12N 4W!
12N 7W12N 6W
12N 9W
-15.1
!
-
15
Wyandotte Creek
NA-4.6-4.61
12N 1E113
U
V
101
£¤
-26.9
!
45
U-7.4
V
Summary 4.3-96.3-11.773
!
65
11N 10W U
V
99
29 U
UV
V
11N 3E
11N 7W
11N 9W11N 6W
11N 6E
11N 5E
11N 8W11N 4E
11N
11N 1W
11N 2W
11N 5W11N 4W
11N 1E
16
U
V
11W
11N 3W
113
U
V 11N 2E
101
£¤
505
-7.5
§¦¨
!
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10N 9W NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY
10N 1E
10N 6E
113
U
V 10N 5E
10N 1W
29
U
THE RESOURCES AGENCY V
10N 4E
PLATE 1D-D
16
101
U
V
10N 4W
10N
£¤5
10N 8W
CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP
70
U
10N 5W V
§¦¨
10N 3W10N 3E
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
11W
10N 7W
16
10N 6W
U
V
16
U
V 10N 2E
NORTHERN REGION OFFICE
10N 10W
SPRING 2011 TO SPRING 2021 16
U
V
Date:
10N 2W
9N 6E
16
U
V
Woodland
July 2021
2440 Main Street
128
U
V
1139N 5E
U
Red Bluff, California 96080 V
DEEP WELLS 9N 4E
16
80
U
V
9N
9N 8W
9N 5W9N 1W9N 2E
9N 7W9N 2W9N 1E§¦¨
BY:
9N 4W9N 3W
9N 6W9N 3E
9N 10W(530) 529-7300
11W
128
U
V
A. Scholzen
(Well depths greater than 600 ft bgs)
80
§¦¨
9N 9W
https://data.ca.gov/dataset/northern-sacramento-valley-groundwater-elevation-change-maps
33N 7E
33N 5E33N 6E
33N 3E
33N 2E33N 4E
151
33N 1W
33N 5W U 33N 3W33N 2W33N 1E
V 33N 4W
33N 7W33N 6W
33N 8W
33N 9W
33N 10W
299
U
V
32N 7E
299
U 44
VU
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
32N 6E
32N 5E
!
(
Monitoring Well
32N 4E
32N 3E
32N 1W32N 2E
32N 2W
32N 1E
32N 3W
32N 6W32N 5W
32N 9W32N 8W32N 7W299
32N 10W U
V
Redding Basin
SHASTA 44
U
V
32N 4W
Redding
3
U
V
Subbasin Boundaries
COUNTY
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
-1.2
!
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
Redding/Sacramento
89
U 31N 7E
V
!
44
U 31N 6E
V
-2.2
31N 5E
GW Basin Divide
44
U
V
Anderson
3.0-9.1-1.85
-5.6
31N 1W
31N 4E
31N 2W
31N 1E
31N 4W31N 3W!31N 3E
31N 2E
31N 7W
31N 8W31N 6W
31N 10W31N 9W
31N 5W
44
U
V
44
U
V
County Boundaries
Bowman NA-10.7-5.24
273
U
V
¢
5
§¦¨
Bulletin 118 GW
Enterprise
NA-2.1-1.62 30N 7E
!
-2.1
Subbasin Excluded Areas
-2.6
89
U
V
30N 6E
30N 5E
!
30N 6W
Millville NA-5.6-3.92
30N 11W
30N 4E
30N 3E
30N 1E
30N 2E
30N 2W30N 1W
30N 3W
30N 7W
3
30N 9W30N 8W89
30N 10W U
V
!
!0.3
60612
-0.8
!
South Battle Creek
NANANA0
30N 5W
30N 4W
MilesSummary 3.0-10.7-3.113
29N 7E
-9.1
!
29N 2W
29N 6E
29N 5E
29N 3E29N 4E
-10.7
-0.9
36
U!
V
29N 1E29N 2E
!
29N 1W
29N 3W
36
U
29N 6W29N 5W V
29N 7W
29N 10W29N 8W
29N 9W
36
U
V
-4.8
!
29N 11W
29N 4W
36
U
V-4.5
!
172
29N 2.5W U
V
36
U
V
36
U
V
28.5N 3W
NOTES
36
U
V
36
U
V
28N 6E
28N 5E
28N 4E
Note 1:A positive number indicates that groundwater elevations were higher in the
28N 3E
36
U
V
28N 2E
28N 1E
28N 1W
28N 3W current year than in 2004. A negative number indicates that groundwater
28N 5W28N 4W
28N 6W36
28N 7W
U
28N 8W V
28N 11W
28N 10W28N 9W
elevations were lower in the current year than in 2004.
28N 2W
Note 2:Statistics are based on the number of wells monitored within each
subbasin.
32
U
Red V
36
U
36
V
U
V
36 Note 3:This map may not use all the color ranges shown in table above. Some
U
V
Bluff
wells may not be visible on map due to the close proximity to each other.
36
U
V
27N 6E
27N 2W
27N 5E
27N 4E
27N 3E
-1327N 2E
!
-3.427N 1E
27N 1W
27N 11W Note 4:Groundwater level changes are based on measurements taken from wells
27N 5W
27N 4W
27N 7W27N 6W
!
27N 8W
27N 9W
27N 10W
with depths less than 200 ft. Measurements are taken during similar time
27N 3W
periods each year.
!
Note 5:Change in groundwater elevations are based on the actual measured levels of
-9.9
99
Groundwater Elevation Change
U
V
the hydrostatic level (piezometric surface) of the groundwater at individual well
99
U
V
locations.Contoured color ramping is interpolated from these measurements
5
§¦¨-6
-3.6
and should be considered approximate. The accuracy of the estimated contour
26N 6E
!
!
26N 5E
26N 4E
26N 3E
> 40 feet higher 26N 2E
is directly related to the timing of the measurements, spacing and the distribution
26N 1E
26N 4W
26N 1W
26N 3W
26N 5W32
26N 6W
U
26N 8W26N 7W-11.3 V
26N 9W
26N 10W
of nearby monitoring wells, well construction, and aquifer characteristics.
!
26N 11W
-22.5
!
26N 2W
Note 6:GW - Groundwater
!
> 35 to 40 feet higher
1.2
GWE - Groundwater Elevation
bgs - below ground surface
-8.4
-19.8
TEHAMA!
> 30 to 35 feet higher
!
25N 6E
25N 4E
25N 3W25N 2E25N 3E25N 5E
COUNTY
25N 1E
25N 4W25N 1W
25N 6W25N 5W
25N 2W
25N 8W25N 7W
25N 10W
25N 9W
-5.8
> 25 to 30 feet higher
!
25N
99
U
V
11W
-19.5
!
70
99-15.5 U
V
U
V-9.8
> 20 to 25 feet higher
-32.6!
!
-9.5
!!
!
-8.1
-36.7
24N 4W
-13.4
24N 3W
!
-9.5
!!
24N 3E
!24N 6E
24N 5E
24N 2E24N 4E
-36.8
-9.9
> 15 to 20 feet higher
-45.2
24N 1E
24N!24N 1W
24N 6W24N 5W24N 2W
24N 7W
24N 8W!
24N 10W
24N 9W
11W
!
-10
Corning
> 10 to 15 feet higher
32
U
V
-30.7
23.5N 2E
!
!
-31.6
70
U
V
-36.3
> 5 to 10 feet higher
!
-29.2
23N 6E
-1823N 4E23N 5E
!23N 3E
23N 2E
-27.7
23N 1E
23N 4W
23N23N 1W!
23N 2W
23N 6W23N 5W23N 3W
23N 8W23N 7W99
23N 9W
!U
23N 10W V
11W
0 to 5 feet higher
-13.5
99
U
V
!
-14.7
!
!-10.4
-31.4
-21.4
!
162!
U
V
> 0 to 5 feet lower
32
U-35.6
V
32
U
V-36.4
22N 1E
!
!
!
70
U
V
-20.1
-28.6
16222N 1W
U
V
-14.1
!-30.4
22N 3W
!
!
22N 6E
22N 4E22N 5E
22N 3E
> 5 to 10 feet lower
22N 2E
-29.8
22N22N 4W
32
22N 8W
22N 6W22N 5W U
-20.4 V
22N 7W-16.9
22N 10W22N 9W
Chico
Orland!
32
11W
U
V
!
-29.3!
32
-42.6
U
V
162
!
U 22N 2W
V!
-9.9
191
-24.2 U
!V
-32.7
!-16.9
32
> 10 to 15 feet lower U
!V
!
-21.2!
-22.9
BUTTE
-34.7
!
-9.5
-28.4
!
!
162-20.9
U
V!
21N 2E
GLENN
!
> 15 to 20 feet lower
COUNTY
70
U
V
21N 7W
21N 6E
21N 5E
-12.4
COUNTY
21N 4E
-34.821N 3E
21N
!
21N 4W21N 2W
21N 10W
21N 5W21N 3W
21N 8W21N 6W!
45-7.5
11W
21N 9W U 21N 1E
V
162
U
V
!
> 20 to 25 feet lower
-19.2
!
!
-3.7
99
U
V
-21.1
!
!
-9.9
-23
-32.8
!
!
191
> 25 to 30 feet lower
U
V
-2.6
!
-67.7!
149
-6.4
!U 20N 3.5E
V
20N 6E
!
-19.920N 5E
70
> 30 to 35 feet lower U 20N 4E
V
20N162-3
U-0.6!
20N 2W
V
20N 4W20N 3W
20N 10W20N 7W20N 5W
20N 8W
11W20N 6W!
20N 9W
-0.9
20N 2E
0
20N 3E
!
!0.7162
99 U
V
U
V
> 35 to 40 feet lower-16
!
45
-28.8
U 20N 1E
V
!
!
20N 1W
-35
162 Willows
U 162
VU
V
> 40 feet lower
!162
U
70 V
U
V
19N 3E
162
U
-7.9 V
19N 6E
19N 5E
162
U 19N 4E
!V
!
19N
19N 2E
-1.9
19N 3W19N 1E
19N 4W
19N 8W
19N 10W
19N 9W19N 7W19N 5W
11W19N 6W
19N 1W
19N 2W
-10.1
162
U
162!V
U
!V
-8.1
0.5!
!
-7.1
70
U
V
-6.7
18N 2W
-12
-12.1
!-0.1
!
99
U
V
!
!
0.3
18N 3W
18N 6E
18N 3E
18N 5E
!
-4.7
18N 2E
18N18N 1E
!
18N 4W18N 1W
18N 10W18N 8W18N 7W
18N 9W18N 6W18N 5W
11W
!
18N 4E
45
U-20.6
-6.8
V
!
-9.6
!
-4.8
-10.2
-7
!
!
!
Gridley
-5.4
-3.2
!
17N 4E
5
!
§¦¨
17N 2E17N 3E
-0.4
17N 6E
-8
17N 5E
!
!
17N
17N 1E
17N 3W
17N 4W17N 1W
17N 10W17N 5W
17N 7W17N 6W
17N 8W
17N 9W
11W
17N 2W99
U
V
-3.7
!
!
-7.4
70
U
V
-10.8
-6.9
Live Oak
!
!
-2.2
-3.7!!
!
!16N 3W
45
16N 6E
U
V
-4.5
!-7-6.816N 5E
-10
!
20
U
V
16N
16N 2E
16N 2W
16N 9W16N 1E
16N 8W16N 7W16N 4W
16N 10W16N 1W
16N 6W16N 5W
11W
16N 4E
16N 3E
20
U
V
Colusa
99
U
V
20
U
V
Northern Sacramento Basin Groundwater Subbasins
70
20 U
UV
V
COLUSA
-5.3
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin NameCOUNTYSUTTER
Williams!15N 6E
15N15N 5E
20
U
V 20
U
V
15N 9W
15N 3E
11W Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)15N 1E
15N 2W2020
U
15N 4W U
VV
15N 4E
15N 10W15N 8W
15N 5W
15N 7W
15N 6W COUNTY
15N 1W
15N 2E
Yuba
70
15N 3W U
V
29
U
V
Antelope NA-13.0-6.73 City
20
U
V
99
U
V
70
!
U
V
Bend-6.6
NANANA0
14N 6E
14N 5E
14N 1E
14N 2E
45
U
V
14N14N 4E
14N 8W
65
Butte 0.7-20.9-5.7 14N 3E U
29 12 V
U 14N 2W
11W V 14N 1W
14N 3W
14N 4W
14N 7W
14N 10W14N 5W
14N 6W
99
U
V
Colusa
NA-67.7-16.8
38
20
U
V
20
U
V
14N 9W
20
U
V
20
U
V
-2.7
Corning NA-45.2-28.619
-38.6
-5.1
!
!
!
-10.4
175
U 29
VU
V
!
13N 1E
-14.7
13N 6E
13N
70
13N 5E
Los Molinos U!
1.2-19.5-9.912 V
13N 7W13N 3E
13N 1W
13N 2W
5
11W
13N 3W
13N 5W
13N 6W13N 4W
13N 10W13N 9W
§¦¨
13N 8W13N 4E
65
113 U
UV
V
13N 2E
16
U
281 V
U
V
Red Bluff NA-22.5-13.95
29
U
V 99
U
V
Sutter
NA-10.4-7.14
45
U
V
29
U
V 16
U
V
12N 2E
12N 6E
12N 5E
!12N 3W
12N
Vina NA-23.0-17.511
12N 4E
12N 10W
-11.712N 2W12N 1W
12N 8W12N 3E
11W12N 5W
12N 4W!
12N 7W12N 6W
12N 9W
-6.9
Wyandotte Creek
NA-20.6-9.16
12N 1E113
U
V
101
£¤
-1.4
45
U
V
Summary 1.2-67.7-12.8110
!
65
11N 10W U
99
UV
V
-15.7
2911N 2W
U
V!
11N 3E
11N 7W
11N 9W11N 6W
11N 6E
7.1
11N 5E
-13.6
11N 8W11N 4E
11N
11N 1W!
-7.5
!
11N 5W11N 4W
11N 1E
16
U
V
11W
!
-11
!
113
U
V 11N 2E
-16
101
£¤
!
-8.1
11N 3W
!505
§¦¨
-12.2
-12.2-8
!
-9.9!
!
-13.5-8.4
!
!
STATE OF CALIFORNIA!
10N 9W NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY
10N 1E
10N 6E
113
U
V 10N 5E
10N 1W
-5.4
-7.3
7
29
U
THE RESOURCES AGENCY V!!
-22.8
!
10N 4E!
PLATE 1S-B
-5!
-8.4
16
101
U
V
10N 4W-0.7
10N-15.5
£¤
10N 8W
CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP
70
U
10N 5W-2.8-25 V
7.7
10N 3W!!10N 3E
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
11W
10N 7W16-1.9
-0.7
U!
V!
!
-3.9
10N 6W!!-12.7
!-3.9
-9.2
10N 2E
!
!16
NORTHERN REGION OFFICE U
10N 10W V
!-5.6
16
U
V
10N 2W165
SPRING 2004 TO SPRING 2021 U Date:
V
!
-18.3
9N 6E
§¦¨
1.7
!WoodlandNovember 2021
2440 Main Street
-2.4
!
128
U-10
V!
1139N 5E
U
Red Bluff, California 96080 V
SHALLOW WELL DEPTHS 9N 4E
!
16
80
0.2 U
V
9N
9N 8W
9N 5W9N 1W9N 2E
9N 7W9N 2W9N 1E§¦¨
BY:
9N 4W9N 3W!
9N 6W9N 3E
9N 10W(530) 529-7300
11W-7.7
128
U
V
G. Lewis
(Well depths less than 200 ft deep bgs)!-13.7
!80
§¦¨
9N 9W
!
!
https://data.ca.gov/dataset/northern-sacramento-valley-groundwater-elevation-change-maps
33N 7E
33N 5E33N 6E
33N 3E
33N 2E33N 4E
33N 1W
33N 5W33N 3W33N 2W33N 1E
33N 4W
33N 7W33N 6W
33N 8W
33N 9W
33N 10W
299
U
V
32N 7E
299
U 44
VU
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
32N 6E
32N 5E
!
(
Monitoring Well
32N 4E
32N 3E
32N 1W32N 2E
32N 2W
32N 4W32N 1E
32N 3W
32N 6W32N 5W
32N 9W32N 8W32N 7W
32N 10W
299
U
V
Redding Basin
SHASTA 44
U
V
Redding
3
U
V
Subbasin Boundaries
COUNTY
!
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
2.2
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
Redding/Sacramento
89
U 31N 7E
V
!
44
-2.2
U 31N 6E
V
31N 5E
GW Basin Divide
44
U
V
-11.2 Anderson
0.4-9.1-3.98
-5.6
!
31N 1W
31N 4E
31N 2W
31N 1E
31N 4W31N 3W!31N 3E
31N 2E
31N 7W
31N 8W31N 6W
31N 10W31N 9W
31N 5W
5
44
U
V
44
U
§¦¨V
County Boundaries
Bowman 1.4-10.7-3.75
1
¢
!
273
U
V
Bulletin 118 GW
Enterprise
2.2-11.2-2.73
30N 7E
Subbasin Excluded Areas
89
U
V
30N 6E
30N 5E
!
30N 6W
Millville NA-5.6-3.92
30N 11W
30N 4E
-2.6
30N 3E
30N 1E
30N 2E
30N 2W30N 1W
30N 3W
-0.8
-4
30N 7W
30N 9W30N 8W89
30N 10W U
V
!
!
!
60612
-4
!
South Battle Creek
NANANA0
30N 4W
30N 5W
0.4
Summary 2.2-11.2-3.618
Miles
29N 7E
-1.9
-9
!
!
-9.1
!
29N 2W
29N 6E
29N 5E
29N 3E29N 4E
-10.7
36
U
V
29N 1E29N 2E
!
29N 1W
29N 3W
29N 4W36
U
29N 6W29N 5W V
29N 7W
29N 10W29N 8W
29N 9W
36
U
V
1.4
-4.8
!
29N 11W!
36
U
V
-3
!
172
29N 2.5W U
V
36
U
V
36
U
V
28.5N 3W
NOTES
-1.6
!
36
U
V
36
U
V
28N 6E
28N 5E
28N 4E
Note 1:A positive number indicates that groundwater elevations were higher in the
28N 3E
36
U
V
28N 2E
28N 1E
28N 1W
28N 3W current year than in 2004. A negative number indicates that groundwater
28N 5W28N 4W
28N 6W36
28N 7W
U
28N 8W V
28N 11W
28N 10W28N 9W
elevations were lower in the current year than in 2004.
28N 2W
Note 2:Statistics are based on the number of wells monitored within each
subbasin.
-7.3
32
U
V
!
36
U
V
36
U
V
Note 3:This map may not use all the color ranges shown in table above. Some
36
U
V
wells may not be visible on map due to the close proximity to each other.
Red
27N 6E
27N 2W
27N 5E
27N 4E
27N 3E
27N 2E
!-13
27N 1E
27N 1W
27N 11W Bluff Note 4:Groundwater level changes are based on measurements taken from wells
27N 5W
27N 4W
27N 7W27N 6W
27N 8W
27N 9W
27N 10W
with depths of 100 to 450 ft. Measurements are taken during similar time
27N 3W
periods each year.
-10.6
-9.9
!
!
Note 5:Change in groundwater elevations are based on the actual measured levels of
99
Groundwater Elevation Change
U
V
the hydrostatic level (piezometric surface) of the groundwater at individual well
99
U
V
locations.Contoured color ramping is interpolated from these measurements
5
§¦¨
26N 4W-7.6
and should be considered approximate. The accuracy of the estimated contour
26N 6E
!26N 5E
26N 4E
26N 3E
> 40 feet higher 26N 2E
is directly related to the timing of the measurements, spacing and the distribution
26N 1E
26N 1W
26N 3W
26N 5W32
26N 6W
U
26N 8W26N 7W V
26N 9W
26N 10W
of nearby monitoring wells, well construction, and aquifer characteristics.
26N 11W
-22.5
-24.3
1.2
!
!
Note 6:GW - Groundwater
!
> 35 to 40 feet higher
26N 2W
GWE - Groundwater Elevation
-14.5
!
bgs - below ground surface
TEHAMA
-17.5
> 30 to 35 feet higher
!
25N 6E
25N 4E
25N 2E25N 3E25N 5E
COUNTY
25N 3W
25N 1E
25N 4W25N 1W
25N 6W25N 5W
25N 2W
25N 8W25N 7W
25N 10W
-22.8
25N 9W
-25.6
!
> 25 to 30 feet higher
!
25N
99
U
V
11W
-9
-8.5
!
!
!
70
-42.6
U
!V
-19.5
> 20 to 25 feet higher
!-9.6
!
!
-3.6
!
-15.5
!-32.6!
-7.4
-8.7
-36.7
!-8.3
24N 4W-6.7
-4.3
-45.2
!
!
!24N 3E
!24N 6E
24N 5E
24N 2E24N 4E
-36.8
> 15 to 20 feet higher
-9.9
24N 1E
24N!24N 1W
24N 6W24N 5W24N 2W
24N 7W
24N 8W!
24N 10W
24N 9W
11W
-10.1
Corning
!
-27.2
!
!
-34.6
24N 3W
> 10 to 15 feet higher
32
U
V
23.5N 2E
-31.6
!
!
-30.7
70
U
V
> 5 to 10 feet higher
!
-16.9
-33.2
!
!
23N 6E
23N 4E23N 5E
!23N 3E
-18
-11.7 23N 2E
-29.2
23N 1E
23N 4W
23N!
23N 2W
23N 6W23N 5W-27.7
23N 8W23N 7W
23N 9W
!
23N 10W!
99
11W U
-29.2 V
0 to 5 feet higher-25.8
-6.9
!99
U
V
!23N 1W
23N 3W-19.3
-14.7
!
!
!
-10.4
-21.4
-34.9
162!
U
V
> 0 to 5 feet lower
32!
U-6.6
V
32-30.5
-20.1
U
V
-36.4!
!
!
!
70
22N 1E U
V
-28.6
16222N 1W
U
V
22N 4W
!
22N 3W
-25.1
!
22N 6E
22N 4E22N 5E
22N 3E
> 5 to 10 feet lower
22N 2E
-23.1
22N
32
22N 8W
22N 6W22N 5W U
-20.4 V
22N 7W
!
22N 10W22N 9W-16.9
Chico 32
Orland
U
11W V
!
!
32
U
-42.6 V
162-20.4
U 22N 2W
V!
-9.9
!
191
U
!V
-59.3
-32.7
!
> 10 to 15 feet lower!
-48.9!
-23.6
!
BUTTE
-34.7
!
-9.5
-75.3
-28.4!-17.4
!
162
U!
V!!
21N 2E
GLENN
> 15 to 20 feet lower
COUNTY
-33.8
70
U
V
21N 7W
21N 6E
21N 5E
COUNTY
-12.4 21N 4E
21N 3E
21N
-21.8
!
21N 4W21N 2W
21N 10W99
21N 5W21N 3W
21N 8W21N 6W!U
V
11W
21N 9W
45
U
162
V
U
V
-21.1!
> 20 to 25 feet lower
-22.1
!
!
21N 1E
-9.9-23.6
-32.8!
-24.2 191
U
V
!
!
> 25 to 30 feet lower
-28.4
-6.4
!
!
-67.7
149
!U 20N 3.5E
V
20N 3W70
U
V
20N 6E
-19.9 20N 5E
-11.4
> 30 to 35 feet lower 20N 4E
-63.1
20N 3E
20N162
U!!
V!-0.6
20N 4W
20N 10W20N 7W20N 5W20N 2W
20N 8W
11W20N 6W!
20N 9W
20N 2E
-3.5
0.7
!162
U
-39 V
!
-14.3
> 35 to 40 feet lower-2.2
!
45
U 20N 1E
V
!
!
99
U
V
-30.3
20N 1W
!
-35
162 Willows
U 162
VU
V
> 40 feet lower
!162
U
V
19N 3E
162
U
V
19N 6E
19N 5E
-0.3
162
U 19N 4E
V
19N!
19N 2E
19N 3W19N 1E
19N 4W
19N 8W
19N 10W
19N 9W19N 7W19N 5W
11W19N 6W
19N 1W
19N 2W
6.1
-3-2.8
-10.1
162
U
!!162!V!
U
!V
-3.8
!
0.5
!
-7.1
70
U
V
18N 2W
-12.1
99
U
V
0.3!
!
18N 3W
18N 4W
18N 6E
18N 3E
18N 1W
18N 5E
-4.5
-4.7
!
18N 2E
18N18N 1E
!
18N 10W18N 8W18N 7W
18N 9W18N 6W18N 5W-2.9-6.8
11W
!!
18N 4E
45
U
V-20.6
!
-9.6
!
Gridley
-9.6
-2
5!
!
17N 4E
§¦¨
17N 3E
17N 6E
-1.8
17N 5E
!
17N 2E
17N
17N 1E
17N 3W
17N 1W
-0.2
17N 10W17N 5W!
17N 7W17N 6W
17N 8W
17N 9W
11W-3.1
!
17N 2W99
U
V
-3.7
17N 4W-9.4
!
8.7
!
!
70
U-6.7
V-9
!
Live Oak
-8.4!!
-6.9
-11.6
-10.8
!!-8
!
!
!!
-22.5
-6.9
-7.7!!-6.4
!
!
-9.5
-8.5-6.7
!
-6.9
!!-6.2!
!
!
!
-3.7-8!
45
-7.5 16N 6E
U
V
-6.4
!16N 5E
!-6.8
-10
-6
!
20
-4.5
U
V
16N
16N 2W
16N 2E
16N 9W16N 3W16N 1E
16N 8W16N 7W16N 4W
16N 10W16N 1W
16N 6W16N 5W
-3.4
11W
!
16N 4E
Colusa
16N 3E
!
20
U
V
-8.2
-7.7
!
20
U
V
Northern Sacramento Basin Groundwater Subbasins
99
U-4.8
V
-13.4
20!
U
V
COLUSA
!
-5.3
Williams
-0.5
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
15N 3E
Subbasin Name
COUNTYSUTTER
!!15N 6E
15N15N 5E
20
U
V
-4.5
20
15N 9W
15N 1W U
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)V
11W15N 1E
15N 3W2020
!U
15N 4W UV
V
15N 4E
15N 10W15N 8W
15N 5W
15N 7W
!
15N 6W COUNTY
15N 2E
-6.3
Yuba
70
15N 2W U
V
29
U
V
Antelope NA-13.0-13.01
City
4.2
20
U
V
99!
U
V
-30.1
!
Bend
NANANA0
14N 6E
14N 5E
14N 1E
14N 2E 5.5
!
45
U
V
14N14N 4E
14N 8W
Butte 0.7-6.8-1.4
9 14N 3E
29
U 14N 2W
11W V 14N 1W
14N 3W
14N 4W
14N 7W
14N 10W14N 5W
14N 6W
14
!
2.4
99
U
V!
Colusa
NA-75.3-23.2
47
20
U
V
20
U
V
14N 9W
-5.2
20
U
V
0
!
Corning NA-45.2-28.624
-2.7
-38.6
-7.7
!
-7.5
!
!
!
!
-10.4
175
U 29
VU
13N 2W
V
-5.1
!
13N 1E
13N 6E
13N-10.3
Los Molinos 513N 5E
1.2-19.5-8.515
13N 7W13N 3E
13N 1W!
§¦¨
11W
13N 3W13N 4E
13N 5W
13N 6W13N 4W
13N 10W13N 9W
13N 8W!
65
113 U
UV
-62.6 V
5
13N 2E
16§¦¨
U 70
281 V
U
UV
Red Bluff NA V-25.6-17.29
29-33.8
-8.5
U
V 99
U
V
!
!
45
-25.4 U
V
!
Sutter
NA-10.4-6.65
!
-9.3
29
U
V
-15.7
-19
!!
12N 2E
16
12N 6E
U-22.6
V-6.3 12N 5E
12N 3W
12N
Vina NA-23.6-17.315
12N 4E
!
12N 10W!
12N 2W12N 1W
12N 8W12N 3E
11W12N 5W
12N 4W
12N 7W12N 6W
12N 9W
-6.9
!
Wyandotte Creek
6.1-20.6-8.75
12N 1E113
U
V
101
£¤
45
U
V
Summary 6.1-75.3-13.8130
65
11N 10W U
V
11N 3E
11N 3W
99
2911N 1W U
UV
V
11N 7W
11N 9W11N 6W
11N 6E
7.1
11N 5E
11N 8W11N 4E
11N
!
11N 2W-7.5
11N 5W11N 4W
11N 1E
-2.3
16
U
V
11W
!
!
-5
!
113
U
V 11N 2E
-11
-16
101
-15
£¤
!
-8.1
-20
!505
-25
§¦¨
-30
-4.6
-19.8
!
!
!
-48.5
-22.3
-8.4
-12.2
!
!
!
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10N 9W NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY
10N 1E
10N 6E
113
-14.7
U
V 10N 5E
10N 1W
-6.3
5
!
-5.4-7.3
7
29!§¦¨
U
THE RESOURCES AGENCY V!!
-13.6 10N 4E!
PLATE 1C-B
16
101
U!
V
10N 4W
10N
£¤
10N 8W
CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP
70
U
10N 5W V
10N 3W-25 10N 3E
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
11W
10N 7W16
U!
V-1.9
!
-14.5
!
10N 6W!
16
U
7.7 V
22.6
-12.9-4.3
10N 2E
!
-14
NORTHERN REGION OFFICE
10N 10W!
!!
-12.7
16
U
!V
SPRING 2004 TO SPRING 2021-5.6 Date:
10N 2W
!
9N 6E
16
U
V!Woodland
!July 2020
2440 Main Street
!-16.1
-22.1-2.6
-18.3
128
!
U
V
9N 5E
Red Bluff, California 96080-4.9
-15.9
100 to 450 ft WELL DEPTHS-34.9 9N 4E
!
16
80
U
!V
!9N 1E
9N
-10!
9N 8W
9N 5W9N 1W9N 2E
9N 7W9N 2W§¦¨
BY:
9N 4W9N 3W
9N 6W9N 3E
9N 10W(530) 529-7300!
11W
128-7.7
U!
V-13.7
-9.2
A. Scholzen
(Well depths greater than 100 ft and less than 450 ft deep bgs)!!
-30.9
!80
113§¦¨
U
-10.3
9N 9W V
!
https://data.ca.gov/dataset/northern-sacramento-valley-groundwater-elevation-change-maps
33N 7E
33N 5E33N 6E
33N 3E
33N 2E33N 4E
151
33N 1W
33N 5W U 33N 3W33N 2W33N 1E
V 33N 4W
33N 7W33N 6W
33N 8W
33N 9W
33N 10W
299
U
V
32N 7E
299
U 44
VU
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
32N 6E
32N 5E
!
(
Monitoring Well
32N 4E
32N 3E
32N 1W32N 2E
32N 2W
32N 4W32N 1E
32N 3W
32N 6W32N 5W
32N 9W32N 8W32N 7W
32N 10W
299
U
V
Redding Basin
SHASTA 44
U
V
Redding
3
U
V
Subbasin Boundaries
COUNTY
!
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
2.2
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
5
Redding/Sacramento
§¦¨
89
U 31N 7E
V
31N 6E
31N 5E
GW Basin Divide
4444
-11.2 U
U
VV
Anderson
NA-9.0-4.24
!
31N 1W
31N 4E
31N 2W
31N 1E
31N 4W31N 3W31N 3E
31N 2E
31N 7W
31N 8W31N 6W
31N 10W31N 9W
31N 5W
44
U
V
44
U
V
County Boundaries
Bowman 1.4-3.0-1.13
1
¢
!
273
U
V
Bulletin 118 GW
Enterprise
-1.8 2.2-11.2-2.73 30N 7E
!
Subbasin Excluded Areas
89
U
V
30N 6E
30N 4W
30N 5E
30N 6W
Millville NANANA0
30N 11W
30N 4E
30N 3E
30N 1E
30N 2E
30N 2W30N 1W
30N 3W
-4
30N 7W
30N 9W30N 8W89
30N 10W U
V
!
60612
South Battle Creek
NANANA0
30N 5W
MilesSummary 2.2-11.2-2.710
29N 7E
-1.9
-9
!
!
29N 2W
29N 6E
29N 5E
29N 3E29N 4E
36
U
V
29N 1E29N 2E
29N 1W
29N 3W
29N 4W36
U
29N 6W V
29N 7W
29N 10W29N 8W
29N 9W
36
U
V
1.4
29N 11W!
29N 5W
36
U
V
-3
!
172
29N 2.5W U
V
36
U
V
36
U
V
28.5N 3W
NOTES
-1.6
!
36
U
V
36
U
V
28N 6E
28N 5E
28N 4E
Note 1:A positive number indicates that groundwater elevations were higher in the
28N 3E
36
U
V
28N 2E
28N 1E
28N 1W
28N 3W current year than in 2004. A negative number indicates that groundwater
28N 5W28N 4W
28N 6W36
28N 7W
U
28N 8W V
28N 11W
28N 10W28N 9W
elevations were lower in the current year than in 2004.
28N 2W
Note 2:Statistics are based on the number of wells monitored within each
subbasin.
-7.3
32
U
V
!
36
U
V
36
U
V
Note 3:This map may not use all the color ranges shown in table above. Some
36
U
V
wells may not be visible on map due to the close proximity to each other.
Red
27N 6E
27N 2W
27N 5E
27N 4E
27N 3E
27N 2E
27N 1E
27N 1W
27N 11W Bluff Note 4:Groundwater level changes are based on measurements taken from wells
27N 5W
27N 4W
27N 7W27N 6W
!
27N 8W
27N 9W
-14.2
27N 10W
with depths of 200 to 600 ft. Measurements are taken during similar time
27N 3W
periods each year.
-10.6
!
Note 5:Change in groundwater elevations are based on the actual measured levels of
99
Groundwater Elevation Change
U
V
the hydrostatic level (piezometric surface) of the groundwater at individual well
99
U
V
locations.Contoured color ramping is interpolated from these measurements
5
§¦¨
26N 4W-7.6
and should be considered approximate. The accuracy of the estimated contour
26N 6E
!26N 5E
26N 4E
26N 3E
> 40 feet higher 26N 2E
is directly related to the timing of the measurements, spacing and the distribution
26N 1E
26N 1W
26N 3W
26N 5W32
26N 6W
U
26N 8W26N 7W V
26N 9W
26N 10W
-9
of nearby monitoring wells, well construction, and aquifer characteristics.
!
26N 11W
-24.3
!
Note 6:GW - Groundwater
> 35 to 40 feet higher
26N 2W
GWE - Groundwater Elevation
-14.5
!
bgs - below ground surface
-18.6
-17.8
TEHAMA
!
> 30 to 35 feet higher
!
-20.2
!
25N 6E
25N 4E
25N 2E25N 3E25N 5E
COUNTY
25N 3W
25N 1E
25N 4W25N 1W
25N 6W25N 5W
25N 2W
25N 8W25N 7W
25N 10W
-22.8
25N 9W
-25.6
!
> 25 to 30 feet higher
-
!25
-30
25N
99
U
V
11W
-9
-8.1
!
!
70
-42.6
U
!V
-7.4-9.6
> 20 to 25 feet higher
!
!
-3.6
!
-9.3
!-8.7
!
!-8.3
-6.7
24N 3W
!
!24N 3E
24N 6E
24N 5E
24N 2E24N 4E
-4.3
> 15 to 20 feet higher
24N 1E
24N 4W
24N24N 1W
24N 6W24N 5W24N 2W
24N 7W Corning!
24N 8W
24N 10W
24N 9W
-8.3
11W
-10.1
-34.6
!
-27.2
!
!!
> 10 to 15 feet higher
-10.2
32
U
V
23.5N 2E
70
U
V
> 5 to 10 feet higher
!
-16.9
-27.5
-33.2
!
!
!
23N 6E
23N 4E23N 5E
9923N 3E
U
-11.7 23N 2E
V
-29.2 23N 1E
23N 4W
23N
23N 2W
23N 6W23N 5W23N 3W
23N 8W23N 7W
23N 9W
23N 10W!
11W
0 to 5 feet higher-25.8
-6.9
!99
U
V
!23N 1W
-19.3
-20.7
!
!
-34.9
162
U
V
> 0 to 5 feet lower
32!
U-6.6
V
32-38.7
U
V
!
22N 1E
!
70
-34.9 U
V
!
16222N 1W
U-19.7
V
22N 4W
-27.3
22N 3W!
!
!
22N 6E
22N 4E22N 5E
-15.6 22N 3E
> 5 to 10 feet lower
22N 2E
22N
-10.5 32
22N 8W
22N 6W22N 5W U
V
22N 7W
22N 10W22N 9W
!32
Orland
U
11W V
32
U Chico
V
5
162
U 22N 2W
V§¦¨
191
U
V
-59.3
!
> 10 to 15 feet lower!
-48.9 32
U
V
-23.6
!
BUTTE
!-20.9
-33.8
!-27.1-17.4
-73.4
!
162 35
-
U!
V!!
21N 2E
GLENN
> 15 to 20 feet lower
COUNTY
-75.3
-24.8
70
U
V
21N 7W
!
21N 6E
21N 5E
COUNTY
21N 4E
-25.5 21N 3E
21N
-21.8!
21N 4W21N 2W
21N 10W-22.8 99
21N 5W21N 3W
21N 8W21N 6W!U
45-22.1 V
11W
21N 9W U
V
162!
U-22.1
V-42
!
> 20 to 25 feet lower
!
!
-15
-23.6
!
!
21N 1E
-6.8
-25.6 191
U
V
-24.2!
!!
> 25 to 30 feet lower
-18.6
-17.7
!
-6.7
!
-28.4
-9.9
!
!
!
149
U 20N 3.5E
V
20N 3W70
U
V
20N 6E
-19.9 20N 5E
-38.4
> 30 to 35 feet lower 20N 4E
-63.1
20N 3E
20N162
U!!
V!-3.7
20N 4W
20N 10W20N 7W20N 5W20N 2W
20N 8W
11W20N 6W!
20N 9W
20N 2E
-7.1
0.7
!162
99 U
-39 V
U
!V
> 35 to 40 feet lower-2.2
!
45
U 20N 1E
V
!
!
-14.3
-30.3
20N 1W
!
162 Willows
U 162
VU
V
> 40 feet lower
162
U
70 V
U
V
19N 3E
162
U
V
19N 6E
19N 5E
162
U 19N 4E
V
19N
19N 2E
19N 3W19N 1E
19N 4W
19N 8W
19N 10W
19N 9W19N 7W19N 5W
11W19N 6W
19N 1W
19N 2W
6.1
-3-2.8
-11.7
162
U
!!162!V!
!U
V
-3.8-0.4
!
70
U
V
18N 2W
99
U
V
0.3
-8.2
!
18N 3W
18N 4W!
!
18N 6E
18N 3E
18N 5E
-3.8
-4.5
18N 4E
!
18N 2E
18N18N 1E
18N 1W
18N 10W18N 8W18N 7W
18N 9W18N 6W18N 5W-2.9
11W
!
45
U
V
-0.2
!
Gridley
17N 4E
-9.6
-7.1
5!
-8.3
!
§¦¨
!
17N 3E
17N 6E
-1.8
17N 5E
!
17N 2E
17N
17N 1E
17N 3W
17N 4W17N 1W
-0.2
17N 10W17N 5W
17N 7W17N 6W
17N 8W
17N 9W
11W
!
17N 2W99
U
V
-15.2
!
70
U-6.7
V-9
!
-11.7
-8.4!!
!
-6.9
-11.6
Live Oak-7.7
!!-8
!
!
-22.5
-6.4
!!
!
!
-6.7
-6.2
-7.5
-7.9!
!!!
!-8
45-8.5-6.9
16N 6E
U
V
16N 5E
20
U
V
16N
16N 2E
16N 2W
16N 9W16N 3W16N 1E
16N 8W16N 7W16N 4W
16N 10W16N 1W
16N 6W16N 5W
11W
Colusa
16N 4E
!
20
U
V
-8.2
16N 3E
20
U
V
Northern Sacramento Basin Groundwater Subbasins
-4.8
70
U
V
99
-13.4
U
V
20!
U
V
COLUSA
!
Williams
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
COUNTYSUTTER
15N 6E
15N15N 5E
2020
UU
VV
-4.5
20
15N 9W
15N 3E U
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)V
11W15N 1E
15N 3W2020
!U
15N 4W U
VV
15N 10W15N 8W
15N 5W
15N 7W
!
15N 6W COUNTY
15N 1W
15N 2E
-6.3
Yuba
15N 4E
70
15N 2W U
V
29
U
V
Antelope NA-14.2-14.21
City
20
U
V
70
U
99 V
U
-30.1 V
!
Bend
NANANA0
!14N 6E
14N 5E
-51.3
14N 1E
14N 2E 5.5
!
45
U
V
14N14N 4E
14N 8W
65
Butte 0.7-11.7-3.5
12 14N 3E U
29 V
U
11W V 14N 1W
14N 3W
14N 4W
14N 7W
14N 10W14N 5W
14N 6W
14N 2W
99
U
V
Colusa
NA-75.3-25.4
40
20
U
V
20
U
V
14N 9W
20
U
V
20
U
V
Corning NA-42.6-28.714
-7.5
13N 1E!
175
U 29
VU
13N 2W
V
-13.6
13N 6E
!
13N-16.1-7.6
Los Molinos 5
NA-10.2-7.914
13N 7W13N 3E13N 4E
13N 1W!!13N 2E
§¦¨
!
11W
13N 3W
13N 5W
13N 5E
13N 6W13N 4W
13N 10W13N 9W
-6.4 70
U
V
13N 8W!
65
113 U
UV
-62.6 V
5
16§¦¨
U
281 V
U
Red Bluff NA V-25.6-17.110
29-33.8
-8.5
U
V 99
U
V
!
!
45
-15 U
V
!
-9.3
Sutter
NA-15.2-9.92
!
29
U
V
-21-15.7
!!
12N 2E
16-22.6
12N 6E
U
V 12N 5E
12N 3W
12N
Vina NA-25.5-18.017
12N 4E
!
-14.1
12N 10W!
12N 2W12N 1W
12N 8W12N 3E
11W12N 5W
12N 4W
12N 7W12N 6W
12N 9W
-16.8
!
Wyandotte Creek 12N 1E
6.1-9.6-3.93
113
U
V
101
£¤
45
U
V
Summary 6.1-75.3-14.3113
65
11N 10W U
V
11N 3E
99
29 U
UV!
V
11N 7W
-2.9
11N 9W11N 6W
11N 6E
11N 8W11N 4E
11N
11N 1W
11N 2W
11N 5W11N 4W
-2.3
11N 1E
16
U
V
11W
11N 3W
!
11311N 5E
U
V 11N 2E
101
£¤
505
§¦¨
-4.6
-19.8
!
!
-48.5
!
!
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10N 9W NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY
10N 1E
10N 6E
-22.3 113
-14.7
U
V 10N 5E
10N 1W
-6.3
!
-25.5
29!
U
THE RESOURCES AGENCY V
!
-14.8
-13.6 10N 4E
PLATE 1I-B
16
101!
U!
V
10N 4W
10N
£¤
10N 8W
CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP
70
U
10N 5W V
10N 3W10N 3E
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
11W
10N 7W
16-14.5
U
V
!
10N 6W
22.6 16
-12.9-4.3 U
V 10N 2E
NORTHERN REGION OFFICE
10N 10W!-14
!!
16
U
!V
-22.1 5
SPRING 2004 TO SPRING 2021 Date:
10N 2W
9N 6E
16
§¦¨
U
V
!Woodland
August 2021
2440 Main Street
!
-2.6
-16.1
128
!
U
V
7.2
9N 5E
Red Bluff, California 96080-4.9
-15.92.2
INTERMEDIATE WELL DEPTHS-34.9 9N 4E
16
!U
!V
!-8.2
9N
!
9N 8W80!
9N 5W9N 2E
9N 7W9N 2W
BY:
9N 1E
9N 4W9N 3W9N 1W
9N 6W9N 3E
!§¦¨
9N 10W(530) 529-7300!
11W
-4.7
128
U!80
V
-9.2
A. Scholzen
!
(Well depths greater than 200 ft and less than 600 ft deep bgs)!
-30.9§¦¨
-10.3
113
U
9N 9W V
https://data.ca.gov/dataset/northern-sacramento-valley-groundwater-elevation-change-maps
33N 7E
33N 5E33N 6E
33N 3E
33N 2E33N 4E
151
33N 1W
33N 5W U 33N 3W33N 2W33N 1E
V 33N 4W
33N 7W33N 6W
33N 8W
33N 9W
33N 10W
299
U
V
32N 7E
299
U 44
VU
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
32N 6E
32N 5E
!
(
Monitoring Well
32N 4E
32N 3E
32N 1W32N 2E
32N 2W
32N 1E
32N 3W
32N 6W32N 5W
32N 9W32N 8W32N 7W299
32N 10W U
V
Redding Basin
SHASTA 44
U
V
32N 4W
Redding
3
U
V
Subbasin Boundaries
COUNTY
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
Redding/Sacramento
89
U 31N 7E
V
31N 6E
31N 5E
GW Basin Divide
4444
U
U
VV
Anderson
NANANA0
31N 1W
31N 4E
31N 2W
31N 1E
31N 4W31N 3W31N 3E
31N 2E
31N 7W
31N 8W31N 6W
31N 10W31N 9W
31N 5W
44
U
V
44
U
V
County Boundaries
Bowman NA-14.9-9.72
-3
¢
!
273
U 5
V
§¦¨
Bulletin 118 GW
Enterprise
NA-3.0-3.01 30N 7E
Subbasin Excluded Areas
89
U
V
30N 6E
30N 5E
30N 6W
Millville NANANA0
30N 11W
30N 4E
30N 3E
30N 1E
30N 2E
30N 2W30N 1W
30N 3W
30N 4W
30N 7W
30N 9W30N 8W89
30N 10W U
V
60612
South Battle Creek
NANANA0
30N 5W
MilesSummary NA-14.9-6.33
29N 7E
29N 2W
29N 6E
29N 5E
29N 3E29N 4E
36
U
V
29N 1E29N 2E
29N 1W
29N 3W
29N 4W36
U
29N 6W29N 5W V
29N 7W
29N 10W29N 8W
29N 9W
36
U
V
29N 11W
-4.6
36
U
V
-14.9
!
!
172
29N 2.5W U
V
36
U
V
36
U
V
28.5N 3W
NOTES
36
U
V
36
U
V
28N 6E
28N 5E
28N 4E
Note 1:A positive number indicates that groundwater elevations were higher in the
28N 3E
36
U
V
28N 2E
28N 1E
28N 1W
28N 3W current year than in 2004. A negative number indicates that groundwater
28N 5W28N 4W
28N 6W36
28N 7W
U
28N 8W V
28N 11W
28N 10W28N 9W
elevations were lower in the current year than in 2004.
28N 2W
Note 2:Statistics are based on the number of wells monitored within each
subbasin.
32
U
V
36
U
36
V
U
V
36
U
V
Note 3:This map may not use all the color ranges shown in table above. Some
wells may not be visible on map due to the close proximity to each other.
36
U
V
27N 6E
27N 2W
27N 5E
27N 4E
27N 3E
27N 2E
27N 1E
27N 1W
27N 11W Note 4:Groundwater level changes are based on measurements taken from wells
27N 5W
27N 4W
27N 7W27N 6W
27N 8W
27N 9W
27N 10W
with depths greater than 600 ft. Measurements are taken during similar time
Red 27N 3W
periods each year.
Bluff
Note 5:Change in groundwater elevations are based on the actual measured levels of
99
Groundwater Elevation Change
U
V
the hydrostatic level (piezometric surface) of the groundwater at individual well
99
U
V
locations.Contoured color ramping is interpolated from these measurements
5
§¦¨
and should be considered approximate. The accuracy of the estimated contour
26N 6E
26N 5E
26N 4E
26N 3E
> 40 feet higher 26N 2E
is directly related to the timing of the measurements, spacing and the distribution
26N 1E
26N 4W
26N 1W
26N 3W
26N 5W32
26N 6W
U
26N 8W26N 7W V
26N 9W
26N 10W
of nearby monitoring wells, well construction, and aquifer characteristics.
26N 2W
26N 11W
Note 6:GW - Groundwater
!
-8.4
> 35 to 40 feet higher
GWE - Groundwater Elevation
bgs - below ground surface
TEHAMA
> 30 to 35 feet higher
25N 6E
25N 4E
25N 2E25N 3E25N 5E
COUNTY
25N 1E
25N 4W25N 1W
25N 6W25N 5W
25N 3W
25N 8W25N 7W
25N 10W
25N 2W
25N 9W
> 25 to 30 feet higher
25N
99
U
V
11W
-8.8
-7.3
!
!
70
U
V
> 20 to 25 feet higher
-9.1
!
!
-9.5
!
-8.2
-8.9
!
24N 3W
24N 3E
24N 6E
24N 5E
24N 2E24N 4E
> 15 to 20 feet higher
24N 1E
24N 4W
24N24N 1W
24N 6W24N 5W24N 2W
24N 7W
24N 8W
24N 10W
24N 9W
11W
Corning
> 10 to 15 feet higher
32
U
V
23.5N 2E
99
U
V
70
U
V
-19
> 5 to 10 feet higher!
23N 6E
23N 4E23N 5E
23N 3E
23N 2E
23N 1E
23N 4W
23N23N 1W
23N 6W23N 5W23N 3W
23N 8W23N 7W
23N 9W
23N 10W
11W
0 to 5 feet higher
99
U
V
23N 2W
162
U
V
> 0 to 5 feet lower
32
U
V
32
U
V
22N 1E
70
U
V
16222N 1W
U
V
-46.5
!
22N 6E
22N 4E22N 5E
22N 3E
> 5 to 10 feet lower
22N 2E
Chico
22N22N 4W Orland
32
22N 8W
22N 6W22N 5W U
V
22N 7W
22N 10W22N 9W
32
11W
U
V
22N 2W
32
U
V
5
162-22.7
U
V§¦¨
22N 3W
!
191
U
V
!
32
> 10 to 15 feet lower U
-20.7 V
-19.9
BUTTE
!
-43.4
162
U
V!
21N 2E
GLENN
> 15 to 20 feet lower
COUNTY
21N 1E
70
U
V
21N 7W
-110.5
21N 6E
21N 5E
COUNTY
21N 4E
!
21N 3E
21N-16
21N 4W21N 2W
21N 10W99
21N 5W21N 3W
21N 8W21N 6W!U
45 V
11W
21N 9W U
V
162
U
V
> 20 to 25 feet lower
-8.5
!
-26.8
191
U
V
!
> 25 to 30 feet lower
-12.3
!
149
U 20N 3.5E
V
70
U
V
20N 6E
20N 5E
-49.4
> 30 to 35 feet lower 20N 4E
20N 3E
20N162
U!
V-9.9
20N 4W20N 3W
20N 10W20N 7W20N 5W
20N 8W
11W20N 6W!
20N 9W
20N 2E
162
99 U
V
U
V
> 35 to 40 feet lower
20N 2W
45
U 20N 1E
V
20N 1W
162 Willows
162
U
VU
V
> 40 feet lower
162
U
70 V
U
V
19N 3E
162
U
V
19N 6E
19N 5E
162
U 19N 4E
V
19N
19N 2E
19N 3W19N 1E
19N 4W
19N 8W
19N 10W
19N 9W19N 7W19N 5W
11W19N 6W
19N 1W
19N 2W
162
U
162 V
U
V
70
U
V
18N 2W
-7
!
99
U
V
18N 3W
18N 6E
18N 3E
18N 5E
18N 4E
18N 2E
18N18N 1E
18N 4W18N 1W
18N 10W18N 8W18N 7W
18N 9W18N 6W18N 5W
11W
45
U
V
Gridley
-9.4
17N 4E
5
!
§¦¨
17N 3E
17N 6E
17N 5E
17N 2E
17N
17N 1E
17N 3W
17N 4W17N 1W
17N 10W17N 5W
17N 7W17N 6W
17N 8W
17N 9W
11W
17N 2W99
U
V
70
U
V
-13.5
!
Live Oak
45
16N 6E
U
V
16N 5E
16N 4E
20
U
V
16N
16N 2E
16N 2W
16N 9W16N 3W16N 1E
16N 8W16N 7W16N 4W
16N 10W16N 1W
16N 6W16N 5W
11W
16N 3E
20
U
V
Colusa
20
U
V
Northern Sacramento Basin Groundwater Subbasins
70
U
V
99
U
V
20
U
V
COLUSA
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin NameCOUNTYSUTTER
Williams 15N 6E
15N15N 5E
20
U
V
20
15N 9W
15N 3E U
V
11W Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)15N 1E
15N 2W2020
U
15N 4W U
VV
15N 4E
15N 10W15N 8W
15N 5W
15N 7W
15N 6W COUNTY
15N 1W
15N 2E
Yuba
70
15N 3W U
V
29
U
V
Antelope NANANA0 City
20
U
V
99
U
V
70
U
V
Bend
NANANA0
14N 6E
14N 5E
14N 1E
14N 2E
45
U
V
14N-77.6 14N 4E
14N 8W
65
Butte NA-16.0-12.9 14N 3E U
29 2 V
U!14N 2W
11W V 14N 1W
14N 4W
14N 7W
14N 10W14N 5W
14N 6W
14N 3W
99
U
V
Colusa
NA-110.5-34.6
12
20
U
V
20
U
V
14N 9W
20
U
V
20
U
V
Corning NA-46.5-46.51
13N 1E
175
U 29
VU
V
13N 6E
13N-26.3-9.8
513N 5E
Los Molinos
NA-9.5-8.67
13N 7W13N 3E13N 4E
13N 1W!13N 2E
13N 2W§¦¨
!
11W
13N 3W
13N 5W
13N 6W13N 4W
13N 10W13N 9W
70
U
V
13N 8W
65
113 U
UV
V
5
16§¦¨
U
281 V
U
V
Red Bluff NANANA0
29
-20.6
U
V 99
U
V
!
-13.7
!
-12.1
Sutter
NANANA0!
29
U
V
-30
-19.6
!!
12N 2E
45
U
16
V 12N 6E
U
V 12N 5E
12N 3W
12N
Vina NA-22.7-18.74
12N 4E
12N 10W
12N 2W12N 1W
12N 8W12N 3E
11W12N 5W
12N 4W
12N 7W12N 6W
12N 9W
-18.5
!
Wyandotte Creek
NA-7.0-7.01
12N 1E113
U
V
101
£¤
-25.5
!
45
U
V
Summary NA-110.5-21.427
65
11N 10W U
V
11N 3E
99
29 U
UV
V
11N 7W
11N 9W11N 6W
11N 6E
11N 5E
11N 8W11N 4E
11N
11N 1W
11N 2W
11N 5W11N 4W
11N 1E
16
U
V
11W
11N 3W
113
U
V 11N 2E
101
£¤
505
-22
§¦¨
!
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10N 9W NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY
10N 1E
10N 6E
113
U
V 10N 5E
10N 1W
29
U
THE RESOURCES AGENCY V
10N 4E
PLATE 1D-B
16
101
U
V
10N 4W
10N
£¤5
10N 8W
CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP
70
U
10N 5W V
§¦¨
10N 3W10N 3E
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
11W
10N 7W
16
10N 6W
U
V
16
U
V 10N 2E
NORTHERN REGION OFFICE
10N 10W
16
U
V
SPRING 2004 TOSPRING 2021 Date:
10N 2W
9N 6E
16
U
V
Woodland
July 2021
2440 Main Street
128
U
V
1139N 5E
U
Red Bluff, California 96080 V
DEEP WELLS 9N 4E
16
80
U
V
9N
9N 8W
9N 5W9N 1W9N 2E
9N 7W9N 2W9N 1E§¦¨
BY:
9N 4W9N 3W
9N 6W9N 3E
9N 10W(530) 529-7300
11W
128
U
V
A. Scholzen
(Well depths greater than 600 ft bgs)
80
§¦¨
9N 9W
https://data.ca.gov/dataset/northern-sacramento-valley-groundwater-elevation-change-maps
33N 7E
33N 5E33N 6E
33N 3E
33N 2E33N 4E
151
33N 1W
33N 5W33N 3W33N 2W33N 1E
UV 33N 4W
33N 7W33N 6W
33N 8W
33N 9W
33N 10W
299
UV
32N 7E
299
44
UV
UV
299
UV
299
UV
299
UV
!(
Monitoring Well 32N 6E
32N 5E
32N 4E
32N 3E
32N 1W32N 2E
32N 2W
32N 1E Redding Basin
32N 3W
SHASTA
32N 6W32N 5W
32N 9W32N 8W32N 7W299
32N 10W
UV
44
UV
Subbasin Boundaries
COUNTY
32N 4W
Redding
3 GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
UV
Subbasin Name
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
Redding/Sacramento
89
31N 7E
UV
0.2
GW Basin Divide
!
Anderson
1.4-1.70.17
44
31N 6E
UV
31N 5E
44
UV
0.4
31N 1W
31N 4E
31N 2W
31N 1E
31N 4W31N 3W31N 3E
!31N 2E
31N 7W
31N 8W31N 6W
31N 10W31N 9W
County Boundaries
31N 5W
5 Bowman
44 3.8-1.10.95
UV
44
§¨
¦UV
¢
273
UV
Bulletin 118 GW
Enterprise
NA-0.1-0.11
-0.1
30N 7E
!
Subbasin Excluded Areas
0.2
!
-0.1 Millville
0.4NA 89 0.32
UV
30N 6E
30N 5E
30N 6W!
30N 11W
30N 4E
30N 3E
30N 1E
30N 2E
30N 3W
30N 2W30N 1W
1
60612
30N 7W
1.4
30N 9W30N 8W89
30N 10W
UV
!
South Battle Creek NANANA0
!
!
30N 4W
30N 5W
0.9
Summary
Miles 3.8-1.70.315
-0.8
29N 7E
!
-1.7
!29N 2W
29N 6E
3.8
29N 5E
29N 3E29N 4E
-1.1
36
UV!
29N 1E29N 2E
!1.4
29N 1W
29N 3W
36
29N 5W UV
29N 6W
29N 7W!
29N 10W29N 8W
29N 9W
36
UV
0.3
29N 11W!
3629N 4W
UV
0.1
!172
29N 2.5W
UV
36 NOTES
UV
36
UV
28.5N 3W
36
UV
36
Note 1:A positive number indicates that groundwater elevations were higher in the
UV
28N 6E
28N 5E
28N 4E
current year than in 2015. A negative number indicates that groundwater
28N 3E
3628N 2E
28N 1E
UV
28N 1W
28N 3W
elevations were lower in the current year than in 2015.
28N 5W28N 4W
28N 6W36
28N 7W
28N 8W UV
28N 11W
28N 10W28N 9W
Note 2:Statistics are based on the number of wells monitored within each
28N 2W
subbasin.
32
UV
Note 3:This map may not use all the color ranges shown in table above. Some
36
UV 36
UV
36
wells may not be visible on map due to the close proximity to each other.
UV
36
UV
27N 6E
27N 2W
27N 5E
Note 4:Groundwater level changes are based on measurements taken from wells
-3.7
27N 4E
!
-5.2
0.6
27N 3E
27N 2E
!27N 1E
27N 11W27N 1W
with depths of less than 200 ft. Measurements are taken during similar time
27N 5W27N 4W27N 3W!
27N 7W27N 6W
27N 8W
27N 9W
27N 10W
periods each year.
7
Red
!-2.9
Note 5:Change in groundwater elevations are based on the actual measured levels of
!
-1.9
Bluff
!
Groundwater Elevation Change
the hydrostatic level (piezometric surface) of the groundwater at individual well
99
UV
locations.Contoured color ramping is interpolated from these measurements
99
UV
and should be considered approximate. The accuracy of the estimated contour
5
§¨-1.7
¦
-1
is directly related to the timing of the measurements, spacing and the distribution
> 40 feet higher
26N 6E
!
!26N 5E
26N 4E
26N 3E
26N 2E
26N 1E of nearby monitoring wells, well construction, and aquifer characteristics.
26N 4W
26N 1W
26N 3W
32
26N 6W26N 5W
26N 8W26N 7W-7.9 UV
26N 9W
26N 10W
!
26N 2W
26N 11W
-3.8 Note 6:GW - Groundwater
-0.9
> 35 to 40 feet higher
!
GWE - Groundwater Elevation
!
bgs - below ground surface
TEHAMA
-4.2
> 30 to 35 feet higher
-5.5
!
!
COUNTY
25N 6E
25N 4E
25N 2E25N 3E25N 5E
25N 1E
25N 4W25N 1W
25N 6W25N 5W
25N 3W25N 2W
> 25 to 30 feet higher 25N 8W25N 7W
25N 10W
25N 9W
-1.1
!
25N
99
-1.1
UV
11W-9.6
!
> 20 to 25 feet higher
!
70
99-9.3
UV
-3.8
UV
-8.6
!
!
-3
!!
-1.7!
-11.3
-10.9-9.8
> 15 to 20 feet higher!-1.1
!!
-18.1
24N 3E24N 6E
!24N 5E
24N 2E24N 4E
-15.2
!
24N 1E
24N 4W
24N24N 1W
24N 6W!24N 2W-1.3
24N 7W
24N 8W-0.3
24N 10W
24N 9W
11W
!
!
-1.3
Corning
-2.6
> 10 to 15 feet higher
!
!
24N 5W24N 3W
32
UV
-11.3
23.5N 2E
!
-3.9
!
-11.9
70
!
UV
> 5 to 10 feet higher
-13.9
!
-0.1
-13.6
-11.7
!
!
23N 6E
-5.523N 4E23N 5E
23N 3E
!
23N 2E
-8.2
23N 1E
23N 4W
23N
23N 1W!
23N 6W23N 5W23N 3W23N 2W
0 to 5 feet higher 23N 8W23N 7W99
23N 9W
23N 10W!UV
11W99
UV
-5.5
-11.9-4.9
!
!!
-2.2
!
-2.8
-2.5
!
-12.3
-5.3
> 0 to 5 feet lower
!
162!
!
UV
32
-11
UV
32
0.5-1
4.3
UV
!
!
!
!
70
22N 1E
UV
-12.8
16222N 1W
UV
-12.3
> 5 to 10 feet lower-13.6
22N 3W!
-5.3
!
!
!22N 6E
22N 4E22N 5E
22N 3E
22N 2E
22N22N 4W
32
22N 8W
22N 6W22N 5W-13.5
UV
22N 7W0.8
22N 10W22N 9W
Chico 32
Orland
11W UV
!-22.1
!
-1932!
UV
-8.5
162
-13.4!
UV
!-2.7
> 10 to 15 feet lower
191
-8.6!
UV
-10.5!
-0.3
!!32
UV
!
!
22N 2W
-10.7-5.8
!
BUTTE
-8.4
-9.6
-4.1
-5.3
!
GLENN
-4.5!1.6
> 15 to 20 feet lower
!
COUNTY
162!-0.8
UV
!!
21N 2E
!
COUNTY 70
UV
21N 7W
21N 6E
21N 5E
-4.2
21N 4E
-3.49921N 3E
21N
UV
21N 4W21N 2W!
21N 10W> 20 to 25 feet lower
21N 8W21N 6W21N 5W-3.9
!45
11W
21N 9W
UV
162
UV
3.2
-5.8!
2
!
!2.7
!0.3
!
21N 3W
0.1
21N 1E!
!
0.6
-8.2
!
> 25 to 30 feet lower
-13.3
!
191
!3.1 UV
-0.4
!-1.8
!
-29.7
!
!
149
!
-0.220N 3.5E
!UV
> 30 to 35 feet lower
-28
20N 6E
-0.3
!20N 5E
70
-1
UV 20N 4E
20N1620.4
-1.2
!
UV 20N 2W
20N 4W
20N 3W!
20N 10W20N 7W20N 5W
20N 8W
11W20N 6W
20N 9W!
-0.6
-0.1
20N 2E
1
20N 3E
> 35 to 40 feet lower!
!
1.7
162
!99
UV
UV
-3.5
-17.745!
20N 1E
UV
!
!
20N 1W
> 40 feet lower
-19.7
162
162
Willows UV
-1.3
UV 0.7
!
70162
19N 3E
!UV
1 UV
!
-2162
-7.3!UV
-3.5
19N 6E
19N 5E
162
UV 19N 4E
!
-11.8
!
!
19N
19N 2E
19N 3W19N 1E
!
19N 10W19N 8W
19N 7W19N 5W
11W19N 9W19N 6W
19N 1W
19N 2W
19N 4W
-3.7
162
UV
162
!
UV
-3.9
!
0.4
!
!
4.4
70
UV
-1.5
-7.3
18N 2W
-2.4
-0.4
!
!
99
UV
!
!
0.5
18N 3W
18N 6E
18N 3E
18N 5E
!
-2.4
18N 2E
18N 1E
18N
18N 1W!
18N 4W
18N 10W
18N 9W18N 8W18N 7W18N 6W18N 5W
11W
18N 4E
45-6.5
UV
!
!
-3.2-1.3
-3.4
!
!
Gridley
1.7
-3.1
-2.8
!
17N 4E
5!
!
§¨
¦
0
17N 3E17N 6E
17N 5E
99
!0 UV
4.9!
17N 2E
17N
17N 1E
17N 3W
17N 1W!
17N 4W-8.1
17N 10W17N 7W17N 6W17N 5W0!
17N 8W
17N 9W
11W
!
17N 2W
-1.6
!
!
19.8
-0.6
!
70
UV
-4.5
-3.8
!
!
Live Oak
4.4
2.4
-1.8
!
-2.7
-0.8
!!!
!
!-2.2!
45
-1.3
!16N 6E
UV
!
-3.7-6.416N 5E
!!
-6.1
!1.4
!
!-2.4
20
UV
-1.4
16N
-6.2
16N 2E
16N 2W-3.1
16N 9W16N 3W16N 1E
16N 8W16N 7W16N 4W
16N 1W
16N 10W16N 6W16N 5W
11W
4.8
!
16N 4E
!
16N 3E
20
UV
Colusa 2.9
!
Northern Sacramento Basin Groundwater Subbasins
20
UV
-0.8
COLUSA
70
UV!!
99
UV
20
UV
-0.9
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
COUNTY
SUTTER
5.1
-0.2
15N 4E
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
Williams 15N 6E
!
!
15N 5E
15N
20
UV
COUNTY
15N 9W
15N 3E
11W15N 1E
15N 2W2020
15N 4W UV
UV
15N 10W15N 8W
15N 5W
15N 7W
15N 6W
-0.7
15N 1W
15N 2E
Yuba
!
Antelope 0.6-5.2-2.45 70
15N 3W
UV
3.8
29
UV
!
City
20
UV
-6.3
99
Bend UV
NANANA0
70
!
UV
14N 6E
14N 5E
-0.4
14N 1E
!
Butte 1.7-11.8-0.9 1.3
17
45
UV
14N14N 4E
!
14N 8W
1.7
65
29 UV
14N 2W1.6
11W UV
14N 1W
14N 3W
14N 4W
14N 7W
!
!
14N 10W-4.5
14N 5W
14N 6W
!
13.9
!
14N 3E
Colusa 5.3
3.1-29.7-6.7
50
14N 2E5.1
7
-0.699!
UV
!
9.2
!
!
20
!
UV
-0.5
20
1.1
UV
14N 9W
!
Corning 4.2-18.1-8.326!
20
20
UV
UV
-0.9
-80.3
0.8
!
!!
!-8.5
29
13N 1W
UV
Los Molinos
NA-9.8-3.913
!
175
UV 4.5
13N 6E
13N
13N 1E13N 5E
!
13N 7W13N 4E
13N 2E13N 3E
-0.1
13N 2W5
4.5
11W
13N 3W
13N 5W
13N 6W13N 4W
13N 10W13N 9W§¨
¦
!
-0.3
!70
!
UV
13N 8W
65
1130.3-1
UV
Red Bluff 7.0-7.9-1.97!UV-1.7
!
!!
16
UV
2811.9
!
UV
1.8
!
295.4
UV
99
Sutter
5.4-8.5-0.324 UV
8.7
!
45
UV
29
UV
16
UV
Vina
3.2-5.5-1.616
-1.2
12N 2E
12N 6E
12N 5E
!12N 3W
12N
-0.8-0.312N 4E
12N 10W
12N 2W12N 1W
12N 3E
12N 8W
11W12N 5W
12N 4W
!2.6!
12N 7W12N 6W
12N 9W
3.4
!
Wyandotte Creek
4.4-8.1-2.66
!
12N 1E113
UV
101
£
¤
Summary
7.0-29.7-3.2164
0.7
45
-2.2
UV
!
!
65
11N 10W
99
UV
UV
11N 3E
-9.3
29
11N 2W
UV
!
11N 7W
11N 9W11N 6W
11N 6E
16.6
16-4.811N 5E
UV
11N 4E
11N 8W
11N
11N 1W!-2.1
11N 5W!
11N 4W
11N 1E
-5.6
11W
!
!113
UV 11N 2E
0.4
101
£
¤
!
-2.6
11N 3W
505
!
§¨
¦
13.7
163.5
!
!
0.5!16
0.1
!10N 1W
!
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10N 9W!
NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY
10N 1E
10N 6E
113
UV 10N 5E
13
-2
9.1
8.1
29
THE RESOURCES AGENCY UV
!!8.7
!
10N 4E!
PLATE 2S-E
!
16
101
UV
-0.3
10N 4W16.6
10N£
¤10N 8W
CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP 70
10N 5W7.917.9 UV
3.5
10N 3E
10N 3W!
11W DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES!
16.3
10N 7W165.7
UV
!!
!
7.1
10N 6W14.8
!5.4!
!
5.4
10N 2E
!
!
10N 10W NORTHERN REGION OFFICE
1.3
!
1616
UV
UV
5
SPRING 2015 TO SPRING 2021 Date:
10N 2W
!
9N 6E
16
§¨
¦
UV
0.2
September 2021
2440 Main Street
3.3
Woodland!
128
6.7
UV
!
9N 5E
0
http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/data_and_monitoring/northern_region/GroundwaterLevel/gw_level_monitoring.cfm
Red Bluff, California 96080
9N 4E
SHALLOW WELL DEPTHS
16
!7.1
80
UV
9N9N 1E!
9N 8W
9N 5W
9N 7W9N 2W9N 1W9N 2E§¦¨
BY:
9N 4W
9N 6W9N 3W!
9N 3E
9N 10W
11W(530) 529-7300 7.2
4.4
128
UV
113 G. Lewis
(Well depths less than 200 ft deep bgs)
!
UV
80
!
§¨
¦
9N 9W
!
!
https://data.ca.gov/dataset/northern-sacramento-valley-groundwater-elevation-change-maps
33N 7E
33N 5E33N 6E
33N 3E
33N 2E33N 4E
33N 1W
33N 5W33N 3W33N 2W33N 1E
33N 4W
33N 7W33N 6W
33N 8W
33N 9W
33N 10W
299
U
V
32N 7E
299
U 44
VU
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
32N 6E
32N 5E
!
(
Monitoring Well
32N 4E
32N 3E
32N 1W32N 2E
32N 2W
32N 4W32N 1E
32N 3W
32N 6W32N 5W
32N 9W32N 8W32N 7W
32N 10W
44
299 U
V
U
V
Redding Basin
SHASTA
Redding
3
U
V
Subbasin Boundaries
COUNTY
!
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
-7.4
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
Redding/Sacramento
89
U 31N 7E
V
!
44
U 31N 6E
V
31N 5E
0.2
GW Basin Divide
44
3.6
U
V
Anderson
2.1-1.70.39
!
31N 1W
0.4 31N 4E
31N 2W
31N 3W31N 1E
!31N 2E31N 3E
31N 7W
31N 8W31N 6W
31N 10W31N 9W
31N 5W
5
44
U
V
44
U
§¦¨
V
County Boundaries
Bowman 2.6-1.10.86
273
U 2.3
V
31N 4W
¢
!
Bulletin 118 GW
Enterprise
3.6-7.4-0.53 30N 7E
0.2
Subbasin Excluded Areas
!
89
-0.1 U
V
30N 6E
!30N 5E
30N 6W
Millville
0.4NA0.32
30N 11W
30N 4E
30N 3E
30N 1E
30N 2E
30N 2W30N 1W
30N 3W
1
30N 7W
0.8 89
30N 10W30N 9W30N 8W
U
V
!
!
60612
!
South Battle Creek
NANANA0
30N 4W
30N 5W
0.9
Summary
Miles 3.6-7.40.220
-0.7
29N 7E
0.4
2.1
!
!
!
-1.7
!29N 2W
29N 4W29N 6E
29N 5E
0.2 29N 3E
29N 4E
-1.1
36
U!
V
29N 1E29N 2E
!
1.4
29N 1W
29N 3W
36
29N 5W U
29N 6W V
!
29N 7W
29N 10W29N 8W
29N 9W
36
U
V
0.3
!
29N 11W
36
U
V
2.6
!
172
29N 2.5W
U
V
36
U
V
36
U
V
28.5N 3W
NOTES
1.6
!
36
U
V
36
U
V
28N 6E
28N 5E
Note 1:A positive number indicates that groundwater elevations were higher in the 28N 4E
28N 3E
36
28N 2E
U
V 28N 1E
28N 1W
28N 3W current year than in 2015. A negative number indicates that groundwater
28N 5W28N 4W
28N 6W
36
28N 7W
28N 8W U
28N 11W V
28N 10W
28N 9W
elevations were lower in the current year than in 2015.
28N 2W
Note 2:Statistics are based on the number of wells monitored within each
subbasin.
-1.8
32
U
V
!
36
U
V
36
U
V
-1.8
36 Note 3:This map may not use all the color ranges shown in table above. Some
U
V
!
36
U
V
wells may not be visible on map due to the close proximity to each other.
27N 6E
27N 2W
27N 5E
0
27N 4E
27N 3E
-3.7
!
27N 2E
!27N 1E
27N 1W
27N 11W Note 4:Groundwater level changes are based on measurements taken from wells
27N 5W
27N 4W!
27N 7W
27N 6W
4.3
27N 8W
27N 9W
27N 10W
-0.8 with depths of 100 to 450 ft. Measurements are taken during similar time
Red-2.8
!7
!
27N 3W
periods each year.
!
-2.9
Bluff
0.5
!
!
!
Note 5:Change in groundwater elevations are based on the actual measured levels of
-1.9
Groundwater Elevation Change 99
U
V
the hydrostatic level (piezometric surface) of the groundwater at individual well
99
U
V
locations.Contoured color ramping is interpolated from these measurements
5
§¦¨
26N 4W-1.6
and should be considered approximate. The accuracy of the estimated contour
-1.7
26N 6E
!
26N 5E
!
26N 4E
26N 3E
26N 2E
> 40 feet higher is directly related to the timing of the measurements, spacing and the distribution
26N 1E
26N 1W
26N 3W
32
26N 5W
26N 6W U
26N 7W V
26N 8W
26N 9W
26N 10W
of nearby monitoring wells, well construction, and aquifer characteristics.
26N 11W
-3.8
-7
-0.9
!
!
!Note 6:GW - Groundwater
> 35 to 40 feet higher
26N 2W
4.8
GWE - Groundwater Elevation
!
bgs - below ground surface
1.2
!
TEHAMA
-13.2
> 30 to 35 feet higher
!
25N 6E
25N 4E
25N 2E25N 5E
25N 3E
COUNTY
25N 1E
25N 4W
25N 6W25N 5W25N 1W
25N 3W25N 2W
25N 8W25N 7W
25N 10W
25N 9W
3.8
> 25 to 30 feet higher
!
25N
99
U
V
-1.1
11W
!-2.6
-1.9
!
!
!
70
-9.6
-6.6 U
!V
-0.7
> 20 to 25 feet higher
!
!
3.4
!
24N 3W
-9.3
!-8.6
!
0.8
-1.8
-11.3
-0.6
!
-10.9
!
!
!
24N 3E24N 6E
!24N 5E
24N 2E24N 4E
!Corning
-15.2
> 15 to 20 feet higher 0.6
2.8 24N 1E
-18.1
24N!24N 1W
24N 6W24N 2W
24N 7W
24N 8W
!
24N 10W
24N 9W-0.3
11W
!-4.6
!
-1.2
-1.2
24N 4W!
24N 5W!
!
-2.2
!-10.7!!
-12.6
!
> 10 to 15 feet higher
-2.7
-1.2 32
U
V
23.5N 2E
-11.9
!
-2.8
!
-11.3
70
!
U
V
-1.1
> 5 to 10 feet higher
!
-11.6
-0.1
-2.1
-14.4
!
!
99
!U
!V
23N 6E
23N 4E23N 5E
!23N 3E
23N 2E
-13.6
23N 1E
23N 4W
23N!
23N 2W23N 1W
23N 6W23N 5W-8.2
23N 8W23N 7W
23N 9W
!
23N 10W!-5.5
11W
-9.5
0 to 5 feet higher
-8.2
-0.7
!
-5.1
-10.6
!
23N 3W-0.3
!
!
-5.7-2.2
!
99!
!
U
V
!
-2
-2.5
-5.3
!
-25.8
162!
U
V
> 0 to 5 feet lower
32!
U-2.3
V
32-8.1
U
V 4.3
-4.9-1
!
!
!
!
!
70
22N 1E U
V
-12.8
16222N 1W
U
V
22N 4W
!
22N 3W
-2.5
!-5.3
!
22N 6E
22N 4E22N 5E
22N 3E
> 5 to 10 feet lower
22N 2E
-8
22N
32
22N 8W
22N 6W22N 5W U
-13.5 V
22N 7W 0.8
!
22N 10W22N 9W
Chico 32
Orland
U
11W V
!
!!
32
U
-19 V
162
-8.9
U
V!
-8.2
-2.7
!
191
!
U
!V
-0.8 22N 2W
-0.5
!!
> 10 to 15 feet lower-0.3
!-10.5
-19.8!
-2.9
!
-8.2
!
-6.4
BUTTE
-4.1
!
!-5.3
0.9
-18.5
-4.5!-1.2
!
162
U!!
V!!
21N 2E
GLENN
0.4
> 15 to 20 feet lower
COUNTY
-5.8
!70
U
V
21N 7W 3.4
-2.8
21N 6E
21N 5E
!
COUNTY-4.2!21N 4E
21N 27.11.3 21N 3E
-23.9!
!
21N 2W
21N 4W!
21N 10W
21N 5W21N 3W
21N 8W21N 6W!!
11W
21N 9W
-2.8
162
U
V 99
U
3.2!
V
> 20 to 25 feet lower
11.4
45
U!
V
!
!
1.9
0.6
21N 1E
3.5
-3.3
-8.2!
-6.3 191
U
V
!
!
!
0.4
> 25 to 30 feet lower
!
-3.5-1.8
-0.2
-280
!!!
-29.7
-5.9
!
!149
!U 20N 3.5E
!
V
!-4.7
70
20N 3W
U
V
20N 6E
-0.4
20N 5E
-4
> 30 to 35 feet lower 20N 4E
-39.5
-1
20N16220N 3E
!0.4
U!
V!
!
20N 4W
-0.6
20N 5W
20N 10W20N 7W20N 2W
20N 8W20N 6W
11W!
20N 9W
!
-0.6
20N 2E
!-0.8
1.1
!162
-26.6 99 U
UV
!V
> 35 to 40 feet lower
-1
!
45
U
20N 1E
V
!
!
-2.1
-3.2
!20N 1W
162
162 Willows U
V
U
V 0.7
> 40 feet lower-1.7
!-19.7
162
!19N 3E U
!V
1
!-2.8
-1.4
162
!
!U
-2 V
19N 6E
19N 5E
0
162
!U 19N 4E
V
19N-3.8
!
19N 2E
19N 3W19N 1E
19N 4W!
19N 8W
19N 10W
19N 9W19N 7W19N 6W19N 5W
11W
19N 1W
19N 2W
-2.8-1.8
-3.7
162
U
162 V
!!!
U
V
!!
-2.8
-0.9
!
0.4
!
4.4
70
U
V
18N 2W
-2.4
99
U
V
0.6!
-2.4
!
18N 3W
18N 4W
!
18N 6E
18N 3E
18N 5E
-1.3
-2.4
!
18N 2E
18N 1E
18N
!
0.4 18N 1W
18N 10W18N 8W18N 7W18N 6W
18N 9W18N 5W
11W
!
18N 4E
45
U
V
-6.5
!
-3.4
!
Gridley
17N 4E
2.6
1.3
-3.1
-1.5
!
5!
!
!
§¦¨
17N 3E
17N 6E
-0.4
17N 5E
99
!U
V
4.9
-1.6
17N 2E
17N
17N 1E
17N 1W!
17N 4W
-2.6!
17N 10W17N 7W17N 6W17N 5W
6.6
17N 9W17N 8W
11W
!
!
!
17N 2W-0.5
-0.20.5
-2.3
!
!!
3
17N 3W
19.8
!
-3.2
!
12.5
!!
-8.2
-2.6
-2.3!
!
-0.5!
!
0.1
-3.5-4.2
-1.8
Live Oak
!
!!
!
!!
-18.7-3.5
-5.5!!-1.2
-3.8
!-8.9!
-2.2
-1.4!!-2.7
-2.5!!
4.4!!
!!
!
-2.7-5.6
!
!!-2.9!
-1.5
-0.8!
45
0.90.6!
U 16N 6E
V
!16N 5E
!
!-6.4
-1.3-6.1
!1.4
!-2.1 20
-1.4 U
V
-2
16N
16N 2E!
16N 2W
16N 9W16N 3W16N 1E
16N 8W16N 7W16N 4W-0.5
16N 1W
16N 10W16N 6W
16N 5W
20
11W
70 0.9-1.3 U
V
U
V
!-1.3
-3.9
!
7.42.1
!
!
!
16N 3E
!
-2.4
!
0.1
!
Colusa
2.9
-0.1
!16N 4E
20
U
V
-1.1
Northern Sacramento Basin Groundwater Subbasins
5.1
!
99
-3.7 U
V
20!
U
COLUSA V
!
-5.4
5.1
-0.2
!
15N 3E
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin NameCOUNTYSUTTER
Williams!15N 6E
!
15N 5E
15N
20
U
V
15N 9W15N 1E
11W
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)15N 2W2020
15N 4W U!U
VV
15N 10W15N 8W
15N 5W
15N 7W-0.1
!
15N 6W COUNTY
Yuba
-3.5 15N 1W
15N 4E
-5.6
!
15N 2E
70
15N 3W U
V
3.8
City
29
U
V
!
Antelope 4.3-3.7-1.05
99 5
U
20 V
U
V
!
2.7
-14.4
!
!
-11
Bend
NANANA0
14N 6E
!14N 5E!
14N 1E-0.5
4.4
8.6
!
!
45
U
V
14N14N 4E
14N 8W
65 13.9
8.7
Butte 2.6-3.8-0.7 14N 3E U
29 20 V
U 14N 2W
11W V
14N 3W14N 1W
14N 4W
14N 7W
!
!
14N 10W
14N 5W
14N 6W
-4.5
!
6.3
!5.3
14N 2E
7
!
99
-0.6 U
V!
Colusa 9.7
27.1-39.5-6.3
72!
!
20 5.1
!
U
V
6.4
20
U-0.8
V
-0.2
14N 9W
!!
!
8.9
20!
U
V-1.8
Corning 4.2-25.8-8.036
-0.9
0.3!
-87.1
!
!
!
!
!
-8.5
29
U 5
13N 2W
V
0.8
!
175
U§¦¨
V
13N 6E
13N-6.6
Los Molinos 13N 1E13N 5E
3.4-9.6-1.717
13N 7W13N 3E13N 4E
13N 1W!13N 2E
11W-4.2
13N 3W 1.2
13N 5W
13N 6W13N 4W
13N 10W13N 9W
!!!-0.6
5.7
70
!U
V
13N 8W
65
113
-1!U
-0.2!-0.5 U!V
V
!
!
-21.7
!
16
U
281 V
1.9!
U
V
Red Bluff 7.0-13.2-1.013
!
1.8
29-13.6
-5.2
U
V
-1.6
!
!-7.20
45
-20.9 U
!
V
!
!
8.7
3.5
99
U
-4.3 V
!
!
Sutter
5.7-8.5-0.825!
29
U
V
-13.6-5.8
!!
12N 2E
16
12N 6E
U-19.4
V 12N 5E
12N 3W
12N-3.4
Vina 11.4-5.5-0.323
12N 4E
!
-0.2
12N 10W!
12N 2W12N 1W
12N 8W12N 3E
11W12N 5W
12N 4W!
12N 7W12N 6W
12N 9W
-0.7
!3.4
-0.3
!!
0
Wyandotte Creek
4.4-6.5-1.05
12N 1E113
U
V
101
!
1.3
£¤!0.8
45 1
U
V
-2.2
Summary
27.1-39.5-2.3216 0.6
!
!
65
11N 10W U
V
!
11N 3E
2911N 1W
U
V
11N 7W
11N 9W11N 6W
11N 6E
16.6
11N 5E
11N 8W11N 4E
11N
!
11N 2W
11N 5W11N 4W
11N 1E 3.7-2.1
16
U
11W V 99
!
11N 3W U
5.5
!V
!
113
!
U
V 11N 2E
-5.60.4
101
£¤
!
-2.6
!505
§¦¨
11
!
16
113
U
!
V
16-8.8
12.2
!
!
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10N 9W
NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY
10N 1E!
10N 6E
14.8
10N 5E
6.8
10N 1W
13
-2
!
!8.1
29
U
THE RESOURCES AGENCY V!
!
!
10N 4E
PLATE 1C-E
16
101
U!
V
10N 4W
10N
£¤
10N 8W
CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP
70
U
10N 5W 17.9 V
3.513.4
10N 3W10N 3E
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
11W
15.5
10N 7W
16
U!
!
V
-0.9
!
10N 6W!14.8
!
-0.3
16
-3 U 10N 2E
V-2.1
!
16.3
NORTHERN REGION OFFICE
10N 10W!
!!
1.3!
12.3 16
U
!V
Date:5
SPRING 2015 TO SPRING 2021
10N 2W 2.8
!
9N 6E
16§¦¨
U
V
!Woodland
-2.1
July 2021
2440 Main Street
!
-1.3
6.6
128
!
U
V 6.7
!9N 5E
11.8
0.5
4.3
Red Bluff, California 96080
-2.7 9N 4E
100 to 450 ft WELL DEPTHS
!
16
80
16.7!U
!V
9N!9N 1E
!9N 2E
9N 8W9N 5W
9N 1W§¦¨
9N 7W9N 2W113
U BY:
9N 4W9N 3W V
9N 6W9N 3E
9N 10W(530) 529-7300!
11W 7.2
128 4.4
U
V
A. Scholzen
(Well depths greater than 100 ft and less than 450 ft deep bgs)
!!14.5
!
80
§¦¨
8.1
9N 9W
!
!
https://data.ca.gov/dataset/northern-sacramento-valley-groundwater-elevation-change-maps
33N 6E33N 7E
33N 3E
33N 2E
33N 5E
33N 4E
33N 1W
33N 2W33N 1E
33N 4W33N 3W
33N 7W33N 6W33N 5W
33N 10W33N 9W33N 8W
32N 7E
299
UV
29944
UVUV
299
UV
299
UV
299
UV
32N 4E
32N 6E
32N 5E
!(
Monitoring Well
32N 3E
32N 2E
32N 1W
32N 2W32N 1E
32N 3W
32N 5W
32N 7W32N 6W
32N 9W32N 8W
32N 10W
44
Redding
UV
Redding Basin
SHASTA
32N 4W
3
UV
Subbasin Boundaries 5
COUNTY
§
¨¦
!
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
-7.4
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
Redding/Sacramento 31N 7E
5
-
31N 6E
31N 5E
GW Basin Divide
44
3.6
UV
44
Anderson
3.1 UV NA1.46
!
31N 1W
31N 2W31N 4E
31N 1E
31N 3W
31N 4W31N 2E31N 3E89
UV
31N 6W31N 5W
31N 7W
31N 9W31N 8W
31N 10W
44
UV
44
UV
County Boundaries
Bowman 2.6NA1.34
273
UV 2.3
¢
!
Bulletin 118 GW
0.7
Enterprise
3.6-7.4-0.53
!
30N 7E
Subbasin Excluded Areas
89
UV 30N 6E
30N 5E
Millville NANANA0
30N 11W
30N 4E
30N 3E
30N 1E
30N 2E
30N 2W30N 1W
1 30N 3W
3.1
30N 7W30N 6W
30N 8W
30N 10W30N 9W
!
!
60612
South Battle Creek
NANANA0
30N 4W
30N 5W
29N 7E
MilesSummary 3.6-7.40.713
0.4
2.10.7
!
!
!
29N 2W
29N 6E
29N 5W
0.2 29N 5E
29N 4E
29N 3E
36
UV
!
29N 1E29N 2E
0.6
29N 4W
29N 1W
29N 3W
36
29N 6W!UV
29N 7W
29N 10W29N 8W
29N 9W
36
UV
29N 11W
36
UV 2.6
!
172
UV
36
UV
36
UV
28.5N 3W
NOTES
1.6
!
36
UV
28N 6E
28N 5E
28N 4E
Note 1:A positive number indicates that groundwater elevations were higher in the
28N 3E
28N 2E
28N 1E
28N 1W
current year than in 2015. A negative number indicates that groundwater
28N 10W28N 3W
28N 4W
36
28N 5W36
UV
28N 7W UV
28N 8W
28N 11W
28N 2W
28N 9W
elevations were lower in the current year than in 2015.
36
UV
28N 6W
Note 2:Statistics are based on the number of wells monitored within each
subbasin.
-1.8
32
UV
!
36
UV 36
UV
-1.8
36 Note 3:This map may not use all the color ranges shown in table above. Some
UV
!
36
UV
wells may not be visible on map due to the close proximity to each other.
27N 6E
27N 2W
27N 5E
0
27N 4E
27N 3E
!27N 2E
27N 1E
Note 4:Groundwater level changes are based on measurements taken from wells
27N 1W
27N 5W27N 4W!
27N 7W27N 6W
!
27N 8W
-3.9
27N 9W
4.3
with depths of 200 to 600 ft. Measurements are taken during similar time
Red
27N 11W
-0.8
!
!
-2.8 periods each year.
27N 10W Bluff
27N 3W
!
Note 5:Change in groundwater elevations are based on the actual measured levels of
0.5
Groundwater Elevation Change 99
UV the hydrostatic level (piezometric surface) of the groundwater at individual well
99
UV
locations.Contoured color ramping is interpolated from these measurements
5
§
¨¦
-1.6
26N 4W and should be considered approximate. The accuracy of the estimated contour
26N 6E
26N 5E
!
26N 4E
26N 3E
> 40 feet higher
is directly related to the timing of the measurements, spacing and the distribution
26N 2E
26N 1E
26N 1W
26N 5W26N 3W32
26N 6W UV
26N 7W
26N 8W
26N 9W-1.7
26N 10W
of nearby monitoring wells, well construction, and aquifer characteristics.
!
26N 2W
-7
0
!
Note 6:GW - Groundwater
> 35 to 40 feet higher
26N 11W
4.8
GWE - Groundwater Elevation
!
bgs - below ground surface
1.2
!
TEHAMA
!
> 30 to 35 feet higher 1.3
0.2
!
!
2.7 25N 6E
25N 5E
25N 4E
25N 3E
COUNTY 25N 2E
25N 1E
25N 1W
25N 4W
25N 6W25N 5W25N 3W
25N 8W25N 7W
25N 10W25N 2W
25N 9W
3.8
> 25 to 30 feet higher
!
25N
99
UV
-2.9
11W
-1.8
!
!
!
-6.6
70
UV
!
-0.7
-2.6
> 20 to 25 feet higher
!
-1.8
3.4!
!
0.8
!
-0.6
!
Corning-0.7
-7.3!
!24N 6E
24N 2E24N 5E
24N 3E
24N 4E
!
0.6
> 15 to 20 feet higher
2.8 24N 1E
24N24N 1W
24N 5W24N 4W24N 3W-4.6
24N 6W
24N 8W24N 7W
!
24N 10W
24N 9W
11W!
0
-1.2
-2
-12.6
!
-13.1
!
-2.2
!
24N 2W
!!
!
!
> 10 to 15 feet higher
32
-1.2-2.7
UV
23.5N 2E
-2.8
70
!
UV
-1.1
> 5 to 10 feet higher
!
-11.6
-9.8
-2.1
-14.4
!
!
!
!
23N 4E23N 5E23N 6E
9923N 3E
UV
23N 2E
-9.5 23N 1E
23N23N 1W
23N 5W23N 4W23N 3W23N 2W
23N 8W23N 6W
23N 9W23N 7W
5!
23N 10W
1
-
11W
0 to 5 feet higher
-0.7
-5.1
-6.7
!
!
-0.3
!
!-8.1-0.8
-8.2
!
99!
!!
UV-2
-5.7
!
-25.8
162
UV
> 0 to 5 feet lower
32!-2.3
-3.7
UV
32-4.9
UV
!22N 2E
!22N 1E
!
-8.7
-70
UV
2
-3.8
162 0-11.1!22N 1W
UV
22N 4W
22N 3W
!
!
-2.8
!
!
22N 6E
0.5
22N 4E22N 5E
> 5 to 10 feet lower 22N 3E
32
-3.4
UV
22N
32
22N 8W22N 5W UV
22N 7W22N 6W
22N 10W22N 9W
!Chico
11W
!
Orland 32
--8.9 UV
1
162
-8.2
UV 0
32
UV
-2.9
191
-0.8!
UV
22N 2W 0
!
!
> 10 to 15 feet lower!
-19.8
-8.2
-6.4
!
BUTTE
0.7
!
!
162-5.80.9
-15.6
UV
!
1.9
!
-2
2.6-1.2
!!!
!
21N 2E
GLENN
!
> 15 to 20 feet lower
!
COUNTY
-18.5
2.4
!70
UV
21N 7W
0.4
-2.8
!
1.3 21N 6E
5 21N 5E
1-2.8!
COUNTY
!21N 4E
-23.9 21N 3E
99
!UV
-4.8
21N21N 2W
!3.4
21N 3W
21N 5W
21N 10W21N 8W21N 6W!!5
21N 9W45
27.1
!UV
11W162
3.6
UV
!
5!
> 20 to 25 feet lower
2
1.8
-
!
-28.73.511.4
!
!
!
-
5
21N 4W 6.1
-3.3
-2.8
21N 1E
191
UV
!
!!
0.4
> 25 to 30 feet lower
-6.3
!
10.1!
-7
-3.5
3.7!
20N 3.5E
!
-27.7
!
-4.7
!!
-1.4
0
!!149
!UV
3
-5.9
!
70
0 UV
0
20N 6E
-0.4
20N 5E
-39.55
> 30 to 35 feet lower 20N 4E
162
20N 3E
UV-0.6
!
!
!-0.6
-12.5
20N
20N 3W
20N 4W
20N 5W
20N 10W
20N 6W!
20N 9W20N 8W20N 7W
-13
!
!
11W
-11.6 20N 2E
-0.5
1.1
!
-26.6
!162
UV
20N 2W
-1!
-2.1
> 35 to 40 feet lower
!
4520N 1E
UV
-1.1
!
!
-3.2
!
20N 1W
99
UV
!!
-2.7
162
UV-1.7 162
0.7
UV
> 40 feet lower
162
70
!-2.8
!UVUV
!
19N 3E
162
-5.5
!UV
19N 6E
Willows
-1.4
-0.3 19N 5E
162
!UV 19N 4E
-3.8
!
19N 2E
19N
19N 1E
19N 4W!
19N 5W
19N 10W19N 3W
19N 9W19N 6W
19N 8W19N 7W
11W19N 1W
19N
2W
-2.8-1.8-8.713.5
162
UV
162!
!!!!!
-2.2 UV
-2.8
!
0
-0.1
!
!
-0.9
-
5
70
UV
99
UV
0.6
-0.5
0.6-2
!
18N 4W!
!!
18N 6E
18N 5E
18N 4E
18N 3W
-1.3
18N 3E
!
18N 2E
18N18N 1E
18N 1W
18N 10W18N 8W18N 7W18N 6W18N 5W
18N 9W
11W
!
45
UV
0.4
18N 2W
0.6
!
Gridley
17N 4E
2.4
-2.9
!
5!
!17N 3E
§¦¨
17N 2E
1.3
-0.4
17N 6E
99
UV
17N 5E
70
UV
!
-1.8
0
17N
17N 1E-0.5
-2.6 17N 1W
!
17N 10W17N 7W17N 6W17N 5W 3.8
17N 9W17N 8W
11W!
!
!
-0.2
17N 2W 0.5
!
!!
3
17N 3W
17N 4W
-5
-1.5!
-3.2
5
-
!
5
!!
-8.2
-4.4
!-3.5
12.5
-5.5-0.5!
!-2.6
!0.1
-0.3
!
!!-1.8
!
-18.7!Live Oak!-4.2
-1.2!
!!-2.9
-2.5
1.1
!-1.4!-8.9
-3.5
!!-2.7
!!
-2.2-5.6
!!
0!!
-1.3
-1.5
!!
16N 3W!
-2
45
!
UV 0.90.6 16N 6E
!16N 5E
-2.70
-0.30.9
!
20
-2.1 UV
16N
16N 2E
!
16N 2W
16N 1E
16N 7W16N 4W20
16N 1W
16N 10W16N 9W16N 8W16N 6W16N 5W UV
11W-1.3
!
!
2.1-0.1
16N 3E!
!
-3.9!
-2.4
!7.4
!-1.3
16N 4E
!0.1
Colusa
20
UV
Northern Sacramento Basin Groundwater Subbasins-0.3
5.1
!
-3.7
99
UV
20!
UV
COLUSA
70
!
UV
-5.4
!
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
COUNTYSUTTER
Williams 15N 6E
15N 5E
20
15N-0.1
UV
15N 9W20
UV
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)Yuba City
15N 1E20
15N 2W20
15N 4W!UV
11W UV
15N 4E
15N 10W15N 8W15N 5W
15N 7W
15N 6W15N 2E
!
COUNTY
-3.5
15N 1W
15N 3E
!-5.6
0
70
15N 3W-
UV
5
29
UV
Antelope 4.3-3.9-0.64
99
UV
20
UV-
1
0
!
-14.42.7
5!
!
-11
Bend
NANANA0
14N 2E70
!
UV
!14N 5E!
-0.2
-16.8 14N 1E-
54.4
8.6
!
14N 6E
45!
UV
14N 4E
14N 8W
14N 11W65
Butte 10.1-8.7-0.5 8.7
22 14N 3E UV
29
-13.1
14N 2W
UV
14N 3W14N 1W
14N 4W
14N 7W
!
14N 5W
14N 10W
!
14N 6W 5
!
-0.6
99
6.3
UV
Colusa
27.1-39.5-6.4 9.7
71
!!
!!
2020-0.8
6.4
UVUV
-0.4-0.2
-33.3
14N 9W
!
!
!8.9
20
UV
20
UV
!
-1.8
Corning 0.5-25.8-7.326
!
7.1
13N 1E
!
29
13N 2E
UV 13N 2W
0
7.3
175
UV
13N 6E
-12.8
!
13N 4E
-2.8
13N 11W Los Molinos 5
3.4-2.7-0.614
13N 7W
!!
-4.2 13N 1W13N 5E
§-0.2
¨¦!
113
13N 3W!
UV
13N 4W
13N 10W13N 5W
13N 9W13N 6W-0.6
!-3
!!1.25.7
70
!
UV
0.3
65
13N 8W13N 3E UV
!!
!
!
5
-0.61.7
!
16§¦¨
-2
UV-0.5
Red Bluff 4.8-7.00.112
281
UV
-13.6!
-5.2
29
UV 45 5
UV
!
!0
!
-1.6
!
!
-7.2
3.5
-4.3
-12.7
!
Sutter!
5.7-13.1-1.222
!
6.1
99
29 5 UV
UV-
-15.8-5.8
12N 2E
!
!
-
1
5
-19.4
1612N 6E
UV-4.9
12N 5E
Vina 11.4-5.10.824 12N 3W
-0.2
12N12N 4E
!
12N 3E
12N 1W!
12N 2W
12N 8W
12N 5W
12N 4W!
11W-0.7
12N 10W12N 7W12N 6W
12N 9W
!4.7
!
!
Wyandotte Creek
13.5NA7.42
-5.7
0.8
113
12N 1E
UV
101!
£¤
!
1.3
1
45
5 UV
-
Summary 27.1-39.5-0.9197
!
65
11N 10W UV
!
0.6
11N 3E
29 5.7
UV
!
11N 7W
11N 6W
11N 6E
11N 9W
11N 8W
11N 2W11N 1W
11N 5W 3.7
11N 4W
11N 4E
11N
11N 1E
16
UV
11N 3W 4.4
!
11W
11N 2E
11311N 5E
!99
UV
UV
5
101
£¤
5
§¦¨
11
!
101
£
¤
-8.8 113
UV
12.2
!
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY
!
10N 1E
14.8
10N 5E
10N 9W
6.8
10N 1W
!10N 6E
!
29!
UV
THE RESOURCES AGENCY
16.6
10N 4E
PLATE 1I-E
16
UV 505!
10N 4W
13.4
10N 8W CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP
10N
§
¨¦
10N 5W
10N 3W
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 70
UV
15.5 10N 3E
11W
16
UV 10N 2E
16
UV
10N 7W
!
10N 10W
10N 6W
2.8
-3-0.3
12.3
NORTHERN REGION OFFICE-1.3
!!!
!!
16
-2.1
!UV
6.6
SPRING 2015 TO SPRING 2021 Date:
Woodland
10N 2W
9N 6E
16
UV
!
August 2021
2440 Main Street
-1.3
!
128
!
UV 16.7
-2.1
2
!11.8
4.3
Red Bluff, California 96080-2.7
-3.9
113
INTERMEDIATE WELL DEPTHS 9N 1W
9N 4E
UV 16
!UV 9N 5E
!
!
!
9N 8W!
80
9N9N 7W BY:
9N 5W9N 3E
9N 1E9N 2E
9N 2W
9N 4W9N 3W
!§¦¨
(530) 529-7300 9N 6W 8.1
128
9N 10W
UV
11W80
A. Scholzen
(Well depths greater than 200 ft and less than 600 ft deep bgs)
!
!
14.5§¦¨
20.7
9N 9W
https://data.ca.gov/dataset/northern-sacramento-valley-groundwater-elevation-change-maps
33N 7E
33N 5E33N 6E
33N 3E
33N 2E33N 4E
151
33N 1W
33N 5W U 33N 3W33N 2W33N 1E
V 33N 4W
33N 7W33N 6W
33N 8W
33N 9W
33N 10W
299
U
V
32N 7E
299
U 44
VU
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
32N 6E
32N 5E
!
(
Monitoring Well
32N 4E
32N 3E
32N 1W32N 2E
32N 2W
32N 1E
32N 3W
32N 6W32N 5W
32N 9W32N 8W32N 7W299
32N 10W U
V
Redding Basin
SHASTA 44
U
V
32N 4W
Redding
3
U
V
Subbasin Boundaries
COUNTY
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
Redding/Sacramento
89
U 31N 7E
V
31N 6E
31N 5E
GW Basin Divide
4444
U
U
VV
Anderson
NA-0.4-0.41
31N 1W
31N 4E
31N 2W
31N 1E
31N 4W31N 3W31N 3E
31N 2E
31N 7W
31N 8W31N 6W
31N 10W31N 9W
31N 5W
5
44
U
V
44
U
§¦¨V
County Boundaries
Bowman 2.8NA1.53
¢
273
U
V
Bulletin 118 GW
Enterprise
NANANA0 30N 7E
Subbasin Excluded Areas
89
U
V
30N 6E
30N 5E
30N 6W
Millville NANANA0
30N 11W
30N 4E
30N 3E
30N 1E
30N 2E
30N 2W30N 1W
30N 3W
30N 4W
30N 7W
30N 9W30N 8W89
30N 10W U
V
60612
South Battle Creek
NANANA0
30N 5W
MilesSummary 2.8-0.40.64
29N 7E
!
-0.4
29N 2W
29N 4W29N 6E
29N 5E
29N 3E29N 4E
36
U
V
29N 1E29N 2E
1.1
29N 1W
29N 3W
36
U
29N 6W29N 5W V
!
29N 7W
29N 10W29N 8W
29N 9W
36
U
V
29N 11W
0.6
36
U
V 2.8
!
!
172
29N 2.5W U
V
36
U
V
36
U
V
28.5N 3W
NOTES
36
U
V
36
U
V
28N 6E
28N 5E
28N 4E
Note 1:A positive number indicates that groundwater elevations were higher in the
28N 3E
36
U
V
28N 2E
28N 1E
28N 1W
28N 3W current year than in 2015. A negative number indicates that groundwater
28N 5W28N 4W
28N 6W36
28N 7W
U
28N 8W V
28N 11W
28N 10W28N 9W
elevations were lower in the current year than in 2015.
28N 2W
Note 2:Statistics are based on the number of wells monitored within each
subbasin.
32
U
V
36
U
36
V
U
V
36
U
V
Note 3:This map may not use all the color ranges shown in table above. Some
wells may not be visible on map due to the close proximity to each other.
36
U
V
27N 6E
27N 2W
27N 5E
27N 4E
27N 3E
27N 2E
27N 1E
27N 1W
27N 11W Note 4:Groundwater level changes are based on measurements taken from wells
27N 5W
27N 4W
27N 7W27N 6W
27N 8W
27N 9W
27N 10W
with depths greater than 600 ft. Measurements are taken during similar time
Red 27N 3W
periods each year.
Bluff
Note 5:Change in groundwater elevations are based on the actual measured levels of
!
-1.5
Groundwater Elevation Change
the hydrostatic level (piezometric surface) of the groundwater at individual well
99
U
V
99
U
V
locations.Contoured color ramping is interpolated from these measurements
and should be considered approximate. The accuracy of the estimated contour
26N 6E
26N 5E
26N 4E
26N 3E
> 40 feet higher 26N 2E
is directly related to the timing of the measurements, spacing and the distribution
26N 1E
26N 4W
26N 1W
26N 3W
26N 5W32
26N 6W
U
26N 8W26N 7W V
26N 9W
26N 10W
of nearby monitoring wells, well construction, and aquifer characteristics.
26N 2W
26N 11W
Note 6:GW - Groundwater
!
-2.9
> 35 to 40 feet higher
GWE - Groundwater Elevation
bgs - below ground surface
-12
!
TEHAMA
> 30 to 35 feet higher
25N 6E
25N 4E
25N 2E25N 3E25N 5E
COUNTY
25N 1E
25N 4W25N 1W
25N 6W25N 5W
25N 2W
25N 8W25N 7W
25N 10W
25N 9W
25N 3W
> 25 to 30 feet higher
25N
99
U
V
11W
-2.1
!
!
70
99 U
V
U
V
-2.7
> 20 to 25 feet higher
-2.1
!
!
-2.5
-1.3
!
24N 3W
24N 3E
24N 6E
24N 5E
24N 2E24N 4E
> 15 to 20 feet higher
-2.7
24N 1E
24N 4W
24N24N 1W
24N 6W24N 5W24N 2W
24N 7W
24N 8W
!
24N 10W
24N 9W
11W
Corning
-3.8
!
-6.2
!
!
> 10 to 15 feet higher-16
32
U
V
23.5N 2E
70
U
V
-2.9
> 5 to 10 feet higher!
-5.9
!
23N 6E
23N 4E23N 5E
9923N 3E
U
23N 2E
V
23N 1E
23N 4W
23N23N 1W
23N 2W
23N 6W23N 5W
23N 8W23N 7W
23N 9W
23N 3W
23N 10W
11W99
U
V
0 to 5 feet higher
-3.4
-2.9!
!-2.2
!
-3
!
-2.6
!
162
U
V
> 0 to 5 feet lower
32
U
V
32
U
V-3.2-2.9
22N 1E
!
!
70
U
V
16222N 1W
U
V-2.7
22N 3W
-1.4
!
!
22N 6E
22N 4E22N 5E
22N 3E
> 5 to 10 feet lower
22N 2E
22N22N 4W
32
22N 8W
22N 6W22N 5W U
12.9-2.8 V
22N 7W
22N 10W22N 9W
Chico 32
U
11W V
!
!
32
U
V
162
U-3.7
V
0.6
!
191
!-1.9
U
V
22N 2W
!
0.9!
-3.6 32
> 10 to 15 feet lower!U
V
Orland
!
-0.3
-1.8
!
-6.1
-0.9 BUTTE
!
!
-16.4
-1.4
162
U!
V!
21N 2E
GLENN
4.5
> 15 to 20 feet lower
COUNTY
-2
!70
U
!V
21N 7W 3.5
21N 6E
21N 5E
-2!
COUNTY
!21N 4E
21N 3E
21N
21N 4W21N 2W
21N 10W
21N 5W21N 3W
21N 8W21N 6W!
45
11W
21N 9W U
V
162-2.4
U
V 99
U
V
> 20 to 25 feet lower
!
0.8
1.7
21N 1E
!
-0.6
191
U
V
!
-21.6
> 25 to 30 feet lower
!
1.9
!
-19.2
!149
U 20N 3.5E
V
20N 3W70
U
V
20N 6E
20N 5E
-9.1
> 30 to 35 feet lower 20N 4E
20N 3E
20N162
U!
V-0.9
20N 4W
20N 10W20N 7W20N 5W20N 2W
20N 8W
11W20N 6W!
20N 9W
20N 2E
162
U
V
> 35 to 40 feet lower
45
U 20N 1E
V
20N 1W
162 Willows
U 162
VU 0.1
-16.1 V
> 40 feet lower
162
U
70 V
!
99 U
!V
U
19N 3E
V
162
U
V
19N 6E
19N 5E
162
U 19N 4E
V
-2
19N!
19N 2E
19N 3W19N 1E
19N 4W!-0.3
19N 8W
19N 10W
19N 9W19N 7W19N 5W
11W19N 6W
19N 1W
19N 2W
162
U
162!V
U
V
-0.1
70
U
V
18N 2W-0.1
!
99
U
V
-4.9
18N 3W
!
18N 6E
18N 3E
18N 5E
18N 4E
18N 2E
18N18N 1E
18N 4W18N 1W
18N 10W18N 8W18N 7W
18N 9W18N 6W18N 5W
11W
45
U
V
-0.4
!
Gridley
-0.3
-1.9
-3.7
!
!17N 4E
5
!
§¦¨
17N 3E
17N 6E
17N 5E
-0.7
99
U
17N 2E V
17N
17N 1E
17N 3W!
17N 4W17N 1W
17N 10W17N 5W
17N 7W17N 6W
17N 8W
17N 9W
11W
-0.7
17N 2W
!
-1.7
!
70
U
V
-5
!
Live Oak
-0.6
45
16N 6E
-5.3 U
V
!16N 5E
!16N 4E
20
U
V
16N
16N 2E
16N 2W
16N 9W16N 3W16N 1E
16N 8W16N 7W16N 4W
16N 10W16N 1W
16N 6W16N 5W
11W
16N 3E
20
U
V
Colusa
20
U
V
-0.5
Northern Sacramento Basin Groundwater Subbasins
70
!
U
V
99
U
V
20
U
V
COLUSA
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin NameCOUNTYSUTTER
Williams 15N 6E
15N15N 5E
20
U
V
20
15N 9W
15N 3E U
V
11W Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)15N 1E
15N 2W2020
U
15N 4W U
VV
15N 4E
15N 10W15N 8W
15N 5W
15N 7W
15N 6W COUNTY
15N 1W
15N 2E
Yuba
70
15N 3W U
V
29
U
V
Antelope NANANA0 City
20
U
V
99
U
V
-4.3
70
U
V
!
Bend
NANANA0
14N 6E
14N 5E
-0.4
14N 1E
14N 2W!
45
U
V
14N14N 4E
-20.1
14N 8W
65
Butte 0.1-2.4-1.1 14N 3E U
29 11 V
U!
11W V 14N 1W
14N 4W
14N 7W
14N 10W14N 5W
14N 6W
14N 3W
14N 2E
99
U
V
Colusa
12.9-21.6-5.7
25
20
U
V
-2.4
20
U
V
14N 9W
!
20
U
V
20
U
V
Corning NA-16.0-4.411
!
0.9
175
U 29
VU
V
13N 6E
13N-6.5
5-1.9 13N 5E
Los Molinos 13N 1E
NA-3.8-2.58
13N 7W13N 3E
13N 1W!13N 2E
13N 2W§¦¨
!
11W
13N 3W
13N 5W
13N 6W13N 4W
13N 10W13N 9W
70
U
V
13N 8W
65
113 2.8 U
UV
V
5
!13N 4E
16§¦¨
U
281 V
U
V
Red Bluff NA-12.0-6.82
29
-5.4
U
V 99
U
V
7.2
!
!
5.3
1.6
!
Sutter
2.8-1.7-0.36!
29
U
V
-19.1
-4.9
!!
0
12N 2E
45
U
16
V 12N 6E
U
V 12N 5E
12N 3W
12N
Vina 4.5-3.6-0.311
12N 4E
-1
12N 10W
12N 2W12N 1W
12N 8W12N 3E
11W12N 5W
12N 4W!
12N 7W12N 6W
12N 9W
4
-2.8
!!
Wyandotte Creek
NA-0.1-0.11
12N 1E-5 113
U
V
101
£¤
-7.8
!
4.6
45
U 2.1
V
Summary 12.9-21.6-2.775
!
!
65
11N 10W U
V
11N 3E
29
U
V 99
U
V
11N 7W
11N 9W11N 6W
11N 6E
11N 5E
11N 8W11N 4E
11N
11N 1W
11N 2W
11N 5W11N 4W
16
U
V
11W
11N 3W
7.3
11N 1E
113
!
U
V 11N 2E
101
£¤
505
16.2
§¦¨
!
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10N 9W NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY
10N 1E
10N 6E
113
U
V 10N 5E
10N 1W
29
U
THE RESOURCES AGENCY V
10N 4E
PLATE 1D-E
16
101
U
V
10N 4W
10N
£¤5
10N 8W
CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP
70
U
10N 5W V
§¦¨
10N 3W10N 3E
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
11W
10N 7W
2.5
16
10N 6W
U
V
!
16
3.5
U
V 10N 2E
NORTHERN REGION OFFICE
10N 10W
!
16
U
V
SPRING 2015 TO SPRING 2021 Date:
10N 2W
9N 6E
16
U
V
Woodland
July 2021
2440 Main Street
128
U
V
1139N 5E
U
Red Bluff, California 96080 V
DEEP WELLS 9N 4E
16
80
U
V
9N
9N 8W
9N 5W9N 1W9N 2E
9N 7W9N 2W9N 1E§¦¨
BY:
9N 4W9N 3W
9N 6W9N 3E
9N 10W(530) 529-7300
11W
128
U
V
A. Scholzen
(Well depths greater than 600 ft bgs)
80
§¦¨
9N 9W
https://data.ca.gov/dataset/northern-sacramento-valley-groundwater-elevation-change-maps
33N 7E
33N 5E33N 6E
33N 3E
33N 2E33N 4E
151
33N 1W
33N 5W33N 3W33N 2W33N 1E
UV 33N 4W
33N 7W33N 6W
33N 8W
33N 9W
33N 10W
299
UV
32N 7E
299
44
UV
UV
299
UV
299
UV
299
UV
32N 6E
32N 5E
!(
Monitoring Well
32N 4E
32N 3E
32N 1W32N 2E
32N 2W
32N 1E
32N 3W
32N 6W32N 5W
32N 9W32N 8W32N 7W299
32N 10W
UV
44
UV
Redding Basin
SHASTA
32N 4W
Redding
3
UV
Subbasin Boundaries
COUNTY
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
Redding/Sacramento
89
31N 7E
UV
44
31N 6E
UV
31N 5E
GW Basin Divide
44
UV
Anderson
1.8-4.4-2.19
31N 1W
31N 4E
31N 2W
31N 1E
31N 4W31N 3W31N 3E
31N 2E
31N 7W
31N 8W31N 6W
31N 10W31N 9W
31N 5W
5
44
UV
44
§¨
¦UV
County Boundaries
Bowman NA-4.8-3.43
¢
273
UV
Bulletin 118 GW
Enterprise
NANANA0 30N 7E
Subbasin Excluded Areas
!
89
UV
30N 6E
-2.2
30N 5E
!
30N 6W
Millville NANANA0
30N 11W
30N 4E
-1.1 30N 3E
30N 1E
30N 2E
30N 2W30N 1W
30N 3W
30N 7W
-3.5
89
30N 10W30N 9W30N 8W
UV
!
60612!
-3.7
!
South Battle Creek
NANANA0
-2.3
30N 5W
-4.4
30N 4W
!
1.8
!
Summary
Miles 1.8-4.8-2.812
0
29N 7E
695215.123495
!
-3.6
!29N 2W
29N 6E
-2.8
29N 5E
29N 3E29N 4E
36
UV!
29N 1E29N 2E
-2.6
29N 1W
29N 3W
36
29N 5W UV
29N 6W
29N 7W!
29N 10W29N 8W
29N 9W
36
UV
29N 11W
3629N 4W
UV
-4.8
!172
29N 2.5W
UV
36
UV
36
UV
28.5N 3W
NOTES
36
UV
36
UV
28N 6E
28N 5E
28N 4E
28N 3E
3628N 2E
28N 1E
UV Note 1:A positive number indicates that groundwater elevations were higher in the
28N 1W
28N 3W
28N 5W28N 4W
28N 6W36
28N 7W
28N 8W UV
28N 11W
28N 10W28N 9W
current year than the previous year. A negative number indicates that
28N 2W
groundwater elevations were lower in the current year than in the previous year.
Note 2:Statistics are based on the number of wells monitored within each
32
UV
36
subbasin.
UV 36
UV
36
UV
36
Note 3:This map may not use all the color ranges shown in table above. Some
UV
27N 6E
27N 2W
27N 5E
27N 4E
wells may not be visible on map due to the close proximity to each other.
27N 3E
27N 2E
-7.6
!27N 1E
27N 11W27N 1W
27N 5W27N 4W
27N 7W27N 6W
-0.6
!
27N 8W
27N 9W
27N 10W
Note 4:Groundwater level changes are based on measurements taken from wells
-6
!
with depths of less than 200 ft. Measurements are taken during similar time
Red 27N 3W
!
-0.8
periods each year.
-2.4
Bluff
!
Groundwater Elevation Change
99
Note 5:Change in groundwater elevations are based on the actual measured levels of
UV
99
UV the hydrostatic level (piezometric surface) of the groundwater at individual well
5
§¨
¦
locations.Contoured color ramping is interpolated from these measurements
-0.7
26N 6E
!26N 5E
> 40 feet higher 26N 4E
26N 3E
and should be considered approximate. The accuracy of the estimated contour
26N 2E
26N 1E
26N 4W
26N 1W
26N 3W
32
26N 6W26N 5W
26N 8W26N 7W-2.3 UV
26N 9W
26N 10W
is directly related to the timing of the measurements, spacing and the distribution
!
26N 2W
TEHAMA
26N 11W
of nearby monitoring wells, well construction, and aquifer characteristics.
-0.1
> 35 to 40 feet higher
!
COUNTY
Note 6:GW - Groundwater
GWE - Groundwater Elevation
bgs - below ground surface
> 30 to 35 feet higher-5.8
!
-2-9.2
25N 6E
25N 4E
25N 2E25N 5E
25N 3W25N 3E
!!
!
-5.9 25N 1E
25N 4W25N 1W
25N 6W
!25N 2W
!
25N 8W25N 7W
25N 10W-0.7
25N 9W
-8.3
> 25 to 30 feet higher
-1.1
!
25N 5W
25N
99
-1.3
UV
11W
!
!
70
> 20 to 25 feet higher 99-3.1
UV
0.5
UV
-0.9
!
!
-4.6
-11.1
24N 3W
!
!!
24N 3E24N 6E
> 15 to 20 feet higher!24N 5E
24N 2E24N 4E
-4.2
24N 1E
24N 4W-10.7
24N24N 1W
24N 6W24N 5W24N 2W
24N 7W
24N 8W
24N 10W
24N 9W
11W
-2.4
Corning
!
> 10 to 15 feet higher
32
UV
-9.3
23.5N 2E
!
-4.6
!
-9.1 70
!
UV
-8.5-14.1
> 5 to 10 feet higher
!
!
-9.1
!
-11.6
-6
!
-9.2 23N 4E23N 5E23N 6E
23N 3E
!
23N 2E
-13.4 23N 1E
23N 4W
23N
23N 1W!
23N 6W23N 5W23N 3W23N 2W
23N 8W23N 7W99
23N 9W
23N 10W!UV
11W
0 to 5 feet higher
-6.4
-11.5
!
!
-3.8
99
UV
!
-1.9
!
-12
-8.3
!
-2
-0.6
> 0 to 5 feet lower
162!
!
UV
32
!-6.6
UV
32
-1.4-4.7
UV-11.7
!
!!
!
70
22N 1E
UV
162 1.4 22N 1W
5.5
UV
-1.1
-16.1
22N 3W
!
!
> 5 to 10 feet lower!
!22N 6E
22N 5E
22N 4E
22N 2E22N 3E
-22.9
22N
22N 4W32
22N 8W
22N 6W
22N 5W UV
22N 7W-14.3
32
22N 10W
22N 9W
Orland UV
!
11W
-8.6
!
32!
Chico
UV
5
162
-4.3!
UV§¨22N 2W
¦-3.9
191
!
UV
-26.4!
> 10 to 15 feet lower
-11
!!
-10.4
32
!UV
!
-0.2-7.7
-12.2
-15.1
-16.4 BUTTE
!
!-1
!
162-9.4
UV
> 15 to 20 feet lower!
21N 2E
GLENN
!
COUNTY
21N 1E
70
UV
21N 7W
21N 6E
21N 5E
-2.5
COUNTY
21N 4E
-9.8 21N 3E
21N
21N 4W21N 2W!
21N 10W
21N 3W
21N 6W21N 5W
21N 8W!45-2.4
11W
21N 9W
UV
162
> 20 to 25 feet lower
UV
-7.5
-9.1!
99
UV
!
!
!-3
!
!
-9.3
-4.7-5.3!
-10.6
-11.4
!
695215.123495
-8.4!
> 25 to 30 feet lower
191
!UV
-1
-1.6
!
-12.3
!
149
!
20N 3.5E
UV
-4.4
20N 6E
> 30 to 35 feet lower
!!-5.6
20N 5E
70
-0.1
UV 20N 4E
20N162-0.8
-6.5
!
UV 20N 2W
20N 4W
20N 3W!
20N 10W20N 7W20N 5W
20N 8W
11W20N 6W
20N 9W!
0.9
20N 2E
0.8
20N 3E
!
0.1 162
> 35 to 40 feet lower!99
UV
UV
-2.9
-8.7 45!
20N 1E
UV
!
!
20N 1W
> 40 feet lower
162
162
Willows UV
0.5
UV-2.5
-3.1 70162
!19N 3E UV
UV
!
!-1.3 162
-3
-1 UV
19N 6E
19N 5E
162
UV 19N 4E
!
!4.9
!
19N
19N 2E
19N 3W19N 1E
!
19N 8W
19N 10W19N 7W19N 5W
11W19N 9W19N 6W19N 4W
19N 1W
19N 2W
-3.3
162
162 UV
!
UV
!
-0.6
70
UV
-1.3
18N 2W
-5.1
-1.5
!
99
UV
!
!
-0.6
18N 3W
45
18N 6E
UV 18N 3E
18N 1W
18N 5E
!
-4
18N 2E
18N 1E
18N
!
18N 4W-3.2
18N 10W
18N 9W18N 8W18N 7W18N 6W18N 5W
11W
!
18N 4E
2.2
!
1.2-2.7
-0.8
!
!
!
Gridley
0.4 17N 4E
-3.4
-1.1
!
!
!
17N 3E
-0.4
17N 6E
17N 5E
99
!UV
-0.6
17N 2E
17N
17N 1E
17N 1W!
17N 4W
17N 10W17N 7W17N 6W17N 5W-6.5!
17N 9W17N 8W
11W
17N 2W
-12.5
!
-1.6
0.7
!
17N 3W
70
!UV-2.6
!
-3.8
-8.8
!
!
Live Oak
-11.7
!
-1.3
-0.6
!
45!
!16N 6E
UV
16N 5E
!!
-2.6
!
-16.4
-19 20
UV
16N
-6.1
16N 2E
16N 2W
16N 9W-3.7 16N 1E
16N 8W16N 7W16N 4W
16N 1W
16N 10W16N 6W
16N 5W
11W
!
16N 4E
16N 3E
16N 3W
Colusa
-6
-3.9
20
!UV
!
20
UV
-1
Northern Sacramento Basin Groundwater Subbasins
-2.4
!
70
UV!!
99
UV
-1.4
COLUSA
20
-0.8
-3.6
UV
!
!
-0.6
-2.5
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin NameCOUNTYSUTTER
Williams 15N 6E
!
!
15N 5E
15N
20
UV
-8.5
15N 9W
15N 3E
11W
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)15N 2W2015N 1E20
15N 4W
UVUV
15N 10W15N 8W!
15N 5W
15N 7W
15N 4E
15N 6W
-0.7 COUNTY
15N 1W
15N 2E
Yuba
!
70
15N 3W
UV
-8
29
UV
!
AntelopeCity
NA-7.6-3.03
20
UV
-0.9
99
UV
70
!
UV
Bend
NANANA0 0
14N 6E
14N 5E
!
-1.5
14N 1E
14N 2E
!
-1
-1
45
UV
14N14N 4E
!
14N 8W
-5.3
!65-11.5
Butte
29 4.9-11.0-2.420 UV
-5.3
11W UV 14N 2W
14N 1W
14N 3W
14N 4W
14N 7W
!
!
14N 10W 0.2
14N 5W
14N 6W!
!
14N 3E
-7.9
-7.4
99!
UV
!
Colusa-13
2.2-26.4-4.8
39!
-0.1
!
20
!
UV
-0.7
-9.1
20
!-1.3
-1.5
UV
14N 9W
!
!
-4.9
20
20
UV
UV
Corning!
5.5-22.9-7.623 5-2.4
-5.3
-8-7.5-4.6!
§¨
¦
!
!!!
-0.4
-4.4
29
!
UV-4.2!
-4.3
!
!
175
!
UV
-3.3
13N 6E
!-4.8
13N
-2.5
Los Molinos 13N 1E13N 5E
0.5-4.6-1.98!
13N 7W13N 4E
13N 2E13N 3E
13N 1W
13N 2W
11W
13N 3W
13N 5W
13N 4W
13N 10W13N 9W13N 6W
70
UV
13N 8W
65
113-1.7
UV
UV
-6.2
!!
16
UV
281
!
UV
Red Bluff
NA-9.2-4.410!
-7.3-1.9
-9.1
29
3.1
UV
-2.8
!!!
!
-4.4
99
-6.5
UV
!
Sutter
3.1-9.1-2.123
-0.3
45
UV
29
UV 16
!!
UV
-0.1-1.2!
12N 2E
!!
12N 5E
12N 3W12N 6E
12N!
Vina
NA-14.3-6.917
12N 4E
12N 1W
12N 10W
12N 2W-1.2
12N 3E
12N 8W
11W12N 5W-0.5
12N 4W-0.1
!
12N 7W12N 6W
12N 9W
-5.81.8
!
-9.2
-0.4
!!
!
Wyandotte Creek NA-5.1-3.03
!!
12N 1E
113
UV
101
£
¤
65
UV
-2.9
45
0.1
UV
Summary
5.5-26.4-4.0146
!
!
1.4
11N 10W
!
11N 3E99
UV
29
11N 2W
UV
!0
11N 7W
11N 9W11N 6W
11N 6E
11N 5E
-2.60.2
!
11N 4E
11N 8W
11N
11N 1W-3.2
11N 5W!
11N 4W
11N 1E
0.5
-3.8
11W
!
!
!113
UV 11N 2E
0.3
16
UV 0.7
0.9
101
£
¤
!
11N 3W
!
!
505
!5
§¨
¦
§¨
¦
-8.6
-2
-3.6
!
-3.3!-4.6!
-4.6
10N 1W
!
STATE OF CALIFORNIA!-3.1
10N 9W!
NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY-1.5
-0.6
10N 6E
113
10N 5E
UV
!
!
10N 1E
-3.1
29
THE RESOURCES AGENCY UV
!-3.8
!
!
10N 4E!
PLATE 3S-A
-1.2!
-1.6
16-2.2
101
UV-3.3
-0.8
10N 4W-9.3
10N£
¤10N 8W
CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP
70
-9.6 UV
10N 5W-0.7
!
!
10N 3W!
11W DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES!
0.1
10N 7W16
UV
!
!-2.7
-1
-2.9
10N 6W-8.3
!
16!
-4.8
UV 10N 2E!
!
10N 3E
NORTHERN REGION OFFICE
10N 10W
-0.8
!
16
UV
16
-1 Date:
FALL 2019 TO FALL 2020
UV
10N 2W
!
9N 6E
Woodland
!
-1.6
December 2020
2440 Main Street!
3.9
!
2.1
128
-0.8
UV
!
1139N 5E
-3.5
UV
Red Bluff, California 96080
SHALLOW WELL DEPTHS 9N 4E
!-0.1 16
80
UV
9N9N 1E!
9N 8W9N 5W
9N 2W9N 1W9N 2E§¨
9N 7W¦
BY:
9N 4W
9N 3W!
9N 6W9N 3E
9N 10W
(530) 529-7300-4.8-8.7
11W-1.6
-1.1
128
UV
A. Scholzen
(Well depths less than 200 ft deep bgs)
!!
!
!80
§¨
¦
9N 9W
!
!
https://data.ca.gov/dataset/northern-sacramento-valley-groundwater-elevation-change-maps
33N 7E
33N 5E33N 6E
33N 3E
33N 2E33N 4E
33N 1W
33N 5W33N 3W33N 2W33N 1E
33N 4W
33N 7W33N 6W
33N 8W
33N 9W
33N 10W
299
U
V
32N 7E
299
U 44
VU
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
32N 6E
32N 5E
!
(
Monitoring Well
32N 4E
32N 3E
32N 1W32N 2E
32N 2W
32N 4W32N 1E
32N 3W
32N 6W32N 5W
32N 9W32N 8W32N 7W
32N 10W
299
U
V
Redding Basin
SHASTA 44
U
V
Redding
3
U
V
Subbasin Boundaries
-3.4
COUNTY
!
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
Redding/Sacramento
89
U 31N 7E
V
!
44
U-0.2
31N 6E
V
31N 5E
GW Basin Divide 44
U
V
-6.8
Anderson
NA-3.2-1.510
3
!
31N 4W31N 1W
31N 4E
31N 2W
31N 3W31N 1E
!31N 2E31N 3E
31N 7W31N 6W
31N 8W
31N 10W31N 9W
31N 5W
5
44
U
V
44
U
§¦¨
V
County Boundaries
273 Bowman 0.7-2.9-0.87
U
V
-2.2
¢
!
Bulletin 118 GW
Enterprise 30N 7E
NA-6.8-4.13
-0.7
Subbasin Excluded Areas
!
89
-0.7 U
V
30N 6E
!30N 5E
30N 6W
Millville 3.0-0.21.42
30N 11W
30N 4E
30N 3E
30N 1E
30N 2E
30N 2W30N 1W
30N 3W
-1.5
-2.7
30N 7W
89
30N 10W30N 9W30N 8W
U
V
!!
!
60612
-1.3
!
-1.4
South Battle Creek
NANANA0
30N 5W
30N 4W
Miles
Summary 3.0-6.8-1.222
-2.1
29N 7E
-0.8
-0.4!
!
!
-3.2
!29N 2W
29N 4W29N 6E
-0.6 29N 5E
29N 3E
29N 4E
-2.9
36
U
!
V
29N 1E29N 2E
!
-0.7
29N 1W
29N 3W
36
29N 5W U
29N 6W V
!
29N 7W
29N 10W29N 8W
29N 9W36
U
V
-2
-0.6
29N 11W!!
36
U
V 0.7
!
172
29N 2.5W
U
V
36
U
V
36
U
V
28.5N 3W
0.4
!NOTES
36
U
V
36
U
V
28N 6E
28N 5E
28N 4E
3628N 3E
U
V
28N 2E
28N 1E Note 1:A positive number indicates that groundwater elevations were higher in the
28N 1W
28N 3W
28N 5W28N 4W
28N 6W
28N 7W36
28N 8W U
28N 11W V
28N 10W
28N 9W
current year than the previous year. A negative number indicates that
5.2
28N 2W groundwater elevations were lower in the current year than in the previous year.
!
Note 2:Statistics are based on the number of wells monitored within each
-2.1
32
U
V
!
36
U subbasin.
V
36
U
V
-3.5
!
Note 3:This map may not use all the color ranges shown in table above. Some
36
U
V
27N 6E
3627N 2W
27N 5E
U
V
-2.5
wells may not be visible on map due to the close proximity to each other.27N 4E
27N 3E
!27N 2E
!27N 1E
27N 11W27N 1W
-3.1
27N 5W27N 4W27N 3W
!
27N 7W
27N 6W
27N 8W
27N 9W
27N 10W 3.9 Note 4:Groundwater level changes are based on measurements taken from wells
0
-3.6!
!
with depths of 100 to 450 ft. Measurements are taken during similar time
-1.7-1.2
!
-1.7
periods each year.
-2.3
!
!
Groundwater Elevation Change
Red
Note 5:Change in groundwater elevations are based on the actual measured levels of
99
U
V the hydrostatic level (piezometric surface) of the groundwater at individual well
Bluff
locations.Contoured color ramping is interpolated from these measurements
26N 4W-2.3
-1.8
99
26N 6E
U!
V
26N 5E
> 40 feet higher!26N 4E
26N 3E
and should be considered approximate. The accuracy of the estimated contour
26N 2E
26N 1E
26N 1W
26N 3W
32
26N 5W
26N 6W U
26N 8W26N 7W V
26N 9W
26N 10W
is directly related to the timing of the measurements, spacing and the distribution
26N 11W
of nearby monitoring wells, well construction, and aquifer characteristics.
-6.1
3.4
-0.2
!
!
> 35 to 40 feet higher-!
5
26N 2W
Note 6:GW - Groundwater
-2
!
GWE - Groundwater Elevation
-1.6
0
!
bgs - below ground surface
> 30 to 35 feet higher
TEHAMA
-9.1
!
25N 6E
25N 4E
25N 2E25N 5E
25N 3W25N 3E
COUNTY
25N 1E
25N 4W25N 1W
25N 6W25N 5W
25N 2W
25N 8W25N 7W
25N 10W 0
25N 9W
> 25 to 30 feet higher
!
25N
99
U
V
-1.5
11W
!-1.2
-1.2
!
!
!
70
-1.4
> 20 to 25 feet higher-8.2 U
!V
!-0.9
-0.8!!
0
!
-2.6
!
-0.4
-9.6
!-1
24N 4W-1.8
-0.6
24N 3W
24N 5W
!
-11.60!
-1
!
!24N 3E24N 6E
> 15 to 20 feet higher 24N 5E
24N 2E24N 4E
!
-4
-1.6
24N 1E
-10.2
0.6
24N!24N 1W
24N 6W
24N 7W!
24N 8W 1.9-6.7!
!-1.7
24N 10W
24N 9W
-4
11W
!
!
!
-2
Corning
-0.7
!
-5.8
!
!
-2.6
24N 2W
> 10 to 15 feet higher
!!
-8.4
!
-3.4
32
U
V
23.5N 2E
-8
!
-3.1
!
-7.5
70
!
U
V
0
-2.9
> 5 to 10 feet higher
-5
!
!
1.6
-5.8
99
-12 U
V
!
!
!
23N 6E
23N 4E23N 5E
!23N 3E
-8.2
23N 2E
-9.3
23N 1E
23N 4W
23N23N 1W!
23N 2W
23N 6W23N 5W-7.6
23N 8W23N 7W
23N 9W
!
23N 10W!-8.1
11W
0 to 5 feet higher
-8.9
--2.4
!5
-2.8
-9.3
!
23N 3W
!
!
-5.8
-3.5
-!
5
99!
!
U-4.2
V
!
-2
-3.7
-5
!
> 0 to 5 feet lower
-10.7
162!
U
V
32!
U-1.8
V
-3.5
32-9.7
U!
V-5.5
-8
-12.7!
!
!
!
!
70
22N 1E U
V
-12
16222N 1W
U-9.5
V
22N 4W
!
-2.4
!
!
!
> 5 to 10 feet lower
-11.2
!
22N 6E
22N 4E22N 5E
22N 3E
-12.7
22N 2E
22N
-32
22N 8W
22N 6W22N 5W22N 3W U
22N 7W 5 V
-8.8
22N 10W22N 9W-9.2
Chico 32
U
11W-10 V
!!
!
32
U
V
162-7.5
U
V
-6.3
-2.9
!
!191
U
!V
-1.5-11.9 22N 2W
> 10 to 15 feet lowerOrland
!!
-5.2
!
!
-1.8
!
-10.1
-12.5
!
-14.1
BUTTE
-13
!
!
0.8
-7.1-10.2
!-4.1
0
162
U!!
V!!
> 15 to 20 feet lower
21N 2E
GLENN
-9.3
COUNTY
-15
!70
U
V
21N 7W-5.7
-4.1
21N 6E
21N 5E
!
COUNTY
-3.9!21N 4E
-7.3 21N 3E
21N
-7.7-10.2!
!
21N 2W
21N 4W 5!
21N 10W
21N 5W21N 3W
21N 8W21N 6W!!-
11W
21N 9W
-2.7
> 20 to 25 feet lower 162
U 99
V
U
!
V
-7.1
0
45
U!
V
-5.9!
-4.3
!
21N 1E
-2.5
-0.6
!
-5.8 191
U
V
!
!
> 25 to 30 feet lower
-1.1
!
-2.1-2.2-1.9
-13.10.1
!-4.5!!
-5.9
-
5
!149
!
!U 20N 3.5E
!V
-4.1
!
20N 3W70
U
V
> 30 to 35 feet lower 20N 6E
-2.4 20N 5E
-3.4
-18.2 20N 4E
-0.8
20N16220N 3E
!0
U!
V!
!
20N 4W
-1
20N 5W
20N 10W20N 7W20N 2W
20N 8W20N 6W!
11W20N 9W
!
0
-0.8
20N 2E
!-0.9
0.8
!162
99
> 35 to 40 feet lower-14.8 U
UV
V
!
-0.9
!
45
U
V 20N 1E
!
!
-1.8
-4.4
-10.6
!20N 1W
!
> 40 feet lower 162
162 Willows U
UV
V 0.4
-1.4
162
!-15.4
U
V
!
!
!
19N 3E
-1
162
U
V
19N 6E
19N 5E
0
162
U
!19N 4E
V
1.6
19N!
-1.1
19N 2E
0
-1 19N 3W19N 1E
19N 4W!
19N 8W
19N 10W19N 5W
19N 9W19N 7W19N 6W
11W19N 1W
19N 2W
7
-2.6-1.6
-2.9
0 162
U
162 V
!!!!
U
V
!!
-2.2
-1.1
!
0.2
5
!0.5
-1.9
!70
0 U
V
18N 2W
-3.7
99
U
V
0.4!
-1.7
!
18N 3W
18N 4W
!
18N 6E
18N 3E
18N 1W
18N 5E
-2.5
-4.6
!
18N 2E
18N 1E
18N
!
18N 10W18N 9W18N 8W18N 7W18N 6W18N 5W-3.1
-1.4
11W
!
!
18N 4E
45
U
V
-13
!
-1.4
!
-
1
0
-4.4
!
Gridley
17N 4E
-2.4
-0.6
-
5
-1.2
!
5!
-3.7
!
!
§¦¨
!
-2.1 17N 3E
0
17N 6E
17N 5E
99
!U
V
-1.4
17N 2E
17N
17N 1E
!
17N 1W
17N 4W
-0.7!
17N 10W17N 7W17N 6W17N 5W
17N 9W17N 8W
-1.9
11W
!!-4.7
!
17N 2W
-0.5
0
-0.3
-
-16.91
!
!!
-1.70
17N 3W
-6.8
!
-1
!
-
-8.3
5
0
!
1.9
!!
-15.9
-1.8
-12.4
!
-8.9
!-14.8
-0.2
Live Oak-8.8
-!
!!
!-11.5
!!
5!
-13.6
-16.4
!-11.4!
-7.8
!-9.8-14.8!
!-13.1
!!!-12.3
-9.2
-10.2!!
-9.1
!!!!
!
-9.3
!
!!-12.2!
16N 3W-1.3-1.7-14!
-11.5
45!
-8-8.2!
U 16N 6E
V
-11
!!16N 5E
-8.9!-8.6
-16.4
!!
!-11.4-11.6
20
U
V
-2.9-4.9
16N-6.5!
16N 2E!
16N 2W
16N 9W16N 1E
16N 8W16N 7W16N 4W-6.8
16N 10W16N 1W-5.4
16N 6W16N 5W-5.1
11W-7.7
70-6.3
U!
V
!-5.5
!
-2.6-3.4
!
!
!
16N 3E
!-4.2
-3.5
!-4.6
!
-3.4-3.6
Colusa
!16N 4E
20
U
V
20
U
V 2.9
Northern Sacramento Basin Groundwater Subbasins
-2.6
!
99
-5.3 U
V 0
20!
U
V
COLUSA
-
!
5
-5.5
-2.3
!
-8.3
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
15N 4E
Subbasin NameCOUNTYSUTTER
Williams!15N 6E
!
15N15N 5E
20
U
V
-0.5
20
15N 9W15N 1E
15N 3E U
V
11W Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
15N 2W2020
!U
15N 4W U
VV
15N 10W15N 8W
15N 5W
15N 7W
!
15N 6W COUNTY
-0.9 15N 1W
15N 2E
-2.4
Yuba
!
0
15N 3W
-7.2
2970
U
U
V
V
!
Antelope 3.9-3.1-0.94 City
-5.5
20
U 99
V
U
V
!
-1.4-5
1.1
!
!
0!
-11.9
Bend 1
5.2NA5.21
-
14N 6E
14N 5E
!!
2.71.1
14N 1E
-3.6
-0.12.5
14N 2W!!!!
-8.9
!
45
U
V
14N14N 4E
14N 8W
65
Butte-10.6
1.6-5.2-1.021 14N 3E U-8
29 V
-7.7
11W U
V 14N 1W
14N 3W
14N 4W
!
14N 7W!
!
14N 10W14N 5W
14N 6W
-2.6
-2.3
!
!
5
-7.7
14N 2E
-
-5
9.3
!
99
U
-0.6
V!
Colusa
0.1-18.2-5.4
-9.3
74!
-4.6
!
20
!
U
V
20
U-0.1-7.7
V
-1.9
14N 9W
!!
!
20
-7.2
U
V
!
-3
Corning
1.6-12.7-7.037
-0.8
!
-4.4
-11.2
!
-7.4
!
!!
!
-8.6
175
U 29
VU
V 13N 2W
0.2
!-0.4
13N 6E
!
13N-4.8
513N 5E
Los Molinos 13N 1E
0.6-2.6-1.120
!13N 4E
13N 7W13N 3E
13N 1W!13N 2E 5
§¦¨-
-5.2
11W
13N 3W-3
13N 5W
-2.5
13N 9W13N 6W13N 4W
13N 10W
-
!!!-0.5
-3
70
5!
U
V
!
13N 8W
65
113 U
!V
-0.6!!-0.3 U!-3.8
-12.5 V-4.6
!
5
!
!
16§¦¨
-0.9
U-4.6
281 V
!
U
Red Bluff V
3.4-9.1-2.212
-2.5
!
-0.6
29-5.8
-40.6
U
V
-1.8
!
!45-5
-17.9
U
V!
99
!
!U
V
-6.4
-7.2
-3.9
!
!
Sutter!
2.7-8.6-1.432
29
U
V
0
-10.8
-9
!
!
12N 2E
16
12N 6E
U-18.3
V 12N 5E
12N 3W
12N-1.4
Vina
NA-9.3-4.723
12N 4E
!
12N 10W-0.4
!
12N 2W12N 1W12N 3E
12N 8W
12N 5W
11W
!
12N 4W
12N 7W12N 6W
12N 9W
-1
-
!-7.4
-1.4
5
!!
Wyandotte Creek 7.0-13.0-2.77
-1.9
12N 1E
113
U
V
101
!
£¤!-1.3
-0.4
1
45!
!
U-1.4-3
V
-!
5
Summary-
7.0-18.2-2.1231!
1
1!-0.6
!
65
11N 10W 5 U
!-0.7 V
!
11N 3E
6!-2
2911N 1W
U
V
11N 7W
11N 9W11N 6W
11N 6E
11N 4E11N 5E
-15.4
11N 8W
-15
11N
!
11N 2W
11N 5W11N 4W-1.2
11N 1E
-3.4 99
16
U
UV
11W V
!
11N 3W
!
-15.2
!-18.5
113
!!!U
V 11N 2E
-8.25.2
-8.9
101
£¤05
!
-
-2
505
!
§¦¨
-4.6
-4.1
0
1
!
!-
!
-12.6
-4.8
-10.1
!
!
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-4.9!
10N 9W
NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY
10N 1E!
10N 6E
-6.4
10N 5E
-4.3
-10.1
10N 1W
-4.5
5
!
-4.7
-2.1!
29!§¦¨
U
THE RESOURCES AGENCY V!113
!
U
V
-6.3 10N 4E
PLATE 1C-A
16
101
U!
V
10N 4W
10N£¤
10N 8W
CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP
70
U
10N 5W V
-7.8
10N 3W10N 3E
11W DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
10N 7W16
U-8.1
-0.9!
V!
-0.5
!
10N 6W!-1.1
!
-5.5
-5.4-1.3 10N 2E
-1.3
!
-9.6 16
U
NORTHERN REGION OFFICE
10N 10W!!!V
-8.2
-1.4!
16
!U
V
SPRING 2020 TO SPRING 2021 Date:
10N 2W-3!
9N 6E
-2.9
16
U!
!-6.2 V
July 2021
!Woodland
2440 Main Street
-9.1
!
-1.4
-7.8
128
!
U
V
-2.9!9N 5E
Red Bluff, California 96080-7.9
-4.8
-7.3
100 to 450 ft WELL DEPTHS-19 9N 4E
!16
U 80
!
!V
9N!9N 1E
!
9N 8W
9N 5W
9N 2W9N 1W9N 2E§¦¨
9N 7W
BY:
9N 4W-3.6
9N 3W
9N 6W9N 3E
9N 10W!
(530) 529-7300
11W
128-5.2
U!
-7.9
V-5.6
A. Scholzen
(Well depths greater than 100 ft and less than 450 ft deep bgs)
!!
!
80
113
§¦¨
-3.4 U
V
9N 9W
!
!
https://data.ca.gov/dataset/northern-sacramento-valley-groundwater-elevation-change-maps
33N 7E
33N 5E33N 6E
33N 3E
33N 2E33N 4E
151
33N 1W
33N 5W U 33N 3W33N 2W33N 1E
V 33N 4W
33N 7W33N 6W
33N 8W
33N 9W
33N 10W
299
U
V
32N 7E
299
U 44
VU
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
32N 6E
32N 5E
!
(
Monitoring Well
32N 4E
32N 3E
32N 1W32N 2E
32N 2W
32N 4W32N 1E
32N 3W
32N 6W32N 5W
32N 9W32N 8W32N 7W
32N 10W
299
U
V
Redding Basin
SHASTA 44
U
V
Redding
3
U
V
Subbasin Boundaries
COUNTY
!
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
-3.4
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
Redding/Sacramento
89
U 31N 7E
V
31N 6E
31N 5E
GW Basin Divide
4444
-6.8 U
U
VV
Anderson
NA-7.2-2.27
!
31N 1W
31N 4E
31N 2W
31N 1E
31N 4W31N 3W31N 3E
31N 2E
31N 7W
31N 8W31N 6W
31N 10W31N 9W
31N 5W
44
U
V
44
U
V
County Boundaries
Bowman
0.7-0.6-0.16
-2.2
¢
!
273
U 5
V
§¦¨
Bulletin 118 GW
-0.9 Enterprise
NA-6.8-4.13
30N 7E
!
Subbasin Excluded Areas
89
U
V
30N 6E
30N 4W
30N 5E
30N 6W
Millville
NANANA0
30N 11W
30N 4E
30N 3E
30N 1E
30N 2E
30N 2W30N 1W
30N 3W
-1.2
-2.7
30N 7W
30N 9W30N 8W89
30N 10W U
V
!
!
!
60612
-7.2
South Battle Creek
NANANA0
30N 5W
Summary
Miles 0.7-7.2-2.116
29N 7E
-0.8
-1.9
-0.4!
!
!
29N 2W
29N 4W29N 6E
29N 5W
-0.6 29N 5E
29N 3E29N 4E
36
U!
V
29N 1E29N 2E
-0.6
29N 1W
29N 3W
36
U
29N 6W V
!
29N 7W
29N 10W29N 8W
29N 9W
36
U
V
-0.6
29N 11W!
36
U
V 0.7
!
172
29N 2.5W U
V
36
U
V
36
U
V
28.5N 3W
0.4
NOTES
!
36
U
V
36
U
V
28N 6E
-0.2
28N 5E
28N 4E
!
28N 3E
36
U
V
28N 2E
28N 1E
Note 1:A positive number indicates that groundwater elevations were higher in the
28N 1W
28N 3W
28N 5W
28N 6W36
28N 7W
U
28N 8W V
28N 11W
28N 10W28N 9W
current year than the previous year. A negative number indicates that
28N 2W
groundwater elevations were lower in the current year than in the previous year.
28N 4W
Note 2:Statistics are based on the number of wells monitored within each
32
U
V
!-2.1
36
U subbasin.
V
36
U
V
36
U
V
!
-3.5
Note 3:This map may not use all the color ranges shown in table above. Some
27N 6E
27N 2W
27N 5E
27N 4E
wells may not be visible on map due to the close proximity to each other.
27N 3E
!-3.1
27N 2E
-0.5
27N 1E
27N 1W
27N 11W36
27N 5W U
27N 4W V
!
27N 7W27N 6W
!
27N 8W
27N 9W
27N 10W 3.9
Note 4:Groundwater level changes are based on measurements taken from well
-1.7
!
with depths of 200 to 600 ft. Measurements are taken during similar time
Red 27N 3W
-1.7
periods each year.
!
Bluff
Groundwater Elevation Change
Note 5:Change in groundwater elevations are based on the actual measured levels of
99
U
V the hydrostatic level (piezometric surface) of the groundwater at individual well
5
§¦¨
locations.Contoured color ramping is interpolated from these measurements
26N 4W-2.3
9926N 6E
U
V
!26N 5E
> 40 feet higher 26N 4E
26N 3E
and should be considered approximate. The accuracy of the estimated contour
26N 2E
26N 1E
26N 1W
26N 3W
26N 5W32
26N 6W
U
26N 8W26N 7W V
26N 9W
26N 10W
is directly related to the timing of the measurements, spacing and the distribution
-5.8
!
26N 11W
of nearby monitoring wells, well construction, and aquifer characteristics.
3.4
!
> 35 to 40 feet higher
26N 2W
Note 6:GW - Groundwater
-2
!
GWE - Groundwater Elevation
-1.6
3.8
-3.9
!
bgs - below ground surface
> 30 to 35 feet higher!-0.6
TEHAMA
!
!
-2.1
!
25N 6E
25N 4E
25N 3W25N 2E25N 3E25N 5E
COUNTY
25N 1E
25N 4W25N 1W
25N 6W25N 5W
25N 2W
25N 8W25N 7W
25N 10W 0
25N 9W
> 25 to 30 feet higher
!
25N
99
U
V
-1.4
11W
-1.2
!
!
!
70
-8.2
> 20 to 25 feet higher U
!V
-1.2
!-0.9
!
0
!
24N 3W
!
-0.8
-0.4
-1
!
!
1.2
-0.6
!
-6.2
!24N 3E
24N 6E
> 15 to 20 feet higher 24N 5E
24N 2E24N 4E
Corning
!-1.8
-1.7
24N 1E
24N 4W
24N24N 1W
24N 6W24N 2W
24N 7W!
24N 8W
!
24N 10W
24N 9W
-4
11W
!-6.7
0.6
!
!
24N 5W!
!-2
-2.6
-1.5
> 10 to 15 feet higher
!!
-8.4
!
-4.4
-3.4
32
U
V
23.5N 2E
70
!
U
V
-3.1
> 5 to 10 feet higher
-5
!
99
U-5.8
V
-4.5
-12
!
!
!
23N 6E
23N 4E23N 5E
9923N 3E
U
23N 2E
V
23N 1E
-8.1
23N 4W
23N23N 1W
23N 2W
23N 6W23N 5W23N 3W
23N 8W23N 7W
23N 9W
23N 10W!
11W
0 to 5 feet higher
-8.9
-2.4
!
-2.8
-8.9
!
-4.2
!
!
-4.1
-6.9
!
-5.8
!!!
-2
!
> 0 to 5 feet lower-10.7
162
U
V
-3.5
32!
U-1.8
V
32-9.3
U!
V
-5.5
!
22N 1E
!
!
70
-13.1 U
V
!
16222N 1W
U-5.1
V-9.8
22N 4W
22N 3W!
-5.9
!
!
> 5 to 10 feet lower!
!
22N 6E
22N 4E22N 5E
22N 3E
-9.5
22N 2E
0.1
22N
-2.6 32
22N 8W
22N 6W22N 5W U
V
22N 7W
22N 10W22N 9W
!32
Orland
U
11W V
!
32
U Chico
V
5
162
-8.8
U
V§¦¨
-6.3
191
!-1.8
U
V
-1.5 22N 2W
> 10 to 15 feet lower
!!
!
-10.1 32
U
0 V
-1
-12.5
!
-14.1 BUTTE
-19.3
!
-7.1
!
0.8
-15
!-4.1
-5
!
-2.5
162
-12.6
U!
V!!!
> 15 to 20 feet lower
21N 2E
GLENN
!
!
COUNTY
-7.1
!70
U
V
21N 7W-5.7
-9.3
-4.1!
21N 6E
21N 5E
!
COUNTY
!21N 4E
-2.7
-7.3 21N 3E
21N-6.5
-7.7-10.2!
21N 4W21N 2W!
21N 10W
21N 5W21N 3W
21N 8W21N 6W!!
11W
21N 9W
162
> 20 to 25 feet lower-
U 10-6.2
V
!!
0
-23.2
45!
U
V
-4.3
!
99
U
!V
!
-5.9
-0.3
-0.6
21N 1E
-7.6 191
U
V
-5.8!
!!
> 25 to 30 feet lower
-1.1
-5.4
-4.8
!
8.4!
!
-2.1
-1.2
!
!0.1
!-4.5
-17.1!
!
!149
-5.9!
U 20N 3.5E
V
!-4.1
20N 3W70
U
V
20N 6E
> 30 to 35 feet lower
-9.9
-2.4 20N 5E
20N 4E
-18.2
20N 3E
20N162
U!!
20N 2W
V!-0.1
20N 4W
-0.4-1
20N 10W20N 7W20N 5W
20N 8W
11W20N 6W!
20N 9W
!!
20N 2E
-8.6
-1.1
0.8
!
!162
> 35 to 40 feet lower U
-14.8 V
!
-1.8
-0.9
!
45
U 20N 1E
V
!
!
99
-4.4 U
!V
-10.6
-0.8
!!20N 1W
!
-4.4
> 40 feet lower
162
162 U
V
U
V 0.4
-1.4
Willows
162
U
70 V
!
U
!V
!
19N 3E
19N 3W
-1
162
U
-3.6 V
19N 6E
19N 5E
-0.2
162
U 19N 4E
!
V
1.6
19N!
19N 2E
19N 1E
19N 4W!
19N 8W
19N 10W
19N 9W19N 7W19N 5W
11W19N 6W
19N 1W
19N 2W
7
-2.6-1.6
-0.9
162
U
!!162!!-0.2 V!
!U
!V
-0.8
-2.2
-1.1
0.1
!0.5
!
!70
U
V
18N 2W
99
U
V
0.4
-5.5
!
18N 3W
18N 4W!
!!
18N 6E
18N 3E
18N 5E
-0.1
-2.5
18N 4E
-2.2
!
18N 2E
18N18N 1E
18N 1W
18N 10W18N 8W18N 7W
18N 9W18N 6W18N 5W-3.1
11W
!
45
U
V
0.4
!
Gridley
17N 4E
-1.1
-2.3
!
5!
-3.7
!
-2.4
§¦¨
!
17N 3E
0
17N 6E
17N 5E
99
!
U
V
-1.4
17N 2E
17N
17N 1E
0
!
17N 4W17N 1W
-0.7
17N 10W17N 5W
17N 7W17N 6W
17N 8W
17N 9W
-1.6
11W
!!
!
17N 2W
-0.5
-2.2-16.9
!
!!
17N 3W
-6.8
-3.4
!
!
!!-8.3
-15.9
1.9
-4.1
-12.4
-8.9!
!-14.8
-0.2
Live Oak-8.8
-7.7-9.8
!!
!!
!
!-11.5
-16.4
-13.6
!
!!
!-11.5
-9.8!
-13.1
!
-12.3
!!!
-8.2-10.2
!!
!!-8!!
-9.3
!!-11.4-12.2
-2.3!-14
45-9.2!
!16N 6E
-2.9 U
V
!16N 5E
-8.9
-7.9
!!
-11.4
-11.6
20
U
V
16N
!
16N 2E
16N 2W-4.9
16N 9W16N 3W16N 1E
16N 8W16N 7W16N 4W
16N 10W16N 1W-5.4
16N 6W16N 5W
-6.3
-5.1
-5.5
11W
70
U!
V
!
-2.6
!
-3.4
!
!
!
16N 3E
!
-4.2
-3.5
!
-4.6
!
Colusa
-3.6
20
U
V
20
U
V
Northern Sacramento Basin Groundwater Subbasins 2.2
70-2.6
!
U
V
99
-5.3
U
V
20!
U
V
COLUSA
!
-5.5
!
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
COUNTYSUTTER
Williams 15N 6E
15N15N 5E
20
U
V
20
15N 9W
15N 3E U
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)V
11W15N 1E
15N 2W2020
!U
15N 4W U
VV
15N 10W15N 8W
15N 5W
15N 7W-0.5
!
15N 6W COUNTY
-0.9 15N 1W
-2.4 Yuba
!
15N 2E
15N 4E
70
15N 3W U
V
29
U
V
Antelope 3.9-3.1-0.44
City
-5.5
20
U
V
1.6
99!
U
V
-1.4-5
1.1
!
!
!
!
Bend-11.9 70
NANANA0
U
V
!14N 6E
!!
-13.9
3.3
1.12.7
14N 1E
-3.6
14N 5E
-0.32.5
!
14N 2W!!!!
-8.9
!
45
U
V
14N14N 4E
14N 8W
65
Butte 8.4-5.5-0.1-10.6
22 14N 3E U
29 V
-7.7
U 4.5
11W V 14N 1W
14N 3W
14N 4W!
14N 7W
!
14N 10W14N 5W
14N 6W!
-2.3
!
14N 2E
0
-8.5 99
U
-0.6
V
Colusa
0.2-23.2-5.9
74-9.3
!
!!
20
!!
U
V-1.9
20
U-0.1-7.7-50
V
-1.9
14N 9W
!!
!
20
U
V
20
U
!-7.2
V
-3
Corning 0.1-13.1-6.329
!
-7.4
!
175
U 29
VU
13N 2W
V
-8.1
13N 6E
!
13N-7.9-2.50.2
Los Molinos 5
1.2-2.3-0.915 13N 1E
-0.2
13N 7W13N 3E13N 4E
13N 1W!!13N 2E
§¦¨-0.6
!
11W-5.2
13N 3W
13N 5W!
-2.5
13N 6W13N 4W
13N 10W13N 9W
!!!
-3
70
!13N 5E
U
V
13N 8W!-0.5
65
113 U
!
!!-0.9 U!-3.8 V
-12.5 V
!
5
-2.5
!
16§¦¨
-0.3
U-4.6
281 V
U
Red Bluff 3.8 V-5.8-1.312
!
29-5.8
-4
U
V 99
-1.8 U
V
!
!-50.6
45
-8.7 U
!
V
!
!
-6.4
-6.3
-3.9
!
Sutter!
4.5-5.0-0.729
!
29
U
V
-12.6-9
!!
12N 2E
16
12N 6E
U-18.3
V 12N 5E
12N 3W
12N-5.6
Vina NA-9.3-4.123
12N 4E
!
-0.4
12N 10W!
12N 2W12N 1W
12N 8W12N 3E
11W12N 5W
12N 4W!
12N 7W12N 6W
12N 9W
-1
!-5.5
-7.4
!!
Wyandotte Creek 12N 1E
7.0-3.70.33
-1.9
113
U
V
101!
£¤!-1.3
45
U
V
-0.4
1
!!
-3
!
Summary 8.4-23.2-2.2211
1!
-0.6
!
65
11N 10W U
!V
!
-0.7
6!
29-2.3
U!
V 99
U
V
11N 7W
-2
11N 9W11N 6W
11N 6E
11N 8W
11N
11N 1W
11N 2W11N 3E
11N 5W11N 4W
-3.4
11N 1E
16
U
V
11W
11N 3W
-18.5
!
-8.8
11311N 5E
!!!
U
V
11N 4E
-8.9
101
£¤
11N 2E
505
5
§¦¨
§¦¨
-4.6
-4.1
!
!
-12.6 113
U
V
-10.1
!
!
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10N 9W NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY 10N 1E
!
-6.4 10N 6E
-4.3 10N 5E
-10.1
10N 1W
-4.5
-10.3!
!
!
29!
U
THE RESOURCES AGENCY V
!
-9.1
-4.8
-6.3 10N 4E
PLATE 1I-A
16
101!
U!
V
10N 4W
10N
£¤
10N 8W
CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP
70
U
10N 5W V
10N 3W10N 3E
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
11W
10N 7W
16-8.1
U
V
!
10N 6W
16
-5.4-5.5-1.3 U
V 10N 2E-1.3
NORTHERN REGION OFFICE-0.7
10N 10W!-9.6
!!
!!
16
U
!V
SPRING 2020 TO SPRING 2021 Date:
10N 2W-9.1
9N 6E
16
U
V
!Woodland
August 2021
2440 Main Street
!
-1.4
-6.2
128
!
U-7.8
V
!
9N 5E
-5.2
Red Bluff, California 96080-7.9
-7.3
INTERMEDIATE WELL DEPTHS-19 9N 4E
-5
16
!U
!V
!9N 1E-4.8
9N
!
9N 8W80!
9N 5W9N 2E
9N 7W9N 2W
BY:
9N 4W9N 3W9N 1W
9N 6W9N 3E
!§¦¨
9N 10W(530) 529-7300!
11W
-4.2
128
U!80
V
-5.6
A. Scholzen
!
(Well depths greater than 200 ft and less than 600 ft deep bgs)!
-3.6§¦¨
-3.4
113
U
9N 9W V
https://data.ca.gov/dataset/northern-sacramento-valley-groundwater-elevation-change-maps
33N 7E
33N 5E33N 6E
33N 3E
33N 2E33N 4E
151
33N 1W
33N 5W U 33N 3W33N 2W33N 1E
V 33N 4W
33N 7W33N 6W
33N 8W
33N 9W
33N 10W
299
U
V
32N 7E
299
U 44
VU
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
32N 6E
32N 5E
!
(
Monitoring Well
32N 4E
32N 3E
32N 1W32N 2E
32N 2W
32N 1E
32N 3W
32N 6W32N 5W
32N 9W32N 8W32N 7W299
32N 10W U
V
Redding Basin
SHASTA 44
U
V
32N 4W
Redding
3
U
V
Subbasin Boundaries
COUNTY
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
Redding/Sacramento
89
U 31N 7E
V
273
U
V
31N 6E
31N 5E
GW Basin Divide
4444
U
U
VV
Anderson
NA-2.2-2.21
31N 1W
31N 4E
31N 2W
31N 1E
31N 4W31N 3W31N 3E
31N 2E
31N 7W
31N 8W31N 6W
31N 10W31N 9W
31N 5W
44
U
V
44
U
V
County Boundaries
Bowman 1.1-4.2-1.83
1.5
¢
!
Bulletin 118 GW
Enterprise
1.5NA1.51 30N 7E
Subbasin Excluded Areas
89
U
V
30N 6E
30N 5E
30N 6W
Millville NANANA0
30N 11W
30N 4E
30N 3E
30N 1E
30N 2E
30N 2W30N 1W
30N 3W
30N 7W
30N 9W30N 8W89
30N 10W5 U
V
§¦¨
60612
South Battle Creek
NANANA0
30N 4W
30N 5W
MilesSummary 1.5-4.2-0.85
29N 7E
-2.2
!
29N 2W
29N 4W29N 6E
29N 5E
29N 3E29N 4E
36
U
V
29N 1E29N 2E
-2.4
29N 1W
29N 3W
36
U
29N 6W29N 5W V
!
29N 7W
29N 10W29N 8W
29N 9W
36
U
V
29N 11W
-4.2
36
U
V 1.1
!
!
172
29N 2.5W U
V
36
U
V
36
U
V
28.5N 3W
NOTES
36
U
V
36
U
V
28N 6E
28N 5E
28N 4E
28N 3E
36
U
V
28N 2E
28N 1E
Note 1:A positive number indicates that groundwater elevations were higher in the
28N 1W
28N 3W
28N 5W28N 4W
28N 6W36
28N 7W
U
28N 8W V
28N 11W
28N 10W28N 9W
current year than the previous year. A negative number indicates that
28N 2W
groundwater elevations were lower in the current year than in the previous year.
Note 2:Statistics are based on the number of wells monitored within each
32
U
V
36
U subbasin.
36
V
U
V
36
U
V
Note 3:This map may not use all the color ranges shown in table above. Some
36
U
V
27N 6E
27N 2W
27N 5E
27N 4E
wells may not be visible on map due to the close proximity to each other.
27N 3E
27N 2E
27N 1E
27N 1W
27N 11W
27N 5W
27N 4W
27N 7W27N 6W
27N 8W
27N 9W
27N 10W
Note 4:Groundwater level changes are based on measurements taken from wells
with depths greater than 600 ft. Measurements are taken during similar time
Red 27N 3W
periods each year.
Bluff
!
Groundwater Elevation Change
-1.6
Note 5:Change in groundwater elevations are based on the actual measured levels of
99
U
V
99
U
V the hydrostatic level (piezometric surface) of the groundwater at individual well
locations.Contoured color ramping is interpolated from these measurements
26N 6E
26N 5E
> 40 feet higher 26N 4E
26N 3E
and should be considered approximate. The accuracy of the estimated contour
26N 2E
26N 1E
26N 4W
26N 1W
26N 3W
26N 5W32
26N 6W
U
26N 8W26N 7W V
26N 9W
26N 10W
is directly related to the timing of the measurements, spacing and the distribution
26N 2W
26N 11W
of nearby monitoring wells, well construction, and aquifer characteristics.
> 35 to 40 feet higher!
-1.8
Note 6:GW - Groundwater
GWE - Groundwater Elevation
-2.6
!
bgs - below ground surface
> 30 to 35 feet higher
TEHAMA
25N 6E
25N 4E
25N 2E25N 3E25N 5E
COUNTY
25N 1E
25N 4W25N 1W
25N 6W25N 5W
25N 2W
25N 8W25N 7W
25N 10W
25N 9W
> 25 to 30 feet higher
25N 3W
25N
99
U
V
11W
-1.2
-1.1
!
!
70
> 20 to 25 feet higher 99 U
V
U
V
-0.9
!
!
-1.4
!
-1.2
-0.8
!
24N 3W
24N 3E
24N 6E
> 15 to 20 feet higher 24N 5E
24N 2E24N 4E
-1.8
24N 1E
24N 4W
24N24N 1W
24N 6W24N 5W24N 2W
24N 7W
24N 8W
!
24N 10W
24N 9W
11W
Corning
-3
!
-4.2
> 10 to 15 feet higher
!
!
-4.3
-5.7
32
U
V
!
23.5N 2E
70
U
-5 V
-8.6
-4.6
> 5 to 10 feet higher
!!
-5.9
!
-5.1 23N 6E
23N 4E23N 5E
9923N 3E
U
23N 2E
V
!
23N 1E
23N 4W
23N23N 1W
23N 2W
23N 6W23N 5W23N 3W
23N 8W23N 7W
23N 9W
23N 10W
11W99
0 to 5 feet higher
U
V
-5.2
-2.7!
!-5.9
!
-6.4
!
-5.8
!
> 0 to 5 feet lower
162
U
V
32
U
V
32
U
V-5.8-5.7
22N 1E
!
!
70
U
V
16222N 1W
U
V-8.4
22N 3W
-6.2
!
> 5 to 10 feet lower
!
22N 6E
22N 4E22N 5E
22N 3E
22N 2E
22N22N 4W
32
22N 8W
22N 6W22N 5W U
-6.3 V
22N 7W
-7.6
22N 10W22N 9W
Chico
Orland
32
11W
!U
V
!
32
U
V
162
U-15
V
-7.4
!
191
!-6.2
U
V
22N 2W
> 10 to 15 feet lower
!
-14.9!
-9.8 32
!U
V
!
-5.3
-6
!
-8
-9.2 BUTTE
!
!
-4.3-17.4
-4.5
162
U!
V!!
> 15 to 20 feet lower
21N 2E
GLENN
-3.9
COUNTY
-5.8
!70
U
!V
21N 7W-10.8-4.9
-4.3
-8
21N 6E
!
21N 5E
!
COUNTY
!21N 4E
!
21N 3E
21N-4
21N 4W21N 2W
21N 10W
21N 5W21N 3W
21N 8W21N 6W!
45
11W
21N 9W U
V
162
> 20 to 25 feet lower
U
V
-4
!
-1.7
21N 1E
!
-7.1
191
U
99 V
U
V
!
> 25 to 30 feet lower-11.8
!
2.9
10
-
!
-9
!149
U 20N 3.5E
V
20N 3W70
U
V
20N 6E
> 30 to 35 feet lower
20N 5E
-6
20N 4E
20N 3E
20N162
U!
V-3.1
20N 4W
20N 10W20N 7W20N 5W20N 2W
20N 8W
11W20N 6W!
20N 9W
20N
-4 2E
!162
> 35 to 40 feet lower U
V
45
99
U 20N 1E
VU
V
20N 1W
> 40 feet lower
162 Willows
U 162
VU
-10.2 V
-0.9
162
U
70 V
!
U
!V
19N 3E
162
U
V
19N 6E
19N 5E
162
U 19N 4E
V
-1.3
19N!
19N 2E
19N 3W19N 1E
19N 4W!-0.2
19N 8W
19N 10W
19N 9W19N 7W19N 5W
11W19N 6W
19N 1W
19N 2W
162
U
162!V
U
V
-1
70
U
V
18N 2W-1.8
!
99
U
V
-3.4
18N 3W
!
18N 6E
18N 3E
18N 5E
18N 4E
18N 2E
18N18N 1E
18N 4W18N 1W
18N 10W18N 8W18N 7W
18N 9W18N 6W18N 5W
11W
45
U
V
-0.9
!
Gridley
-2
-1.6
-2.6
!
!17N 4E
5
!
§¦¨
17N 3E
17N 6E
17N 5E
-1.7
99
U
17N 2E V
17N
17N 1E
17N 3W!
17N 4W17N 1W
17N 10W17N 5W
17N 7W17N 6W
17N 8W
17N 9W
11W
-1.5
17N 2W
!
-2.1
!
70
U
V
-4.4
!
Live Oak
-3.6
45
16N 6E
-5.6 U
V
!16N 5E
!
20
U
V
16N
16N 2E
16N 2W
16N 9W16N 3W16N 1E
16N 8W16N 7W16N 4W
16N 10W16N 1W
16N 6W16N 5W
11W
16N 4E
16N 3E
Colusa
20
U
V
20
U
V
2.9
Northern Sacramento Basin Groundwater Subbasins
70
!
U
V
99
U
V
20
U
V
COLUSA
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin NameCOUNTYSUTTER
Williams 15N 6E
15N15N 5E
20
U
V
20
15N 9W
15N 3E U
V
11W Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)15N 1E
15N 2W2020
U
15N 4W U
VV
15N 4E
15N 10W15N 8W
15N 5W
15N 7W
15N 6W COUNTY
15N 1W
15N 2E
Yuba
70
15N 3W U
V
29
U
V
Antelope NANANA0 City
20
U
V
99
U
V
70
-8.9 U
V
!
Bend
NANANA0
14N 6E
14N 5E
-1.1
14N 1E
14N 2W!
14N 3W
45
U
V
14N14N 4E
-11.9
14N 8W
65
-9.7
Butte NA-4.5-2.1 14N 3E U
29 11 V
U!
11W V-7.3 14N 1W
14N 4W!!!
14N 7W
14N 10W14N 5W
14N 6W
-11.9
14N 2E
99
U
V
Colusa
NA-17.4-7.8
32
20
U
V
20
U-4.3
V
14N 9W
!
20
U
V
20
U
V
-6
Corning NA-8.4-5.514
!
175
U 29
VU
V
13N 6E
13N 4E
13N-8.8-3.3
513N 5E
Los Molinos 13N 1E
NA-3.0-1.59
13N 7W13N 3E
13N 1W!13N 2E
13N 2W§¦¨
!
11W
13N 3W
13N 5W
13N 6W13N 4W
13N 10W13N 9W
70
U
V
13N 8W
65
113 U
UV
V-4
5
!
16§¦¨
U
281 V
U
V
Red Bluff NA-2.6-2.12
29
-7.8
U
V 99
U
V
4.1
!
!
-4.7
-2.2
!
Sutter
NA-4.0-2.66!
29
U
V
-12.4
-9
!!
12N 2E
45
U
16
V 12N 6E
U
V 12N 5E
12N 3W
12N
Vina 2.9-9.8-5.211
12N 4E
-3.2
12N 10W
12N 2W12N 1W
12N 8W12N 3E
11W12N 5W
12N 4W!
12N 7W12N 6W
12N 9W
-5.5
-7.2
!!
Wyandotte Creek
NA-1.8-1.81
12N 1E
113
U
V
101
£¤
-11.5
!
45
U
-4.1
V
-4.6
Summary 2.9-17.4-3.686
!
!
65
11N 10W U
V
11N 3E
29
U
V 99
U
V
11N 7W
11N 9W11N 6W
11N 6E
11N 5E
11N 8W11N 4E
11N
11N 1W
11N 2W
11N 5W11N 4W
11N 1E
16
U
V
11W
11N 3W
-15.6
-3.9
113
!!!
U
V 11N 2E
-4.5
101
£¤
505
5.5
§¦¨
!
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10N 9W NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY
10N 1E
10N 6E
113
U
V 10N 5E
10N 1W
29
U
THE RESOURCES AGENCY V
10N 4E
PLATE 1D-A
16
101
U
V
10N 4W
10N
£¤5
10N 8W
CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP
70
U
10N 5W V
§¦¨
10N 3W10N 3E
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
11W
10N 7W
-3
16
10N 6W
U
V
!
16
0.7
U
V 10N 2E
NORTHERN REGION OFFICE
10N 10W
!
16
U
V
SPRING 2020 TO SPRING 2021 Date:
10N 2W
9N 6E
16
U
V
Woodland
July 2021
2440 Main Street
128
U
V
1139N 5E
U
Red Bluff, California 96080 V
DEEP WELLS 9N 4E
16
80
U
V
9N
9N 8W
9N 5W9N 1W9N 2E
9N 7W9N 2W9N 1E§¦¨
BY:
9N 4W9N 3W
9N 6W9N 3E
9N 10W(530) 529-7300
11W
128
U
V
A. Scholzen
(Well depths greater than 600 ft bgs)
80
§¦¨
9N 9W
https://data.ca.gov/dataset/northern-sacramento-valley-groundwater-elevation-change-maps
APPENDIX B
DWR Groundwater Level Change Maps – Summer 2022
33N 7E
33N 5E33N 6E
33N 3E
33N 2E
33N 4E
33N 5W33N 2W33N 1W33N 1E
33N 4W33N 3W
33N 7W33N 6W
33N 8W
33N 9W
33N 10W
299
U
V
32N 7E
299
U 44
VU
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
32N 6E
!
(
32N 5E
Monitoring Well
32N 4E
32N 3E
32N 1W32N 2E
32N 2W
32N 1E
32N 4W32N 3W
32N 6W
32N 9W32N 8W32N 7W32N 5W
32N 10W
Redding Basin
299
SHASTA
U
V
44
U
V
Redding
Subbasin Boundaries
COUNTY
3
U
V
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
!
-22.8
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
Redding/Sacramento
89
U 31N 7E
V
GW Basin Divide
31N 6E
31N 5E
Anderson
NA 44-16.1-7.111
44
U
UV
V
-20.7
!
31N 1W
31N 4E
31N 2W
31N 1E
31N 4W31N 3W31N 3E
31N 2E
31N 7W31N 5W
31N 8W31N 6W
31N 10W31N 9W
5
44
County Boundaries
U
V
44
§¦¨U
Bowman V
NA-19.7-8.34
¢
-3.8
!
273
U
V
Bulletin 118 GW
Enterprise
NA-22.8-15.83
30N 7E
-7.6
!
Subbasin Excluded Areas
!-5
-2.3
89
U
V
30N 6E
30N 4W Millville
NANANA0
!30N 5E
30N 6W
30N 11W
30N 4E
30N 3E
30N 1E
30N 2E
30N 2W30N 1W
30N 3W
-8.6
30N 7W
89
30N 8W
30N 10W30N 9W-7.7 U
V
60612!
!
!
-6.8
South Battle Creek NANANA0
!
-16.1
30N 5W
MilesSummary NA-22.8-10.418
-7.3
29N 7E
-5
-5.1!
!
!
-6.6
!29N 2W
29N 4W29N 6E
29N 5E
29N 3E29N 4E
-8.4
36
U
V
29N 1E29N 2E
!
-7.3
29N 1W
29N 3W
36
U
29N 5W V
29N 6W!
29N 7W
29N 10W29N 8W
29N 9W
36
U
V
-19.7
-2.6
!
29N 11W!
36
U
V
-2.3
!
172
29N 2.5W U
V
36
U 36
VU
V
28.5N 3W NOTES
36
U
V
36
U
V
Note 1:A positive number indicates that groundwater elevations were higher in the
28N 6E
28N 5E
28N 4E
3628N 3E
U
V
current year than in 2011. A negative number indicates that groundwater
28N 2E
28N 1E
28N 1W
28N 3W
28N 5W28N 4W
28N 6W36
28N 7W
28N 8W U
V
28N 11W
elevations were lower in the current year than in 2011.
28N 10W
28N 9W
28N 2W
Note 2:Statistics are based on the number of wells monitored within each
subbasin.
2.1
32
U
V
!
36
U
V
36
U
Note 3:This map may not use all the color ranges shown in table above. Some
V 36
U
V
-1.9
!
wells may not be visible on map due to the close proximity to each other.
36
U
V
27N 6E
27N 2W
27N 5E
27N 4E
-15.9!
Note 4:Groundwater level changes are based on measurements taken from wells 27N 3E
!
-12.6 27N 2E
!27N 1E
27N 1W
27N 11W
27N 5W
27N 4W
27N 7W27N 6W
-15.6
27N 8W
with depths of 100 to 450 ft. Measurements are taken during similar time
27N 9W
27N 10W
periods each year.
Red 27N 3W
-14.1
Note 5:Change in groundwater elevations are based on the actual measured levels of
!
Bluff
0
1
-
Groundwater Elevation Change
the hydrostatic level (piezometric surface) of the groundwater at individual well
99
U
V
locations.Contoured color ramping is interpolated from these measurements
99
U
V
5
and should be considered approximate. The accuracy of the estimated contour
§¦¨
26N 6E
> 40 feet higher!is directly related to the timing of the measurements, spacing and the distribution 26N 5E
26N 4E
26N 3E
26N 2E
-9.9
26N 1E
26N 4W
26N 1W
26N 3W
26N 5W32
26N 6W
26N 7W U
26N 8W of nearby monitoring wells, well construction, and aquifer characteristics.V
26N 9W
26N 10W
26N 2W
26N 11W
-18.6
-0.2
Note 6:GW - Groundwater
!
0
> 35 to 40 feet higher!
GWE - Groundwater Elevation
2.8
!
bgs - below ground surface
-18.9
TEHAMA
!
> 30 to 35 feet higher
-10.1
!
COUNTY
25N 6E
25N 4E
25N 2E
25N 3E25N 5E
25N 3W
25N 1E
25N 6W25N 5W25N 4W
25N 2W
25N 8W25N 7W
25N 10W
-11
25N 9W
> 25 to 30 feet higher
-37.6
!
!
25N 1W
25N
99
U
V
11W
-7
-7.4
!
!
!
70
> 20 to 25 feet higher-20.8
U
!V
-6.4
-15.3
!
!
-3.9
!
-7.3
-5.3
!
!
-34.2
!-8.5
-7.6
24N 1W
24N 3W
!
24N 3E
> 15 to 20 feet higher 24N 6E
24N 2E24N 5E
24N 4E
-6.4
24N 4W24N 1E
24N24N 2W
24N 6W24N 5W-32.8
24N 7W
24N 8W!
!
24N 10W
24N 9W
-5
11W!
Corning
-20.3
!
!
> 10 to 15 feet higher
!
-41.2!
-33.6-23.6
32
U
V
23.5N 2E
-33.5
!
70
U
V
-9.9
> 5 to 10 feet higher
!
!
-41-13.7
!
!
23N 6E
23N 4E23N 5E
9923N 3E
-14.1 U
V 23N 2E
23N 4W23N 1E
23N
23N 6W23N 3W23N 2W
23N 8W23N 7W23N 5W-37.9
23N 9W
!!-28.1
23N 10W
11W 0 to 5 feet higher
99
-16.3
U
V
23N 1W
-14.6
!
-22.8
!
!
!
-12.9
-12.8
!-31
> 0 to 5 feet lower
162-37.2
!
U
V
32!
U-19
V
-41.2
32
U-21.2
V-13.4
!
!
!!
70
U
22N 1E V
162-24.9
22N 1W
U
V
22N 4W
!
-17.2
!
> 5 to 10 feet lower
-34.4!
22N 6E
22N 4E22N 5E
22N 3E
22N 2E
-20.2
22N
22N 8W32
22N 6W22N 3W
22N 5W U
22N 7W V
!
22N 10W-53.8
22N 9W-18.5
Chico 32
U
11W V
!
!
32
-52.9
U
V
162-16
U!
V
-50.9
-7.4
!
191
!
U
!V
-9.8
> 10 to 15 feet lower-46.6 22N 2W
Orland
-34.7
!!
!
!
!-9.2
-58.7
BUTTE
-21.6
-49.4
-50.4
!
!
-10.8
-64.7-43.2-0.8
!
GLENN!
162
U!!!
> 15 to 20 feet lower V!
21N 2E
COUNTY
-1.5
-65.3
70
!
U
21N 7W V
COUNTY
21N 6E
21N 5E
-13.7 21N 4E
4.2 21N 3E
21N
!
21N 2W
21N 10W21N 4W
21N 3W
21N 6W21N 5W
21N 8W!-14.2
11W21N 9W
45
> 20 to 25 feet lower U
162 V
U
V
!
-22.9
!
-14.9
-19.3!99
U
V
!
21N 1E
-13.4
!
-17.1 191
U
V
!
> 25 to 30 feet lower
-21.5
!
-20-13.2
-44.8!!
-10
!149
U 20N 3.5E
V
-31.3 70
U
V
> 30 to 35 feet lower 20N 6E
!
20N 5E
-10.4
20N 4E
-21.3 20N 3E
20N162
!!
U
V-2.3
20N 4W
20N 3W
20N 5W
20N 10W20N 8W20N 7W20N 2W
11W20N 6W!
20N 9W
20N 2E
-9.3
-0.7
!162
> 35 to 40 feet lower
-40.5 U
V
!
-14
-8.8
!
45
U
V 20N 1E
!
!
99
U
V
20N 1W
> 40 feet lower-29.7
162
162 Willows
U
UV
V
-24.3
-4
!162
U
V
!
!
19N 3E
-2.8
162
!U
V
19N 6E
19N 5E
-4.9
162
U 19N 4E
V
-11.3
19N!
19N 2E
19N 3W19N 1E
!
19N 4W
19N 10W19N 8W
19N 5W
19N 9W19N 7W19N 6W
11W19N 1W
19N 2W
-5.1
-17.4
-16.4
162
U
162 V
!!!
U
V
!
-3.7
-10.7
!
!
!
-7.3
70
-7.3
U
V
-10.4
!
18N 2W
-1
0
-21
99
U
V
!
-12.3
-15.1
!
18N 3W
18N 4W
!
18N 6E
18N 3E
18N 5E
-5.5
18N 2E
18N 1E
18N
!
18N 1W
18N 10W18N 9W18N 8W18N 7W18N 6W18N 5W-2.6
11W
!
18N 4E
45
U
V-7.6
!
-2.8
!
Gridley
17N 4E
-31.9
-14.4
-10.2
!
5!
!
§¦¨
17N 3E
!
17N 6E
-14.3
17N 5E
-5.8
99
!U
V
-8.8-27.6
17N 2E
17N
17N 1E
17N 3W
17N 1W!
!
17N 10W17N 7W17N 6W17N 5W
17N 9W17N 8W
-22.4
11W
!
!
17N 2W-3.8
-17.3
-45
!
!
-10.9
17N 4W
-21.2
!
!-8
!
-12.2
-15.8
!
-14
Live Oak
!
!
-6.6
!
-10.8
!
-13.4!
-5.3
45
!16N 6E
U
V
!16N 5E
!
!
!-9.5
-12.6 20
70
U
UV
-13.6 V
16N-6.1
16N 2E
16N 2W
16N 9W16N 3W16N 1E
16N 8W16N 7W16N 4W
16N 1W
16N 10W16N 6W
16N 5W
-8.1
11W
-8.5
!
!
16N 3E
16N 4E
0
2
-
Colusa
-10.5
20
U
!
V
25
-
20
U
V
Northern Sacramento Basin Groundwater Subbasins
-6.9
!
COLUSA 99
-29.6
U
V
20
U
V
-4.8
!
!!
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name-6.9
COUNTYSUTTER-18.9
-3.9
Williams!15N 6E
!
15N 5E
15N
20
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)U
V
20-19.7
15N 9W
15N 3E U
V
11W15N 1E
15N 2W2020
15N 4W U!-7.2 U
V COUNTY V
!
15N 10W15N 8W
15N 5W
15N 7W
15N 6W!15N 4E
-8.6 15N 1W
-6.9
15N 2E
!-12.4 Yuba
!
-6.1 15N 3W
-4
Antelope NA-15.9-14.73
!70
29
U
UV
V
!
City
-2.4
20
U
99
V
U
V
!
-45.2
Bend
NANANA0
!
-8.4
14N 6E
!14N 5E
4.3
14N 1E-7.3
1.7
!
!
!
45
U
V
14N Butte NA-31.3-8.7 14N 4E
17
14N 8W
65 2.8
14N 3E U
29 V
-14.5
U 14N 2W-26.2
11W V 14N 1W
14N 4W14N 3W-23.2
14N 7W!
!
14N 10W
14N 5W
14N 6W!!
-3.6
!
!-7.5
-5.5
14N 2E
Colusa-11.5-2.6
4.2-67.1-24.6
-1!
55 5 99
U
V!
!
-11.2
!
-14.6
20
!
U
V
20
-7.3
U
V
-11.3
14N 9W
!
!
20
U-17.1
V
Corning NA-41.2-25.220
!
-22.2-31.7
-33.4
-9.5
!!
!
!
-3.8
175
U 29
VU
13N 2W
V
!
13N 1E
13N 6E
Los Molinos
NA-20.3-7.914
-29.2
13N
5
13N 5E
13N 7W13N 3E13N 4E
13N 1W!13N 2E
§¦¨
11W-22.4-51.1
13N 3W
13N 5W
13N 6W13N 4W
13N 10W13N 9W
!!
70
U
V
!
13N 8W
65
113
U
UV
-67.1 V-16.8
5
Red Bluff!
2.8-37.6-11.27
16§¦¨
U
281 V
U
V
29-43.7
-23.1
U
V 99
U
V
!
!45
-35.3
U
V
!
-16.9
Sutter
4.3-57.3-15.117
!
!
-41.7
29
U
V
-25.9
-32.6
!!
12N 2E
Vina
NA-31.0-16.719 16
12N 6E
U-46.2
V 12N 5E
12N 3W
-21
12N
12N 4E
!
-2.5
12N 10W!
12N 2W12N 1W
12N 3E
12N 8W
11W12N 5W
12N 4W!
12N 7W
12N 6W
12N 9W
-12.1
!
Wyandotte Creek
NA-31.9-14.65
12N 1E113
U
V
101
£¤
Summary 45
4.3-67.1-15.4157 U-17.2
V
!
65
11N 10W U
V
99
29 U
UV
V
11N 3E
11N 7W
11N 6W
11N 9W
11N 6E
11N 5E
-29.7
11N 8W11N 4E
11N
11N 1W!
11N 2W
11N 5W11N 4W
11N 1E
-11.4
16
U
11W V
11N 3W
!
113
U
V
10111N 2E
£¤
505
§¦¨
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10N 9W NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY
10N 1E
10N 6E
113
U
V 10N 5E
10N 1W
29
U
THE RESOURCES AGENCY V
10N 4E
PLATE 2C-D
16
101
U
V
10N 4W
10N
£¤
10N 8W
CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP
70
U
10N 5W V
10N 3W10N 3E
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
11W
10N 7W
16
10N 6W
U
V
16
U
V 10N 2E
NORTHERN REGION OFFICE
10N 10W
16
U
V
5
SUMMER 2011 TO SUMMER 2021 Date:
10N 2W
9N 6E
16
§¦¨
U
V
Woodland
2440 Main Street
November 2021
128
U
V
9N 5E
113
U
Red Bluff, California 96080 V-32.7
9N 4E
100 to 450 ft WELL DEPTHS
16
80
U
!V
9N
9N 8W9N 5W
9N 1W9N 2E§¦¨
9N 7W9N 2W9N 1E
BY:
9N 4W
9N 3W
9N 6W9N 3E
9N 10W(530) 529-7300
11W
128
U
V
A. Scholzen
(Well depths greater than 100 ft and less than 450 ft deep bgs)
80
§¦¨
9N 9W
https://data.ca.gov/dataset/northern-sacramento-valley-groundwater-elevation-change-maps
33N 7E
33N 5E33N 6E
33N 3E
33N 2E33N 4E
151
33N 1W
33N 5W U 33N 3W33N 2W33N 1E
V 33N 4W
33N 7W33N 6W
33N 8W
33N 9W
33N 10W
299
U
V
32N 7E
299
U 44
VU
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
32N 6E
32N 5E
!
(
Monitoring Well
32N 4E
32N 3E
32N 1W32N 2E
32N 2W
32N 1E
32N 3W
32N 6W32N 5W
32N 9W32N 8W32N 7W299
32N 10W U
V
Redding Basin
SHASTA 44
U
V
32N 4W
Redding
3
U
V
Subbasin Boundaries
COUNTY
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
Redding/Sacramento
89
U 31N 7E
V
31N 6E
31N 5E
GW Basin Divide
4444
U
U
VV
Anderson
NA-6.6-6.61
31N 1W
31N 4E
31N 2W
31N 1E
31N 4W31N 3W31N 3E
31N 2E
31N 7W
31N 8W31N 6W
31N 10W31N 9W
31N 5W
5
44
U
V
44
U
§¦¨V
County Boundaries
Bowman
NA-17.0-8.83
¢
273
U
V
Bulletin 118 GW
Enterprise
NANANA0
30N 7E
Subbasin Excluded Areas
89
U
V
30N 6E
30N 5E
30N 6W
Millville
NANANA0
30N 11W
30N 4E
30N 3E
30N 1E
30N 2E
30N 2W30N 1W
30N 3W
30N 4W
30N 7W
30N 9W30N 8W89
30N 10W U
V
60612
South Battle Creek
NANANA0
30N 5W
Summary
Miles NA-17.0-7.74
29N 7E
-6.6
!
29N 2W
29N 4W29N 6E
29N 5E
29N 3E29N 4E
36
U
V
29N 1E29N 2E
-6.3
29N 1W
29N 3W
36
U
29N 6W29N 5W V
!
29N 7W
29N 10W29N 8W
29N 9W
36
U
V
29N 11W
-3.1
36
U
V
-17
!
!
172
29N 2.5W U
V
36
U
V
36
U
V
28.5N 3W
NOTES
36
U
V
36
U
V
28N 6E
28N 5E
28N 4E
Note 1:A positive number indicates that groundwater elevations were higher in the
28N 3E
36
U
V
28N 2E
28N 1E
28N 1W
28N 3W current year than in 2011. A negative number indicates that groundwater
28N 5W28N 4W
28N 6W36
28N 7W
U
28N 8W V
28N 11W
28N 10W28N 9W
elevations were lower in the current year than in 2011.
28N 2W
Note 2:Statistics are based on the number of wells monitored within each
subbasin.
32
U
V
36
U
36
V
U
V
36
U
V
Note 3:This map may not use all the color ranges shown in table above. Some
wells may not be visible on map due to the close proximity to each other.
36
U
V
27N 6E
27N 2W
27N 5E
27N 4E
27N 3E
27N 2E
27N 1E
27N 1W
27N 11W Note 4:Groundwater level changes are based on measurements taken from wells
27N 5W
27N 4W
27N 7W27N 6W
27N 8W
27N 9W
27N 10W
with depths greater than 600 ft. Measurements are taken during similar time
Red 27N 3W
periods each year.
Bluff
Note 5:Change in groundwater elevations are based on the actual measured levels of
99
Groundwater Elevation Change
U
V
the hydrostatic level (piezometric surface) of the groundwater at individual well
99
U
V
locations.Contoured color ramping is interpolated from these measurements
5
§¦¨
and should be considered approximate. The accuracy of the estimated contour
26N 6E
26N 5E
26N 4E
26N 3E
> 40 feet higher 26N 2E
is directly related to the timing of the measurements, spacing and the distribution
26N 1E
26N 4W
26N 1W
26N 3W
26N 5W32
26N 6W
U
26N 8W26N 7W V
26N 9W
26N 10W
of nearby monitoring wells, well construction, and aquifer characteristics.
26N 11W26N 2W
Note 6:GW - Groundwater
> 35 to 40 feet higher
GWE - Groundwater Elevation
bgs - below ground surface
!
TEHAMA-43.6
> 30 to 35 feet higher
25N 6E
25N 4E
25N 2E25N 3E25N 5E
COUNTY
25N 1E
25N 4W25N 1W
25N 6W25N 5W
25N 2W
25N 8W25N 7W
25N 10W
25N 9W
25N 3W
> 25 to 30 feet higher
25N
99
U
V
11W
-7.4
-7.4
!
!
70
99 U
V
U
V
> 20 to 25 feet higher
-7.3
!
!
-7.6
!
-9.5
-7.2
!
24N 3W
24N 3E
24N 6E
24N 5E
24N 2E24N 4E
> 15 to 20 feet higher
-11.8
24N 1E
24N 4W
24N24N 1W
24N 6W24N 5W24N 2W
24N 7W
24N 8W
!
24N 10W
24N 9W
11W
Corning
-20.3
!
!
> 10 to 15 feet higher-64.5
32
U
V
23.5N 2E
70
U
V
> 5 to 10 feet higher!
-12.9
-64.6
!
23N 6E
23N 4E23N 5E
9923N 3E
U
23N 2E
V
23N 1E
23N 4W
23N23N 1W
23N 2W
23N 6W23N 5W23N 3W
23N 8W23N 7W
23N 9W
23N 10W
11W
0 to 5 feet higher
99
-26.4
U!
V
!-5.9
-52.3
!
162
U
V
> 0 to 5 feet lower
32
U
V
32
U
V
-102.7 22N 1E
!
70
U
V
16222N 1W
U-8
0
V-72.1
22N 3W
-55.2
!
!
22N 6E
22N 4E22N 5E
22N 3E
> 5 to 10 feet lower
22N 2E
22N22N 4W
32
22N 8W
22N 6W22N 5W U
V
22N 7W
22N 10W22N 9W
Chico 32
Orland
U
11W V
!
32
U
V
5
162-15.1
-36.9
U
V§¦¨
-118.8
!
191
!-23.4
U
V
22N 2W
!
> 10 to 15 feet lower
32
U
V
-27.8
-46.5 BUTTE
!
!
-89.1
-10.8
162
U!
V!
21N 2E
GLENN
-16.5
> 15 to 20 feet lower
COUNTY
!70
U
V
21N 7W-42.6
21N 6E
!
21N 5E
COUNTY
21N 4E
21N 3E
21N
21N 4W21N 2W
21N 10W
21N 5W21N 3W
21N 8W21N 6W
45
11W
21N 9W U
V
162
U
V
> 20 to 25 feet lower
-14.8
!
99
U
V
21N 1E
-37.8 191
U
V
!
-100.7
> 25 to 30 feet lower
!
-31.2
!
-116
!149
U 20N 3.5E
V
70
U
V
20N 6E
20N 5E
-45.4
> 30 to 35 feet lower 20N 4E
20N 3E
20N162
U!
V
20N 4W20N 3W
20N 10W20N 7W20N 5W20N 2W
20N 8W
11W20N 6W
20N 9W
20N 2E
162
U
V
> 35 to 40 feet lower
45
U 20N 1E
V
20N 1W
162
162 U
V
U
V
-38.7
> 40 feet lower
162
U
70 V
!
99 U
V
Willows U
19N 3E
V
162
U
V
19N 6E
19N 5E
162
U 19N 4E
V
-7.2
-12.4
19N!
19N 2E
19N 3W19N 1E
19N 4W!
19N 8W
19N 10W
19N 9W19N 7W19N 5W
11W19N 6W
19N 1W
19N 2W
162
U
162 V
U
V
70
U
V
-16
!
18N 2W
99
U
V
-14
18N 3W
!
18N 6E
18N 3E
18N 5E
18N 4E
18N 2E
18N18N 1E
18N 4W18N 1W
18N 10W18N 8W18N 7W
18N 9W18N 6W18N 5W
11W
45
U
V
-14
!
Gridley
-24.9
-32.3
!17N 4E
5
!
§¦¨
17N 3E
17N 6E
17N 5E
-14.6
17N 2E
17N
17N 1E
17N 3W!
17N 4W17N 1W
17N 10W17N 5W
17N 7W17N 6W
17N 8W
17N 9W
11W
17N 2W99
U
V
70
U
V
-43.5
!
Live Oak
45
U
V
16N 6E
-47.5
16N 5E
!16N 4E
20
U
V
16N
16N 2E
16N 2W
16N 9W16N 3W16N 1E
16N 8W16N 7W16N 4W
16N 10W16N 1W
16N 6W16N 5W
11W
16N 3E
20
U
V
Colusa
20
U
V
Northern Sacramento Basin Groundwater Subbasins
70
U
V
99
U
V
20
U
V
COLUSA
Williams
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin NameCOUNTYSUTTER
15N 6E
15N15N 5E
202015N 1E
UU
VV
20
15N 9W
15N 3E U
V
11W Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
2020
U
15N 4W U
VV
15N 4E
15N 10W15N 8W
15N 5W
15N 7W
15N 6W COUNTY
15N 1W
15N 2E
Yuba
70
15N 3W15N 2W U
V
29
U
V
Antelope NANANA0 City
20
U
V
99
U
V
70
U
V
Bend
NANANA0
14N 6E
14N 5E
-13.8
14N 1E
!
14N 3W
45
U
V
14N14N 4E
-171.6
14N 8W
65
Butte NA-24.9-14.3 14N 3E U
29 7 V
U!14N 2W
11W V 14N 1W
14N 4W
14N 7W
14N 10W14N 5W
14N 6W
14N 2E
99
U
V
Colusa
NA-171.6-60.8
17
20
U
V
20
U-24.5
V
14N 9W
!
20
U
V
20
U
V
Corning NA-102.7-63.76
175
U 29
VU
V
13N 6E
13N
513N 5E
Los Molinos 13N 1E
NA-20.3-9.88
13N 7W13N 3E13N 4E
13N 1W13N 2E
§¦¨
11W
13N 3W
13N 5W
13N 6W13N 4W
13N 10W13N 9W
70
U
V
13N 8W
65
113 U
UV
V
5
13N 2W!
16§¦¨
U
281 V
-16.1
U
V
Red Bluff NA-43.6-43.61
29
U
V 99
U
V
!
Sutter
NA-16.1-14.43
-24
45
U
V
29
U
V
12N 2E
16
12N 6E
U
V 12N 5E
12N 3W
12N
Vina NA-52.3-21.98
12N 4E
-13.2
12N 10W
12N 2W
12N 8W12N 3E
11W12N 5W
12N 4W!
12N 7W12N 6W
12N 9W
-27.4
!
12N 1W
Wyandotte Creek
NANANA0
12N 1E113
U
V
101
£¤
45
U
-17.1
V
-10.8
Summary NA-171.6-32.650
!
!
65
11N 10W U
99
UV
V
11N 3E
29
U
V
11N 7W
11N 9W11N 6W
11N 6E
11N 5E
11N 8W11N 4E
11N
11N 1W
11N 2W
11N 5W11N 4W
16
U
V
11W
11N 3W
-47.9 11N 2E
11N 1E
113
!
U
V
101
£¤
505
§¦¨
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10N 9W NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY
10N 1E
10N 6E
113
U
V 10N 5E
10N 1W
29
U
THE RESOURCES AGENCY V
10N 4E
PLATE 2D-D
16
101
U
V
10N 4W
10N
£¤5
10N 8W
CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP
70
U
10N 5W V
§¦¨
10N 3W10N 3E
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
11W
10N 7W
-7.5
16
10N 6W
U
V
!
16
U
V 10N 2E-4.9
NORTHERN REGION OFFICE
10N 10W
!
SUMMER 2011 TO SUMMER 2021 16
U
V
Date:
10N 2W
9N 6E
16
U
V
Woodland
November 2021
2440 Main Street
128
U
V
1139N 5E
U
Red Bluff, California 96080 V
DEEP WELLS 9N 4E
16
80
U
V
9N
9N 8W
9N 5W9N 1W9N 2E
9N 7W9N 2W9N 1E§¦¨
BY:
9N 4W9N 3W
9N 6W9N 3E
9N 10W(530) 529-7300
11W
128
U
V
A. Scholzen
(Well depths greater than 600 ft bgs)
80
§¦¨
9N 9W
https://data.ca.gov/dataset/northern-sacramento-valley-groundwater-elevation-change-maps
33N 7E
33N 5E33N 6E
33N 3E
33N 2E33N 4E
33N 1W
33N 5W33N 3W33N 2W33N 1E
33N 4W
33N 7W33N 6W
33N 8W
33N 9W
33N 10W
299
U
V
32N 7E
299
U 44
VU
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
32N 6E
32N 5E
!
(
Monitoring Well
32N 4E
32N 3E
32N 1W32N 2E
32N 2W
32N 4W32N 1E
32N 3W
32N 6W32N 5W
32N 9W32N 8W32N 7W
32N 10W
299
U
V
Redding Basin
SHASTA 44
U
V
Redding
3
U
V
Subbasin Boundaries
COUNTY
!
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
-6.7
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
Redding/Sacramento
89
U 31N 7E
V
31N 6E
31N 5E
GW Basin Divide
4444
U
U
VV
-12.3 Anderson
NA-27.0-8.79
-0.4
!
31N 1W
31N 4E
31N 2W
31N 1E
31N 4W31N 3W!31N 3E
31N 2E
31N 7W31N 5W
31N 8W31N 6W
31N 10W31N 9W
5
44
U
V
44
U
§¦¨V
County Boundaries
Bowman NA-19.9-8.15
14.6
¢
!
273
U
V
Bulletin 118 GW
Enterprise
14.6-12.3-1.53
30N 7E
-11.5
!
Subbasin Excluded Areas
89
-2.6 U
V
30N 6E
30N 5E
!
30N 6W
Millville NA-0.4-0.41
30N 11W
30N 4E
30N 3E
30N 1E
30N 2E
30N 2W30N 1W
30N 3W
-6.6
30N 4W
30N 7W
30N 9W30N 8W89
30N 10W-6.7 U
V
!
!
!
60612
!-6
-27 South Battle Creek
NANANA0
30N 5W
Summary 14.6-27.0-4.718
Miles
29N 7E
-4.1
-6.6
!
!
-7
!
29N 2W
29N 6E
29N 5E
29N 3E29N 4E
-8.5
36
U
V
29N 1E29N 2E
!
29N 1W
29N 3W
29N 4W36
U
29N 6W29N 5W V
29N 7W
29N 10W29N 8W
29N 9W
36
U
V
-19.9
-3.6
!
29N 11W!
36
U
V
-3.1
!
172
29N 2.5W U
V
36
U
V
36
U
V
28.5N 3W
NOTES
-5.4
!
36
U
V
36
U
V
28N 6E
28N 5E
28N 4E
Note 1:A positive number indicates that groundwater elevations were higher in the
28N 3E
36
U
V
28N 2E
28N 1E
28N 1W
28N 3W current year than in 2004. A negative number indicates that groundwater
28N 5W28N 4W
28N 6W36
28N 7W
U
28N 8W V
28N 11W
28N 10W28N 9W
elevations were lower in the current year than in 2004.
28N 2W
Note 2:Statistics are based on the number of wells monitored within each
subbasin.
-5.5
32
U
V
!
36
U
V
36
U
V
Note 3:This map may not use all the color ranges shown in table above. Some
36
U
V
wells may not be visible on map due to the close proximity to each other.
Red
27N 6E
27N 2W
27N 5E
27N 4E
27N 3E
27N 2E
!
27N 1E
27N 1W
27N 11W Bluff Note 4:Groundwater level changes are based on measurements taken from wells
27N 5W
27N 4W
-18.5
27N 7W27N 6W
27N 8W
27N 9W
27N 10W
with depths of 100 to 450 ft. Measurements are taken during similar time
27N 3W
periods each year.
-12.1
!
Note 5:Change in groundwater elevations are based on the actual measured levels of
99
Groundwater Elevation Change
U
V
the hydrostatic level (piezometric surface) of the groundwater at individual well
-1
0
99
U
V
locations.Contoured color ramping is interpolated from these measurements
5
§¦¨
-11.5
and should be considered approximate. The accuracy of the estimated contour
26N 6E
!26N 5E
26N 4E
26N 3E
> 40 feet higher 26N 2E
is directly related to the timing of the measurements, spacing and the distribution
26N 1E
26N 4W
26N 1W
26N 3W
26N 5W32
26N 6W
U
26N 8W26N 7W V
26N 9W
26N 10W
of nearby monitoring wells, well construction, and aquifer characteristics.
26N 11W26N 2W
-26.4
1
!
Note 6:GW - Groundwater
!
> 35 to 40 feet higher
GWE - Groundwater Elevation
-2.5
!
bgs - below ground surface
1
-4.1
!
!
TEHAMA
-15.9
> 30 to 35 feet higher
!
25N 6E
25N 4E
25N 2E25N 3E25N 5E
COUNTY
-35.2
25N 3W
25N 1E
25N 4W
25N 6W25N 5W
25N 2W
!
25N 8W25N 7W
25N 10W
-13.9
25N 9W
-44.7
!
> 25 to 30 feet higher
!
25N 1W
25N
99
U
V
11W
-10
-8.6
!
!
!
70
-31.3
U
!V
-4.9
-21.2
> 20 to 25 feet higher
!
!
1.3!
-8.4
-7.6
!!
-41.6
!-9.3
-9.1
24N 3W
!
24N 3E
24N 6E
24N 5E
24N 2E24N 4E
-36.3
> 15 to 20 feet higher
-8.5
24N 1E
24N!24N 1W
24N 6W24N 5W24N 2W
24N 7W
24N 8W!
24N 10W
24N 9W
11W
-12.3
Corning
24N 4W!
!
-22.5
!
-44.1
!
> 10 to 15 feet higher-39.8
32
U
V
-35.5 23.5N 2E
!
70
U
V
-6.8
-12
!
> 5 to 10 feet higher
!
-31.4
!
23N 6E
23N 4E23N 5E
9923N 3E
U
23N 2E
V
23N 1E
23N 4W
23N23N 1W
23N 2W
23N 6W23N 5W23N 3W-33.3
23N 8W23N 7W
23N 9W
!
23N 10W!-27.4
11W
0 to 5 feet higher
99
U
V
-14.3
-18.5
!
!
!
-11.7
-23.8
-38.8
162!
U
V
> 0 to 5 feet lower
32!
U
V
32-31.6
-11.4
U
V
!
!
70
22N 1E U
V
-29.3
16222N 1W
U
V
22N 4W
!
22N 3W
-20.2
!
22N 6E
22N 4E22N 5E
22N 3E
> 5 to 10 feet lower
22N 2E
-40.8
22N
32
22N 8W
22N 6W22N 5W U
V
22N 7W
!
22N 10W22N 9W-16
Chico 32
Orland
U
11W V
!!
32
U
-68.7 V
5
162-14.3
-65
U
V!§¦¨
-67.4
-6.6
!
191
!
U
!V
-23.8 22N 2W
-32.9
!
> 10 to 15 feet lower!-54.9
!!
-71.8
-20.1
BUTTE
-59.4
!
-13.2
-72.3
-52.4!
!
162
U!
V!!
21N 2E
GLENN
> 15 to 20 feet lower
COUNTY
-83.1
70
U
V
21N 7W
21N 6E
21N 5E
COUNTY
-15.6 21N 4E
21N 3E
21N
-18.9
!
21N 4W21N 2W
21N 10W99
21N 5W21N 3W
21N 8W21N 6W!U
V
11W
21N 9W
45
U
162
V
U
V
-20.8!
> 20 to 25 feet lower
20
-
!
-14.3
!
21N 1E
-10.4
-16.3
!
-19.6
191
U
V
!
> 25 to 30 feet lower
-9
!
-35.7-11.7
!
!
149
U 20N 3.5E
V
-27.6 70
U
V
20N 6E
!
20N 5E
-12.1
> 30 to 35 feet lower 20N 4E
-23.7
20N 3E
20N162
U!!
V-2.8
20N 4W20N 3W
20N 10W20N 7W20N 5W20N 2W
20N 8W
11W20N 6W!
20N 9W
20N 2E
-1.9
-0.9
!162
99 U
-40.4 V
U
!V
> 35 to 40 feet lower-2.1
!
45
U 20N 1E
V
!
!
-18.4
20N 1W
162
162 Willows U
V
U
V
-25.5
> 40 feet lower
!-36.7 162
U
V
!
19N 3E
162
U
V
19N 6E
19N 5E
-5.1 162
U 19N 4E
V
19N!
19N 2E
19N 3W19N 1E
19N 4W
19N 8W
19N 10W
19N 9W19N 7W19N 5W
11W19N 6W
19N 1W
19N 2W
-3.9
-17.2
-16.6
162
U
!162!V!
U
!V
-4.1
-10.2
!
!
!
-
15
-7
70
-7.2
U
V
-10.3
!
18N 2W
-20.6
99
U
V
!
-12.6
!
18N 3W
18N 4W
18N 6E
18N 3E
18N 1W
18N 5E
-2.4
18N 2E
18N18N 1E
!
18N 10W18N 8W18N 7W
18N 9W18N 6W18N 5W-4.5-17.5
11W
!!
18N 4E
45
U
V-6.4
!
-4.2
!
Gridley
17N 4E
-32.4
-7.5
5!
!
§¦¨
17N 3E
-4.6
!
-15 17N 6E
17N 5E
-4.9!
!
-22.3
17N 2E
17N
17N 1E
17N 3W
17N 1W-4
17N 10W17N 5W!
17N 7W17N 6W
17N 8W
17N 9W
11W
!
17N 2W99
U
V
-8.6
17N 4W-20
!
-6.2
!
!
-8.9
-12.1
!
Live Oak
!
-10.9
!
70
U
V
-4!
45
16N 6E
U
V
!16N 5E
-9.6
20
U
V
16N
16N 2E
16N 2W
16N 9W16N 3W16N 1E
16N 8W16N 7W16N 4W
16N 10W16N 1W
16N 6W16N 5W
-7.1
11W
!
16N 4E
16N 3E
20
U
V
-11.2
Colusa!
20
U
V
Northern Sacramento Basin Groundwater Subbasins
-12.3
45
-
!
99
-52.4
U
V
COLUSA
!
20
U
V
-5.2
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
COUNTYSUTTER
Williams!15N 6E
15N15N 5E
20
U 20
V
U
V-21.9
15N 9W
15N 3E
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
11W15N 1E
15N 2W2020
U
15N 4W U
VV
!
15N 10W15N 8W
15N 5W
15N 7W
!15N 4E
15N 6W COUNTY
15N 1W
15N 2E
Yuba
-11.5
70
-14.7 15N 3W U
V
29!
-
U 1
V 5
Antelope NA-18.5-18.51
City
1.9
20
U
V
99!
U
V
-59.2
!
Bend
NANANA0
14N 6E
14N 5E
14N 1E
14N 2E 8.3
45
U
V
!
14N14N 4E
14N 8W
65
Butte NA-27.6-8.9
12 14N 3E U
29 V
U 14N 2W-24
11W V 14N 1W
14N 3W
14N 4W
14N 7W
14N 10W14N 5W
14N 6W
!
-7.4
!
99
U
V!
Colusa
NA-83.1-30.3
44
-2.1
20
U
V
20
U
V
14N 9W
-14.2
20
U
V
!
Corning NA-44.1-29.219
-38.5-20.5-28.8
!!
!
175
U 29
VU
13N 2W
V
-
40
13N 6E
13N
Los Molinos 513N 5E
1.3-21.2-8.114
13N 7W13N 3E
13N 1W13N 2E
§¦¨
11W
13N 3W13N 4E
13N 5W
13N 6W13N 4W
13N 10W13N 9W
-45
13N 1E
13N 8W!
65
113 U
UV
-75.6 V
5
16§¦¨
U 70
281 V
U
UV
Red Bluff 1.0 V-44.7-17.29
29-52
U
V 99
U
V
!
Sutter
NANANA0
45
U
V
29
U
V
12N 2E
16
12N 6E
U
V 12N 5E
12N 3W
12N
Vina NA-23.8-15.513
12N 4E
12N 10W
12N 2W12N 1W
12N 8W12N 3E
11W12N 5W
12N 4W
12N 7W12N 6W
12N 9W
Wyandotte Creek
NA-32.4-14.15
12N 1E113
U
V
101
£¤
45
U
V
Summary 1.3-83.1-17.7117
65
11N 10W U
V
11N 3E
99
29 U
UV
V
11N 7W
11N 9W11N 6W
11N 6E
11N 5E
-24.4
11N 8W11N 4E
11N
11N 1W!
11N 2W
11N 5W11N 4W-9.2
11N 1E
16
U
V
11W
11N 3W
!
113
U
V 11N 2E
101
£¤
505
§¦¨
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10N 9W NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY
10N 1E
10N 6E
113
U
V 10N 5E
10N 1W
29
U
THE RESOURCES AGENCY V
10N 4E
PLATE 2C-B
16
101
U
V
10N 4W
10N
£¤5
10N 8W
CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP
70
U
10N 5W V
§¦¨
10N 3W10N 3E
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
11W
10N 7W
16
10N 6W
U
V
16
U
V 10N 2E
NORTHERN REGION OFFICE
10N 10W
16
U
V
SUMMER 2004 TO SUMMER 2021 Date:
10N 2W
9N 6E
16
U
V
Woodland
November 2021
2440 Main Street
128
U
V
1139N 5E
U
Red Bluff, California 96080 V
100 to 450 ft WELL DEPTHS 9N 4E
16
80
U
V
9N
9N 8W
9N 5W9N 1W9N 2E
9N 7W9N 2W9N 1E§¦¨
BY:
9N 4W9N 3W
9N 6W9N 3E
9N 10W(530) 529-7300
11W
128
U
V
A. Scholzen
(Well depths greater than 100 ft and less than 450 ft deep bgs)
80
§¦¨
9N 9W
https://data.ca.gov/dataset/northern-sacramento-valley-groundwater-elevation-change-maps
33N 7E
33N 5E33N 6E
33N 3E
33N 2E33N 4E
151
33N 1W
33N 5W U 33N 3W33N 2W33N 1E
V 33N 4W
33N 7W33N 6W
33N 8W
33N 9W
33N 10W
299
U
V
32N 7E
299
U 44
VU
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
32N 6E
32N 5E
!
(
Monitoring Well
32N 4E
32N 3E
32N 1W32N 2E
32N 2W
32N 1E
32N 3W
32N 6W32N 5W
32N 9W32N 8W32N 7W299
32N 10W U
V
Redding Basin
SHASTA 44
U
V
32N 4W
Redding
3
U
V
Subbasin Boundaries
COUNTY
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
Redding/Sacramento
89
U 31N 7E
V
31N 6E
31N 5E
GW Basin Divide
4444
U
U
VV
Anderson
NANANA0
31N 1W
31N 4E
31N 2W
31N 1E
31N 4W31N 3W31N 3E
31N 2E
31N 7W
31N 8W31N 6W
31N 10W31N 9W
31N 5W
5
44
U
V
44
U
§¦¨V
County Boundaries
Bowman NA-16.2-11.12
¢
273
U
V
Bulletin 118 GW
Enterprise
NANANA0 30N 7E
Subbasin Excluded Areas
89
U
V
30N 6E
30N 5E
30N 6W
Millville NANANA0
30N 11W
30N 4E
30N 3E
30N 1E
30N 2E
30N 2W30N 1W
30N 3W
30N 4W
30N 7W
30N 9W30N 8W89
30N 10W U
V
60612
South Battle Creek
NANANA0
30N 5W
MilesSummary NA-16.2-11.12
29N 7E
29N 2W
29N 4W29N 6E
29N 5E
29N 3E29N 4E
36
U
V
29N 1E29N 2E
29N 1W
29N 5W29N 3W
36
U
29N 6W V
29N 7W
29N 10W29N 8W
29N 9W
36
U
V
29N 11W
36
U-6
V
-16.2
!
!
172
29N 2.5W U
V
36
U
V
36
U
V
28.5N 3W
NOTES
36
U
V
36
U
V
28N 6E
28N 5E
28N 4E
Note 1:A positive number indicates that groundwater elevations were higher in the
28N 3E
36
U
V
28N 2E
28N 1E
28N 1W
28N 3W current year than in 2004. A negative number indicates that groundwater
28N 5W28N 4W
28N 6W36
28N 7W
U
28N 8W V
28N 11W
28N 10W28N 9W
elevations were lower in the current year than in 2004.
28N 2W
Note 2:Statistics are based on the number of wells monitored within each
subbasin.
32
U
V
36
U
36
V
U
V
36
U
V
Note 3:This map may not use all the color ranges shown in table above. Some
wells may not be visible on map due to the close proximity to each other.
36
U
V
27N 6E
27N 2W
27N 5E
27N 4E
27N 3E
27N 2E
27N 1E
27N 1W
27N 11W Note 4:Groundwater level changes are based on measurements taken from wells
27N 5W
27N 4W
27N 7W27N 6W
27N 8W
27N 9W
27N 10W
with depths greater than 600 ft. Measurements are taken during similar time
Red 27N 3W
periods each year.
Bluff
Note 5:Change in groundwater elevations are based on the actual measured levels of
99
Groundwater Elevation Change
U
V
the hydrostatic level (piezometric surface) of the groundwater at individual well
99
U
V
locations.Contoured color ramping is interpolated from these measurements
5
§¦¨
and should be considered approximate. The accuracy of the estimated contour
26N 6E
26N 5E
26N 4E
26N 3E
> 40 feet higher 26N 2E
is directly related to the timing of the measurements, spacing and the distribution
26N 1E
26N 4W
26N 1W
26N 3W
26N 5W32
26N 6W
U
26N 8W26N 7W V
26N 9W
26N 10W
of nearby monitoring wells, well construction, and aquifer characteristics.
26N 11W26N 2W
Note 6:GW - Groundwater
> 35 to 40 feet higher
GWE - Groundwater Elevation
bgs - below ground surface
-44
!
TEHAMA
> 30 to 35 feet higher
25N 6E
25N 4E
25N 2E25N 3E25N 5E
COUNTY
25N 1E
25N 4W25N 1W
25N 6W25N 5W
25N 2W
25N 8W25N 7W
25N 10W
25N 9W
25N 3W
> 25 to 30 feet higher
25N
99
U
V
11W
-6.9
!
!
70
99 U
V
U
V-9.8
-7.6
> 20 to 25 feet higher
-6.3!
!
!
6.7
-10.7
!
24N 3W
24N 3E
24N 6E
24N 5E
24N 2E24N 4E
> 15 to 20 feet higher
24N 1E
24N 4W
24N24N 1W
24N 6W24N 5W24N 2W
24N 7W
24N 8W
24N 10W
24N 9W
11W
Corning
-43.7
!
!
> 10 to 15 feet higher-71.1
32
U
V
23.5N 2E
99
U
V
70
U
V
-11
> 5 to 10 feet higher!
23N 6E
23N 4E23N 5E
23N 3E
23N 2E
23N 1E
23N 4W
23N23N 1W
23N 2W
23N 6W23N 5W23N 3W
23N 8W23N 7W
23N 9W
23N 10W
11W
0 to 5 feet higher
99
U
V
162
U
V
> 0 to 5 feet lower
32
U
V
32
U
V
22N 1E
70
U
V
16222N 1W
U
V
22N 4W
22N 3W
-82.8
!
22N 6E
22N 4E22N 5E
22N 3E
> 5 to 10 feet lower
22N 2E
Chico
22N
32
22N 8W
22N 6W22N 5W U
V
22N 7W
22N 10W22N 9W
Orland
32
11W
U
V
!
32
U
V
5
162-13.8
-72.7
U
V§¦¨
-136.4
!
191
!
U
V
22N 2W
32
> 10 to 15 feet lower U
V
-30.7
BUTTE
!
162
U
V
21N 2E
GLENN
> 15 to 20 feet lower
COUNTY
21N 1E
70
U
V
21N 7W
-78.3
21N 6E
21N 5E
COUNTY
21N 4E
!
21N 3E
21N
21N 4W21N 2W
21N 10W99
21N 5W21N 3W
21N 8W21N 6W U
45 V
11W
21N 9W U
V
162
U
V
> 20 to 25 feet lower
-51.7
191
U
V
!
> 25 to 30 feet lower
-20.9
!
149
U 20N 3.5E
V
70
U
V
20N 6E
20N 5E
-65
> 30 to 35 feet lower 20N 4E
20N 3E
20N162
U!
V
20N 4W20N 3W
20N 10W20N 7W20N 5W20N 2W
20N 8W
11W20N 6W
20N 9W
20N 2E
-17
!162
U
V
> 35 to 40 feet lower
45
99
U 20N 1E
VU
V
20N 1W
162
162 Willows U
V
U
V
-48.6
> 40 feet lower
162
U
70 V
!
U
V
19N 3E
162
U
V
19N 6E
19N 5E
162
19N 4E
U
V
19N
19N 2E
19N 3W19N 1E
19N 4W
19N 8W
19N 10W
19N 9W19N 7W19N 5W
11W19N 6W
19N 1W
162
U
162 V
U
19N V
2W
70
U
V
-16.1
!
-8.7
!
99
U
V
18N 3W
18N 6E
18N 1W
18N 5E
18N 4E
18N 3E
18N 2E
18N18N 1E
18N 4W
18N 10W18N 8W18N 7W
18N 9W18N 6W18N 5W
11W
45
U
V
18N
2W
Gridley
-8.4
17N 4E
5
!
§¦¨
17N 3E
17N 6E
17N 5E
17N 2E
17N
17N 1E
17N 3W
17N 4W17N 1W
17N 10W17N 5W
17N 7W17N 6W
17N 8W
17N 9W
11W
17N 2W99
U
V
70
U
V
-54.4
!
Live Oak
45
16N 6E
U
V
16N 5E
20
U
V
16N
16N 2E
16N 9W16N 3W16N 1E
16N 8W16N 7W16N 4W
16N 10W16N 1W
16N 6W16N 5W
11W
16N 4E
16N 3E
16N 2W
Colusa
20
U
V
20
U
V
-12.6
Northern Sacramento Basin Groundwater Subbasins
70
!
U
V
99
U
V
20
U
V
COLUSA
Williams
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin NameCOUNTYSUTTER
20
15N 6E
U
V
15N15N 5E
20
U
V
20
15N 9W
15N 3E U
V
11W Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)15N 1E
15N 3W15N 2W2020
U
15N 4W U
VV
15N 4E
15N 10W15N 8W
15N 5W
15N 7W
15N 6W COUNTY
15N 1W
15N 2E
Yuba
70
U
V
29
U
V
Antelope NANANA0 City
20
U
V
99
U
V
70
U
V
Bend
NANANA0
14N 6E
14N 5E
14N 1E
14N 2E
14N 3W
45
U
V
14N-181.1 14N 4E
14N 8W
65
Butte NA-16.1-16.1 14N 3E U
29 1 V
U!14N 2W
11W V 14N 1W
14N 4W
14N 7W
14N 10W14N 5W
14N 6W
99
U
V
Colusa
NA-181.1-67.6
11
20
U
V
20
U
V
14N 9W
20
U
V
20
U
V
Corning NA-82.8-65.93
175
U 29
VU
V
13N 6E
13N
513N 5E
Los Molinos 13N 1E
6.7-10.7-5.86
13N 7W13N 3E13N 4E
13N 1W13N 2E
13N 2W§¦¨
11W
13N 3W
13N 5W
13N 6W13N 4W
13N 10W13N 9W
70
U
V
13N 8W
65
113 U
UV
V
5
16§¦¨
U
281 V
U
V
Red Bluff NA-44.0-44.01
29
U
V 99
U
V
Sutter
NANANA0
45
U
V
29
U
V
12N 2E
16
12N 6E
U
V 12N 5E
12N 3W
12N
Vina NA-20.9-15.23
12N 4E
12N 10W
12N 2W12N 1W
12N 8W12N 3E
11W12N 5W
12N 4W
12N 7W12N 6W
12N 9W
Wyandotte Creek
NA-8.7-8.71
12N 1E113
U
V
101
£¤
45
U
V
Summary 6.7-181.1-31.926
65
11N 10W U
V
11N 3E
99
29 U
UV
V
11N 7W
11N 9W11N 6W
11N 6E
11N 5E
11N 8W11N 4E
11N
11N 1W
11N 2W
11N 5W11N 4W
11N 1E
16
U
V
11W
11N 3W
113
U
V 11N 2E
101
£¤
505
§¦¨
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10N 9W NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY
10N 1E
10N 6E
113
U
V 10N 5E
10N 1W
29
U
THE RESOURCES AGENCY V
10N 4E
PLATE 2D-B
16
101
U
V
10N 4W
10N
£¤5
10N 8W
CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP
70
U
10N 5W V
§¦¨
10N 3W10N 3E
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
11W
10N 7W
16
10N 6W
U
V
16
U
V 10N 2E
NORTHERN REGION OFFICE
10N 10W
16
U
V
SUMMER 2004 TO SUMMER 2021 Date:
10N 2W
9N 6E
16
U
V
Woodland
November 2021
2440 Main Street
128
U
V
1139N 5E
U
Red Bluff, California 96080 V
DEEP WELLS 9N 4E
16
80
U
V
9N
9N 8W
9N 5W9N 1W9N 2E
9N 7W9N 2W9N 1E§¦¨
BY:
9N 4W9N 3W
9N 6W9N 3E
9N 10W(530) 529-7300
11W
128
U
V
A. Scholzen
(Well depths greater than 600 ft bgs)
80
§¦¨
9N 9W
https://data.ca.gov/dataset/northern-sacramento-valley-groundwater-elevation-change-maps
33N 7E
33N 5E33N 6E
33N 3E
33N 2E33N 4E
33N 1W
33N 5W33N 3W33N 2W33N 1E
33N 4W
33N 7W33N 6W
33N 8W
33N 9W
33N 10W
299
U
V
32N 7E
299
U 44
VU
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
32N 6E
32N 5E
!
(
Monitoring Well
32N 4E
32N 3E
32N 1W32N 2E
32N 2W
32N 4W32N 1E
32N 3W
32N 6W32N 5W
32N 9W32N 8W32N 7W
32N 10W
44
299 U
V
U
V
Redding Basin
SHASTA
Redding
3
U
V
Subbasin Boundaries
-17.8 COUNTY
!
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
Redding/Sacramento
89
U 31N 7E
V
-2.7
!
44
U 31N 6E
V
31N 5E
GW Basin Divide
44
U
V
-14.1 Anderson
1.3-2.9-0.810
8.8
!
31N 1W
31N 4E
31N 2W
31N 3W31N 1E
31N 4W!31N 2E31N 3E
31N 7W31N 5W
31N 8W31N 6W
31N 10W31N 9W
5
44
U
V
44
U
§¦¨
V
County Boundaries
1.2
Bowman 2.4-15.4-2.86
!
-0.9
¢
!
273
U
V
Bulletin 118 GW
Enterprise
NA-17.8-10.93 30N 7E
-2.4
!
Subbasin Excluded Areas
!-1.1
89
0.2
U
V
30N 6E
!30N 5E
30N 6W
Millville
8.8-2.72.43
30N 11W
30N 4E
30N 3E
30N 1E
30N 2E
30N 2W30N 1W
30N 3W
-1.1
30N 7W
89
30N 10W30N 9W30N 8W
U
V
!
!
0
60612
1.3!
South Battle Creek
NANANA0
30N 5W
30N 4W
Summary
Miles 8.8-17.8-3.022
29N 7E
0.1
-2.9!
!
!
0.2
-2
!29N 2W
29N 4W29N 6E
29N 5E
29N 3E
29N 4E
-1.8
36
U
V
29N 1E29N 2E
!
-1.9 29N 1W
29N 3W
36
29N 5W U
29N 6W V
!
29N 7W
29N 10W29N 8W
29N 9W
36
U
V
-15.4
-0.2
!!
29N 11W
36
U
V
0.2
!
172
29N 2.5W
U
V
36
U
V
36
U
V
28.5N 3W
NOTES
2.4
!
36
U
V
36
U
V
28N 6E
28N 5E
Note 1:A positive number indicates that groundwater elevations were higher in the 28N 4E
28N 3E
36
28N 2E
U
V 28N 1E
28N 1W
28N 3W current year than in 2015. A negative number indicates that groundwater
28N 5W28N 4W
28N 6W
36
28N 7W
28N 8W U
28N 11W V
28N 10W
28N 9W
elevations were lower in the current year than in 2015.
28N 2W
Note 2:Statistics are based on the number of wells monitored within each
subbasin.
3.3
32
U
V
!
36
U
V
36
U
V
1.6
36 Note 3:This map may not use all the color ranges shown in table above. Some
U
V
!
wells may not be visible on map due to the close proximity to each other.
Red
-2.5
27N 6E
27N 2W
27N 5E
27N 4E
!
27N 3E
!
27N 2E
!-6.9 27N 1E
27N 1W
27N 11W Bluff-5.3 Note 4:Groundwater level changes are based on measurements taken from wells
27N 5W
27N 4W!
27N 7W
27N 6W
27N 8W
27N 9W
-7.6
27N 10W
with depths of 100 to 450 ft. Measurements are taken during similar time
-5
-4.2
periods each year.
!
27N 3W
-2.2
-2.8
!
-8.1
!
!
Note 5:Change in groundwater elevations are based on the actual measured levels of
Groundwater Elevation Change 99
U
V
the hydrostatic level (piezometric surface) of the groundwater at individual well
99
U
V
locations.Contoured color ramping is interpolated from these measurements
5
§¦¨
0.7 and should be considered approximate. The accuracy of the estimated contour
26N 6E
26N 5E
!
26N 4E
26N 3E
26N 2E
> 40 feet higher is directly related to the timing of the measurements, spacing and the distribution
26N 1E
26N 4W
26N 1W
26N 3W
32
26N 5W
26N 6W U
26N 7W V
26N 8W
26N 9W
26N 10W
of nearby monitoring wells, well construction, and aquifer characteristics.
26N 2W
26N 11W
-1.1
!Note 6:GW - Groundwater
> 35 to 40 feet higher
GWE - Groundwater Elevation
-6.2
!
bgs - below ground surface
-11.1
!
TEHAMA
-2
> 30 to 35 feet higher
!
25N 6E
25N 4E
25N 2E25N 5E
25N 3E
COUNTY
25N 3W
25N 1E
25N 4W
25N 6W25N 5W
25N 2W
25N 8W25N 7W
25N 10W
25N 9W-8.4
-26.2
!
> 25 to 30 feet higher
!
25N 1W
25N
99
U
V
11W
-3.1
-2.8
1
!
!
70
U
-2.2!V
-1.4
> 20 to 25 feet higher
!
!
-12.1
!
!
-2.1
-2.8
-2.7!
24N 3W
!
24N 3E24N 6E
24N 5E
24N 2E24N 4E
-12
> 15 to 20 feet higher
-0.2
24N 1E
24N!24N 1W
24N 6W24N 5W24N 2W
24N 7W-2.1
24N 8W!
!
24N 10W
24N 9W
11W
!
4.1
Corning
-17.1
24N 4W
!
!
-7.8
!!
!
-12.6-16.1
> 10 to 15 feet higher
-8.6
32
U
V
23.5N 2E
-5
70
!
U
V
3.2
-1.3
!
> 5 to 10 feet higher
!
-23.1
-3.7
-10.9
!
!
!
23N 6E
23N 4E23N 5E
23N 3E
99
U
23N 2E
V
23N 1E
-11
23N
23N 2W23N 1W
23N 6W23N 5W23N 3W-21
23N 8W23N 7W
23N 9W
!
23N 10W!
11W
0 to 5 feet higher
-19.4
!
-5.1
-22.3
23N 4W
-3.3
!
!
-12.8
-3.5!
99!
!
U
V
!
-9.6
-6.3
!-4.6
162-29.1!
32
U
VU
V
> 0 to 5 feet lower
32!
U
V-10.4
-23
-5.1 22N 1E
!
!
!
70
U
V
16222N 1W
U-6.6
V
22N 4W
!
22N 3W
!-13.3-17.5
!
22N 6E
22N 4E22N 5E
22N 3E
> 5 to 10 feet lower
22N 2E
-5.1
22N
32
22N 8W
22N 6W22N 5W U
V
22N 7W
!
22N 10W22N 9W
-3.2 Chico 32
Orland
U
11W V
!!
32
U
V
-31.6 5
162-31.2
-3.7
U
V!§¦¨
-18.7
-0.2
!
191
!
U
!V
-1.9
-14-6.2
!!
> 10 to 15 feet lower
!
-34.4!-2.7
!
22N 2W
-8.9
BUTTE
-14.7
-7.9!
!
-5.8
!
1.9
-24.8!
-4.7
-3.4
!
162
U!!
V!!
21N 2E
GLENN
> 15 to 20 feet lower 11.1
COUNTY
-6.4
!70
U
V
21N 7W
0.7
-11.3
21N 6E
21N 5E
!
COUNTY!21N 4E
-8.2
21N21N 3E
-7.6
!
21N 2W
21N 4W
21N 10W
21N 5W21N 3W
21N 8W21N 6W!
11W
21N 9W45
U
162 V
U
V
!
> 20 to 25 feet lower
-1.1
1.4
!
-9.9
!
99
U
V
!
-6.5 21N 1E
0.3
!
191
-3.9
U
V
!
> 25 to 30 feet lower 2.4
!
-8
!
-18.6
-0.4
!149
U 20N 3.5E
V
!
70
-5.6 U
V
20N 6E
!
-4.9 20N 5E
-6.6
> 30 to 35 feet lower 20N 4E
20N16220N 3E
!
U!
V
-3.3
20N 4W20N 3W
20N 5W
20N 10W20N 7W20N 2W
20N 8W20N 6W
11W!
20N 9W
20N 2E
-4.8
-0.1
!162
U
99 V
-22.6
!U
V
> 35 to 40 feet lower
-7.1
!
45
U
20N 1E
V
!
!
-1.2
20N 1W
0.3
!
162
162 Willows U
-2 UV
V
> 40 feet lower 2
-8.6
!
162
!U
!V
0.8
19N 3E
-0.2
162
!
!U
V
19N 6E
19N 5E
162
-0.7 U 19N 4E
V
2.2
19N
!
19N 2E
19N 3W19N 1E
19N 4W!
19N 8W
19N 10W
19N 9W19N 7W19N 6W19N 5W
11W
19N 1W
19N 2W
-13.3-1
-1.8 162
U
162 V
!!!
U
V
!
-4.6-1.3-19
-4.1
5.7!
!!!
!
!!
15.9
4.4
-1
-2!70
!
U
V
-3.9
-2.6
!
18N 2W
-12.3
99
U
V
!
5.2
-3.1
!
18N 3W
18N 4W
!
18N 6E
18N 3E
18N 5E
0.5
18N 2E
18N 1E
18N
!
18N 1W
1.3
18N 10W18N 8W18N 7W18N 6W
18N 9W18N 5W
11W
!
18N 4E
45
U
V
0.3
!
Gridley
-0.7
-0.8
!17N 4E
5
!
§¦¨
17N 3E
14.5
!
17N 6E
-2.4
17N 5E
-0.3!
99
!U
V
-3.814.5
17N 2E
17N
17N 1E
17N 3W
17N 1W!
-0.8!
17N 10W17N 7W17N 6W17N 5W
17N 9W17N 8W
-0.3
11W
!
!
17N 2W
8.4
-40.9-10.7
!
!!
-1.5
17N 4W
-3.1
!
!16.1
-5.1
!
70!
U
V
-10.6
-1.4
!
!
-4
Live Oak
!
-4.5!
-1
!
7.3
!
0.1
-4.7!
45
!
U 16N 6E
V
!16N 5E
!-0.1
!
9
!
20
-1.6
U
-0.1 V
16N
16N 2E
16N 2W
16N 9W16N 3W16N 1E
16N 8W16N 7W16N 4W
16N 1W
16N 10W16N 6W
16N 5W 5.1
11W
29.4
!
6.1!
16N 3E
16N 4E
!
Colusa
-3.5
20
!U
V
20
U
V
Northern Sacramento Basin Groundwater Subbasins
-5
-2.5
!
99
U
-1.7 V
20!
U
COLUSA V
28.5
!
!!
-13
2
-0.2
15N 3E
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin NameCOUNTYSUTTER
Williams!15N 6E
!
15N 5E
15N
20
U
V
15N 9W15N 1E-4.9
11W
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)15N 2W2020
15N 4W U!U
VV
!
15N 10W15N 8W
15N 5W-3.1
15N 7W
!15N 4E
15N 6W COUNTY
Yuba
15N 1W
-1.4
-2.5
-7.9
!
15N 2E!
70
15N 3W U
-0.4 V
1.2
City
!
29
U
V
!
Antelope NA-7.6-4.66
99
U 3.3
20 V
U
V
!
-17.9-0.7
!
!
6.8
Bend
NANANA0
14N 6E
!14N 5E!
14N 1E 7.6
2.5
14N 2E
8.9
!!
4.3
!
45
U
V
14N14N 4E
14N 8W
65
3.7
Butte 14.5-11.30.4 14N 3E U
29 20 V 1.3
U 14N 2W
11W V
14N 3W14N 1W
14N 4W-13.1
14N 7W
!
!
14N 10W
14N 5W
14N 6W!
!
6.8
20.6
!
2.6
3.5
4.2
!0.9
99
11.7
U
V!
Colusa!
15.9-34.4-7.2 4.2
63!
!
20
!
U
V
20 0.316.3
U 12.3
V
14N 9W-3.5
!!
4.3!
!
16.5
!
-10.1
20!
U
V
!
Corning NA-29.1-11.627
-3.82.6
-4.8
!!
!!-32.9
!
29
U
13N 2W
V 1.8
175
U
V
13N 6E
13N-3.4-0.7
-7.6
5
Los Molinos 13N 1E13N 5E
4.1-17.1-2.312!
13N 7W13N 3E!!13N 4E
13N 1W!13N 2E
§¦¨
-32.1
11W!
13N 3W-3.3
13N 5W
13N 6W13N 4W-13.8
13N 10W13N 9W
-3.4
!!
-29.7
-0.8
13N 8W!
65
113!
U
-23.8!UV
V
5
16§¦¨
U 70
281 V
U
UV
V
Red Bluff 3.3-26.2-6.89
29
-22.4
U-4.6
V 99
U
-0.4
V
!
!
-7.6
!
!
1.4
-0.1
-8.1
!
!
Sutter
28.5-40.9-4.416!
29
U
V
9.2
-3.5
!!
12N 2E
45
U
16
V 12N 6E
U
V 12N 5E
12N 3W-6.3
12N
-11.1
Vina 11.1-10.4-2.420
12N 4E
!
12N 10W!
12N 2W12N 1W
12N 8W12N 3E
11W12N 5W
12N 4W
12N 7W12N 6W
12N 9W
-11.7
1.1!
-3
!!
Wyandotte Creek
4.4-12.3-3.03
113
U
V
12N 1E
101
3.5
£¤
11.2
4.2
!!!
!
!!
!
-8.164.3
-5.14.9
Summary
28.5-40.9-4.7176
-13
!
45
U
V 65
11N 10W!U
V
!-4.5
11N 3E
1.6
-12.5
29
U!!
V
!
11N 7W
11N 9W11N 6W
9911N 6E
17.4
U 11N 5E
!V
-25.8
11N 8W
11N
11N 1W!
11N 2W
-1.8
11N 5W11N 4W
11N 1E
16
U
11W V
11N 3W
113
U
V 11N 2E
11N 4E
101
£¤
-11.4
!
0
!
505
!
§¦¨
-0.3
-8.3
!
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10N 9W
NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY
10N 1E-73.6
10N 6E
113
U
V 10N 5E
!
10N 1W
29
U
THE RESOURCES AGENCY V
10N 4E
PLATE 2C-E
16
101
U
V
10N 4W
10N
£¤
10N 8W
CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP
70
U
10N 5W V
10N 3W10N 3E
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
11W
10N 7W
-4.9
16
10N 6W
U
V
!
16
U 10N 2E
V
-2.3
NORTHERN REGION OFFICE
10N 10W
!
16
U
V
Date:5
SUMMER 2015 TO SUMMER 2021
10N 2W
9N 6E
16§¦¨
U
V
Woodland
November 2021
2440 Main Street
128
U
V
-25.5
9N 5E
113
U
Red Bluff, California 96080 V
-37.3
!9N 4E
100 to 450 ft WELL DEPTHS
16
80
U
!V
9N
9N 8W9N 5W
9N 1W9N 2E!§¦¨
9N 7W9N 2W9N 1E
BY:
9N 4W9N 3W
9N 6W9N 3E-13.8
9N 10W(530) 529-7300
11W
128
U
V
A. Scholzen
(Well depths greater than 100 ft and less than 450 ft deep bgs)
80
§¦¨
9N 9W
https://data.ca.gov/dataset/northern-sacramento-valley-groundwater-elevation-change-maps
33N 7E
33N 5E33N 6E
33N 3E
33N 2E33N 4E
151
33N 1W
33N 5W U 33N 3W33N 2W33N 1E
V 33N 4W
33N 7W33N 6W
33N 8W
33N 9W
33N 10W
299
U
V
32N 7E
299
U 44
VU
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
32N 6E
32N 5E
!
(
Monitoring Well
32N 4E
32N 3E
32N 1W32N 2E
32N 2W
32N 1E
32N 3W
32N 6W32N 5W
32N 9W32N 8W32N 7W299
32N 10W U
V
Redding Basin
SHASTA 44
U
V
32N 4W
Redding
3
U
V
Subbasin Boundaries
COUNTY
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
Redding/Sacramento
89
U 31N 7E
V
31N 6E
31N 5E
GW Basin Divide
4444
U
U
VV
Anderson
NA-0.5-0.51
31N 1W
31N 4E
31N 2W
31N 1E
31N 4W31N 3W31N 3E
31N 2E
31N 7W
31N 8W31N 6W
31N 10W31N 9W
31N 5W
5
44
U
V
44
U
§¦¨V
County Boundaries
Bowman NA-3.3-2.03
¢
273
U
V
Bulletin 118 GW
Enterprise
NANANA0 30N 7E
Subbasin Excluded Areas
89
U
V
30N 6E
30N 5E
30N 6W
Millville NANANA0
30N 11W
30N 4E
30N 3E
30N 1E
30N 2E
30N 2W30N 1W
30N 3W
30N 4W
30N 7W
30N 9W30N 8W89
30N 10W U
V
60612
South Battle Creek
NANANA0
30N 5W
MilesSummary NA-3.3-1.24
29N 7E
!
-0.5
29N 2W
29N 4W29N 6E
29N 5E
29N 3E29N 4E
36
U
V
29N 1E29N 2E
-3.3
29N 1W
29N 3W
36
U
29N 6W29N 5W V
!
29N 7W
29N 10W29N 8W
29N 9W
36
U
V
29N 11W
-0.6
36
U
V
-2.2
!
!
172
29N 2.5W U
V
36
U
V
36
U
V
28.5N 3W
NOTES
36
U
V
36
U
V
28N 6E
28N 5E
28N 4E
Note 1:A positive number indicates that groundwater elevations were higher in the
28N 3E
36
U
V
28N 2E
28N 1E
28N 1W
28N 3W current year than in 2015. A negative number indicates that groundwater
28N 5W28N 4W
28N 6W36
28N 7W
U
28N 8W V
28N 11W
28N 10W28N 9W
elevations were lower in the current year than in 2015.
28N 2W
Note 2:Statistics are based on the number of wells monitored within each
subbasin.
32
U
V
36
U
36
V
U
V
36
U
V
Note 3:This map may not use all the color ranges shown in table above. Some
wells may not be visible on map due to the close proximity to each other.
36
U
V
27N 6E
27N 2W
27N 5E
27N 4E
27N 3E
27N 2E
27N 1E
27N 1W
27N 11W Note 4:Groundwater level changes are based on measurements taken from wells
27N 5W
27N 4W
27N 7W27N 6W
27N 8W
27N 9W
27N 10W
with depths greater than 600 ft. Measurements are taken during similar time
Red 27N 3W
periods each year.
Bluff
Note 5:Change in groundwater elevations are based on the actual measured levels of
!
-8.8
Groundwater Elevation Change
the hydrostatic level (piezometric surface) of the groundwater at individual well
99
U
V
99
U
V
locations.Contoured color ramping is interpolated from these measurements
and should be considered approximate. The accuracy of the estimated contour
26N 6E
26N 5E
26N 4E
26N 3E
> 40 feet higher 26N 2E
is directly related to the timing of the measurements, spacing and the distribution
26N 1E
26N 1W
26N 5W32
26N 6W
U
26N 8W26N 7W V
26N 9W
26N 10W
of nearby monitoring wells, well construction, and aquifer characteristics.
26N 3W
26N 11W26N 2W
26N 4W
Note 6:GW - Groundwater
> 35 to 40 feet higher
GWE - Groundwater Elevation
bgs - below ground surface
-57
!
TEHAMA
> 30 to 35 feet higher
25N 6E
25N 4E
25N 2E25N 3E25N 5E
COUNTY
25N 1E
25N 4W25N 1W
25N 6W25N 5W
25N 3W25N 2W
25N 8W25N 7W
25N 10W
25N 9W
> 25 to 30 feet higher
25N
99
U
V
11W
-2.7
!
!
70
99 U
V
U
V-2.3
-3.5
> 20 to 25 feet higher
-2.8
!
!
!
-2.7
-3.3
!
24N 3W
24N 3E
24N 6E
24N 5E
24N 2E24N 4E
> 15 to 20 feet higher
-4.1
24N 1E
24N 4W
24N24N 1W
24N 6W24N 5W24N 2W
24N 7W
24N 8W
!
24N 10W
24N 9W
11W
Corning
-8
!
-17.7
!
!
> 10 to 15 feet higher-25.3
32
U
V
23.5N 2E
70
U
V
-1.2
> 5 to 10 feet higher!
-42.3
!
23N 6E
23N 4E23N 5E
9923N 3E
U
23N 2E
V
23N 1E
23N 4W
23N23N 1W
23N 2W
23N 6W23N 5W23N 3W
23N 8W23N 7W
23N 9W
23N 10W
11W99
U
V
0 to 5 feet higher
-10.8
-50.2!
!-7.1
!
-25.3
!
-32.2
-3
5
!
40
-
162
U
V
> 0 to 5 feet lower
32-55
U
V
32
U
V-80.8
22N 1E
!
70
U
V
16222N 1W
U
V-24.7
22N 3W
-27.8
!
!
22N 6E
22N 4E22N 5E
22N 3E
> 5 to 10 feet lower
22N 2E
22N22N 4W
32
22N 8W
22N 6W22N 5W U
V
22N 7W
22N 10W22N 9W
Chico 32
Orland
U
11W V
!
32
U
V
5
162-3.9
11.9
U
V§¦¨
-26.4
!
191
!-32.1
U
V
22N 2W
!
32
> 10 to 15 feet lower
U
V
-9.3
-13.7 BUTTE
!
!
-9.2
-3.5
162
U!
V!
21N 2E
GLENN
> 15 to 20 feet lower
-2.3
COUNTY
!70
13.1
U
V
21N 7W 1.1
-1.2
21N 6E
!
21N 5E
!
COUNTY
!21N 4E
21N 3E
21N
21N 4W21N 2W
21N 10W
21N 5W21N 3W
21N 8W21N 6W
45
11W
21N 9W U
V
162
U
V
> 20 to 25 feet lower
-5.9
!
99
U
V
21N 1E
-7.8
191
U
V
!
-29.1
> 25 to 30 feet lower
!
-2.8
!
-45.2
!149
U 20N 3.5E
V
70
U
V
20N 6E
20N 5E
-18.9
> 30 to 35 feet lower 20N 4E
20N 3E
20N162
U!
V
20N 4W20N 3W
20N 10W20N 7W20N 5W20N 2W
20N 8W
11W20N 6W
20N 9W
20N 2E
162
U
V
> 35 to 40 feet lower
45
U 20N 1E
V
20N 1W
162
162 U
V
U
V
-15.5
> 40 feet lower
162
U
70 V
!
99 U
V
Willows U
19N 3E
V
162
U
V
19N 6E
19N 5E
162
U 19N 4E
V
3
19N!
19N 2E
19N 3W19N 1E
19N 4W!-1.5
19N 8W
19N 10W
19N 9W19N 7W19N 5W
11W19N 6W
19N 1W
19N 2W
162
U
162 V
U
V
70
3.6 U
V
!
18N 2W 18.1
!
99
U
V
-5.1
18N 3W
!
18N 6E
18N 3E
18N 5E
18N 4E
18N 2E
18N18N 1E
18N 4W18N 1W
18N 10W18N 8W18N 7W
18N 9W18N 6W18N 5W
11W
45
U
V
4.2
!
Gridley
-1.7
-12.5
!17N 4E
5
!
§¦¨
17N 3E
17N 6E
17N 5E
0.5
17N
17N 1E
17N 3W!
17N 4W17N 1W
17N 10W17N 5W
17N 7W17N 6W
17N 8W
17N 9W
11W
17N 2W99
U
V
17N 2E
70
U
V
-26.8
!
Live Oak
45
16N 6E
-22.9 U
V
16N 5E
!16N 4E
20
U
V
16N
16N 2E
16N 2W
16N 9W16N 3W16N 1E
16N 8W16N 7W16N 4W
16N 10W16N 1W
16N 6W16N 5W
11W
16N 3E
20
U
V
Colusa
20
U
V
Northern Sacramento Basin Groundwater Subbasins
70
U
V
99
U
V
20
U
V
COLUSA
Williams
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin NameCOUNTYSUTTER
15N 1W15N 6E
15N15N 5E
2020
UU
VV
20
15N 9W
15N 3E U
V
11W Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)15N 1E
2020
U
15N 4W U
VV
15N 4E
15N 10W15N 8W
15N 5W
15N 7W
15N 6W COUNTY
15N 2E
Yuba
70
15N 3W15N 2W U
V
29
U
V
Antelope NANANA0 City
20
U
V
99
U
V
70
U
V
Bend
NANANA0
14N 6E
14N 5E
14N 1E
14N 2E
14N 3W
45
U
V
14N14N 4E
-86.6
14N 8W
65
Butte 4.2-3.50.4 U
29 8 V
U!14N 2W
11W V
14N 4W
14N 7W
-2.1
14N 10W14N 5W
14N 6W!
14N 1W
14N 3E
Colusa
13.1-86.6-17.6
22
20
U
V
20
U-9.6
V
0
14N 9W-1
!
99
-1.3
U
20 V
U
V
!
20
U
V
Corning NA-80.8-36.29
5
20
-
175
U 29§¦¨
VU 13N 1W
V
13N 1E
13N 6E
13N-18.2
5-26.9 13N 5E
Los Molinos
NA-8.0-3.78-16.4
13N 7W13N 3E13N 4E
!!13N 2E
13N 2W§¦¨
!
11W
13N 3W
13N 5W
13N 6W13N 4W
13N 10W13N 9W
70
U
V
13N 8W
65
113 U
UV
V
16
U
281 V
U
V
Red Bluff NA-57.0-32.92
29
-10.9
U
V 99
U
V
!
-29.6
!
-9.8
Sutter
NA-2.1-2.11!
29
U
V
-15.5
-14.3
!!
12N 2E
45
U
16
V 12N 6E
U
V 12N 5E
12N 3W
12N
Vina 1.1-32.2-7.29
12N 4E
12N 10W
12N 2W12N 1W
12N 8W12N 3E
11W12N 5W
12N 4W
12N 7W12N 6W
12N 9W
1
!
Wyandotte Creek
18.1NA18.11
12N 1E
113
U
V
101
£¤
27.3
!
45
U 3.6
V
Summary 18.1-86.6-10.160
!
65
11N 10W U
V
55.5
99
29 U
U!V
V
11N 7W
11N 9W11N 6W
11N 6E
11N 5E
11N 8W11N 4E
11N
11N 1W
11N 2W11N 3E
11N 5W11N 4W
11N 1E
16
U
V
11W
11N 3W
113
U
V 11N 2E
101
£¤
505
§¦¨
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10N 9W NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY
10N 1E
10N 6E
113
U
V 10N 5E
10N 1W
29
U
THE RESOURCES AGENCY V
10N 4E
PLATE 2D-E
16
101
U
V
10N 4W
10N
£¤5
10N 8W
CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP
70
U
10N 5W V
§¦¨
10N 3W10N 3E
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
11W
10N 7W
16
10N 6W
U
V
16
U
V 10N 2E
NORTHERN REGION OFFICE
10N 10W
16
U
V
SUMMER 2015 TO SUMMER 2021 Date:
10N 2W
9N 6E
16
U
V
Woodland
November 2021
2440 Main Street
128
U
V
1139N 5E
U
Red Bluff, California 96080 V
DEEP WELLS 9N 4E
16
80
U
V
9N
9N 8W
9N 5W9N 1W9N 2E
9N 7W9N 2W9N 1E§¦¨
BY:
9N 4W9N 3W
9N 6W9N 3E
9N 10W(530) 529-7300
11W
128
U
V
G. Lewis/A. Scholzen
(Well depths greater than 600 ft bgs)
80
§¦¨
9N 9W
https://data.ca.gov/dataset/northern-sacramento-valley-groundwater-elevation-change-maps
33N 7E
33N 5E33N 6E
33N 3E
33N 2E33N 4E
151
33N 1W
33N 5W33N 3W33N 2W33N 1E
UV 33N 4W
33N 7W33N 6W
33N 8W
33N 9W
33N 10W
299
UV
32N 7E
299
44
UV
UV
299
UV
299
UV
299
UV
32N 6E
32N 5E
!(
Monitoring Well
32N 4E
32N 3E
32N 1W32N 2E
32N 2W
32N 1E
32N 3W
32N 6W32N 5W
32N 9W32N 8W32N 7W299
32N 10W
UV
44
UV
Redding Basin
SHASTA
32N 4W
Redding
3
UV
Subbasin Boundaries
COUNTY
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
Redding/Sacramento
89
31N 7E
UV
44!
UV
31N 6E
31N 5E
-4.3
GW Basin Divide
44
UV
Anderson
NA-4.0-2.99
31N 1W
31N 4E
31N 2W
31N 1E
31N 4W31N 3W31N 3E
31N 2E
31N 7W
31N 8W31N 6W
31N 10W31N 9W
31N 5W
5
44
UV
44
§¨
¦UV
County Boundaries
Bowman NA-3.6-2.63
273
UV
¢
Bulletin 118 GW
-4.2
Enterprise
NA-4.2-4.21 30N 7E
!
-3
Subbasin Excluded Areas
!
-1.5
89
UV
30N 6E
30N 4W
30N 5E
!
30N 6W
Millville NA-4.3-4.31
30N 11W
30N 4E
30N 3E
30N 1E
30N 2E
30N 2W30N 1W
30N 7W
-3.5
89
30N 10W30N 9W30N 8W
UV
!
60612!
-3.9
!
South Battle Creek
NANANA0
30N 3W
-2.3
30N 5W
-3.6
!
-1.5
!
MilesSummary
NA-4.3-3.514
-2.6
29N 7E
!
-4
!29N 2W
29N 6E
-1.8
29N 5E
29N 3E29N 4E
36
UV!
29N 1E29N 2E
-3.6
29N 1W
29N 3W
36
29N 5W UV
29N 6W
29N 7W!
29N 10W29N 8W
29N 9W
36
UV
29N 11W
3629N 4W
UV
-2.4
!172
29N 2.5W
UV
36
UV
36
UV
28.5N 3W
NOTES
36
UV
36
UV
28N 6E
28N 5E
28N 4E
28N 3E
3628N 2E
28N 1E
UV Note 1:A positive number indicates that groundwater elevations were higher in the
28N 1W
28N 3W
28N 5W28N 4W
28N 6W36
28N 7W
28N 8W UV
28N 11W
28N 10W28N 9W
current year than the previous year. A negative number indicates that
28N 2W
groundwater elevations were lower in the current year than in the previous year.
Note 2:Statistics are based on the number of wells monitored within each
32
UV
Red
36
subbasin.
UV 36
UV
36
UV
Bluff
36
Note 3:This map may not use all the color ranges shown in table above. Some
UV
27N 6E
27N 2W
27N 5E
-5.9 27N 4E
wells may not be visible on map due to the close proximity to each other.
27N 3E
27N 2E
!27N 1E
27N 11W27N 1W
27N 5W27N 4W
27N 7W27N 6W
-0.8
!
27N 8W
27N 9W
27N 10W
Note 4:Groundwater level changes are based on measurements taken from wells
with depths of less than 200 ft. Measurements are taken during similar time
27N 3W
!
-6.2
periods each year.
!
!
-2
Groundwater Elevation Change-3.3
99
Note 5:Change in groundwater elevations are based on the actual measured levels of
UV
99
UV the hydrostatic level (piezometric surface) of the groundwater at individual well
5
§¨
¦
locations.Contoured color ramping is interpolated from these measurements
26N 6E
26N 5E
> 40 feet higher 26N 4E
26N 3E
and should be considered approximate. The accuracy of the estimated contour
26N 2E
26N 1E
26N 4W
26N 1W
26N 3W
32
26N 6W26N 5W
26N 8W26N 7W UV
26N 9W
26N 10W
is directly related to the timing of the measurements, spacing and the distribution
!
26N 2W
TEHAMA
26N 11W
-2.3 of nearby monitoring wells, well construction, and aquifer characteristics.
> 35 to 40 feet higher
!
COUNTY
-0.4
Note 6:GW - Groundwater
-5
GWE - Groundwater Elevation
bgs - below ground surface
> 30 to 35 feet higher-5.4
!
-5.7
-2.2
25N 6E
25N 4E
25N 2E25N 5E
25N 3E
!
!
25N 1E
25N 4W25N 1W
25N 6W25N 5W
25N 3W25N 2W
25N 8W25N 7W
25N 10W
25N 9W
> 25 to 30 feet higher
-1.1
!
25N
99
-2.2
UV
11W
!
!
70
> 20 to 25 feet higher 99
UV
UV
-0.3
-13
-9.5
!
!
-0.2
-2.2
24N 3W
!
!
24N 3E24N 6E
> 15 to 20 feet higher 24N 5E
24N 2E24N 4E
24N 1E
24N 4W
24N24N 1W
24N 6W24N 5W24N 2W
24N 7W
24N 8W
24N 10W
24N 9W
11W
-3.1
Corning
!
> 10 to 15 feet higher
32
UV
-11.9
23.5N 2E
-4.4
!
70
!
UV
0.30.5
> 5 to 10 feet higher
!
!
-7.4
!
-19.2
!
23N 4E23N 5E23N 6E
23N 3E
99
UV 23N 2E
-10.2
23N 4W23N 1E
23N
23N 1W
23N 6W23N 5W23N 3W23N 2W
23N 8W23N 7W
23N 9W
23N 10W!
11W
0 to 5 feet higher
2
-12.3
!
!
-11.8
99
UV
!
-1.9
!
-5.1
-8.2
!
-5.9
> 0 to 5 feet lower
162!
!
UV
32
-12
UV
32
-0.2
UV
22N 1E
!
!
70
UV
162-11.1 22N 1W
-8.3
UV
-20.1
22N 3W
!
!
> 5 to 10 feet lower
!22N 6E
22N 5E
22N 4E
22N 3E
22N 2E
-10.5
22N
22N 4W32
22N 8W
22N 6W
22N 5W UV
22N 7W
22N 10W
22N 9W Chico 32
Orland
!
11W UV
-22.8
!
32!
UV
162
-17.1!
UV-8.8
-2.8
-23.2 22N 2W
191
!
UV
-9.5!
> 10 to 15 feet lower
!!32
-27.3 UV
!
-5
-10.8
-10.4
-23.4 BUTTE
!
!-0.6
!
162
UV
> 15 to 20 feet lower!
21N 2E
GLENN
COUNTY
21N 1E
70
UV
21N 7W
21N 6E
21N 5E
COUNTY
21N 4E
-12.2 9921N 3E
21N
UV
21N 4W21N 2W
21N 10W
21N 3W
21N 6W21N 5W
21N 8W!45-3.1
11W
21N 9W
UV
162
> 20 to 25 feet lower
UV
-9.8
-0.2!
!
!
-2.6
!
-6.6-4.5!
!
-5.9 191
> 25 to 30 feet lower UV
!
-0.7
-9.9
!
-12
!
!
20N 3.5E
149
UV
-9.3
70
UV
20N 6E
> 30 to 35 feet lower
!!-7.4
20N 5E
20N 4E
20N 3E
20N162-2
-5.5
!
UV 20N 2W
20N 4W
20N 3W
20N 10W20N 7W20N 5W
20N 8W
11W20N 6W
20N 9W!
20N 2E
-1.9
-4.9 162
> 35 to 40 feet lower!99
UV
UV
45!
20N 1E
UV
20N 1W
> 40 feet lower
162
162
Willows UV
-4
UV-4.5
70162
!UV
-2.7 UV
!
19N 3E
162
-4.1
-3.1!UV
19N 6E
19N 5E
162
19N 4E
UV
!1.7
!
19N
19N 2E
19N 3W19N 1E
!
19N 8W
19N 10W19N 7W19N 5W
11W19N 9W19N 6W19N 4W
19N 1W
19N 2W
-10.3
162
162 UV
!
UV
!
!
-3.5
-4.1
70
UV
18N 2W
-0.4
99
UV
!
-3.2
18N 3W
45
18N 6E
UV 18N 3E
18N 5E
!
18N 4E
-1.5
18N 2E
18N 1E
18N
18N 1W!
18N 4W
18N 10W
18N 9W18N 8W18N 7W18N 6W18N 5W
11W
-0.8
!
-1.8
!
Gridley
0.2
-9.2
!
17N 4E
!
17N 3E
1.5
-6.3
17N 6E
17N 5E
!
99
!UV
17N 2E
17N
17N 1E
17N 3W
17N 1W
17N 4W
17N 10W17N 7W17N 6W17N 5W
17N 9W17N 8W
11W
17N 2W
-1.3
-7.4
!
!
70
UV
Live Oak
-1.1
-2.9
45
16N 6E
UV
16N 5E
!!
!
20
UV
16N
19.2
16N 2E
16N 2W
16N 9W16N 3W-3.1 16N 1E
16N 8W16N 7W16N 4W
16N 1W
16N 10W16N 6W
16N 5W
11W
!
15
16N 4E
16N 3E
Colusa
20
UV
20
UV
Northern Sacramento Basin Groundwater Subbasins
70
UV
99
UV
20
UV-2.7
COLUSA
-4.1
!
!
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
15N 4E
Subbasin NameCOUNTYSUTTER
Williams 15N 6E
15N 5E
15N
20
UV
15N 9W
15N 3E
11W
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)15N 2W2015N 1E20
15N 4W
UVUV
15N 10W15N 8W
15N 5W
15N 7W
15N 6W
-0.1 COUNTY
15N 1W
15N 2E
Yuba
!
70
15N 3W
UV
-5.8
-2
29
UV
!
AntelopeCity
NA-5.9-2.93!-1.4
!
20
UV
-2.2
99
UV
70
!
UV
Bend
NANANA0
14N 6E
14N 5E
-4.2-3.2
14N 1E
!
!
45
UV
14N14N 4E
14N 8W
65
Butte 14N 3E
29 1.7-9.3-3.416 UV
11W UV 14N 2W
14N 1W
14N 3W
14N 4W
14N 7W
14N 10W
14N 5W
14N 6W
-6.3
14N 2E
-10.9
0.9 99!
UV
Colusa-7.8
0.2-27.3-8.0
30!
!
20
!
UV
-2.5
20
-3.3
UV
14N 9W
!
!
20
20
UV 2.3
UV
Corning
NA-20.1-9.019
-1
-7.4!
!
!-3.8
29
13N 1W
UV-4.1
!
175
UV
13N 6E
!
13N
Los Molinos 13N 1E13N 5E
NA-3.1-1.04
13N 7W13N 4E
13N 2E13N 3E
13N 2W5-21.3
-1.7
11W
13N 3W
13N 5W
13N 4W
13N 10W13N 9W13N 6W§¨
¦
!
!70
!
UV
0.4
13N 8W
65
113-0.6-1.8
UV
UV
!
!
!!
16
-25.5
UV
281
-1.1-4.8!-8.3
UV
Red Bluff
NA-9.5-4.48!
29
UV
99
-18.6
UV
!
Sutter
0.9-25.5-4.324
45
UV
29
UV
-1.2
12N 2E
1612N 6E
UV!
12N 5E
12N 3W
12N
Vina
2.0-9.8-4.111-1.6
12N 4E
12N 10W
12N 2W12N 1W
12N 3E
12N 8W
11W12N 5W
12N 4W
!
12N 7W12N 6W
12N 9W
-16.7
!
113
UV
Wyandotte Creek NA-4.1-3.02
12N 1E
-25.7
101
£
¤-6.7
!
!
-4.2
45
-9.5
UV
Summary
2.0-27.3-4.5117
!
!
-10.5
65
11N 10W
UV
!
11N 3E
-2.7
29
UV
!
11N 7W
11N 9W11N 6W
11N 6E
11N 5E
11N 4E
11N 8W
11N
11N 2W11N 1W-2.9
11N 5W
11N 4W
11N 1E
16
UV
11W99
11N 3W!
UV
113
UV 11N 2E
101
£
¤
505
-4.2
§¨
¦
!
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10N 9W
NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY
10N 1E
10N 6E
113
10N 5E
UV
10N 1W
29
THE RESOURCES AGENCY UV
10N 4E
PLATE 2S-A
16
101
UV
10N 4W
10N£
¤10N 8W5
CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP
70
UV
10N 5W
§¨
¦
10N 3W10N 3E
11W DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
10N 7W
-9.2
10N 6W16
UV!
16
UV 10N 2E
NORTHERN REGION OFFICE
10N 10W
16
UV
Date:
SUMMER 2020 TO SUMMER 2021
10N 2W
9N 6E
16
UV
Woodland
November 2021
2440 Main Street
128
UV
1139N 5E
UV
Red Bluff, California 96080
SHALLOW WELL DEPTHS 9N 4E
16
80
UV
9N
9N 8W9N 5W
9N 2W9N 1W9N 1E9N 2E§¨
9N 7W¦
BY:
9N 4W
9N 3W
9N 6W9N 3E
9N 10W
(530) 529-7300
11W
128
UV
G. Lewis/A. Scholzen
(Well depths less than 200 ft deep bgs)
80
§¨
¦
9N 9W
https://data.ca.gov/dataset/northern-sacramento-valley-groundwater-elevation-change-maps
33N 7E
33N 5E33N 6E
33N 3E
33N 2E33N 4E
33N 1W
33N 5W33N 3W33N 2W33N 1E
33N 4W
33N 7W33N 6W
33N 8W
33N 9W
33N 10W
299
U
V
32N 7E
299
U 44
VU
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
32N 6E
32N 5E
!
(
Monitoring Well
32N 4E
32N 3E
32N 1W32N 2E
32N 2W
32N 1E
32N 3W
32N 6W32N 5W
32N 9W32N 8W32N 7W299
32N 10W U
V
Redding Basin
SHASTA 44
U
V
32N 4W
Redding
3
U
V
Subbasin Boundaries
COUNTY
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
Redding/Sacramento
89
U 31N 7E
V
!
44
U
V
31N 6E
31N 5E
-4.3
GW Basin Divide 44
U
V
Anderson
NA-5.4-3.410
31N 1W
31N 4E
31N 2W
31N 3W31N 1E
31N 4W31N 2E31N 3E
31N 7W31N 6W
31N 8W
31N 10W31N 9W
31N 5W
44
U
V
44
U
V
County Boundaries
273 Bowman 0.9-3.6-1.54
U
V
¢
5
§¦¨
Bulletin 118 GW
Enterprise 30N 7E
NANANA0
-3
Subbasin Excluded Areas
!
89
-1.5 U
V
30N 6E
30N 4W
!30N 5E
30N 6W
Millville NA-4.3-4.31
30N 11W
30N 4E
30N 3E
30N 1E
30N 2E
30N 2W30N 1W
30N 3W
-3.4
-2.5
30N 7W
89
30N 10W30N 9W30N 8W
U
V
!!
!
60612
-3.6
!
-2.1
South Battle Creek
NANANA0
30N 5W
Miles
Summary 0.9-5.4-3.115
-4.9
29N 7E
-3.3
-5.4!
!
!
5
-
-4
!29N 2W
29N 4W29N 6E
-2.1 29N 5E
29N 3E
29N 4E
36
U
!
V
29N 1E29N 2E
-3.6
29N 1W
29N 3W
36
29N 5W U
29N 6W V
!
29N 7W
29N 10W29N 8W
29N 9W36
U
V
29N 11W
36
U
V 0.9
!
172
29N 2.5W
U
V
36
U
V
36
U
V
28.5N 3W
-1.2
!NOTES
36
U
V
36
U
V
28N 6E
28N 5E
28N 4E
3628N 3E
U
V
28N 2E
28N 1E Note 1:A positive number indicates that groundwater elevations were higher in the
28N 1W
28N 3W
28N 5W28N 4W
28N 6W
28N 7W36
28N 8W U
28N 11W V
28N 10W
28N 9W
current year than the previous year. A negative number indicates that
28N 2W groundwater elevations were lower in the current year than in the previous year.
!
-11.9
Note 2:Statistics are based on the number of wells monitored within each
0
1
-32
U
V
36
U 36 subbasin.
V
U
V
36
U
V
Note 3:This map may not use all the color ranges shown in table above. Some
36
U
V
27N 6E
27N 2W
27N 5E
-4.9
-5.9
wells may not be visible on map due to the close proximity to each other.27N 4E
!
27N 3E
!27N 2E
!27N 1E
27N 11W27N 1W
-3.7
27N 5W27N 4W
!
27N 7W
27N 6W
27N 8W
27N 9W
27N 10W-6.3 Note 4:Groundwater level changes are based on measurements taken from wells
5
-
-6.2
27N 3W with depths of 100 to 450 ft. Measurements are taken during similar time
!
-2
periods each year.
-3.3
!
!
Groundwater Elevation Change
Red
Note 5:Change in groundwater elevations are based on the actual measured levels of
99
U
V the hydrostatic level (piezometric surface) of the groundwater at individual well
Bluff
locations.Contoured color ramping is interpolated from these measurements
99
26N 6E
U
V
26N 5E
> 40 feet higher!26N 4E
26N 3E
and should be considered approximate. The accuracy of the estimated contour
-5.4 26N 2E
26N 1E
26N 4W
26N 1W
26N 3W
32
26N 5W
26N 6W U
26N 8W26N 7W V
26N 9W
26N 10W
is directly related to the timing of the measurements, spacing and the distribution
5
-26N 2W
26N 11W
of nearby monitoring wells, well construction, and aquifer characteristics.
-0.4
> 35 to 40 feet higher!
0
Note 6:GW - Groundwater
3
!
GWE - Groundwater Elevation
-4.9
0
!
bgs - below ground surface
> 30 to 35 feet higher
TEHAMA
-2.7
!
-5.7
25N 6E
-2.2 25N 4E
25N 2E25N 5E
25N 3E
COUNTY
-1.7
!
!25N 3W
-7.9 25N 1E
25N 4W
25N 6W!
!25N 2W
!
25N 8W25N 7W
!
25N 10W-8.3
-5.6
25N 9W
> 25 to 30 feet higher
-14.3
-5.7
!
!
25N 1W
25N 5W
25N
99
U
V 1
-2.2
0
11W
!-1.5
-0.9
!
!
!
70
-0.3
> 20 to 25 feet higher U
!V
0.6
!
-1316.1!
-
-1.3
-9.5!5!
5
!
-1.2
0.1
-2.2
!
24N 3W
!
24N 3E24N 6E
> 15 to 20 feet higher 24N 5E
24N 2E24N 4E
0.1
24N 1E
24N 4W
24N24N 1W
24N 6W24N 2W
24N 7W
24N 8W
!
24N 10W
24N 9W 6.3
Corning
11W
!
!
-5.8
-10
-18.5
!
24N 5W!
-11.9
!
-3.4
> 10 to 15 feet higher 5
!!
-16.9
!
1
-
-6.2 32
U
0 V
-11.9 23.5N 2E
-5.3
!
0
1 70
!
U
V
-
0.3
> 5 to 10 feet higher
-2.3
!
!
!
-5.20.5
-4.6
-4.1
!
!
!
23N 6E
23N 4E23N 5E
9923N 3E
U
V 23N 2E
23N 1E
23N 4W
23N23N 1W
23N 2W
23N 6W23N 5W23N 3W-10.2
23N 8W23N 7W
23N 9W
!
23N 10W!
-
11W
0 to 5 feet higher-8.21
0
-
-13.1
5
-!
2-7.3
0
-5.7
-13.8
!
!
-7.2
-11.8
99!
U
V
!
!
!
-6.5
-
1
-5.9
-
-8.2
!
25
> 0 to 5 feet lower
-39.1
162 5!
U
V
32!
U-4
V
-13.7-
32
U 5
V-2.8
22N 1E
!
!
-!
3
70
5
U
V
-
3
16222N 1W
U
V-11.1
0
-11.1
!
!
> 5 to 10 feet lower
!
22N 6E
22N 4E22N 5E
22N 3E
-8.3
-22N 2E
2
-6.4
22N22N 4W
5 32
22N 8W
22N 6W22N 5W22N 3W U
22N 7W V
-31.7!
22N 10W22N 9W-8.8
-Chico 32
2 U
11W V
0!
!
32
U
V
-
162 1
U
V
5-16.6
-2.8
!
!191
U
-3.3!V
22N 2W
> 10 to 15 feet lowerOrland-8.5
-9.5
!!
!
!
5-3.3
-19.7
3
-
-10.9
-17.3
BUTTE
-23.4
!
!
-0.1
-20-49
!
4
162
U!!
V 0!
> 15 to 20 feet lower
21N 2E
GLENN
-1.9
COUNTY
!70
U
-8 V
21N 7W
-15.1
5 21N 6E
-21N 5E
!
COUNTY
!21N 4E
21N 3E
21N
-21.1
21N 2W
21N 4W
21N 10W
21N 5W21N 3W
21N 8W21N 6W!
45
11W U
21N 9W
V
> 20 to 25 feet lower 162
U 99
V
U
V
-9.8
!
-7.7!
-2
!
21N 1E
-
1
-6.60
!
-9 191
U
V
!
> 25 to 30 feet lower
-5.2
!
-11.9-9.9
-5
!!
-12
149
!
U 20N 3.5E
V
-9.3 70
U
V
> 30 to 35 feet lower 20N 6E
!
20N 5E
-7.8
20N 4E
-8.5
20N16220N 3E
!
U!
V-2
20N 4W20N 3W
20N 5W
20N 10W20N 7W20N 2W
20N 8W20N 6W 5!
11W20N 9W
-
20N 2E
-7.3
-1.1
!162
99
> 35 to 40 feet lower-10 U
UV
V
!
-8.1
!
45
U
V 20N 1E
!
!
--7.3
1
5
-10
20N 1W
> 40 feet lower 162
162
Willows U
UV
V
-3.6
-19.8
162
U
V
!
!
-7.2
-2.7 19N 3E
162
!
!U
V
19N 6E
19N 5E
-4.5 162
U 19N 4E
V
-0.9
19N!
19N 2E
19N 3W19N 1E
19N 4W!
19N 8W
19N 10W19N 5W
19N 9W19N 7W19N 6W
11W19N 1W
19N 2W
-2.1
-10.3
162
U
162 V
!!
U
V
!
-
5
-7.8-3.5
!
!
-4.1
-
1 70
U
0
V
-5.4
!
18N 2W
99
U
V
-12.4
-7.9
!
18N 3W
18N 4W
!
18N 6E
18N 3E
18N 5E
-1.5
18N 2E
18N 1E
18N
!
18N 1W
18N 10W18N 9W18N 8W18N 7W18N 6W18N 5W-2.9
11W
!
18N 4E
45
U
V
5
-
-0.85
-
!
Gridley
17N 4E
-15.2
-16.3
-5.2
!
5-!
-2.2
1
!
§¦¨5
!17N 3E
1.5
0
-9.7 17N 6E
17N 5E
!
99
!U
V
-4.8
-0.5
17N 2E
17N
0 17N 1E
17N 3W!
17N 1W
!
17N 10W17N 7W17N 6W17N 5W 1
17N 9W17N 8W-
11W
!
17N 2W-1.9
-11.3
-12.5-4.9
!
!!
-7.4
17N 4W-1.6
0
!
8.2
!
-6.4
!
70!
U
V
-1.1
-8.1
!
!
-9.7
Live Oak
-5!
-4.1
!
5.6
0
!
1
-2.9-4.1!
45
!
U 16N 6E
0 V
7.7
!!16N 5E
1
!
!-18.1
20
U
V
-7.8
5
16N 19.2
16N 2E
16N 2W-
16N 9W16N 3W16N 1E
16N 8W16N 7W16N 4W
16N 10W16N 1W
16N 6W16N 5W 4.1
11W
43.4
!
17.7
!
16N 3E
16N 4E
!
-
Colusa 1
1.9
0
20
!U
V
-
5
20
U
V
Northern Sacramento Basin Groundwater Subbasins
-4.1
99
-15.6
U
V
20!
U
V-2.7
COLUSA
!
!!
-3.5
01.3
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
-1.6
Subbasin NameCOUNTYSUTTER
Williams!15N 6E
15N15N 5E
20!
U
V
20
15N 9W
15N 3E U
V
11W Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)15N 1E
15N 2W2020
U
15N 4W U
VV
!
15N 10W15N 8W
15N 5W
15N 7W
!
15N 6W COUNTY
-14.2
-1.5 15N 1W
-1.7
15N 2E
-6.6
15N 4E
Yuba
!
!
70
15N 3W U
V
-5.8
29
U
V
!
Antelope NA-6.3-4.65 City
-1.4
!
-2.4
20
U 99
V
U
V
!
-10.5-6.8
!
!
-13.6
Bend
NA-11.9-11.91
14N 6E
-14N 5E
1!!
0
14N 1E
-3.8
-3.2
-2.4
-6.3
!
!!-1.8
!
45
U
V
14N14N 4E
14N 8W
65
Butte
1.5-16.3-5.421 14N 3E U-23.2
29 V-12.9
11W U 14N 2W
V 14N 1W
14N 3W
14N 4W
14N 7W!
!
14N 10W14N 5W
14N 6W
-
1
-4.6
5
!
-6.3
14N 2E
-0.1-10.9
!
0.6 99
U
-7.3
V!
Colusa-!-2.4
NA-49.0-11.2 5
-9.3
43!
-7.2
!!
!
20
!
U
V
20
U-5.6-37.2
V
-6.9
14N 9W
!2.1!
!
-5
5!
20-0
-3.1
U
V
5
-!
2
-2.55
5-!
2
--
--1.1
1
Corning 1
6.3-39.1-8.928 2
--41.5
0
!
0
-10-0.7
-7.4
!
!
!!!
0
-3.8
175-1
-
U 29
VU 2
V
1.3
0!-4.1
13N 1E
5
-
13N 6E
!
-2.9
13N-14.95
2
13N 5E
Los Molinos-0-0.5
16.1-18.5-1.413
!!
13N 7W
13N 1W!13N 2E
13N 2W13N 3E
11W-38.5!
13N 3W
13N 5W
13N 9W13N 6W13N 4W
13N 10W
5-13.9-6.2
!
31.4
-4.6
0
13N 8W§¦¨
-
-!65
35 113 U
!1 V
!!U 1
V
13N 4E
5!-4.8
-1.70
!
16
-41.4
U-70
281 V
1!U
UV
Red Bluff V
3.0-14.3-5.414
0
-13.9-8.3
!
29
-11.3
U
V-6.1
!
-15.3
!99
U
V
!
-18.6
-29.5
!
!
Sutter!
31.4-41.5-8.134
--11.5
5
-
2945
UU
VV 1
-5
2
5
12N 2E
-1.2
0
16
!12N 6E
U 2
V 12N 5E
12N 3W
12N
Vina
0.5-9.8-5.520-
12N 4E
2
-1.7
12N 10W
0!
12N 2W12N 1W12N 3E
12N 8W-34.7
12N 5W
11W
!
12N 4W
12N 7W12N 6W
12N 9W
-29
!
-
1
!-16.7
0
0
-
3
3
-!
5
0 113
U
0 V
Wyandotte Creek NA-15.2-7.13
4
12N 1E
-
5
5
101-34.5
4-44.5
-60.5
£¤0 99
-U
V
-13!
1
19.3!
!
!!!
!
-25.7
-8
-11.3
-2
-34-9
-13.9-34
!
Summary
31.4-49.0-6.9182!
!
-10.5
65
11N 10W!-16.5 U
10.8 V
!
!
11N 3E
-2
-20.5
29-
U
!!
V 5-1.2
!
11N 7W-95
11N 9W11N 6W
!
!
11N 6E
5
-201 11N 5E
!-24
-
11N 8W 2 11N 4E
--44.1
11N
11N 1W
11N 2W
11N 5W11N 4W-2.9
11N 1E-
-6.7
3!
16
U 5
11W V
!
11N 3W-24.1
!
!
-24.20
-
3
2
-
-25
113 0
!!!!!U
V 11N 2E
-19.7
-24.1
101
-25
£¤
-5.1
-
5
!
-26.9
!
505
!
§¦¨-4.9
-3.9
-25
!
!
STATE OF CALIFORNIA!
10N 9W
NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY
10N 1E!
10N 6E
113
-106.6-39.8
U 10N 5E
V
!
10N 1W
-6
29
U
THE RESOURCES AGENCY V
PLATE 2C-A
16
101-78
U
V
10N 4W
10N£¤-7.4
10N 8W5
CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP
!
10N 5W
§¦¨!
10N 3W70
11W DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
U
V
10N 7W
10N 4E
-1.4
10N 3E
10N 6W16
U
V!
16
U 10N 2E
V-1.8
NORTHERN REGION OFFICE
10N 10W
!
16
U
V-2.2
SUMMER 2020 TO SUMMER 2021 Date:
10N 2W
9N 6E
16!
U
V
Woodland
November 2021
2440 Main Street
-3.1
-1.5
!
128
!
U-15.1
V
1139N 5E
U 16
Red Bluff, California 96080 VU
-29.6
V!
100 to 450 ft WELL DEPTHS!9N 4E
80
!-23
9N
-16
9N 8W
9N 5W
9N 2W9N 1W9N 1E9N 2E!§¦¨
9N 7W
BY:
9N 4W
9N 3W
9N 6W9N 3E
9N 10W
(530) 529-7300
11W
128
U
V
A. Scholzen
(Well depths greater than 100 ft and less than 450 ft deep bgs)
80
§¦¨
9N 9W
https://data.ca.gov/dataset/northern-sacramento-valley-groundwater-elevation-change-maps
33N 7E
33N 5E33N 6E
33N 3E
33N 2E33N 4E
151
33N 1W
33N 5W33N 3W33N 2W33N 1E
UV 33N 4W
33N 7W33N 6W
33N 8W
33N 9W
33N 10W
299
UV
32N 7E
299
44
UV
UV
299
UV
299
UV
299
UV
32N 6E
32N 5E
!(
Monitoring Well
32N 4E
32N 3E
32N 1W32N 2E
32N 2W
32N 1E
32N 3W
32N 6W32N 5W
32N 9W32N 8W32N 7W299
32N 10W
UV
44
UV
Redding Basin
SHASTA
32N 4W
Redding
3
UV
Subbasin Boundaries
COUNTY
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
Redding/Sacramento
89
31N 7E
UV
44
31N 6E
UV
31N 5E
GW Basin Divide
44
UV
Anderson
NA-5.4-3.45
31N 1W
31N 4E
31N 2W
31N 1E
31N 4W31N 3W31N 3E
31N 2E
31N 7W
31N 8W31N 6W
31N 10W31N 9W
31N 5W
5
44
UV
44
§¨
¦UV
County Boundaries
Bowman
0.9-2.6-0.82
¢
273
UV
Bulletin 118 GW
Enterprise
NANANA0
30N 7E
Subbasin Excluded Areas
89
UV
30N 6E
30N 4W
30N 5E
30N 6W
Millville
NANANA0
30N 11W
30N 4E
30N 3E
30N 1E
30N 2E
30N 2W30N 1W
30N 3W
-3.2-2.5
30N 7W
89
30N 10W30N 9W30N 8W
UV
!
!
60612
South Battle Creek
NANANA0
30N 5W
Summary
0.9-5.4-2.17
Miles
29N 7E
-3.3
-5.4
!
!
!
-2.8
29N 2W
29N 4W29N 6E
29N 5E
29N 3E29N 4E
36
UV
29N 1E29N 2E
-2.6
29N 1W
29N 3W
36
UV
29N 6W
29N 7W!
29N 10W29N 8W
29N 9W
36
UV
29N 11W
36
UV 29N 5W
0.9
!172
29N 2.5W
UV
36
UV
36
UV
28.5N 3W
NOTES
36
UV
36
UV
28N 6E
28N 5E
28N 4E
28N 3E
3628N 2E
28N 1E
UV Note 1:A positive number indicates that groundwater elevations were higher in the
28N 1W
28N 3W
28N 5W28N 4W
28N 6W36
28N 7W
28N 8W UV
28N 11W
28N 10W28N 9W
current year than the previous year. A negative number indicates that
28N 2W
groundwater elevations were lower in the current year than in the previous year.
Note 2:Statistics are based on the number of wells monitored within each
32
UV
36
subbasin.
UV
36
UV
36
UV
36
!UV
-3.3 Note 3:This map may not use all the color ranges shown in table above. Some
27N 6E
27N 2W
27N 5E
27N 4E
wells may not be visible on map due to the close proximity to each other.
Red
27N 3E
27N 2E
27N 1E
27N 11W27N 1W
27N 5W
27N 7W27N 6W
27N 8W
27N 9W
27N 10W
Note 4:Groundwater level changes are based on measurements taken from well
Bluff
with depths of 200 to 600 ft. Measurements are taken during similar time
27N 3W
27N 4W
periods each year.
-7.3
!
Groundwater Elevation Change
Note 5:Change in groundwater elevations are based on the actual measured levels of
the hydrostatic level (piezometric surface) of the groundwater at individual well
599
UV
99
§¨UV
¦
locations.Contoured color ramping is interpolated from these measurements
-5.4
26N 6E
26N 5E
> 40 feet higher!26N 4E
26N 3E
and should be considered approximate. The accuracy of the estimated contour
26N 2E
26N 1E
26N 1W
26N 3W
32
26N 6W26N 5W
26N 8W26N 7W UV
26N 9W
26N 10W
is directly related to the timing of the measurements, spacing and the distribution
26N 11W
26N 2W
of nearby monitoring wells, well construction, and aquifer characteristics.
26N 4W
> 35 to 40 feet higher
Note 6:GW - Groundwater
3
!
GWE - Groundwater Elevation
8.7
bgs - below ground surface
> 30 to 35 feet higher
TEHAMA
!
25N 6E
25N 4E
25N 2E25N 5E
25N 3E
COUNTY
25N 1E
25N 4W25N 1W
25N 6W25N 5W
25N 3W25N 2W
25N 8W25N 7W
25N 10W
25N 9W
-14.3
> 25 to 30 feet higher
!
!
-5.6
25N
99
-3.5
UV
-2.4
11W
-0.8
!
!
!
!
70
> 20 to 25 feet higher-1.3
UV
!
0.6
-1.5
!
16.1
!
!
-11.9
!
-1.2
0.1
!
24N 3W
-31.8
24N 3E24N 6E
> 15 to 20 feet higher 24N 5E
24N 2E24N 4E
!
0.1
24N 1E
24N 4W
24N24N 1W
24N 6W24N 5W24N 2W
24N 7W
24N 8W
24N 10W!
24N 9W
11W-10
!
-4.4
!
-3.4
Corning
> 10 to 15 feet higher
!
!
-16.2
32
UV
23.5N 2E
-5.3
70
!
UV
> 5 to 10 feet higher
-5.2
-8.5
-4.1-4.6
!
!
!
!
23N 4E23N 5E23N 6E
23N 3E
99
UV 23N 2E
23N 1E
23N 4W
23N
23N 1W
23N 6W23N 5W23N 3W23N 2W
23N 8W23N 7W
23N 9W
23N 10W
11W
0 to 5 feet higher
-13.1
-15
!
99
!-7.2
UV
!
!
-4.3
> 0 to 5 feet lower
162
UV
32
-14.2
UV
32
-2.8
UV
22N 1E
!
!
70
UV
162-12.622N 1W
UV
-10.5
22N 3W
!
> 5 to 10 feet lower
!22N 6E
22N 5E
22N 4E
22N 3E
22N 2E
22N
32
22N 8W
22N 6W
22N 5W UV
22N 7W
22N 10W
22N 9W
Orland
32
11W
UV
32
Chico
UV
5
162
UV§¨22N 2W
¦
22N 4W
-7.2
-3.3
!191
UV
> 10 to 15 feet lower
!!
!
32
UV
-19.7
-3.3
-10.9
-17.3
BUTTE
-37.2
-5.7
!
-49!
-12.3
!
!
162
-34.6
UV!
> 15 to 20 feet lower!99
!21N 2E
UV
GLENN
-20!COUNTY
70
UV
21N 7W-8
-15.1
21N 6E
21N 5E
!
COUNTY
-3.421N 4E
!
-21.121N 3E
21N
21N 4W21N 2W
21N 10W
21N 3W
21N 6W21N 5W!
21N 8W!45
11W
21N 9W
UV
162
> 20 to 25 feet lower
-11
UV
-1.7
!
!
!
!
-8.8
21N 1E
-7.7
-15.7
191
UV
!
> 25 to 30 feet lower
-16
-10.3
!
-22.8
!
149
!
20N 3.5E
UV
70
UV
20N 6E
> 30 to 35 feet lower
-13.4
-16.6-8.5
20N 5E
20N 4E
20N 3E
20N162!
!!
UV 20N 2W
20N 4W
20N 3W
20N 10W20N 7W20N 5W
20N 8W
11W20N 6W
20N 9W
20N 2E
-14.6
162
> 35 to 40 feet lower!
UV
-8.1
45
20N 1E
UV
!
99
UV
20N 1W
Willows
> 40 feet lower
162
162
UV
-19.8
UV-3.6
70162
!-7.2 UV
UV
!
19N 3E
162
!
UV
19N 6E
19N 5E
-5.9
162
19N 4E
UV
-0.9
19N
!
19N 2E
19N 1E
19N 4W!
19N 8W
19N 10W19N 7W19N 5W
11W19N 9W19N 6W
19N 1W
19N 2W
19N 3W
-3.5
162
162-10.1 UV
!
!!
-1.6 UV
-5.3
!
70
-6.3
UV
!
99
18N 2W
UV
-12.4
-13.3-4.1
18N 3W!
!!18N 6E
18N 3E
18N 5E
18N 4E
18N 2E
18N 1E
18N
18N 1W
18N 4W
18N 10W
18N 9W18N 8W18N 7W18N 6W18N 5W
11W
45
UV
-6.5
!
Gridley
-25
-21
17N 4E
5!
!
!
§¨
¦
17N 3E-15.2
-9.7
17N 6E
17N 5E
99
!UV
-4.9
17N 2E
17N
17N 1E-1.9
17N 3W
17N 1W!
17N 4W
17N 10W17N 7W17N 6W17N 5W
17N 9W17N 8W
11W
!
17N 2W-11.3
-4.9
-1.1
!
!!
70
-1.1
UV
-34.5
!
-9.7
!
Live Oak
!
-4.5
-7.845
!16N 6E
UV
16N 5E
!
16N 4E
!7.7
20
UV
16N
16N 2E
16N 2W
16N 9W16N 3W16N 1E
16N 8W16N 7W16N 4W
16N 1W
16N 10W16N 6W
16N 5W
11W
42.9
17.7
!
16N 3E
!
20
UV
Colusa
20
UV
Northern Sacramento Basin Groundwater Subbasins
-4.1
70
-15.6 UV
99
UV
20
!
UV
COLUSA-3.5
!
!
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount 15N 3E
Subbasin Name
COUNTYSUTTER
15N 6E
15N 5E
15N
20
Williams
UV
15N 9W
11W Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
15N 2W2015N 1E20
15N 4W UV
UV
15N 10W15N 8W
15N 5W
15N 7W
15N 6W!
-1.5 COUNTY
-3.7
15N 1W
15N 2E
-6.6
Yuba
!
!15N 4E
70
15N 3W
UV
29
UV
Antelope
NANANA0 City
20
UV
99
-10.5 UV
-6.8
!
!
-13.670
Bend UV
NANANA0
14N 6E
!
14N 5E
!
-22.3
-1.4-7.9
14N 1E
14N 2E
!
!
45
UV
14N14N 4E
14N 8W
65
Butte
NA-25.0-8.218 14N 3E
29 UV
11W UV 14N 2W
14N 1W
14N 3W
14N 4W
14N 7W
14N 10W!
14N 5W
14N 6W
-12.9
-0.1
-19.4
-10.799-7.3
UV
Colusa NA-49.0-16.9-12.6
!
35
!
!!
20
!
UV
-37.2
20
-6.6
UV 2.6
14N 9W
!
!
!
!
2.1
!-2.5
20
20
UV-1.1
UV
Corning
NA-31.8-9.617-40.9!
!
-78.1
15.2
!!!!
!
-76.9-63.1
29
13N 1W
-6.4
UV
-12.413N 5E
175
UV
13N 6E
-24.4-17.6
!
13N
5
Los Molinos 16.1-11.9-0.911 13N 1E
13N 7W13N 4E
13N 2E13N 3E
!!
13N 2W§¨-27.9-38.3
¦
11W!
13N 3W
13N 5W
13N 4W
13N 10W13N 9W13N 6W
-13.9
!
-41.1
70
UV
13N 8W5
65
113!-2.6
UV
1.1 UV
!!
§¨
¦
!
16-4.6
!
UV
281-13.9
Red Bluff UV
8.7-14.3-3.16
!
-11.3
29
-5.5
UV 99
UV
-19.9-48.7
!
!
!
!
-20.2
45
!
Sutter 2.0-78.1-19.227 UV
!
-29.5
29
UV
-13.8
12N 2E
1612N 6E
UV
12N 3W!
12N
Vina
NA-16.0-7.113
-1.812N 4E
12N 10W
12N 2W12N 1W
!12N 3E
12N 8W
11W12N 5W
12N 4W
!
12N 7W12N 6W
12N 9W
2
-3.9
!
-16.8
-34.712N 5E
!
!
113
Wyandotte Creek NA-15.2-15.21 UV
12N 1E
-44.5
101
£82
¤
!
-2.6
-11.8
!!!
!!
-11.2
-11.5
19.3
!
Summary
16.1-78.1-10.0128
!
51.4
65
11N 10W
UV
45
UV
!
11N 3E
10.8
99
29835.1
-6
UV
UV
!!
11N 7W
11N 9W11N 6W
!
-19.5!!11N 6E
-24.5
!!!
11N 4E
11N 8W
-24.1
-1.2
11N
11N 2W11N 1W
-26-24
11N 5W
11N 4W
11N 1E
16!
UV
11W
11N 3W-24.1-25.7
113
UV
-25
11N 5E
!!!!!
11N 2E
101
-25-24.1
£
¤
-29.4
!
-24
!
505
-30.3
§¨!
¦
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10N 9W!
NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY
10N 1E
10N 6E
113
10N 5E
UV
-21.6
10N 1W
70
UV
29
THE RESOURCES AGENCY UV
10N 4E
PLATE 2I-A
16
101
UV-7.1
10N 4W
10N£
¤10N 8W5!
CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP
0.2
-29.3
10N 5W
§¨
¦!!
10N 3W
11W DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
10N 7W
10.6
-2.8
10N 6W16
UV
16!
UV 10N 2E!
10N 3E
NORTHERN REGION OFFICE
10N 10W
-5.1
!
16
UV
Date:
SUMMER 2020 TO SUMMER 2021
10N 2W
9N 6E
16
UV
Woodland
November 2021
2440 Main Street
128-19.3
UV
1139N 5E
UV
Red Bluff, California 96080
INTERMEDIATE WELL DEPTHS 9N 4E
!
16
80
UV
9N
9N 8W9N 5W
9N 2W9N 1W9N 1E9N 2E§¨
9N 7W!¦
BY:
9N 4W
9N 3W
9N 6W9N 3E
9N 10W
(530) 529-7300
11W
128-15
UV
G. Lewis/A. Scholzen
(Well depths greater than 200 ft and less than 600 ft deep bgs)
80
§¨
¦
9N 9W
https://data.ca.gov/dataset/northern-sacramento-valley-groundwater-elevation-change-maps
33N 7E
33N 5E33N 6E
33N 3E
33N 2E33N 4E
151
33N 1W
33N 5W U 33N 3W33N 2W33N 1E
V 33N 4W
33N 7W33N 6W
33N 8W
33N 9W
33N 10W
299
U
V
32N 7E
299
U 44
VU
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
299
U
V
32N 6E
32N 5E
!
(
Monitoring Well
32N 4E
32N 3E
32N 1W32N 2E
32N 2W
32N 1E
32N 3W
32N 6W32N 5W
32N 9W32N 8W32N 7W299
32N 10W U
V
Redding Basin
SHASTA 44
U
V
32N 4W
Redding
3
U
V
Subbasin Boundaries
COUNTY
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin Name
Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)
Redding/Sacramento
89
U 31N 7E
V
31N 6E
31N 5E
GW Basin Divide
4444
U
U
VV
Anderson
NA-3.3-3.31
31N 1W
31N 4E
31N 2W
31N 1E
31N 4W31N 3W31N 3E
31N 2E
31N 7W
31N 8W31N 6W
31N 10W31N 9W
31N 5W
5
44
U
V
44
U
§¦¨V
County Boundaries
Bowman NA-7.3-4.03
¢
273
U
V
Bulletin 118 GW
Enterprise
NANANA0 30N 7E
Subbasin Excluded Areas
89
U
V
30N 6E
30N 5E
30N 6W
Millville NANANA0
30N 11W
30N 4E
30N 3E
30N 1E
30N 2E
30N 2W30N 1W
30N 3W
30N 4W
30N 7W
30N 9W30N 8W89
30N 10W U
V
60612
South Battle Creek
NANANA0
30N 5W
MilesSummary NA-7.3-3.64
29N 7E
-3.3
!
29N 2W
29N 4W29N 6E
29N 5E
29N 3E29N 4E
36
U
V
29N 1E29N 2E
-7.3
29N 1W
29N 3W
36
U
29N 6W29N 5W V
!
29N 7W
29N 10W29N 8W
29N 9W
36
U
V
-5
29N 11W
-2.4
36
U
V
-2.4
!
!
172
29N 2.5W U
V
36
U
V
36
U
V
28.5N 3W
NOTES
36
U
V
36
U
V
28N 6E
28N 5E
28N 4E
28N 3E
36
U
V
28N 2E
28N 1E
Note 1:A positive number indicates that groundwater elevations were higher in the
28N 1W
28N 3W
28N 5W28N 4W
28N 6W36
28N 7W
U
28N 8W V
28N 11W
28N 10W28N 9W
current year than the previous year. A negative number indicates that
28N 2W
groundwater elevations were lower in the current year than in the previous year.
Note 2:Statistics are based on the number of wells monitored within each
32
U
V
36
U subbasin.
36
V
U
V
36
U
V
Note 3:This map may not use all the color ranges shown in table above. Some
36
U
V
27N 6E
27N 2W
27N 5E
27N 4E
wells may not be visible on map due to the close proximity to each other.
27N 3E
27N 2E
27N 1E
27N 1W
27N 11W
27N 5W
27N 4W
27N 7W27N 6W
27N 8W
27N 9W
27N 10W
Note 4:Groundwater level changes are based on measurements taken from wells
with depths greater than 600 ft. Measurements are taken during similar time
Red 27N 3W
periods each year.
Bluff
!
Groundwater Elevation Change
-7.3
Note 5:Change in groundwater elevations are based on the actual measured levels of
99
U
V
99
U
V the hydrostatic level (piezometric surface) of the groundwater at individual well
locations.Contoured color ramping is interpolated from these measurements
26N 6E
26N 5E
> 40 feet higher 26N 4E
26N 3E
and should be considered approximate. The accuracy of the estimated contour
26N 2E
26N 1E
26N 1W
26N 5W32
26N 6W
U
26N 8W26N 7W V
26N 9W
26N 10W
is directly related to the timing of the measurements, spacing and the distribution
26N 11W26N 2W
26N 3W
of nearby monitoring wells, well construction, and aquifer characteristics.
26N 4W
> 35 to 40 feet higher
Note 6:GW - Groundwater
GWE - Groundwater Elevation
-8.6
!
bgs - below ground surface
> 30 to 35 feet higher
TEHAMA
25N 6E
25N 4E
25N 2E25N 3E25N 5E
COUNTY
25N 1E
25N 1W
25N 6W25N 5W
25N 3W25N 2W
25N 8W25N 7W
25N 10W
25N 9W
> 25 to 30 feet higher
25N 4W
25N
99
U
V
11W
-1.6
-0.7
!
!
70
> 20 to 25 feet higher 99 U
V
U
V
-1
!
!
-1.3
!
-1.5
0.2
!
24N 3W
24N 3E
24N 6E
> 15 to 20 feet higher 24N 5E
24N 2E24N 4E
-3.5
24N 1E
24N24N 1W
24N 6W24N 5W24N 2W
24N 7W
24N 8W
!
24N 10W
24N 9W
11W
Corning
-4.4
24N 4W
!
-4.3
> 10 to 15 feet higher
!
!
-16.5
-2.4
4
32
U
V
!
23.5N 2E
!
70
U
V
0.8
-8.7
> 5 to 10 feet higher
!!
-17.1
!
-10.6 23N 6E
23N 4E23N 5E
9923N 3E
U
23N 2E
V
!
23N 1E
23N 4W
23N23N 1W
23N 2W
23N 6W23N 5W23N 3W
23N 8W23N 7W
23N 9W
23N 10W
11W99
0 to 5 feet higher
U
V
-10.5
-15.2
-22.8!
!
!
-23.9
!
-39.7
!
-5
> 0 to 5 feet lower 0
162
U
V
32
U
V
32
U
V-88.9
22N 1E
!
70
U
V
16222N 1W
U
V-29.6
22N 3W
-41.8
!
> 5 to 10 feet lower
!
22N 6E
22N 4E22N 5E
22N 3E
22N 2E
22N22N 4W
32
22N 8W
22N 6W22N 5W U
V
22N 7W
22N 10W22N 9W
Chico 32
Orland
U
11W V
!
32
U
V
5
162-6.8
-19.3
U
V§¦¨
-73.6
!
191
!-50.1
U
V
22N 2W
> 10 to 15 feet lower
!
32
U
V
-15.4
-38.3 BUTTE
!
!
-31.1
-10.2
162
U!
V!
> 15 to 20 feet lower
21N 2E
GLENN
-6.2
COUNTY
!70
U
V
21N 7W-20.6-7.5
3.5-7
21N 6E
!
21N 5E
!
COUNTY
!21N 4E
!
21N 3E
21N
21N 4W21N 2W-5
21N 10W
21N 5W21N 3W
21N 8W21N 6W
45
11W
21N 9W U
V
162
> 20 to 25 feet lower
U
V
-2.8
!
21N 1E
-19.1
191
U
99 V
U
V
!
> 25 to 30 feet lower-30.4
!
16.8
!
-47
!149
U 20N 3.5E
V
70
U
V
20N 6E
> 30 to 35 feet lower
20N 5E
-16.5
20N 4E
20N 3E
20N162
U!
V
20N 4W20N 3W
20N 10W20N 7W20N 5W20N 2W
20N 8W
11W20N 6W
20N 9W
20N
-7.5 2E
!162
> 35 to 40 feet lower U
V
45
99
U 20N 1E
VU
V
20N 1W
0
> 40 feet lower
162
162 U
V
U
V
-11.8
162
U
70 V
!
U
V
Willows
19N 3E
162
U
-5 V
19N 6E
19N 5E
162
U 19N 4E
-5
V
-7.9
19N!
19N 2E
19N 3W19N 1E
19N 4W!-5.7
19N 8W
19N 10W
19N 9W19N 7W19N 5W
11W19N 6W
19N 1W
19N 2W
162
U
162 V
U
V
70
U
V
-9.9
!
18N 2W-7.2
!
99
U
V
-4.5
18N 3W
!
18N 6E
18N 3E
18N 5E
18N 4E
18N 2E
18N18N 1E
18N 4W18N 1W
18N 10W18N 8W18N 7W
18N 9W18N 6W18N 5W
11W
45
U
V
-9.9
!
Gridley
-14.5
-22.3
!17N 4E
5
!
§¦¨
17N 3E
17N 6E
17N 5E
-9.5
17N 2E
17N
17N 1E
17N 3W!
17N 4W17N 1W
17N 10W17N 5W
17N 7W17N 6W
17N 8W
17N 9W
99
11W
U
V
-10.4
17N 2W
!
70
U
V
-36
!
Live Oak
-4.8
45
16N 6E
-32.7 U
V
!16N 5E
!16N 4E
20
U
V
16N
16N 2E
16N 2W
16N 9W16N 3W16N 1E
16N 8W16N 7W16N 4W
16N 10W16N 1W
16N 6W16N 5W
11W
16N 3E
20
U
V
Colusa
20
U
V
Northern Sacramento Basin Groundwater Subbasins
70
U
V
99
U
V
20
U
V
COLUSA
GWE MaximumGWE MaximumGWE AverageCount
Subbasin NameCOUNTYSUTTER
15N 6E
15N2015N 5E
20 U
V
U
V
20
15N 9W
15N 3E U
V
11W Increase (ft)Decrease (ft)Change (ft)15N 1E
15N 2W2020
U
15N 4W U
VV
15N 4E
15N 10W15N 8W
15N 5W
15N 7W
15N 6W COUNTY
15N 1W
15N 2E
Yuba
70
15N 3W U
V
29
U
V
Antelope NANANA0 City
20
U
V
99
U
V
70
U
V
Bend
NANANA0
14N 6E
14N 5E
14N 1E
14N 2W!-4.8
14N 3W
45
U
V
14N14N 4E
-117.7
14N 8W
65
Butte NA-14.5-9.3 14N 3E U
29 8 V
U!
11W V 14N 1W
14N 4W
14N 7W
14N 10W14N 5W
14N 6W
14N 2E
99
U
V
Colusa
3.5-117.7-28.5
23
20
U
V
-11.1
20
U
V
14N 9W
!
20
U
V
20
U
-13.6
V
Corning 4.0-88.9-24.013
-40.9
!
!
5
!
175
U 29§¦¨
VU 13N 1W-49.9
V
13N 1E
13N 6E
13N-24.1
-35.6 13N 5E
Los Molinos
0.2-4.4-1.78-22.4
13N 7W13N 3E
!!13N 2E
13N 2W
!
11W
13N 3W13N 4E
13N 5W
13N 6W13N 4W
13N 10W13N 9W
13N 8W
65
113 U
UV
V-7.4
!
16
U 1.3 70
281 V
U
UV
V
Red Bluff NA-8.6-7.92!
!
29
-22.5
U-28.7
V 99
U
V
!
-70.1
!
-12.4
-28.1
!
Sutter
1.3-49.9-16.99!
2945
UU
VV
12N 2E
16
12N 6E
U
V 12N 5E
12N 3W
12N
Vina 16.8-39.7-7.99
12N 4E
-6.8
12N 10W
12N 2W12N 1W 0
12N 8W-1 12N 3E
11W12N 5W
12N 4W!
12N 7W12N 6W
12N 9W
-5
-16.5
0!
Wyandotte Creek
NA-7.2-7.21
12N 1E
113
U
V
101
£¤
45
U
-9
V
-6.7
Summary 16.8-117.7-12.973
!
!
65
11N 10W U
99
UV
V
11N 3E
29.8
29
U!!
V
11N 7W
-8.3
11N 9W11N 6W
11N 6E
11N 5E
11N 8W11N 4E
11N
11N 1W
11N 2W
11N 5W11N 4W
11N 1E
16
U
V
11W
11N 3W
-14.2
!!!-21.9
11N 2E
101
-14.7
£¤
113
U
V
-87.4
505
!
§¦¨
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10N 9W NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY
10N 1E
10N 6E
113
U
V 10N 5E
10N 1W
29
U
THE RESOURCES AGENCY V
10N 4E
PLATE 2D-A
16
101
U
V
10N 4W
10N
£¤5
10N 8W
CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP
10N 5W
§¦¨
10N 3W10N 3E
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
11W
10N 7W
-4.7
16
10N 6W
U
V
!
16
U
V 10N 2E-3.7
70
U
NORTHERN REGION OFFICE V
10N 10W
!
16
U
V
SUMMER 2020 TO SUMMER 2021 Date:
10N 2W
9N 6E
16
U
V
Woodland
November 2021
2440 Main Street
128
U
V
1139N 5E
U
Red Bluff, California 96080 V
DEEP WELLS 9N 4E
16
80
U
V
9N
9N 8W
9N 5W9N 1W9N 2E
9N 7W9N 2W9N 1E§¦¨
BY:
9N 4W9N 3W
9N 6W9N 3E
9N 10W(530) 529-7300
11W
128
U
V
G. Lewis/A. Scholzen
(Well depths greater than 600 ft bgs)
80
§¦¨
9N 9W
https://data.ca.gov/dataset/northern-sacramento-valley-groundwater-elevation-change-maps
APPENDIX C
Glen-Colusa Irrigation District Resolution No. 2021-09
APPENDIX D
Estimate of Pumping Costs
Appendix C: Estimation of Pumping Costs
To estimate electricity costs of groundwater pumping, we collected well permit reports from
the Department of Water Resources. We kept only the Butte County records that included the
static water level at the time the well was drilled, as this information is necessarily to calculate
the marginal cost of pumping an acre foot of water. We thus had 62 records spanning years
2014-2021 (unfortunately 2014, the last wet reference year prior to 2015 drought, had only one
record). The cost of pumping is calculated as a function of the static water level of the well, the
pressurization of the irrigation system, the overall efficiencies of the well and delivery systems,
and the price of electricity. The table below shows estimated costs per acre foot of water
pumped for all wells in the year they were established (the date the well report data gives us
initial static water levels).
These estimates assumed an overall efficiency of pumping is 50% (this can range from 25-70% in the
literature.) Required pressurization of irrigation systems was assumed at 30 psi. For reference, drip
irrigation requires roughly 20 psi, while sprinklers can require between 30 and 60 psi. We also assumed
a constant cost for electricity of $0.23, the “off peak” price of electricity for agricultural users in summer
2021. In reality, this off-peak price is charged only in hours prior to 4:00 pm, when regional energy
demand is lower. Electricity prices increase to approximately $0.40 per kilowatt hour in peak hours,
from 4:00-9:00 pm. We calculate marginal costs using 2021 PGE rates in order to hold costs constant, so
we can evaluate changes in costs resulting only from changes in water elevation. Last, in 2019, PG&E
also instituted a new demand charge, an additional flat fee charged to all users for using electricity
beyond a given quantity during the peak time. Given the variation in the potential rate faced by
irrigators, costs represent a lower bound on the cost per acre foot of water pumped, and costs would be
approximately double during peak times.
APPENDIX E
Small Water Systems and Rural Communities Drought and Water Shortage
Contingency Planning and Risk Assessment
Small Water Systems and Rural Communities
Drought and Water Shortage Contingency Planning
and Risk Assessment
Part 2 – Drought and Water Shortage
Vulnerability Assessment and Risk Scoring
REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 10609.42 OF THE CALIFORNIA WATER CODE
March 2021
California Department of Water Resources
Water Use Efficiency Branch
Notes: This report developed pursuant to Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code was
informed by documents that provide methodology, assumptions, data, estimates, and other
information. These supporting documents are provided as appendices in the back of this
report. Definitions and key concepts used in this report are listed in the Glossary on page 22.
State of California
Gavin Newsom, Governor
California Natural Resources Agency
Wade Crowfoot, Secretary for Natural Resources
Angela Barranco, Undersecretary
Lisa Lien-Mager, Deputy Secretary for Communications
Department of Water Resources
Karla Nemeth, Director
Cindy Messer, Chief Deputy Director
Michelle Banonis, Assistant Chief Deputy Director
Deputy Directors
Business OperationsDelta Conveyance
Kathie Kishaba Vacant
Flood Management and Dam Integrated Watershed
Safety Management
Gary LippnerKristopher A. Tjernell
Statewide Emergency Statewide Groundwater
Management Program Management
Michael Day Taryn Ravazzini
State Water Project
Ted Craddock (Acting)
Office Executives
Office of the Chief Government and Internal Audit Office
Counsel Community Liaison David Whitsell
Spencer Kenner Anecita Agustinez
Legislative Affairs Office Public Affairs Office Office of Workforce Equality
Kasey Schimke, Ryan Endean, Stephanie Varrelman
Deputy DirectorActing Assistant
Director
Division of Regional Assistance
Office of the Chief
Arthur Hinojosa
County Drought Advisory Group Project Team
Department of Water State Water Resources Office of Environmental
Resources Control Board Health Hazard Assessment
Water Use Efficiency Division of Drinking Air and Climate
Fethi Benjemaa WaterEpidemiology Branch
Nirmala BeninBetsy Lichti
Carolina Balazs
James CampagnaMichelle Frederick
Julia EkstromJoseph Crisologo
California Water Plan Office of Research,
Jose Alarcon Planning and
Performance
Kathy Frevert
County Drought Advisory Group Members
Calaveras County Water DistrictCalifornia Water Association
Joel Metzger, Peter Martin Jennifer Capitolo, Jack Hawks
California Association of Local
California Water Institute at
Agency Formation Commissions
Fresno State
Michael McGill, Pamela Miller,
Thomas C. Esqueda
Christina Crawford
California Association of Mutual
Community Water Center
Water Companies
Jonathan Nelson,Patricia Avila
Adan Ortega, Dave Michalko
California Municipal Utilities
County of Napa
Association
Christopher M. Silke
Danielle Blacet, Jonathan Young
California Rural Water AssociationCounty of San Luis Obispo
Dustin Hardwick, Tom Keegan Courtney Howard, Mladen Bandov
California State Association of
Counties El Dorado County Water Agency
Bruce Gibson, Nick Cronenwett, Cara Kenneth V. Payne, Kyle Ericson
Martinson
County Drought Advisory Group Members(continued)
Environmental Justice Coalition
Rural County Reps of California
for Water
Mary-Ann Warmerdam
Colin Bailey, Karen McBride
San Bernardino Valley Water
Indian Health Services
District
Chris Brady, Jonathan Rash
Timothy Kellett, Ron Merckling
Santa Clara Valley Water District
La Posta Tribe
Jerry De la Piedra
James “Potts” Hill
Vanessa De la Piedra
Lake CountySelf-Help Enterprises
Jan Coppinger Jessi Snyder, Tami McVay
Local Government Commission
Stanford University
Danielle Dolan, Atley Keller, Emily
Newsha Ajami
Finnegan
Tulare County Resource
Mojave Water Agency
Management Agency
Nicholas Schneider, Lance Eckhart
Ross W. Miller
Tule River Indian Tribe of
Office of John S. Mills
California
John S. Mills
Joe Boy, David Perez
Pacific InstituteWatershed Progressive
Laura Feinstein, Cora Kammeyer Regina Hirsch, Sean Hembree
Water Resource Management
Pechanga Tribal Government
Services
Eagle Jones
Jacques DeBra
Wheeler Water Institute
Rural Community Assistance Corp
(UC Berkeley School of Law)
Ari Neumann, Rachel Smith
Nell Green Nylen
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
Table of Contents
1.0Introduction................................................................................. 1
1.1 Purpose .......................................................................................... 1
1.2 Background ..................................................................................... 2
1.3 Agency and Stakeholders Roles .......................................................... 4
1.4 Drought Planning Approach: Phase Model of Disaster Risk
Management ................................................................................... 5
2.0Vulnerable Small Suppliers and Rural Communities: Scoring of
Drought and Water Shortage Risk.................................................. 7
2.1 Small Water Suppliers – Risk Assessment ............................................. 8
2.2 Water Shortage Risk Indicators: Exposure, Vulnerability, and
Observed Shortages.........................................................................9
2.3 Relative Risk Findings...................................................................... 14
2.4 Rural Communities (referred to here as “self-supplied communities”)
– Risk Assessment ......................................................................... 15
2.5 Water Shortage Risk Indicators: Exposure, Vulnerability, Observed
Shortages, and Domestic Well Reliance ............................................. 16
Risk Findings ....................................................................................... 20
2.6 Tribal Water Systems – Risk Assessment ............................................ 21
3.0Glossary .................................................................................... 22
3.1 Key Definitions ............................................................................... 22
3.2 Key Concepts ................................................................................. 24
4.0References.................................................................................26
Figures
Figure 1. Disaster Risk Management Framework ............................................... 6
Figure 2. Small Water Suppliers Examined for Risk of Drought and Water Shortage
..................................................................................................... 14
Figure 3. Self-Supplied Communities Risk Scores ............................................ 21
California Department of Water Resources i
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
Tables
Table 1. Risk Indicators Used to Analyze Drought and Water Shortage Risk for
Small Water Suppliers ......................................................................... 9
Table 2. Risk Indicators Used to Analyze Drought and Water Shortage Risk for
Small Water Suppliers ....................................................................... 10
Table 3. Risk Indicators Used to Analyze Drought and Water Shortage Risk for
Small Water Suppliers ....................................................................... 11
Table 4. Risk Indicators Used to Analyze Drought and Water Shortage Risk for
Small Water Suppliers ....................................................................... 11
Table 5. Risk Indicators Used to Analyze Drought and Water Shortage Risk for
Small Water Suppliers ....................................................................... 12
Table 6. Risk Indicators Used to Analyze Drought and Water Shortage Risk for
Small Water Suppliers ....................................................................... 12
Table 7. Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics Estimated to Represent
the Customer Base Served by the Small Supplier. Spatial Analysis used to
Associate Census Data to Service Area Boundaries ................................. 13
Table 8. Risk Indicators Used to Analyze Drought and Water Shortage Risk for Self-
Supplied Communities ....................................................................... 16
Table 9. Risk Indicators Used to Analyze Drought and Water Shortage Risk for Self-
Supplied Communities ....................................................................... 17
Table 10. Risk Indicators Used to Analyze Drought and Water Shortage Risk for
Self-Supplied Communities ................................................................ 18
Table 11. Risk Indicators Used to Analyze Drought and Water Shortage Risk for
Self-Supplied Communities ................................................................ 18
Table 12. Risk Indicators Used to Analyze Drought and Water Shortage Risk for
Self-Supplied Communities ................................................................ 19
Table 13. Risk Indicators Used to Analyze Drought and Water Shortage Risk for
Self-Supplied Communities ................................................................ 20
California Department of Water Resources ii
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
Abbreviations and Acronyms
AB Assembly Bill
CAL OESCalifornia Office of Emergency Services
CDAGCounty DroughtAdvisory Group
CDFACalifornia Department of Food and Agriculture
CECCalifornia Energy Commission
CPUCCalifornia Public Utilities Commission
CWC California Water Code
DWR California Department of Water Resources
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
HSC California Health and Safety Code
IHS Indian Health Services
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
SB Senate Bill
State Water Board State Water Resources Control Board
WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan
California Department of Water Resources iii
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
Executive Summary
This report is submitted pursuant to California Water Code(CWC)Section
10609.42 which directs California Department of Water Resources (DWR)to
identify small water suppliers and rural communities that may be at risk of
drought and water shortage vulnerabilityandpropose recommendations and
information in support ofimproving the drought preparedness of small water
suppliers and rural communities. The report ispublished in two parts: Part I
dealing withdrought and water shortage contingency planning
recommendations, and Part II presenting a methodology and results of
drought and water shortage vulnerability assessment and risk scoring.
Specifically, Section 10609.42 requires:
1.DWR, in consultation with the State Water Resources Control Board
(State Water Board) and other relevant State and local agencies and
stakeholders, identify small water suppliers and areas of households
on private supplies (termed “rural communities” in the legislation, and
also called “self-supplied communities in this report”) that may be at
risk of drought and water shortage. DWR must then notify counties
and groundwater sustainability agencies (GSA) of suppliers or
communities that may be at risk within its jurisdiction and may make
the information publicly accessible on the website (CWC Section
10609.42\[a\]).
2.DWR, in consultation with the State Water Board and stakeholders,
develop recommendations and guidance relating to the development
and implementation of countywide drought and water shortage
contingency plans to address the planning needs of small water
suppliers and rural communities. The legislation directs DWR to explain
how the planning needs of small water suppliers and rural
communities can be integrated into complementary existing planning
processes(CWC Section 10609.42\[b\]).
To assess drought and water shortage vulnerability, a methodology for
analyzing riskwas developed and small water suppliersand self-supplied
communities statewide were evaluated for their relative risk of drought and
water shortage. Each supplier and community examined received a numeric
riskscore, which is derived from a set of indicators developed from
extensive input during the stakeholder process. Indicators used to estimate
California Department of Water ResourcesI
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
risk are represented within three groupings or key components: (1) the
exposure of suppliers and communities to hazardous conditions and events,
(2) the physical and social vulnerability of suppliers and communities to the
exposure, and (3) recent history of shortage and drought impacts. The risk
scores for individual small water suppliers and self-supplied communities
were calculated separately, using the same methodological approach but
different risk indicators and equations. The calculated risk score must not be
perceived as a performance grade, as it merely represents a measure of the
level of risk a supplier or a community is exposed to combined with
attributes of the supplier’s organization and infrastructure.
Importantly, the methodology used for analyzing risk, and this report as
well, do not define thresholds whereby certain small water suppliers and
self-supplied communities are considered “at risk” of drought and water
shortage and others are not. Instead, the methodology inherently recognizes
that all communities in California face some risk of drought and water
shortage and thus provides a tool to calculate the relative risk of these
suppliers and communities. Future thresholds may be defined and utilized to
determine which suppliers and communities are particularly at risk of
drought and water shortage; but for now, DWR believes the State is best
served by understanding the relative risk of its small water suppliers and
self-supplied communities and, perhaps more importantly, having a common
methodology for calculating risk that can be applied at different levels of
government and in different contexts.
In total, 2,419 small water suppliers were examined for their relative risk of
drought and water shortage. The results show that a vast majority of the
State’s counties (47 of the 58 counties) have small water suppliers in the top
10 percent of risk scores (240 suppliers). As indicated above, the 10% cut-
off is not intended to be viewed as a threshold whereby small water
suppliers scoring in the top 10% are considered at risk of drought and water
shortage and those outside the top 10% are not at risk. Instead, the 10%
cut off is useful for summarizing results and providing an example of how
the scoring methodology can be used. The primary benefit of this scoring
exercise is to offer local and regionally specific information to assist with
drought and water shortage planning. Below, are some statistics among
those scoring in the top 10% risk that offer a snapshot of patterns notable
statewide:
California Department of Water ResourcesII
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
52% are in a fractured rock area, and many of these high-risk
suppliers on fractured rock rely on groundwater only.
100% of the highest at-risk systems have no intertie, which is an
interconnection infrastructure for receiving imported water. All but one
high risk system has one or fewer sources of water (not counting
hauled water as a source).
The majority of high-risk suppliers (84%, 204) rely primarily on
groundwater.
Over half (61%, 149) of the top at-risk suppliers are in high or very
high-risk zone for wildfire, as defined by CalFire.
To evaluate rural community risk (referred to as self-supplied community
risk), 5000 Census Block Groups (the geographical unit used by the United
States Census Bureau, typically between 600 and 3,000 people) with record
of a domestic well installed within the last 50 years (1970-2019) were
examined. These block groups covered an estimated 283,742 domestic
wells. The median household income is lower among the block groups with
domestic wells compared to the average statewide.
To develop recommendations and guidance on drought planning, and to
identify drought and water shortage risk indicators for small water systems
and self-supplied communities, DWR utilized a public process involving state
agencies, cities, counties, small communities, small water suppliers and
other stakeholders in forming a stakeholder advisory group, the County
Drought Advisory Group (CDAG). The CDAG had many discussions on the
best ways to improve small communities’ preparation for the next drought.
The group offered a venue and process for close collaboration between state
agencies and local agencies, as well as a place to accept input from other
key stakeholders.
Throughout the stakeholder process a four-phase model of disaster risk
management helped to frame the drought and water shortage planning
approach. This model includes the following phases: (1) Mitigation,
Preparation, and Capacity Building; (2) Forecasting and Monitoring; (3)
Drought and Water Shortage Response; and (4) Recovery and Relief (Wilhite
2000 and 2014).
California Department of Water ResourcesIII
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) seeks to identify small
water suppliersand rural communities that may be at risk of drought and
water shortage vulnerability,and to propose recommendations and
information in support of improving their drought preparedness. In that
effort, this report has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of
California Water Code (CWC) Section 10609.42, which states:
a)No later than January 1, 2020, the department, in consultation with
the board and other relevant state and local agencies and
stakeholders, shall use available data to identify small water suppliers
and rural communities that may be at risk of drought and water
shortage vulnerability. The department shall notify counties and
groundwater sustainability agencies of those suppliers or communities
that may be at risk within its jurisdiction, and may make the
information publicly accessible on its Internet Web site.
b)The department shall, in consultation with the board, by January 1,
2020, propose to the Governor and the Legislature recommendations
and guidance relating to the development and implementation of
countywide drought and water shortage contingency plans to address
the planning needs of small water suppliers and rural communities.
The department shall recommend how these plans can be included in
county local hazard mitigation plans or otherwise integrated with
complementary existing planning processes. The guidance from the
department shall outline goals of the countywide drought and water
shortage contingency plans and recommend components including, but
not limited to, all of the following:
1)Assessment of drought vulnerability.
2)Actions to reduce drought vulnerability.
3)Response, financing, and local communication and outreach
planning efforts that may be implemented in times of drought.
4)Data needs and reporting.
California Department of Water Resources1
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
5)Roles and responsibilities of interested parties and coordination with
other relevant water management planning efforts.
This Part II of the Recommendations for Drought and Water Shortage
Contingency Plans report addresses the directives in CWC 10609.42(a), and
a companion Part Iaddresses the directives contained in CWC Section
10609.42(b).
1.2Background
In June 2018, AB 1668 and Senate Bill (SB) 606 were passed as part of
efforts to make water conservation a California way of life. The legislation
tasked DWR and the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water
Board) with implementing several directives related to urban and agricultural
water use efficiency and countywide drought resiliency.
To initiate and coordinate the implementation of the legislation, a five-
agency coordination team (Agency Coordination Team) was formed
comprising DWR, the State Water Board, the California Department of Food
and Agriculture (CDFA), California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and
California Energy Commission (CEC). In September 2018, listening sessions
were held in Sacramento, Fresno, and Los Angeles to solicit public input and
stakeholder engagement in implementing the legislation.
In November 2018, a County Drought Advisory Group (CDAG) was formed to
advise DWR on the implementation of the legislative mandates specific to
(1) identifying small water suppliers and rural communities at risk of drought
and water shortage and (2) developing recommendations and guidance for
countywide droughtand water shortage contingency plans to addressthe
planning needs of those communities.
DWR kept its partner state agencies informed about CDAG activities through
the Agency Coordination Team. This team was formed to coordinate SB 606-
and AB 1668-related projects aimed at long-term improvements in water
conservation and drought planning. These projects will serve to help
California adapt to climate change and the increasingly frequent and more
intense droughts throughout the state.
Some of these agencies actively participated on the CDAG Project Team and
were actively involved in planning and attending Advisory Group meetings.
In addition to legislatively mandated criteria, the state agencies and CDAG
California Department of Water Resources2
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
advised DWR to also consider the following related directives and policies in
developing the drought and water shortage vulnerability assessment
indicators, and the proposed recommendations and guidance for contingency
planning:
Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-10-19 (April 2019), which
directs agencies to recommend a suite of priorities and actions to build
a climate-resilient water system and ensure healthy waterways. In
implementing the directive, the California Natural Resources Agency,
California Environmental Protection Agency, and CDFA solicited
extensive public input to prepare the Water Resilience Portfolio
released by the Governor on July 28, 2020. The portfolio consists of a
water policy roadmap to guide state efforts to meet the water needs of
California’s communities, economy, and environment as the climate
changes.
Senate Bill 200 (Monning 2019,Health and Safety Code Section
116686), which establishes the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water
Fund in the State Treasury to help water systems provide an adequate
and affordable supply of safe drinking water in both the near and long
terms and authorized water system administrators to provide an
adequate supply of affordable, safe drinking water to disadvantaged
communities and to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.
SB 862 Budget Act of 2018, which appropriates funding for State
Water Board to implement a needs analysis on the state of drinking
water in California.
AB 685 (2012, CWC Section 106.3), which declares that everyone in
California has a right to clean, safe, affordable, and accessible water
adequate for human consumption and sanitary purposes. The
legislation instructed all relevant state agencies—including State Water
Board—to consider the human right to water when revising, adopting,
or establishing policies, regulations, and grant criteria pertinent to
water uses. Recently, the State Water Board enlisted the expertise of
the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to
develop a framework for evaluating the quality, accessibility, and
affordability of the state’s domestic water supply.
As required by the AB 1668 legislation, and in addition to identifying
communities at risk of drought and water shortage, this effort focuses on the
planning needs for small water suppliers and rural communities to prepare
California Department of Water Resources3
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
for drought and water shortage events. It is important to recognize that this
effort is one of several complimentary state efforts which include:
The State Board’s Needs Assessment effort, through which the Board
is working on prioritizing assistance and funding for vulnerable water
systems and aiming at implementing resiliency measures and
infrastructure improvements.
OEHHA’s Human Right to Water Assessment effort to conducta
baseline assessment and create a data tool for evaluating the quality,
accessibility, and affordability of drinking water supply and the
associated challenges that water systems face.
1.3Agency and StakeholdersRoles
To gather input, DWR consulted with state agencies—State Water Board,
OEHHA, CPUC, Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES),
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), California Department of
Public Health (CDPH), and CEC—and the federal agencies Indian Health
Services (IHS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, along withthe
32-member CDAG stakeholder advisory group acknowledged in this report.
For the duration of this project, DWR worked closely with the State Water
Board and OEHHA. Close agency coordination was beneficial,as there is
significant overlap between this effort and the State Water Board, Division of
Drinking Water’s Drinking Water Needs Assessment project and the effort
led by OEHHA to develop A Framework and Tool for Evaluating California’s
Progress in Achieving the Human Right to Water.
The CDAG stakeholder advisory group included representatives from
counties, cities, water districts, academia, environmental justice and
environmental organizations, tribes, and third-party assistance organizations
and associations. Advisory group meetings were open to the public and
announcements of public meetings were posted on DWR’s website and
listservs. The advisory group met bimonthly, as necessary, for the duration
of the project, starting in December 2018.
Two workgroups were created to focus on the two legislative mandates to
identify those at risk, and to give recommendations for water shortage
contingency planning, they became the:
California Department of Water Resources4
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
RiskAssessment Technical Workgroup
Water ShortageContingency Plan (WSCP) Workgroup
Both workgroup meetings were planned as needed, and participation was
solicited from the advisory group. Participation was in-person and online and
focused on technical details and discussion of options. Information collected
from the workgroup meetings was shared with the advisory group through
draft documents and presentations at bimonthly meetings.
1.4 Drought Planning Approach: Phase Model of Disaster
Risk Management
Throughout the stakeholder process, a four-phase model of disaster risk
management helped to frame the drought and water shortageplanning
approach (Wilhite 2000 and 2014):
Phase 1: Mitigation, Preparation, and Capacity Building. This pre-disaster
learning phase includes risk assessment, risk reduction, improving coping
capacity, and improving emergency and water shortage plans.
Phase 2: Forecasting and Monitoring. This pre-disaster phase includes
ongoing forecasting and monitoring, improving scientific data, and
accounting for precipitation, water supply, and climate changes.
Phase 3: Drought and Water Shortage Response. This phase includes
communication, seeking assistance, and implementing any emergency
response procedures that are defined for use during a disaster.
Phase 4: Recovery and Relief. This post-disaster response phase includes
impacts’ assessment, assistance to households and suppliers, and funds to
in-boundary organizations to distribute assistance.
Figure 1 presents the four-phase model of disaster risk management. The
recommendations throughout this report reference the phases,
acknowledging all drought and water shortage planning, monitoring,
response, and mitigation actions fall within one or more of these phases.
Many of the items listed in the four-phase cycle are addressed by existing
federal, state, and local efforts and reporting processes.
California Department of Water Resources5
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
Note: This framework is based on Ekstrom et al. (2020) and informed by Baird (1975);
Carter (2008); Coetzee and Niekerk (2012); and Van Dongeren et al. (2018)
Figure 1. Disaster Risk Management Framework
California Department of Water Resources6
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
2.0 Vulnerable Small Suppliers
and Rural Communities:
Scoring of Drought and Water
Shortage Risk
CWC Section 10609.42(a) requires DWR, in consultation with other agencies
and stakeholders,toidentify small water suppliersand rural communities
(areas of households on private supplies, also called “self-supplied
communities in this report”) that may be at risk of drought and water
shortage. DWR must then notify counties and groundwater sustainability
agencies (GSA) of suppliers or communities that may be at risk within its
jurisdiction and may make the information publicly accessible on the
website.
Appendix 1 provides the indicators, datasets, and methods used for
constructing this deliverable, as well as the tools created during this project
that can be used going forward to assess drought and water shortage
vulnerability periodically as-needed basis.
The risk of drought and water shortage vulnerability is recognized as a
problem derived from a combination of hydrological and sociological factors.
The indicators of risk and methods adopted into the drought vulnerability
explorer tools developed as part of this project evolved in close coordination
and through an iterative feedback process with the State Water Board,
CDAG, and several other state and local agencies and stakeholders. The
aggregation method to combine these indicators and the overall process
taken to develop these is recorded in Appendix 1in detail.
This is the first statewide effort to systematically and holistically consider
drought and water shortage risk of small water suppliers and households. As
with any first major effort, it is important to recognize that the indicators
and construction of the scoring should be revised as more data becomes
readily available and knowledge advances on droughtsand water resilience.
The scoring system should allow for monitoring changes in riskover time. At
the same time, as the collective understanding of what risk of drought and
water shortageadvances, so too should the scoring system. Understanding
California Department of Water Resources7
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
and perspectives on drought may be informed by future drought
experiences.
This section presents results of calculating initial riskscores using existing
statewide datasets and the newly developed tools to estimate risk of drought
and water shortage for small water suppliers and self-supplied communities.
The risk was assessed based on a multi-pronged definition; this offers
valuable information beyond helping to prioritize which suppliers and
communities need assistance. Further, delivering not only the aggregated
risk scores, but also the disaggregated measures of risk to water suppliers,
counties, groundwater sustainability agencies, integrated regional water
management programs, the State Water Board, and other stakeholders can
be valuable for planning, prioritizing and improving drought and water
shortage resilience.
Risk scores were calculated for the following categories:
1)Small water suppliers examined include community water systems and
noncommunity non-transient water systems that are schools.
2)Self-supplied communities.
Recognizing that the risk assessment conducted as part of this project is
based on available data and reflects a snapshot of drought and water
shortage risk, it is recommended that this assessment is updated
periodically. Recommendation G1, in Section 2.4 in the companion Part I of
this report, discusses this further.
2.1 Small Water Suppliers – Risk Assessment
Urban water suppliers are required to develop a comprehensive urban water
management plan, which must include a section on drought and water
shortage contingency planning (CWC Section 10644(b)).
The risk assessment developed during this project was done for 2419
community andnoncommunitynon-transient water systems that are
schools. Our assessment required spatial information in order to include it in
the analysisbecause of the nature of the data included to represent several
of the risk factors. Therefore,some relevant water systems may not be
included at this time. This assessment covers 2,244 small community water
systems in California and 175schools with their own water systems which
California Department of Water Resources8
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
are classified as non-transient non-community water systems under the
regulatory jurisdiction of the State Water Board.
Because of data availability constraints, those systems with fewer than 15
service connections are classified for this report under the self-supplied
communities (referred to in legislation as “Rural Communities”). Theanalysis
includes those suppliers that have spatial boundaries of their service areas
recorded in the State Water Board’s California Drinking Water Systems Area
Boundaries dataset, as of July1, 2020, available through the California State
Geoportal at:
https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/fbba842bf134497c9d611ad506ec48cc_0. It
must be noted that the water system boundary geospatial layers have not
been verified by DWR to ensure the accuracy of the location of the small
water supplier or that the boundary itself is accurate, but at the time of
analysis this was considered the best available data. The State Water Board
is currently undertaking this verification process.
2.2 Water Shortage Risk Indicators: Exposure,
Vulnerability, and Observed Shortages
To evaluate the relative risk of drought and water shortage vulnerabilityfor
small water systems, DWR collaborated with the State Water Board and
CDAG to develop a tool that applies a common risk and vulnerability
framework with indicators.
A total of 29 indicators, listed in Table 1-7, were used to analyze drought
and water shortage risk for small water suppliers.
Table 1.Risk Indicators Used to Analyze Drought and Water
Shortage Risk for Small Water Suppliers
COMPONENT 1 –
Exposure to Climate Metric Data Source
Change
SC1a – Projected Projected change in Pierce et al.
Temperature Shift temperature by mid-century 2018
Presence of salt into coastal Befus et al.
SC1b - Projected Sea
aquifers with projected 1-2020a and
Level Rise
meter sea level rise 2020b
Projected acres burned from
SC1c - Projected Westerling
wildfire for each system
Wildfire Risk et al. 2018
boundary or community
California Department of Water Resources9
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
Table 2. Risk Indicators Used to Analyze Drought and Water
Shortage Risk for Small Water Suppliers
COMPONENT 2 –
Data
Exposure to Recent Metric
Source
Conditions & Events
SC2a –Current Wildfire Modelled current risk for each
CalFire
Risk system (based on vegetation)
SC2b - Drought Early
Annual Risk of Local Drought
PRISM OSU
Warning Forecast Water
(precipitation)
Year 2020
SC2c - Fractured Rock
Fractured rock DWR
Area
SC2h - Projected Near term population growth
DWR
Population Growth rate
SC2i – Water Quality in Water quality problems in
USGS GAMA
Surrounding Basin surrounding basin
SC2d - Basin-
Susceptibility to subsidence DWR
Subsidence
Befus et al.
SC2e - Saltwater Saltwater intrusion into coastal
2020a and
Intrusion aquifers, present day
2000b
SC2f - Critically
Critically overdrafted basin DWR
Overdrafted
SC2g - Chronic
Declining groundwater levels DWR
Declining Water Levels
SC2j -Surrounding Amount of irrigated agriculture
DWR
Agricultural Land Use in service area
California Department of Water Resources10
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
Table 3. Risk Indicators Used to Analyze Drought and Water
Shortage Risk for Small Water Suppliers
COMPONENT 3a
Connectivity–
Metric Data Source
Infrastructure
Vulnerability
Presence ofone or more
SC3a - Interties SDWIS 2020
intertie
SC3b – Emergency Presence ofone or more
SDWIS 2020
interties emergency intertie
SC3e – Single Water Water sources more than
SDWIS 2020
Source one
SC3f – Single Source Water source types more
SDWIS 2020
Types than one
Table 4. Risk Indicators Used to Analyze Drought and Water
Shortage Risk for Small Water Suppliers
COMPONENT 3b–
Other Infrastructure MetricData Source
Vulnerability
Level of monitoring
SC3c - Baseline monitoring eAR 2018
reported
% system connections
SC3d – Customers metered eAR 2018
unmetered
SC3i –Distribution Outage Distribution problems
eAR 2018
Record related to water outage
Levels of water source-
SC3j – Water Level Status recovering, steady, eAR 2018
declining, blank
California Department of Water Resources11
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
Table 5. Risk Indicators Used to Analyze Drought and Water
Shortage Risk for Small Water Suppliers
COMPONENT 4 –
Organization VulnerabilityMetricData Source
(ID)
Year rate structure was last
Rate Last Updated (SC4a)SWRCB
updated
Type of rate structured used
by supplier. Survey question
Rate Type (SC4b) SWRCB
in eAR 2018 (flat base rate
=1; other =0)
Service connections rescaled
Supplier Size (SC4c) SWRCB
and inverted
Drought Preparedness Plan Have drought plan or WSCP;
SWRCB
(SC4d) year written or updated
Multiple population
Customer Base DWR Private
characteristics combined
Socioeconomics (SC4e) vendor data
score
Table 6. Risk Indicators Used to Analyze Drought and Water
Shortage Risk for Small Water Suppliers
COMPONENT 5 – Recent
Metric Data Source
Observed Shortage
SC3h –Shortage: Self-Supplier-reported projected
eAR 2011-2018
Reported Projected shortage
Systems under order of
SC3k – Shortage:
compliance for curtailment
Curtailment and SWRCB
(2014) or building
Compliance Order
moratoriums
SC3L – Shortage: Drought Systems that received
SWRCB
Assistance Record drought assistance on record
California Department of Water Resources12
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
Table 7. Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics Estimated
to Represent the Customer Base Served by theSmall Supplier.
Spatial Analysis used to Associate Census Data to Service Area
Boundaries
Variable
Brief Description of What Variable is Data Source
Names
Average per capita income for all Block Groups ACS 2012-
PERCAP
(BG) that intersected with the service areas2016
Average Median Household Income (MHI) for ACS 2012-
AvgMHI
all BGs that intersected with the service areas 2016
Percentage of population of 65 and older of all ACS 2012-
Q65yr
BGs that intersected with the service areas2016
Percentage of population of living at or under
ACS 2012-
Qpov the poverty level of all BGs that intersected
2016
with the service areas
Percentage of population of under 5 years age
ACS 2012-
Q5y of all BGs that intersected with the service
2016
areas
Percentage of mobile households of all BGs ACS 2012-
Qmobile
that intersected with the service areas 2016
Percentage of households with no vehicles of ACS 2012-
NoVeh
all BGs that intersected with the service areas 2016
Percentage of population over 25 years of age
ACS 2012-
Qedu with no high school diploma of all BGs that
2016
intersected with the service areas
Percentage of population with single parent
ACS 2012-
Qparent with children under 18 of all BGs that
2016
intersected with the service areas
Percentage of population of civilian
ACS 2012-
Qunempl unemployed of all BGs that intersected with the
2016
service areas
Percentage of all census Block population with
Qgroup Group Quarters (GQ) that intersected with the Census 2010
service areas
Percentage of renter households of all BGs that ACS 2012-
Qrenters
intersected with the service areas 2016
California Department of Water Resources13
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
2.3 Relative Risk Findings
Based onstatewide risk score results, Figure 2 shows small water suppliers
in the top 10 percent of those identified to be at risk of drought and water
shortage (based on statewide available datasets).
Note: Large circles indicate top 10%, small circles indicate location of other water systems
examined. Colors range by risk score, where the highest is dark red and the lowest is dark
blue. Risk scores indicated by color ramp ranging from dark (high relative risk) to light (low
relative risk).
Figure 2. Small Water Suppliers Examined for Risk of Drought and
Water Shortage
Out of the small water suppliers in the top 10 percent of drought
vulnerability risk scores (242 suppliers) shown in Figure 2, the following
statistics are provided:
210 are community water systems
California Department of Water Resources14
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
32 are non-community non-transient systems that are schools
91% (219) have groundwater as primary water supply
47 of the 58 counties have a small water system with a risk score in the top
10% of risk scores for these types of suppliers. In terms of how the top 10%
at-risk systems compared to the lower 90%, the following lists the risk
factors for which the means were significantly different between the two
groups.
Mean household income – Lower in high-risk group
Non-basin areas (fractured rock, SC2c) – Higher portion of high-risk
group located in fractured rock
Connectivity indicators of no interties (SC3a), no emergency interties
(SC3b), single water source (SC3e), and single type of source (SC3f)
were all more frequent in high risk group
Rate structure update (SC4a) – Higher risk group have rates updated
longer ago on average than lower risk group
More details are provided in Appendix 2.
2.4 Rural Communities (referred to here as “self-supplied
communities”) – Risk Assessment
“Self-supplied communities” for this analysis are households on private
supplies (such as a domestic well) and other customers that are supplied by
systems with fewer than 15 service connections. This category is intended to
cover what is labeledas the “rural communities” in the legislation, and
hereafter referred to as self-supplied communities.
The self-supplied communitiesgrouping also includes households with
private or domestic wells or houses supplied by surface water such as rivers,
lakes, and the like. Some private wells are located in urban areas; so,the
term “rural” is not adequate, and CDAG chose “self-supplied communities”
as an alternate term for clarity.
This category (self-supplied communities) is intended to coverpopulations
that rely on self-supplied groundwater, surface water residential water use,
or State Small Water Systems, the latter of which supply customers with
fewer than 15 service connections (see Glossary for full technical definition).
California Department of Water Resources15
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
These communities were identified using U.S. Census Block groups. Block
groups that have zero population and those that have no domestic wells
recorded between 1970-2019 were excluded from the self-supplied
communities’ category. Approximately 5,000 Census Block groups are
considered self-supplied communities that meet the above criteria.
2.5 Water Shortage Risk Indicators: Exposure,
Vulnerability, Observed Shortages, and Domestic Well
Reliance
To evaluate the relative risk of drought and water shortage vulnerabilityfor
the self-supplied systems, DWR also collaborated with the Water Board and
CDAG to develop a tool that used a common framework with indicators. A
total of 20 indicators, listed in Table 6, were used to analyze droughtand
water shortage risk for self-supplied communities.
Table 8. Risk Indicators Used to Analyze Drought and Water
Shortage Risk for Self-Supplied Communities
Component 1:
Climate
Indicator Indicator Description Data Source
Change Risk
Indicators
Projected
RC1a –Projected change in max
change in
Temperature temperatures by mid-century DWR
heat by mid-
Shift (averaged across models)
century
Projected
severe or
Projected area burned
high severe
RC1b – (averaged across all GCMs)
risk for each UC Merced
Wildfire Risk by 2035-2064, RCP8.5;
system
spatial join with Block groups
boundary or
community
Susceptibility
to seawater
Spatial extent of projected University of
intrusion --
RC1c – Saline SLR under RCP 8.5 by 2040 Wyoming
1-meter sea
Intrusion Risk (1 m) into coastal aquifers; (coordinated
level rise
spatial join with Block groups with USGS)
into coastal
aquifers
California Department of Water Resources16
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
Table 9. Risk Indicators Used to Analyze Drought and Water
Shortage Risk for Self-Supplied Communities
Component 2:
Exposure to
Current
Indicator Indicator Description Data Source
Conditions and
Event Risk
Indicators
Annual Less than 70% of average
RC2a –
Updated Early precipitation by January
Drought Early
PRISM OSU
Drought Risk 31st for that water year =
Warning 2019
Warning high risk of drought
Use CalFire Scoring
Modelled HAZ_CODE: Moderate
current risk (1)= .33; High (2)= .67;
RC2b – Wildfire
maximum for Very High (3) =1; no score CalFire
Risk
each Census =0 (no or low risk); Took
Block Group max for each Census BG
with spatial join in ArcGIS
RC2c –
Fractured Rock Communities in Fractured
Fractured Rock DWR
Area Rock Areas (1) or not (0)
Area
Census data estimates of
RC2h – Projected
growth rate between 2016
Population population DWR
to 2021, estimated by
Growth growth
service area
Indication of likelihood
Domestic well
that groundwater likely
water quality
accessed by domestic
RC2i – Water risk (includes
wells may contain SWRCB
Quality Index areas outside
concentrations of
of alluvial
constituents above
basins)
regulatory levels.
Documented Impacts #7.b
Subsidence Points;
RC2d –
Record of recoded to 0,.5,1 from
Subsidence DWR
subsidence original points of 0,3,10,
Presence
then associated to Block
groups
California Department of Water Resources17
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
Table 10. Risk Indicators Used to Analyze Drought and Water
Shortage Risk for Self-Supplied Communities
Component 2:
Exposure to
Current
Indicator Indicator Description Data Source
Conditions and
Event Risk
Indicators
RC2e –Salt
Documented Impacts #7.c
DWR
Presence Record of salts
Salt Intrusion Points
(basin)
Critically
RC2f – Yes (1)/no (0) of whether
overdrafted
Overdrafted area is in critical DWR
groundwater
Basin overdrafted basin
basin
RC2g – Declining Documented Impacts #7.a
Declining groundwater - Declining GW levels DWR
Water Levels levels Points
Presence of
RC2j –
irrigated
Surrounding Irrigated Acres
agriculture in DWR
Irrigated Priority Points
surrounding
Agriculture
basin
Table 11. Risk Indicators Used to Analyze Drought and Water
Shortage Risk for Self-Supplied Communities
Component 3:
Physical
Vulnerability IndicatorData Source
(aggregated as
RC3)
Well-depth flag – if any portion of the
groundwater unit(s) that intersect with the
RC3a – Well
Census BG has relatively shallow domestic
OSWCR-DWR
Depth Flag
wells, marked whole BG as ‘1’ (high risk)
(0,1)
Proportion of Public Land Survey Sections in
RC3b – Well
Block Group where the max depth of
Depth OSWCR-DWR
domestic wells is 10% or more shallow than
Proportion
max of public wells (0-1)
California Department of Water Resources18
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
Table 12. Risk Indicators Used to Analyze Drought and Water
Shortage Risk for Self-Supplied Communities
Component 4:
Social
Vulnerability
IndicatorData Source
Risk Indicators
(aggregated as
RC4)
Average per capita income for all block
ACS 2012-2016
PERCAP
groups (BG). Combined to create RC4a.
Average Median Household Income (MHI)
AvgMHI ACS 2012-2016
for all BGs. Combined to create RC4a.
Percentage of population living at or below
Qpoverty ACS 2012-2016
poverty level. Combined to create RC4a.
Percentage of population of 65 and older of
Q65yr ACS 2012-2016
all BGs. Combined to create RC4b.
Percentage of population of under 17 years
Q17yr ACS 2012-2016
of all BGs. Combined to create RC4b.
Percentage of population of under 5 years
Q5y ACS 2012-2016
age of all BGs. Combined to create RC4b.
Percentage of mobile households of all BGs.
Qmobile ACS 2012-2016
Combined to create RC4c.
Percentage of households with no vehicles
QnoVeh ACS 2012-2016
of all BGs. Combined to create RC4c.
Percentage of population over 25 years old
Qedu ACS 2012-2016
with no high school diploma of all BGs
Percentage of population with single parent
Qparent with children under 18 years old of all BGs. ACS 2012-2016
Combined to create RC4b.
Percentage of population of civilian
Qunempl unemployed of all BGs. Combined to create
ACS 2012-2016
RC4b.
Percentage of population who speak English
Qlang less than well of all BGs. Combined to ACS 2012-2016
create RC4b.
Percentage of all census block group
Qgroup population with Group Quarters (GQ). Census 2010
Combined to create RC4c.
Percentage of households that are renters.
Qrenter ACS 2012-2016
Combined to create RC4c.
California Department of Water Resources19
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
Table 13. Risk Indicators Used to Analyze Drought and Water
Shortage Risk for Self-Supplied Communities
Component 5:
Water
IndicatorData Source
Shortage
Record
RC5a –
Reported
Presence of one or more households with
Household DWR
reported outages in Census Block Group
Outages on
Domestic Well
RC5b –
Reported Proportion of households with reported
Household outages in Census BG (compared to total DWR
Outages on households in BG) (0-1 scalar)
Private Well
Risk Findings
Figure 3 provides a map of the Census Block Groups by risk score. For these
block groups, the following statistics are provided:
Block groups analyzed in this assessment covered an estimated
3,048,140 households
Domestic wells within these block groups total283,742
480 block groups have a record of one or more domestic well outage
in the last decade
Within the block groups analyzed, there are an estimated 24,779 tribal
homes, based on information received from Indian Health Services
Median per capita income ofblock groups with domestic wells (all
examined –approximately $29,000) is substantially lower than the
median statewide (approximately $39,000)
More details are provided in Appendix 3.
California Department of Water Resources20
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
Figure 3. Self-Supplied Communities Risk Scores
2.6 Tribal Water Systems – Risk Assessment
Indian Health Services is afederal partner that DWR worked closely with
during this project. During the recent drought, IHS developed a tool to help
identify and prioritize vulnerable tribal water suppliers. In previous years,
IHS used similar concepts that are consistent with the risk and vulnerability
framing and shared their indicators with CDAG. During the CDAG process,
IHS updated their analysis to be consistent with the CDAG methodology
because many of the CDAG-identified risk factors were not yet included in
the IHS methodology. The tribal water system risk scores can be calculated
but require permission from each tribal government if they wish to
participate. DWR will be conducting outreach with IHS to engage with tribal
governments on this option. If any permissions are granted, the next
iteration of this risk assessment may incorporate these suppliers, depending
on the nature of the permissions.
California Department of Water Resources21
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
3.0 Glossary
3.1 Key Definitions
Community water system refers to a public water system that serves a
minimum of 15 service connections used by yearlong residents, or regularly
serves a minimum of 25 yearlong residents of the area served by the
system. Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 116275(i).
Drought is defined in various ways depending on the needs (Moreland
1993). Generally, a drought is when supply does not meet demand for
water, which has been met in the past. Drought tends to be associated with
lower-than-average precipitation periods, though it can be driven by
increases in demand and ambient temperatures (which can influence
demand and timing of supplies). Dry or warm periods can lead to reduced
surface water flows, reduced surface and groundwater storage, and
increased water quality challenges (e.g., from harmful and other algal
blooms or increased disinfectant biproduct concentrations). Additionally, dry
periods can lead to shifts in pollutant blooms in aquifers. These water quality
issues are important droughtrisksto consider when planning and preparing
for droughts, especially as temperatures increase under the changing
climate.
Local primacy agency means a local health officer that has applied for and
received primacy delegation pursuant to Section 116330. HSC Section
116275(r).
Noncommunity water system means a public water system that is not a
community water system. HSC Section 116275(j).
Nontransient noncommunity water system means a public water
systemthat is not a community water systemand thatregularly serves at
least 25 of the same persons over six months per year. HSC Section
116275(k).
Public water system means a system for the provision of water for human
consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances that has 15 or
more service connections, or regularly serves at least 25 individuals daily at
least 60 days out of the year. HSC, Section 116275(h).
California Department of Water Resources22
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
Self-supplied communities intends to cover what is regarded as the “rural
communities” in the legislation. This is intended to cover those households
and others with domestically used water (for dish washing, showering,
drinking, and the like) from their own wells and surface water supplies. The
unit of analysis for these communities is the U.S. Census Block group,
omitting those with zero population (according to ACS 2012-2016) and those
that have no domestic wells recorded (based on data from the DWR Well
Report Database 2019). For the purpose of this risk and vulnerability
assessment, this category also addresses communities served by water
suppliers with fewer than 15 service connections.
Noncommunity water system that is a school refers to a school that is a
permitted public water system because it has its own water supply.
Service connection means the point of connection between the customer’s
piping or constructed conveyance, and the water system’s meter, service
pipe, or constructed conveyance. HSC Section 116275(s).
Small water suppliers for this analysis are those with fewer than 3,000
service connections and serving less than 3,000 acre-feet per year. Urban
water suppliers with 3,000 connections and/or those that serveover 3,000
acre-feet are required to develop an urban water management plan, which
includes a section on droughtand water shortage contingency planning.
Those small water suppliers that are listed as participating in an urban water
management plan were also excluded because they are expected to be
covered by their plan.
State small water system means a system for the provision of piped
water to the public for human consumption that serves at least five, but not
more than 14, service connections and does not regularly serve drinking
water to more than an average of 25 individuals daily for more than 60 days
out of the year. HSC Section 116275(n).
Transient noncommunity water system means a noncommunity water
system that does not regularly serve at least 25 of the same persons over
six months per year. HSC Section 116275(o).
Urban water supplier means a supplier, either publicly or privately owned,
providing water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more
than 3,000 customers, or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water
annually.
California Department of Water Resources23
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
Water shortage is an insufficient quantity of water to meet indoor water
uses such as drinking and sanitation, and other critical water needs, which
can be caused by chronic conditions, extreme events, or both. This includes
the physical lack of supply coming out of the tap, a problem that can be
caused by dry wells or surface water, a regulatory restriction on accessing
surface water, or some physical obstruction impeding water supply.
3.2Key Concepts
Capacity(adaptive and coping): The capacity to adapt or cope is one of the
two core sub-components necessary to understand vulnerability. This is the
ability or potential of a system (or supplier, household, etc.) to respond
successfully to climate variability and change and includes adjustments in
both behavior and in resources and technologies. For this analysis, DWR
represents capacity in Component 4: Organizational Vulnerability of the
framework, which covers mostly social and economic vulnerability indicators.
Exposure to Hazard: Exposure in this risk framework represents the
degree to which a water supplier’s service area and a community is exposed
to various hazardous environmental conditions and events that could lead to
drought and/or water shortage.
Risk: Consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change2012
Special Report (Cardona et al. 2012) and its upcoming Sixth Assessment
Report, risk is the combination of vulnerability and the extent of exposure to
a hazardous event or conditions, including projected future hazards (IPCC
2017). Vulnerability, as described below, is the combination of sociological
and structure factors that make it more or less likely for people to be
harmed when they are exposed to a hazard. The stakeholders in CDAG
meetings agreed that risk is driven by both exposure to environmental
events and conditions and social, political and economic factors, which is
consistent with scientific literature on water shortage and scarcity (Kummu
et al. 2016; Mekonnen and Hoekstra 2016) and disaster risk management.
Sensitivity: Sensitivityis one of the two core sub-components to
understand vulnerability. This is the susceptibility of harm when exposed to
hazardous conditions or anextreme event relating to droughtand/or water
shortage. This is often measured using characteristics of a population or a
system. For this analysis, DWR represents sensitivity in Component 3 of the
framework and it covers mostly physical vulnerabilityindicators.
California Department of Water Resources24
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
Units of analysis: The final lists required by legislation must be in the form
of listing small water suppliers and rural communities (referred to here as
“self-supplied communities”). Because the risk factors differ between these
groups, an analysis of each was conducted separately and separate lists
were constructed. The unit of analysis used for small water suppliers is the
service area boundary polygons available through the California Drinking
Water System Area Boundaries site of the California State Geoportal. The
unit of analysis for the self-supplied households is census Block Groups (ACS
2012-2016 Tiger Shapefile). The Census Block Groups do not necessarily
represent individual communities, but they do cover areas where population
resides. Using this spatial unit for this analysis allows DWR to access
demographic information that is otherwise not available.
The analysis includes those suppliers that have spatial boundaries of their
service areas recorded in the California Drinking Water System Area
Boundaries, as of July 1, 2020
(https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/fbba842bf134497c9d611ad506ec48cc_0).
Those “State Small Systems” (as defined by the State Water Board) with
fewer than 15 service connections will be covered under the self-supplied
communities represented by census Block Groups.
Vulnerability: Vulnerability is the propensity or predisposition to be
adversely affected. Such predisposition constitutes an internal characteristic
of the affected element, whereas exposure to a hazard is a condition or
event to which the affected element (i.e., supplier or community) is
subjected. In the field of disaster risk management, this includes the
characteristics of a person or group and their situation that influences their
capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover from the adverse
effects of physical events (Wisner et al., 2004). For further reading on
vulnerability, see Key Concepts and Methods in Social Vulnerability and
Adaptive Capacity (Murphy et al. 2015) and Chapter 1 in IPCC Special
Report on Extreme Events (Lavell et al. 2012). Vulnerability is typically
estimated by combining sensitivity and capacity of the supplier or
community or other grouping of population or assets.
California Department of Water Resources25
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
4.0 References
Baird, A.1975. Towards an Explanation and Reduction of Disaster Proneness
Bradford University, Disaster Research Unit, Bradford.
Befus, K.M., P.L. Barnard, D.J. Hoover, J.A. Finzi Hart, and C.I. Voss. 2020a,
Increasing threat of coastal groundwater hazards from sea-level rise in
California, Nature Climate Change,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-
020-0874-1.
Befus et al. 2020b, California Saline Groundwater Wedge Footprint Model
Results, Hydrograph online data repository,
https://www.hydroshare.org/resource/d369b76492a14a2ea5142b982
6a61c41/.
Cardona, O. et al. 2012 in IPCC Special Report of Working Groups I and II:
Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance
Climate Change Adaptation (eds Field, C. et al.) 65–108 (Cambridge
Univ. Press, 2012). Available online:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/managing-the-risks-of-extreme-events-
and-disasters-to-advance-climate-change-adaptation/
Carter, W.N. 2008. Disaster Management: A Disaster Manager’s Handbook
Mandaluyong City, Phil.: Asian Development Bank, 2008.
https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/27890/disaster-
management-handbook.pdf
Coetzee, C., D. Niekerk. 2012. Tracking the evolution of the disaster
management cycle: a general system theory approach. J. Disaster Risk
Stud., 4:9. DOI:10.4102/jamba.v4i1.54
Ekstrom, J.A., S.K. Moore, and T. Klinger. 2020. Examining harmful algal
blooms through a disaster risk management lens: A case study of the
2015 U.S. West Coast domoic acid event. Harmful Algae 94(101740),
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S156898832030001
9#fig0010
IPCC 2017. Chapter Outline of the Working Group II Contribution to the IPCC
th
Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), As Adopted by the Panel at the 46
Session of the IPCC, Montreal, Canada.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/AR6_WGII_outlines
_P46.pdf
California Department of Water Resources26
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
Kummu, M. et al. The world’s road to water scarcity: shortage and stress in
the 20th century and pathways towards sustainability. Sci. Rep. 6,
38495; doi: 10.1038/srep38495
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep38495
Lavell, A., M. Oppenheimer, C. Diop, J. Hess, R. Lempert, J. Li, R. Muir-
Wood, and S. Myeong, 2012: Climate change: new dimensions in
disaster risk, exposure, vulnerability, and resilience. In: Managing the
Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change
Adaptation \[Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken,
K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M.
Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)\]. A Special Report of Working Groups I
and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA,
pp. 25-64.
Mekonnen and Hoekstra 2016. Four billion people facing severe water
scarcity. Sci. Adv. 2, e1500323.
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/
advances/2/2/e1500323.full.pdf
Murphy, D.J., C. Wyborn, L. Yung, and D.R. Williams. 2015. Key concepts
and methods in social vulnerability and adaptive capacity. Gen. Tech.
Rep. RMRS-GTR-328. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 24 p.
(https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr328.pdf)
State Water Board. California Drinking Water System Area Boundaries in the
California State Geoportal, accessed July 1, 2020
(https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/fbba842bf134497c9d611ad506ec48c
c_0).
van Dongeren, A., T. Bogaard, O. Ferreira, and R. Higgins. 2018.
Introduction to RISC-KIT: resilience-increasing strategies for coasts
Coast. Eng., 134:2-9, DOI: 10.1016/J.COASTALENG.2017.10.007
United States Census Bureau. 2016 Tiger Shapefiles \[Dataset\]. United States
Census. https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files/time-
series/geo/tiger-line-file.2016.html
California Department of Water Resources27
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
Wilhite, Donald A.; Michael J. Hayes, Cody Knutson,Helm Smith, and Kelly
Wilhite. 2000. The Basics of Drought Planning: A 10-Step Process,
Journal of American Water Resources Association 36.
http://www.wamis.org/tools/info/droughtplanning.pdf
Wilhite, D.A.,M.V.K. Sivakumar,and R. Pulwarty. 2014.Managing drought
risk in a changing climate: The role of national drought policy. Weather
and Climate Extremes 3: 4-13.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221209471400016
4
Wisner, B., P. Blaikie, T. Cannon, and I. Davis. 2003. At Risk: Natural
Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters Second Edition. London,
Routledge.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323368943_At_Risk_Natura
l_Hazards_People's_Vulnerability_and_Disasters
California Department of Water Resources28
Part 2: Report Pursuant to
Section 10609.42 of the California Water Code
List of Appendices
The appendices to this report are in separate documents.
Appendix 1Drought and Water Shortage Risk Scoring
Methodology– California’s Small Water Supplier and
Self-Supplied Communities
Appendix 2Small Water System Water Shortage Risk Results
Appendix 3Rural Community Water Shortage Risk Results
California Department of Water Resources29