How the proposed groundwater records would be made.
The proposed program separates a benchmark comparison from a possible reduction assessment and from independent review. A benchmark comparison is a performance comparison, not a reduction. The other two are proposed stages: available evidence and the accepted method would determine which description a record supports. Each figure is labeled measured or estimated, and the three are never mixed.
How a proposed orchard project would be assessed, on the program page.
Definitions, labels and gates.
- 1 Where a full season is on file
Benchmark comparison
The farm’s own water figure for a full season, labeled measured or estimated, compared with a named and dated published estimate for the same crop and county on the same basis. Each record states its source: pump run-time, flow meters or the GSA’s satellite ETAW. Reported as acre-feet per acre below or above that benchmark, with both sources beside it. A comparison does not establish a reduction.
Withheld whenNeeds a full water year or calendar year, as stated on the record: applied water from meters or from logged pump run-time and the block application rate, or the GSA’s satellite ETAW, compared with a benchmark on the same basis. A partial year is never compared with an annual benchmark.LabelBenchmark comparison: the farm's own full-season water figure, labeled measured or estimated, against a published estimate on the same basis. A performance comparison, not a reduction.A comparison with a published figure
- 2 Proposed, in development
Reduction assessment
Proposed, in development. Any future result would compare project-season pumping with an accepted site baseline and state its measurement basis. Historical records or a prospective measured period may be considered, depending on the accepted method. No reduction assessment has been completed.
Withheld whenNeeds an accepted site-specific baseline and supporting records. Historical pumping evidence must have adequate coverage and flow documentation; otherwise a prospective measured baseline may be required.LabelProposed reduction assessment against an accepted site baseline, with its measurement basis stated. Not independently validated.Proposed, not independently validated
- 3 Proposed, no validator appointed
Independent validation
Proposed. Not independently validated. No validator has been appointed and no volume has been independently validated. A future label would depend on the accepted method, supporting evidence and a completed review; the proposed treatment of the farm’s history and its GSA allocation remains subject to technical and independent review.
Withheld whenCalled validated after an independent validator has completed the review, and not before. Until then any candidate volume is shown as not validated.LabelProposed independent validation under an accepted method. No validator has been appointed and no volume has been independently validated.Proposed, no validator appointed VWBA 2.0 Proposed. No validator appointed; the baseline treatment is subject to review.
The published estimates a benchmark comparison uses.
Each record states its source, and names the row it was compared with. Applied water is the volume delivered through the irrigation system, including irrigation inefficiency. ETAW is crop ET less the rain the crop consumed, a consumptive-use figure, lower than applied water for the same orchard. Crop ET demand is what the trees would use when well watered.
A record’s water figure and its benchmark are on the same basis. Applied water is compared with an applied-water estimate. ETAW (evapotranspiration of applied water: crop ET less the rain the crop consumed, a consumptive-use figure) is compared with an ETAW estimate on the same definition, never with an applied-water estimate. Crop ET demand rows are context and are never the comparison.
Pump run-time (the 2026 citrus records)
Estimated applied water, calculated from logged pump run-time and the block application rate (not a flow meter reading), compared with a named and dated DWR county applied-water estimate for the crop. Each record labels the figure estimated and states the run-time basis.
The GSA’s satellite ETAW (the 2026 Madera County records)
For farm units confirmed in the applicable Madera County GSA account, the GSA’s own satellite ETAW (Hydrosat IrriWatch), a GSA-reported estimate, compared with a DWR county ETAW estimate on the same consumptive-use basis. Calendar year, final in January. Your GSA’s number is the official one. Meter readings may be shown separately for comparison, each series labeled measured or estimated.
Flow meters (future farm units)
Measured applied water from flow meters, for farm units that have elected meters with their GSA, compared with a DWR county applied-water estimate.
Citrus: 14 published rows
- San Joaquin Valley South
Applied water2.50 acre-feet per acre (30 inches)
Irrigation water, excluding frost protection (2.2 acre-inches in the study).
navel oranges, low-volume (micro-sprinkler)
Table B: 30 acre-inches a year from year 6 on, April through October, at 85 percent distribution uniformity, plus 2.2 acre-inches for frost protection. Kern and Tulare County advisors.
Sample Costs to Establish an Orchard and Produce Oranges, Navels, San Joaquin Valley South, Low Volume Irrigation. UC Davis Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC Cooperative Extension, 2021
- San Joaquin Valley South
Applied water2.50 acre-feet per acre (30 inches)
Irrigation water, excluding frost protection (2.2 acre-inches in the study).
Tango mandarins, low-volume
Table B: 30 acre-inches a year at maturity, April through October, at 85 percent distribution uniformity, plus 2.2 acre-inches for frost protection. Tulare and Kern County advisors. Archived 2011 mandarin study.
Sample Costs to Establish a Citrus Orchard and Produce Mandarins, Tango, San Joaquin Valley South, Low-Volume Irrigation. UC Davis Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC Cooperative Extension, 2011
- San Joaquin Valley South
ETc demand3.30 acre-feet per acre (39.54 inches)
citrus, mature, wide spaced, no cover crop, fanjet
Sheet "Weekly ET", mature total 39.54 inches on 57.9 inches normal-year grass ETo (CIMIS zone 15).
Citrus ET by Age (CIMIS Average ET Estimates by Crop Age). UC ANR Cooperative Extension, Kern County (Blake Sanden), 2011
- Kern
Applied water4.05 acre-feet per acre
Citrus & Subtropical (DWR crop category), includes olives and avocados
Seasonal applied water per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet (the tool is titled 2016-2020; the county sheet holds four years). Modelled from CIMIS ETo, crop coefficients, soil and rainfall, adjusted for irrigation efficiency and leaching. Kern: the South Central Region Office block (the valley floor), not the desert side.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Tulare
Applied water3.71 acre-feet per acre
Citrus & Subtropical (DWR crop category), includes olives and avocados
Seasonal applied water per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet (the tool is titled 2016-2020; the county sheet holds four years). Modelled from CIMIS ETo, crop coefficients, soil and rainfall, adjusted for irrigation efficiency and leaching.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Fresno
Applied water3.53 acre-feet per acre
Citrus & Subtropical (DWR crop category), includes olives and avocados
Seasonal applied water per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet (the tool is titled 2016-2020; the county sheet holds four years). Modelled from CIMIS ETo, crop coefficients, soil and rainfall, adjusted for irrigation efficiency and leaching.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Kings
Applied water3.79 acre-feet per acre
Citrus & Subtropical (DWR crop category), includes olives and avocados
Seasonal applied water per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet (the tool is titled 2016-2020; the county sheet holds four years). Modelled from CIMIS ETo, crop coefficients, soil and rainfall, adjusted for irrigation efficiency and leaching.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Madera
Applied water3.46 acre-feet per acre
Citrus & Subtropical (DWR crop category), includes olives and avocados
Seasonal applied water per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet (the tool is titled 2016-2020; the county sheet holds four years). Modelled from CIMIS ETo, crop coefficients, soil and rainfall, adjusted for irrigation efficiency and leaching.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Kern
ETc demand4.26 acre-feet per acre
Citrus & Subtropical (DWR crop category), includes olives and avocados
Seasonal crop evapotranspiration per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet. ETo x Kc, before any irrigation inefficiency. Kern: the South Central Region Office block (the valley floor), not the desert side.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Tulare
ETc demand4.11 acre-feet per acre
Citrus & Subtropical (DWR crop category), includes olives and avocados
Seasonal crop evapotranspiration per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet. ETo x Kc, before any irrigation inefficiency.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Fresno
ETc demand4.01 acre-feet per acre
Citrus & Subtropical (DWR crop category), includes olives and avocados
Seasonal crop evapotranspiration per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet. ETo x Kc, before any irrigation inefficiency.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Kings
ETc demand4.07 acre-feet per acre
Citrus & Subtropical (DWR crop category), includes olives and avocados
Seasonal crop evapotranspiration per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet. ETo x Kc, before any irrigation inefficiency.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Madera
ETc demand3.96 acre-feet per acre
Citrus & Subtropical (DWR crop category), includes olives and avocados
Seasonal crop evapotranspiration per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet. ETo x Kc, before any irrigation inefficiency.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Madera
ETAW3.11 acre-feet per acre
Citrus & Subtropical (DWR crop category), includes olives and avocados
Seasonal ETaw (evapotranspiration of applied water) per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet, South Central Region Office block. DWR defines ETaw as the net irrigation water a crop needs, not including application efficiency, from modelled water-balance irrigation schedules built on soil, crop, precipitation and ETc data; its applied water is ETaw divided by application efficiency. The same consumptive-use basis as a GSA satellite ETAW figure (total ET less the rain the crop consumed). Modelled for a typical orchard of the category, where the GSA figure is reported for the farm unit; water years here, where the Madera County GSA year is the calendar year. Water years 2016 to 2019: 3.24, 3.11, 3.36, 2.74. Water year 2020 (3.11) is also in the sheet and is left out, so every DWR row here shares one four-year window.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheet Regional_ETaw_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
Pistachios: 14 published rows
- San Joaquin Valley South
Applied water4.13 acre-feet per acre (49.5 inches)
pistachios, low-volume (drip)
Table A: 49.5 acre-inches a year from year 8 on, April to mid-November, at 90 percent irrigation efficiency, non-saline soil, no leaching water included.
Sample Costs to Establish and Produce Pistachios, Low-Volume Irrigation, San Joaquin Valley South. UC Davis Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC Cooperative Extension, 2020
- San Joaquin Valley South
ETc demand3.70 acre-feet per acre (44.4 inches)
pistachios, mature, non-saline soil, micro-irrigation
Table C: measured actual ET of well-watered mature orchards on non-saline soil, April 1 to November 15, 44.4 inches (UC research 2016 to 2019, southwestern San Joaquin Valley). Moderately saline 38.5, highly saline 30.1.
Sample Costs to Establish and Produce Pistachios, Low-Volume Irrigation, San Joaquin Valley South, Table C. UC Davis Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC Cooperative Extension, 2020
- San Joaquin Valley South
ETc demand3.70 acre-feet per acre (44.35 inches)
pistachios, mature (year 9, over 65 percent cover), drip, bare middles
Sheet "Biweekly ET", mature total 44.35 inches on 57.9 inches normal-year grass ETo. The broader SSJV crop ET table on the same site lists pistachios at 46.53 inches with a different coefficient set.
Pistachio ET by Age (Normal Year Water Use for Pistachios in the Southern San Joaquin Valley, table by Sanden 2002, Goldhamer crop coefficients). UC ANR Cooperative Extension, Kern County (Blake Sanden), 2018
- Kern
Applied water3.96 acre-feet per acre
Almonds & Pistachios (DWR crop category)
Seasonal applied water per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet (the tool is titled 2016-2020; the county sheet holds four years). Modelled from CIMIS ETo, crop coefficients, soil and rainfall, adjusted for irrigation efficiency and leaching. Kern: the South Central Region Office block (the valley floor), not the desert side.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Tulare
Applied water3.94 acre-feet per acre
Almonds & Pistachios (DWR crop category)
Seasonal applied water per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet (the tool is titled 2016-2020; the county sheet holds four years). Modelled from CIMIS ETo, crop coefficients, soil and rainfall, adjusted for irrigation efficiency and leaching.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Fresno
Applied water4.04 acre-feet per acre
Almonds & Pistachios (DWR crop category)
Seasonal applied water per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet (the tool is titled 2016-2020; the county sheet holds four years). Modelled from CIMIS ETo, crop coefficients, soil and rainfall, adjusted for irrigation efficiency and leaching.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Kings
Applied water3.88 acre-feet per acre
Almonds & Pistachios (DWR crop category)
Seasonal applied water per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet (the tool is titled 2016-2020; the county sheet holds four years). Modelled from CIMIS ETo, crop coefficients, soil and rainfall, adjusted for irrigation efficiency and leaching.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Madera
Applied water4.00 acre-feet per acre
Almonds & Pistachios (DWR crop category)
Seasonal applied water per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet (the tool is titled 2016-2020; the county sheet holds four years). Modelled from CIMIS ETo, crop coefficients, soil and rainfall, adjusted for irrigation efficiency and leaching.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Kern
ETc demand3.72 acre-feet per acre
Almonds & Pistachios (DWR crop category)
Seasonal crop evapotranspiration per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet. ETo x Kc, before any irrigation inefficiency. Kern: the South Central Region Office block (the valley floor), not the desert side.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Tulare
ETc demand3.69 acre-feet per acre
Almonds & Pistachios (DWR crop category)
Seasonal crop evapotranspiration per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet. ETo x Kc, before any irrigation inefficiency.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Fresno
ETc demand3.81 acre-feet per acre
Almonds & Pistachios (DWR crop category)
Seasonal crop evapotranspiration per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet. ETo x Kc, before any irrigation inefficiency.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Kings
ETc demand3.65 acre-feet per acre
Almonds & Pistachios (DWR crop category)
Seasonal crop evapotranspiration per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet. ETo x Kc, before any irrigation inefficiency.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Madera
ETc demand3.83 acre-feet per acre
Almonds & Pistachios (DWR crop category)
Seasonal crop evapotranspiration per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet. ETo x Kc, before any irrigation inefficiency.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Madera
ETAW3.60 acre-feet per acre
Almonds & Pistachios (DWR crop category)
Seasonal ETaw (evapotranspiration of applied water) per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet, South Central Region Office block. DWR defines ETaw as the net irrigation water a crop needs, not including application efficiency, from modelled water-balance irrigation schedules built on soil, crop, precipitation and ETc data; its applied water is ETaw divided by application efficiency. The same consumptive-use basis as a GSA satellite ETAW figure (total ET less the rain the crop consumed). Modelled for a typical orchard of the category, where the GSA figure is reported for the farm unit; water years here, where the Madera County GSA year is the calendar year. Water years 2016 to 2019: 3.97, 3.44, 3.78, 3.22. Water year 2020 (3.38) is also in the sheet and is left out, so every DWR row here shares one four-year window.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheet Regional_ETaw_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
Almonds: 15 published rows
- San Joaquin Valley South
Applied water4.33 acre-feet per acre (52 inches)
almonds, double-line drip
Table A: 52 acre-inches a year in production years for general irrigation (58 with the 6 acre-inches applied in January to leach salt and refill the profile). Kern, Tulare and Fresno County advisors.
Sample Costs to Establish an Orchard and Produce Almonds, San Joaquin Valley South, Double-line Drip Irrigation. UC Davis Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC Cooperative Extension, 2024
- San Joaquin Valley North
Applied water3.50 acre-feet per acre (42 inches)
almonds, micro-sprinkler
Table A: 42 acre-inches a year from year 4 on, at 90 percent application efficiency, March to October. Stanislaus, Madera, Merced and San Joaquin County advisors.
Sample Costs to Establish an Orchard and Produce Almonds, San Joaquin Valley North, Micro-Sprinkler Irrigation. UC Davis Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC Cooperative Extension, 2024
- San Joaquin Valley South
ETc demand4.36 acre-feet per acre (52.27 inches)
almonds, mature, micro-sprinkler, minimal cover crop
Sheet "Micro SSJV Zone15", mature total 52.27 inches on 57.9 inches normal-year grass ETo (CIMIS zone 15, Shafter). Drip with no cover 48.29; flood with full cover 61.67. Crop coefficients from UCCE Kern trials in more than 50 almond orchards.
Almond Drip, Microsprinkler, Flood Weekly ET (Normal Year Water Use for Almonds in the S. San Joaquin Valley). UC ANR Cooperative Extension, Kern County (Blake Sanden), 2017
- San Joaquin Valley North
ETc demand4.05 acre-feet per acre (48.57 inches)
almonds, mature, micro-sprinkler, some cover crop
Sheet "Micro-sprinkler NSJV Zone12", mature total 48.57 inches on 53.37 inches normal-year grass ETo (CIMIS zone 12, Modesto).
Almond Drip, Microsprinkler, Flood Weekly ET (CIMIS ET Estimates Using Historic ETo for Modesto, Zone 12). UC ANR Cooperative Extension, Kern County (Blake Sanden), 2017
- Kern
Applied water3.96 acre-feet per acre
Almonds & Pistachios (DWR crop category)
Seasonal applied water per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet (the tool is titled 2016-2020; the county sheet holds four years). Modelled from CIMIS ETo, crop coefficients, soil and rainfall, adjusted for irrigation efficiency and leaching. Kern: the South Central Region Office block (the valley floor), not the desert side.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Tulare
Applied water3.94 acre-feet per acre
Almonds & Pistachios (DWR crop category)
Seasonal applied water per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet (the tool is titled 2016-2020; the county sheet holds four years). Modelled from CIMIS ETo, crop coefficients, soil and rainfall, adjusted for irrigation efficiency and leaching.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Fresno
Applied water4.04 acre-feet per acre
Almonds & Pistachios (DWR crop category)
Seasonal applied water per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet (the tool is titled 2016-2020; the county sheet holds four years). Modelled from CIMIS ETo, crop coefficients, soil and rainfall, adjusted for irrigation efficiency and leaching.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Kings
Applied water3.88 acre-feet per acre
Almonds & Pistachios (DWR crop category)
Seasonal applied water per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet (the tool is titled 2016-2020; the county sheet holds four years). Modelled from CIMIS ETo, crop coefficients, soil and rainfall, adjusted for irrigation efficiency and leaching.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Madera
Applied water4.00 acre-feet per acre
Almonds & Pistachios (DWR crop category)
Seasonal applied water per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet (the tool is titled 2016-2020; the county sheet holds four years). Modelled from CIMIS ETo, crop coefficients, soil and rainfall, adjusted for irrigation efficiency and leaching.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Kern
ETc demand3.72 acre-feet per acre
Almonds & Pistachios (DWR crop category)
Seasonal crop evapotranspiration per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet. ETo x Kc, before any irrigation inefficiency. Kern: the South Central Region Office block (the valley floor), not the desert side.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Tulare
ETc demand3.69 acre-feet per acre
Almonds & Pistachios (DWR crop category)
Seasonal crop evapotranspiration per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet. ETo x Kc, before any irrigation inefficiency.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Fresno
ETc demand3.81 acre-feet per acre
Almonds & Pistachios (DWR crop category)
Seasonal crop evapotranspiration per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet. ETo x Kc, before any irrigation inefficiency.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Kings
ETc demand3.65 acre-feet per acre
Almonds & Pistachios (DWR crop category)
Seasonal crop evapotranspiration per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet. ETo x Kc, before any irrigation inefficiency.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Madera
ETc demand3.83 acre-feet per acre
Almonds & Pistachios (DWR crop category)
Seasonal crop evapotranspiration per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet. ETo x Kc, before any irrigation inefficiency.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Madera
ETAW3.60 acre-feet per acre
Almonds & Pistachios (DWR crop category)
Seasonal ETaw (evapotranspiration of applied water) per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet, South Central Region Office block. DWR defines ETaw as the net irrigation water a crop needs, not including application efficiency, from modelled water-balance irrigation schedules built on soil, crop, precipitation and ETc data; its applied water is ETaw divided by application efficiency. The same consumptive-use basis as a GSA satellite ETAW figure (total ET less the rain the crop consumed). Modelled for a typical orchard of the category, where the GSA figure is reported for the farm unit; water years here, where the Madera County GSA year is the calendar year. Water years 2016 to 2019: 3.97, 3.44, 3.78, 3.22. Water year 2020 (3.38) is also in the sheet and is left out, so every DWR row here shares one four-year window.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheet Regional_ETaw_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
Walnuts: 6 published rows
- San Joaquin Valley North
Applied water3.50 acre-feet per acre (42 inches)
walnuts, full-coverage sprinkler
Table A: 42 acre-inches a year from year 6 on, mid-April to mid-September; a post-harvest irrigation is not included.
Sample Costs to Establish an Orchard and Produce Walnuts, San Joaquin Valley North, Late leafing, lateral bearing. UC Davis Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC Cooperative Extension, 2017
- Kern
Applied water3.54 acre-feet per acre
Other Deciduous (DWR crop category), walnuts with other deciduous fruit
Seasonal applied water per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet (the tool is titled 2016-2020; the county sheet holds four years). Modelled from CIMIS ETo, crop coefficients, soil and rainfall, adjusted for irrigation efficiency and leaching. Kern: the South Central Region Office block (the valley floor), not the desert side.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Tulare
Applied water3.98 acre-feet per acre
Other Deciduous (DWR crop category), walnuts with other deciduous fruit
Seasonal applied water per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet (the tool is titled 2016-2020; the county sheet holds four years). Modelled from CIMIS ETo, crop coefficients, soil and rainfall, adjusted for irrigation efficiency and leaching.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Fresno
Applied water3.78 acre-feet per acre
Other Deciduous (DWR crop category), walnuts with other deciduous fruit
Seasonal applied water per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet (the tool is titled 2016-2020; the county sheet holds four years). Modelled from CIMIS ETo, crop coefficients, soil and rainfall, adjusted for irrigation efficiency and leaching.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Kings
Applied water3.95 acre-feet per acre
Other Deciduous (DWR crop category), walnuts with other deciduous fruit
Seasonal applied water per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet (the tool is titled 2016-2020; the county sheet holds four years). Modelled from CIMIS ETo, crop coefficients, soil and rainfall, adjusted for irrigation efficiency and leaching.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Madera
Applied water3.47 acre-feet per acre
Other Deciduous (DWR crop category), walnuts with other deciduous fruit
Seasonal applied water per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet (the tool is titled 2016-2020; the county sheet holds four years). Modelled from CIMIS ETo, crop coefficients, soil and rainfall, adjusted for irrigation efficiency and leaching.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
Grapes: 7 published rows
- San Joaquin Valley South
Applied water3.00 acre-feet per acre (36 inches)
table grapes, Flame Seedless, drip
Table A: 36 acre-inches a year from year 3 on, April through October, drip, with post-harvest deficit irrigation.
Sample Costs to Establish and Produce Table Grapes, San Joaquin Valley South, Flame Seedless, Early Maturing. UC Davis Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC Cooperative Extension, 2018
- San Joaquin Valley South
ETc demand3.82 acre-feet per acre (45.78 inches)
grapes, late, gable trellis
Table 1 total for "Grapes (late, gable trellis)", 45.78 inches on 57.9 inches normal-year grass ETo (Jones 1999).
Average SSJV ET and Crop Coefficients (CIMIS Normal Year Crop ET for the southern San Joaquin Valley). UC ANR Cooperative Extension, Kern County (Blake Sanden), 2011
- Kern
Applied water4.29 acre-feet per acre
Vineyard (DWR crop category)
Seasonal applied water per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet (the tool is titled 2016-2020; the county sheet holds four years). Modelled from CIMIS ETo, crop coefficients, soil and rainfall, adjusted for irrigation efficiency and leaching. Kern: the South Central Region Office block (the valley floor), not the desert side.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Tulare
Applied water4.09 acre-feet per acre
Vineyard (DWR crop category)
Seasonal applied water per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet (the tool is titled 2016-2020; the county sheet holds four years). Modelled from CIMIS ETo, crop coefficients, soil and rainfall, adjusted for irrigation efficiency and leaching.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Fresno
Applied water3.89 acre-feet per acre
Vineyard (DWR crop category)
Seasonal applied water per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet (the tool is titled 2016-2020; the county sheet holds four years). Modelled from CIMIS ETo, crop coefficients, soil and rainfall, adjusted for irrigation efficiency and leaching.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Kings
Applied water3.62 acre-feet per acre
Vineyard (DWR crop category)
Seasonal applied water per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet (the tool is titled 2016-2020; the county sheet holds four years). Modelled from CIMIS ETo, crop coefficients, soil and rainfall, adjusted for irrigation efficiency and leaching.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
- Madera
Applied water3.09 acre-feet per acre
Vineyard (DWR crop category)
Seasonal applied water per acre, mean of water years 2016 to 2019 in the county sheet (the tool is titled 2016-2020; the county sheet holds four years). Modelled from CIMIS ETo, crop coefficients, soil and rainfall, adjusted for irrigation efficiency and leaching.
Statewide Agricultural Water Use Data 2016-2020 (Excel application tool), county sheets Regional_AW_Unit_County and Regional_ETc_Unit_County. California Department of Water Resources, 2024
Sources: UC Davis Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC Cooperative Extension, UC ANR and California Department of Water Resources. Every figure was read from the publisher’s own document on October 7, 2026. A record is compared with the row on its own basis for the farm’s county: applied water with the applied-water row, the GSA’s satellite ETAW with the ETAW row. Crop ET demand rows are context and are never the comparison. A crop and county with no published figure on that basis has no row and no number.
What a benchmark comparison looks like.
Eligible blocks may advance to a reduction assessment in a later monitored season and, separately, to an independently reviewed volumetric water benefit if the site, baseline, indicator, GSA reconciliation and assurance requirements are accepted. Advancement is not automatic.
The block values are illustrative. No farm, well, meter or reading behind them is real. The benchmark line is the published figure named beside it. Benchmark row: Citrus & Subtropical (DWR crop category), includes olives and avocados, Tulare, applied water: California Department of Water Resources, 2024. The benchmark compares total applied irrigation water from all sources for the same acres and full season with that figure. A comparison, never a change over time.
The 2026 benchmark comparison is not a groundwater reduction, volumetric water benefit, replenishment volume or independently validated environmental claim.
2024 season: 2.1; 2025 season: 2.3; 2026 season: 2.2. Published benchmark: 3.71. All figures are acre-feet per acre, applied water.
Proposed: the farm’s own seasons, adjusted for weather.
As proposed, a weather adjustment would estimate a baseline from the farm’s historical records, for example by scaling each prior season by the ratio of CIMIS ETo (reference evapotranspiration) between that season and the assessment season. The result is an estimate, not a measurement, and the treatment of weather and other relevant factors remains subject to technical review. Where admissible pumping evidence is short, a prospective measured baseline may be needed.
Deductions
- The baseline, uncertainty treatment and accounting quantity remain subject to the proposed project method and technical review. No figure on these pages treats an unaccepted factor as a measured result.
- As a starting proposal, a conservative deduction of 23 percent would be taken from any gross volume; its final size would follow the uncertainty assessment.
- Whether a project counts withdrawal or consumptive use depends on the project and its hydrology. Where consumptive use is the accounting quantity, we propose an adjustment of about 0.80, for technical and independent review, not preset.
- We propose capping the baseline at the GSA allocation for the enrolled acres, so pumping above the allocation is not counted as history. This is a proposal, subject to review. Any comparison with the GSA allocation must use the GSA's accounting basis. Gross pumping cannot be compared directly with an ETAW allocation.
Counted once
- A pumping cut the GSA already requires never counts.
- Acres in a fallowing or land-repurposing program that already pays for the water are excluded for the years paid.
- Proposed control: any year the GSA account shows a transfer from an enrolled parcel is a year with no claim, and water carried over and pumped later is subtracted. Final treatment follows the accepted project method and the applicable GSA account rules.
- No attributed volume may be claimed twice. Any future claim would follow the agreed attribution, project controls and applicable GSA account rules.
The two commitments
- No sale or transfer of the water or allocation behind a sponsor-used recorded reduction during the agreed claim period.
- No use of the water or allocation behind a sponsor-used recorded reduction to irrigate newly planted acreage during the agreed claim period.
Illustrative sentences, not supported by any record today.
Illustrative examples: no record supports these statements today. Any future public statement would need to identify the eligible quantity, accepted baseline, measurement basis, attribution and review status supported by its record, and a sponsor’s own counsel reviews it before use.
With every claim
- Stem water potential (SWP) readings document plant water status and agronomic response; they do not measure pumped volume.
- An independent third party would review AgWaterAI’s volume calculation before any validated volume is claimed.
- Any validated claim would need an independent review under an accepted method, reconciliation with the grower’s GSA account and controls so the same water is not counted twice. VWBA 2.0 is accounting guidance, not an approval.
- No validated record has been issued under this program and no validator has been appointed.
What a project record would contain.
What a unit record would contain.
No unit record has been issued under the groundwater program. Any future record would identify its basis and review status, carry these six things, and have its signature re-checked every time it is looked up.
- Serial
- MCU-YYYY-NNNN
- Label
- One of the three, verbatim
- Period
- The season and its basis, water year or calendar year
- Acres and blocks
- Region level, rounded
- Method date
- Dated, with superseded methods kept
- Signature and hash link
- Signature, linked to the previous record, re-checked on every lookup
Public lookup by serial on the record lookup page. None have been issued under this program yet; a sample record will be linked here once it is issued.
The baseline, measurement and review.
Additionality
- Our proposed baseline will use admissible site-specific historical pumping evidence where coverage and flow documentation are adequate. Blocks without a defensible historical volume may require a prospective measured baseline. Independent reviewers still have to approve how each project adjusts for weather, counts the GSA allocation and sets the baseline dates. Pumping less groundwater than the baseline counts only if the project method and the GSA’s accounting rules allow it; pumping cuts the GSA already requires never count.
Pump-side monitoring
- Project-period groundwater withdrawal will be directly metered where qualifying wellhead meters are in place; any calculated or estimated values will be labeled by source. Where there is no meter, an estimate from logged pump run-time, labeled estimated on the record, until one goes in. Each result is reported at its measured or estimated value, even when pumping went up; we do not claim a reduction in crop water use.
Time to benefit
- A future claim would depend on an eligible result, an accepted baseline, the project method and the required independent review. Where historical records are short, a prospective measured baseline period may be needed before any claim.
Independent validation
- The project developer and technical team will propose the appropriate VWBA 2.0 indicator and calculation method based on local hydrology and GSA accounting. Any independent assurance provider would assess the finalized method and evidence under its applicable criteria before any volume is reported as validated. No validator has been appointed.
How a claim would be attributed.
A project agreement would define any proposed sponsor claim, and an independent reviewer would assess the supporting method and evidence. No attributed volume may be claimed twice. No volume has been independently validated.
The benefit period is written into the grower and sponsor agreements. For each sponsor-used recorded reduction, the grower agrees in writing not to sell or transfer the water behind that reduction or the allocation behind it, and not to use it to irrigate newly planted acreage, during the agreed claim period.
Before any volume is recorded, we check GSA transfers, carryover water, later pumping, required SGMA cuts and other funded programs, so no water is counted twice. Final treatment will follow the accepted project method and the applicable GSA account rules.
Terms would be set in written agreements with the sponsor and the grower. The grower keeps allocation and water rights.
What is signed, and what is not.
- Probe readings are sealed into a signed, tamper-evident chain once each logger day closes. They are sealed into a signed, tamper-evident chain, linked block to block.
- Unit records would be signed, with the signature re-checked on every lookup against our published public key. None has been issued under this program.
- On the farms in our order pilot, the draft order is held back and logged with a per-week fingerprint before the adviser makes the call. The issued order is kept with the readings behind it and is not signed.
- Well-meter readings that reach us through telemetry are sealed into the same signed chain as they arrive, checked every 10 minutes. For a project, the monitoring plan would list which meters are covered.
- Each record labels the underlying value measured or estimated, and states its source, including an agency report, and its period. A signature shows a summary has not changed since signing; it does not establish that a measurement was correct.
Tamper-evident signing preserves the integrity of an attested record from signing forward. It does not by itself establish measurement accuracy, baseline eligibility, additionality, regulatory acceptance, a reduction in water use or a volumetric water benefit. Those questions depend on the underlying instruments, the project method, GSA records and any applicable independent assurance. AgWaterAI’s record-signing method is patent-pending.
The evidence checklist.
The eight items are listed on the records readiness check.
You keep your raw data. Any proposed public statement by a sponsor would need supporting records and the reviews required for that project. Any grower payment and permitted costs would be set in signed agreements. Any payment would depend on sponsor funding and the signed agreement. Measurement alone does not create a payment obligation. For benchmark sponsorship, any grower payment follows the signed per-acre agreement and does not require a validated volume.
Growers: program page and records readiness check. Sponsors: sponsor page. Privacy policy
Method as of October 7, 2026. Superseded methods stay published with their dates.
Earlier method, October 7, 2026
Superseded the same day. One source for the benchmark comparison, the farm’s applied water, against the DWR county applied-water estimate. The current method rewords the benchmark label, has each record state its own source (pump run-time, flow meters or the GSA’s satellite ETAW) and compares a figure with a benchmark on the same basis.
AgWaterAI shows orchard growers their water use against their groundwater allocation each week. On Platform, your own Certified Crop Adviser or adviser makes the call. On Managed, our Certified Crop Adviser does.