Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
With California introducing the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act in 2014, new estimations of subsidence based on water usage plans have revealed that stretches of the California Aqueduct are still at a substantially high risk of subsidence. These projections range from 10-15 feet of subsidence in the most at risk areas. [16]
The law attracted little attention until 2008, when a dispute in Sunnyvale, California ended up in court. The tree owners spent $37,000 on attorney fees, before trimming their trees. [2] In Culver City, California, a furniture and cabinet maker spent $80,000 in May 2006 on solar panels to reduce his electric bill.
The oak grove sits at the base of California Memorial Stadium and at the time of the controversy consisted of about 90 trees: 65 oaks, including 38 coast live oaks, 25 pittosporum, 8 redwoods, 5 pines and 1 or 2 cypress, cedar, pepper and yew trees. [7]
In a coastal Southern California city where multimillion-dollar estates teeter above the Pacific Ocean, power remained intentionally severed Tuesday to about 245 homes as worsening landslides have ...
The city of Sacramento saw 400 reports requiring tree service to its 311 hot line, said Gabby Miller, a spokeswoman with the city. She added multiple people could be calling about a single problem ...
California has had a long history of complex water rights dealing with the ownership and management of surface water. Groundwater has stayed under the regulation radar, which led to the overdraft of vital basins and the subsidence of land taking place throughout the Central Valley. The SGMA gives responsibility to both state authority and local ...
Ground water was pumped heavily, leading to the Santa Clara valley being the first region recognized to be affected by land subsidence in the 1940s. [2] Between 1912 and 1966, artesian pressure levels dropped more than 200 feet (61 m). The decreasing pressure heads resulted in land subsidence of up to 15 feet (4.6 m). [3]
In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court limits federal protection for wetlands in a property rights case, saying the Clean Water Act does not usually apply to the marshy areas.