Joint Meeting of the ETGSA Executive & Stakeholder ......2019/02/21 · Attached hereto and...

EASTERN TULE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY County of Tulare

City of Porterville

Porterville Irrigation District

Saucelito Irrigation District

Teapot Dome Water District

Vandalia Water District

Terra Bella Irrigation District

Kern-Tulare Water District

Joint Meeting of the ETGSA Executive &

Stakeholder Committees

Thursday, February 21, 2019

Convenes at 2:00 p.m.

Eric Borba GSA Chairman

Steve Kisling

GSA Vice-Chairman

Aubrey Mauritson Legal Counsel

Bryce G. McAteer Executive Director

Transit Multi Purpose Center 15 E. Thurman Ave Suite D

Porterville, California 93257

-----------------------------AGENDA-----------------------------

1. ROLL CALL 2. PUBLIC COMMENT At this time, members of the public may comment on any item not appearing on the agenda. Under state law, matters presented under this item cannot be discussed or acted upon by the Committee at this time. For items appearing on the agenda, the public is invited to make comments at the time the item comes up for Committee consideration. Any person addressing the Committee will be limited to a maximum of three (3) minutes or the Chairman’s discretion. At all times, please state your name for the record. 3. MINUTES

a. Approval of Stakeholder Committee Meeting Minutes of January 10, 2019 b. Approval Executive Committee Minutes of January 17, 2019

4. STAKEHOLDER_OUTREACH & COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

a. Report on ongoing outreach efforts and upcoming events 5. ETGSA MEETINGS REVIEW

a. Report on ETGSA Board Meeting of February 7, 2019 6. TULE SUBBASIN COORDINATION

a. Report on Tule Subbasin Coordination, TH&Co Task Items, other Inter-Basin & Regional Coordination, and Tule Subbasin TAC Meeting of January 16, 2019

Agenda Packet pg.1

7. GSP DRAFTING

a. Report on ETGSA GSP Drafting b. Discuss and consider new GSP policy matters; may make a recommendation

8. NEXT MEETING DATE

a. Next Meeting (Stakeholder Committee) – Thursday, March 14, 2019 at Transit Multi Purpose Center (15 E. Thurman Ave, Suite D, Porterville)

b. Next Meeting (Executive Committee) – Thursday, March 21, 2019 at Transit Multi Purpose Center (15 E. Thurman Ave, Suite D, Porterville)

9. ADJOURMENT

A person with a qualifying disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 may request the GSA Authority to provide a disability-related modification or accommodation in order to participate in any public meeting of the GSA Authority. Such assistance includes appropriate alternative formats for the agendas and agenda packets used for any public meetings of the GSA. Requests for such assistance and for agendas and agenda packets shall be made in person, by telephone, facsimile, or written correspondence to the GSA Authority Secretary or to the City of Porterville Public Works Department (559) 791-7804, at least 48 hours before a public GSA meeting.

Agenda Packet pg.2

JOINT MEETING – February 21, 2019Stakeholder & Executive Committees

Agenda Packet

Other materials, exhibits, and presentations may be distributed on the day of the Committee Meeting.

Agenda Packet pg.3

EASTERN TULE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY

MINUTES OF THE ETGSA STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE

HELD JANUARY 10, 2019

At approximately 2:00 p.m. on January 10, 2019, at the Transit Multi Purpose Center at 15 E. Thurman Ave, Suite D, Porterville, CA, Chairman Matthew Leider, called to order the meeting of the Stakeholder Committee of the Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency Joint Powers Authority (“ETGSA”).

ROLL CALL

Members Present: Don Castle John Konda Kathy Briano Bill Bennett Matt Watkins Julia Inestroza Matthew Leider Jason Guthrie

Members Absent: Ben Magana Sopac Mulholland Tom O’Sullivan Jim Parsons

Others Present: Bryce McAteer Steve Kisling Stacie Ann Silva Garrett Busch Mike Knight Sean Geivet Ryan Jensen John Michael Domondon Mark Merritt David Payne

PUBLIC COMMENT

Chairman Leider announced the public comment period. No public comment was received.

MINUTES

Approval of Stakeholder Committee Minutes of December 13, 2018

Executive Director McAteer presented the Minutes of the December 13, 2018 Stakeholder Committee Meeting, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #3.a.

Member Watkins moved for approval of the Minutes. The motion was seconded by Member Briano and the Committee unanimously approved the motion.

Agenda Item #3.a

Agenda Packet pg.4

2

ETGSA MEETINGS REVIEW

Report on ETGSA Executive Committee Meeting of December 20, 2018

Executive Director McAteer provided a report to the Committee on the ETGSA Executive Committee Meeting of December 20, 2018. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #4.a is a copy of his report.

Report on ETGSA Board Meeting of January 3, 2019

Executive Director McAteer provided a report to the Committee on the ETGSA Board Meeting of January 3, 2019. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #4.b is a copy of his report.

TULE SUBBASIN COORDINATION

Report on South Valley SGMA Practitioners Roundtable Event (December 18, 2018)

Executive Director McAteer provided the Committee with a report on the recent South Valley SGMA Practitioners Event, which was hosted on December 18, 2018 and open to the public. A copy of his report, a copy of the Agenda from the event, and a copy of the Tulare Lake Basin GSP Dashboard that was presented at the event are attached hereto and incorporated by reference, respectively, as Agenda Items #5.a, #5.a Exhibit A, and #5.a Exhibit B.

Report on Coordination Agreement Drafting, TH&Co Task Items, and Proposed Process for Sustainable Management Criteria Develop and Tule Subbasin GSP Coordination

Executive Director McAteer provided the Committee with a report on the status of various Subbasin issues and Task Items being undertaken by Thomas Harder & Company’s (“TH&Co”), attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #5.b. Additionally, Executive Director McAteer provided the Committee with a presentation, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #5.b Exhibit A, describing the process that had been discussed amongst the Subbasin GSA Managers and proposed in order to help the Subbasin GSAs coordinate on their Sustainable Management Criteria and GSPs.

GSP DRAFTING

Report on GSP Drafting and Update to Draft GSP Creation Schedule

Executive Director McAteer provided the Committee with a report, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #6.a, on the status of ETGSA’s GSP drafting. Executive Director noted that planned completion of draft GSP had been pushed back by approximately two months and that the adjustment to the schedule had been approved by the

Agenda Packet pg.5

3

Board. The updated Draft GSP creation schedule was provided to the Committee for their review, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #6.a Exhibit A.

Report on Coordination Agreement Drafting, TH&Co Task Items, and Proposed Process for Sustainable Management Criteria Develop and Tule Subbasin GSP Coordination

The Committee asked to return to the discussion regarding coordination among the GSAs on projects and management actions, and asked the Executive Director how projects would be coordinated.

The Executive Director referred the Committee to the slides previously presented in Agenda Item #5.b Exhibit B, and described the process proposed for assembling and finalizing future projection scenario runs.

Discussion ensued amongst the Committee regarding the economic impacts of these projects, and whether the GSAs or ETGSA in particular was considering retaining an economist to address and consider the economic implications of SGMA implementation within the Tule Subbasin. It was mentioned that ETGSA had previously contracted for and later received an economic analysis related to implementation that was undertaken by a UC Berkeley Masters student.

Public comment was received from Sean Geivet, Mike Reed, and Ryan Jensen.

Introduction to new policy matters for discussion and consideration; may make a recommendation

Executive Director McAteer noted that, at the last Stakeholder and Executive Committee meetings, a discussion had taken place regarding new policy issues that these Committees may wish to discuss. Those policy issues were summarized in Agenda Item #6.b, attached hereto and incorporated by reference.

The Executive Director then began a presentation, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #6.b Exhibit A, further describing those policy issues and providing an introduction to each one.

The Executive Director briefly reviewed sustainable management criteria, how those might be established, and considerations for each of the sustainability indicators.

Discussion amongst the Committee ensued regarding Management areas, how other GSAs were approaching management areas, whether management areas had been considered in the monitoring plan being developed by TH&Co, and how monitoring sites would be funded and what current sources of funding existed.

Agenda Packet pg.6

Discussion amongst the Committee then ensued regarding the information TH&Co was expected to provide and whether or not they might ask the Executive Director to bring back conceptual management area maps to help visualize different approaches.

The Committee asked the Executive Director to review with them the Water Budget Areas that TH&Co was using for the groundwater flow model. Executive Director McAteer referred the Committee to the map of Water Budget Areas provided in the Scope of Work proposal related to Friant-Kern Canal subsidence, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #6.b Exhibit B.

It was noted by the Committee that it would be helpful to receive a higher quality map of the water budget areas, particularly focused on the ETGSA and including geographic references such as streets to help viewers have a better frame of reference.

Public comment was received from Mike Reed.

Discussion ensued amongst the Committee regarding the City of Porterville’s effluent recharge operation and whether it is in included in TH&Co’s study on subsidence.

The Executive Director then reviewed the information that TH&Co was developing for the GSAs, and noting that the majority of their work would assist the GSAs in developing SMCs, evaluating projects and management actions, and developing future water budgets. Additionally, the Executive Director noted that the Tule Subbasin must both coordinate amongst themselves and with adjacent subbasin, as SGMA and the GSP Regulations state that the implementation of a Plan cannot adversely affect the ability of adjacent basins to become sustainable. A major area of concern is continued subsidence along the Friant-Kern Canal, and he noted the GSAs in Kern and Tule have had initial discussions on the matter and are looking to have future coordination meetings in the coming months.

Discussion then turned to reviewing various elements related to the sharing system that would be reviewed with the Committee at its next meeting.

Discussion then moved to the topic of recharge projects, and potential criteria to consider for validating recharge projects within the ETGSA.

Public comment was received from Bill Samarin.

Discussion was had amongst the Committee regarding the different information that might be required for different types of recharge projects.


Additional discussion ensued amongst the Committee regarding whether there was any document or source describing all the permits and procedures necessary to build recharge projects, what State regulations currently exist, what permits the County and City currently

4

Agenda Packet pg.7

require, what District Policies exist within the ETGSA, and the criteria for valid sources of surface water.

Public comment was received from Mike Reed, Sean Geivet and Bill Samarin.

Discussion ensued amongst the Committee regarding recharge projects that had been included in TH&Co’s historical water budget.

Executive Director then began a discussion regarding the concept of historical use, and what considerations might be made when considering both the term's definition and implementation. He noted Legal Counsel Mauritson would be available at the Executive Committee meeting to answer more in depth questions, if requested.

*Matt Watkins left at this time.

Discussion ensued amongst the Committee regarding how other adjudicated basins had handled historical use, existing case law, and whether there is a legal definition for historical use.

Public comment was received from Sean Geivet.

Additional discussion ensued amongst the Committee regarding receiving an overview on case law and how different adjudications have handled their determinations of historical use.

Public comment was received from Sean Geivet, Bill Samarin, and Mark Merritt.

Discussion ensued regarding whether the Committee wanted to discuss the term further and, if so, how they might wish to consider it alongside ETGSA’s current trajectory.

Public comment was received from Sean Geivet.

Additional discussion ensued regarding how the Committee might wish to discuss historical use and what place it may have in the GSP’s policy development. Executive Director McAteer discussed sustainable management criteria and how those would be considered alongside ETGSA’s historical aggregate groundwater pumping and how that might provide a benchmark for rampdown.

Public comment was received from Sean Geivet and Bill Samarin.

It was requested that that a memo or summary of different adjudications and their approaches be provided to the Committee.

*Bill Bennet left at this time.

Discussion amongst the Committee then ensued regarding evaluating transfer impacts and whether ETGSA should consider groundwater transfers between other Tule Subbasin GSAs.

5

Agenda Packet pg.8

6

STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH & COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Report and discuss ongoing outreach activities and events; may make a recommendation

Executive Director McAteer provided a report to the Committee on the ongoing outreach of the ETGSA and upcoming SGMA events, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #7.a.

NEXT MEETING DATE

Discuss potential reduction of multiple monthly meetings by Stakeholder Committee

Executive Director McAteer noted that the Stakeholder Committee had been meeting generally twice per month over the course of the last few months, and asked if the Committee would like to continue to do so or if they felt comfortable returning to only one monthly meeting at the regular time every second Thursday of the month.

Discussion ensued amongst the Committee regarding waiting for TH&Co’s new data, the Farm Show that was to be held in early February, and other considerations.

Next Meeting – Thursday, February 14, 2019 at Transit Multi Purpose Center (15 E. Thurman Ave, Suite D, Porterville); may make a recommendation

Member Konda moved and Member Castle seconded to move the next meeting of the Stakeholder Committee to Thursday, February 21, 2019. The Committee unanimously approved.

The next meeting of the ETGSA Stakeholder Committee will be held Thursday, February 21, 2019 at the Transit Multi Purpose Center (15 E. Thurman Ave, Suite D, Porterville).

ADJOURMENT

Since there was no further business to come before the Committee, Chairman Leider adjourned the meeting at 4:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________________ Bryce G. McAteer, Secretary to the Board

Agenda Packet pg.9

EASTERN TULE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

HELD JANUARY 17, 2019

At approximately, 2:00 p.m. on January 17, 2019, at the City of Porterville Transit Multi- Purpose Center, Chairman Eric Borba, called to order a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency Joint Powers Authority (“ETGSA”).

Members Present: Mike Reed Steve Etchegaray Sean Geivet John Michael Domondon Eric Borba Steve Dalke Eric Limas Denise England

Members Absent: None

Others Present: Bryce McAteer Aubrey Mauritson Don Castle Mike Carlisle David Payne Soapy Mulholland Bill Bennett Kathy Briano Bill Samarin Bill Wallace Terry Schuler

PUBLIC COMMENT

Chairman Eric Borba announced the public comment period. No public comment was received.

MINUTES

Approval of Executive Committee Minutes for December 20, 2018 Meeting

Committee member Geivet moved for approval of the December 20, 2018 minutes with the correction that Committee member Eric Limas was in attendance. The motion was seconded by Committee member Dalke and the committee unanimously approved the motion.

*Committee member Mike Reed arrived at this time.

Agenda Item #3.b

Agenda Packet pg.10

2

ETGSA MEETINGS REVIEW Report on ETGSA Board Meeting of January 3, 2019 Executive Director McAteer provided a report on the January 3, 2019 Board meeting. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda #4a is a copy of his report. Report on Stakeholder Committee Meeting of January 10, 2019 Executive Director McAteer provided a report on the January 10, 2019 Stakeholder Committee meeting. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda #4b is a copy of his report. TULE SUBBASIN COORDINATION Report on South Valley SGMA Practitioners Roundtable Event (December 18, 2018) Executive Director McAteer provided a report on the South Valley SGMA Practitioners Roundtable Event held on December 18, 2018. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #5a, Agenda Item #5a Exhibit A, and Agenda Item #5a Exhibit B is a copy of his report, a copy of the Roundtable Agenda, and a copy of the Tulare Lake Basin GSP Dashboard, respectively.

Report on Coordination Agreement Drafting, TH&Co Task Items, and Proposed Process for Sustainable Management Criteria Development and Tule Subbasin GSP Coordination

Executive Director McAteer provided a report on the drafting of the Coordination Agreement, TH&Co Task Items, and the proposed process for sustainable management criteria development and Tule Subbasin GSP Coordination. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #5b is a copy of his report. Executive Director McAteer provided a presentation on the proposed process for coordinating sustainable management criteria and GSPs. A copy of his presentation is located within Agenda Item #5b and identified as “Exhibit A” to Agenda Item #5b. Report on Tule Subbasin MOU Group TAC Meeting (January 16, 2019) Executive Director McAteer provided a report on the Tule Subbasin MOU Group TAC Meeting held on January 16, 2019. The draft results of several model runs were reported. First, model runs regarding various ramp down approaches where reported. Secondly, the maximum subsidence levels around the “choke point” of the Friant Kern Canal were reported. Lastly, results from the subsidence contribution analysis were reported. Mr. Harder’s presentation of draft preliminary results will be circulated to the interested parties list as soon as received.

Agenda Packet pg.11

3

Discussion amongst the committee ensued regarding Mr. Harder’s presentation. Concerns were raised that the draft results were misleading and focusing too much on the ETGSA as the problem.

Executive Director McAteer reported the next Tule Subbasin meeting is scheduled for March 20, 2019 at Lower Tule River Irrigation District.

Public comment was received from Don Castle.

Discussion amongst the committee ensued on future model runs and proposed projects. Concerns were raised by the committee members on subsidence issues related to the Friant Kern Canal. The committee discussed the roles and responsibilities of the GSA and the responsibilities of other entities as it relates to the subsidence issue along the canal.


Discussion amongst the committee ensued on the need to define the exact problem as related to subsidence.

Executive Director McAteer reported Mr. Harder’s next model runs were expected by the end of February or early March. Discussion ensued amongst the committee regarding the next set of model runs and needing larger capacity venues for future subbasin meetings. The need to coordinate with landowners prior to a large public report of data was also discussed.

Public comment was received from Bill Samarin

GSP DRAFTING

Report on GSP Drafting and Update to Draft GSP Creation Schedule

Executive Director McAteer provided a report on the GSP drafting and update to draft GSP creation schedule. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda #6a is a copy of his report and, as Agenda Item #6a Exhibit A, a copy of the updated Draft GSP Creation Schedule.

Public comment was received from Sopie Mulholland.

Discussion amongst the committee ensued regarding the time frame for public comments once the draft GSP begins to circulate and the need to respond to those comments.

Introduction to New Policy Matters for Discussion and Consideration; May Make a Recommendation

Executive Director McAteer provided a report on new policy matters for discussion and possible consideration. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #6b is a list of those new policy matters and, as Agenda Item #6b Exhibit A, a presentation introducing those matters.

Agenda Packet pg.12

4

Discussion ensued amongst the Committee regarding minimum thresholds and setting sustainable management criteria.

Executive Director McAteer continued with his presentation.

Discussion ensued regarding management areas and specifically the timing of when management areas may need to be formed.

Public comment was received from Bill Bennet.

Discussion continued amongst the committee regarding the formation of management areas.


*Chairman Borba left at this time.

Discussion continued regarding management areas and how those may affect the possibility of transfers.

Public comment was received from Sopie Mulholland and Don Castle.

Executive Director McAteer reported he will bring back to the committee various options for management areas. He then continued with his presentation.

Public comment was received from Bill Wallace.

Discussion ensued amongst the committee regarding the type of market the ETGSA is looking to implement.


General Counsel Mauritson gave a brief summary of adjudications and provided a discussion of a “legal definition” of historical use.

Executive Director McAteer continued with his presentation. The “key questions” as identified in Agenda Item #6b was tabled for future discussions.

STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH & COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Report and Discuss Ongoing Outreach Activities and Events; May Make a Recommendation

Executive Director McAteer provided a report. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #7a is a copy of his report.

Agenda Packet pg.13

5

NEXT MEETING DATE

Next Regular Meeting – Thursday, February 21, 2019 at Transit Multi-Purpose Center (15 E. Thurman Ave., Ste. D, Porterville)

The next meeting of the Executive Committee is set for February 21, 2019, 2:00 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT

Since there was no further business to come before the Committee, Chairman Borba adjourned the meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

_________ Bryce McAteer, Secretary to the Board

Agenda Packet pg.14


Agenda Item 4.a

Report on ongoing outreach efforts and upcoming events

Report from Executive Director to ETGSA Committees

Outreach Completed in January

• General – ETGSA’s website continues to be updated on aregular basis. Recent additions include:

o Fact Sheet (“Get to Know Your GSA”), English & Spanisho Flier (“Groundwater Sustainability & What’s Going on

with Groundwater”), English & Spanisho ETGSA Member Agencies & Their Meetings (i.e. general

information regarding regular meetings of ETGSA’smember agencies)

o ETGSA Timeline for Draft GSP Creation (note: updated)o Calendar of Regular Meetings for ETGSA Board &

Executive and Stakeholder Committees (FY19), English &Spanish

• January 15, 2019 – Executive Director presented on SGMA andETGSA to the Porterville City Council

• January 16, 2019 - Mailers were sent to all 88 public watersystems identified as likely operating within or partially withinETGSA

• January 24, 2019 – Presentation made by Executive Director atFresno State Water Markets Exchange Symposium

Agenda Packet pg.15


• January 29, 2019 – ETGSA initiated a Sacred Lands File & NativeAmerican Contacts List Request (currently awaiting results)

• January 29 and 31, 2019 – Executive Director presented onSGMA and ETGSA at the Porterville Rotary Club and PortervilleBreakfast Rotary

ETGSA Local Entity Outreach

Executive Director McAteer has been attending (or is planning to attend) the Board Meetings of ETGSA’s members, ETWAG, and other local entities to provide an overview of SGMA and ETGSA.

• Note – If your local organization would like a presentationregarding SGMA and the ETGSA, please contact the ExecutiveDirector!

ETGSA Community Outreach Events

ETGSA has been working with various local groups (i.e. CWC, SHE, others) to undertake outreach events and presentations in the Communities of:

- Ducor (Feb. 26) - Porterville (March 26)- Terra Bella (March 12) - Richgrove (April 9)

Dates are tentative. Times and locations will be announced following finalization. Fliering and outreach will begin as soon as locations have been secured.

Agenda Packet pg.16


Agenda Item 5.a

Report on ETGSA Board Meeting of February 7, 2019


Meeting Date:

February 7, 2019

Directors in Attendance:

Director Borba, Director Wheaton, Director Kisling, Director Corkins, Director Holmes, Director Leider, Director Townsend, Alternative Director Penaloza, Director Schneider

Directors Absent:

Director Reyes

Summary of Actions Taken:

• Approved the Minutes of the January 3, 2019 Board Meeting• Moved to request that ETGSA join the Advisory Group of the Tule River Basin

IRWMP Group with Executive Director as ETGSA’s representative• Moved to ratify the bills paid, approve the bills to be paid, and approve an

expenditure overage in an amount not to exceed $4779.79 for Account Line7400

• Approved the third Quarterly Call for Funds

Agenda Packet pg.17


Agenda Item 6.a

Report on Tule Subbasin Coordination, TH&Co Task Items, other Inter-Basin & Regional Coordination, and

Tule Subbasin TAC Meeting of January 16, 2019

Reports from Executive Director to ETGSA Committees

Report #1. Tule Subbasin Coordination and TH&Co Task Items

Coordination amongst the Tule Subbasin GSAs is ongoing. The Tule Subbasin GSAs have contracted with Thomas Harder & Company (TH&Co) for various scopes of work to assist them in coordinating and completing various components of their Coordination Agreement and respective GSPs.

Below is a summary of major areas of coordination, recent or current consensus on certain items, and anticipated next steps:

Coordination Agreement • The general text of the Coordination Agreement (“CA”) has been revised

accordingly to the reformatted Table of Contents; TH&Co is now revisingtechnical sections

• A Draft Basin Setting document has been updated TH&Co and currentlybeing reviewed by the GSAs – it included Draft Historical/Current (through2017) Water Budgets for both the Tule Subbasin and the GSAs; the updatedDraft Monitoring Plan is now expected to be distributed in early-March

Ownership of New Monitoring Wells • General Consensus – New wells should be owned by individual GSAs (or

their designees); CA will outline monitoring procedures, informationsharing, right of entry, and other terms necessary to facilitate intra-basindata sharing and coordinated monitoring.

Agenda Packet pg.18


Process for GSA Coordination • General Consensus – See Exhibit A for visualization of Coordination

Timeline and Flow Chart of TH&Co Task Items• The most recent results from the 5 Ramp Down Scenario Runs, as seen at

the TAC meeting, seemed to indicate that even when the Tule Subbasin isin a general “check book” water budget balance, certain GSAs continue tosee groundwater level decline. Additional work will be needed toinvestigate and address this phenomenon, and it is anticipated that theFuture Projection Scenario Runs will assist in the necessary coordination.

Sustainable Management Criteria • General Consensus - The assumed approach for monitoring Sustainable

Management Criteria and defining Undesirable Results will be through theuse of Representative Monitoring Sites; this approach will be reviewed byTH&Co and discussed at future coordination meetings

• TH&Co & Bryce McAteer will outline potential SMC definition(s) andapproach(es) for Subbasin Consideration

Future Water Budgets • General Consensus – The future projection scenarios for the Future Water

Budget will be done under average hydrological conditions, but will alsoinclude Climate Change scenarios (per DWR’s requirement)

• Eric Quinley will review Future FKC Supply data sources and provide anoverview & recommendation on the optimal data source to use as the TuleSubbasin’s future projected FKC supplies

Analyses and Future Projection Scenarios • Work on the TH&Co Friant-Kern Canal Subsidence Analysis is ongoing;

results are expected at the March 20, 2019 TAC Meeting• Development of Future Projection Scenario runs (see Exhibit A), for the

purposes of coordination and developing Future Water Budget, isanticipated to begin after receiving the FKC results (i.e. late March)

Report #2. Other Inter-Basin & Regional Coordination

Inter-Basin Coordination • TH&Co is coordinating with other Subbasins’ hydrologists to adjust

boundary conditions and coordinate cross-boundary assumptions

Agenda Packet pg.19


• Meetings with GSAs and stakeholders of adjacent Subbasins will bescheduled in the weeks to come.

Regional Coordination • USGS has reached out to the Tule Subbasin GSAs regarding a potential

outreach and “open-house” event to provide information on therefurbished Extensometer that has now been operating since mid-2018near the FKC; event is likely to be scheduled in the coming weeks

• Friant Water Authority is developing a “San Joaquin Valley Blueprint” toidentify major areas for regional cooperation and provide a strategy toaddress the substantial overdraft occurring within the region; ETGSA ispartaking in these discussions

Report #3. Tule Subbasin TAC Meeting of January 16, 2019

See Exhibit B (TH&Co Draft Preliminary Updated Groundwater Flow Model Results, Abridged)

Agenda Packet pg.20

Tule Subbasin Coordination and TH&Co Task Items

------Agenda Item #6.a (Exhibit A)

1

Presentation to ETGSA Stakeholder & Executive CommitteesFebruary 21, 2019

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

Agenda Packet pg.21


Coordination Timeline – GSPs & Public Review

2

Present April June September Jan. 31, 2020

Draft GSP Development-Ongoing Coordination-

-SMC Development--FKC Results-

-FPSRs & Projects Runs-

Finalize Draft Subbasin Coordination Items-Finalize SMCs-

-Finalize Future Water Budget--Finalize Coordination Agreement-

-General Subbasin Consensus re: GSPs--General Inter-Basin Consensus re: GSPs-

Min. 90 Day Public Review Period-Individual GSA Workshops-

-Coordinated Tule Subbasin Workshops--Iterative Review of Public Response-

Public Hearing & Adoption-Coordinate on Final Adjustments (if any)-

-Individual GSA Public Hearings/Adoptions--Coordinated Submission-

Post-Submission-DWR begins 60 public

comment period--DWR has 2 years to

review and accept plans-

Tule Subbasin GSAs

Agenda Packet pg.22


Flow Chart: TH&Co Task Items

Receive Recalibrated GWFM & GSA on/off

Results

3

Receive Subsidence Analysis Results & Delineation of

“Area of Subsidence Concern”

Submit Future Projection Scenario

Runs (FPSRs)

Coordinate Sustainable Management Criteria (SMC) & Finalize Future Water Budget (e.g. final FPSR)

Mid-January

Late-February to Early March

Early to Mid-March

1 2 3

5Receive (FPSRs)

Results

Early to Mid-March

4

Mid-March to Mid-April

By reviewing TH&Co’s results between each of these steps and data deliverables, the GSAs will be able to iteratively:• Consider how they might set SMCs based on the results received,• And/or propose Projects and Management Actions to help them

achieve certain sustainability objectives

Agenda Packet pg.23


What Results are We Receiving?

Recalibrated GWFM Results• 5 Scenarios on Ramp Down

• Includes Hydrographs & LandSubsidence Levels across Subbasin

• Subsidence Contribution Analysis• Analyzes 3 Points (East to West)

across the Subbasin• Analyzes contribution of individual

GSA’s pumping to Subsidence atthose 3 Points

• Individual GSA Hist./Curr. Water Budgets

4

Subsidence “Area of Subsidence Concern” (AoSC) Results• Considers distance of pumping (from FKC)

and depth of pumping; identifies AoSC• Delineates geographic area that

significantly contributes to FKCsubsidence

• 3 Variable Ramp Down Scenarios• Analyzes impact of variable ramp

down between AoSC and remainder ofSubbasin

Future Projection Scenario Runs• All GSAs submit projects & TAC

finalizes 1-4(?) scenarios to be run• Receive Hydrographs & Land

Subsidence Levels acrossSubbasin

Coordinate Sustainable Management Criteria & Finalize Future Water Budget• Choose mutually agreed upon Scenario to serve

as “Final” for our Future Water Budget• Receive Hydrographs & Land Subsidence

Levels across Subbasin• Receive individual and Tule Subbasin-wide

Water Budget

1 2

53/4

Agenda Packet pg.24

EXAMPLE - Subbasin FPSR Finalization

5

B

GSA A

CD

FE

A

G

GSA C

Rampdown

A B C

Subsidence

A B C

Tule Subbasin TAC

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Subsidence

A

Rampdown

GSA A GSA B

B A

Subsidence

C

Subsidence

B

A B CDEF B B F

G

1. GSAs IndividuallyCompile Proposed

PMAs

2. Proposed PMAsare discussed @ TAC

3. Desired PMAs areSorted, Arranged &

Finalized

4. Desired PMAScenarios are sent to

TH&Co

Excluded

STEPS

2

3&4

1 1

5. FutureHydrographs, Land Subsidence results, and Water Budgets provided by TH&Co

GSA B1

Rampdown

A B C FG

Rampdown

GSA A GSA B

C C

Rampdown

GSA A GSA B

A B


Agenda Packet pg.25


Framing the Discussion: Undesirable Results

6

Undesirable Result

At what point do we consider conditions “significant” and “unreasonable” enough to constitute being “undesirable”

Is it when the groundwater source is no longer available and/or suitable for beneficial uses? (e.g. it

has been mined, quality has degraded below agronomic and/or community standards, etc.)

Is it when the condition results in significant financial impacts? (e.g. too

expensive to pump, massive local economic sector impact, etc.)

A myriad of undesirable impacts (i.e. fiscal, communal, etc.) may occur depending on the minimum thresholds set.

An ideally defined “undesirable result” will have carefully balanced all potential competing local costs and impacts in a manner that,

recognizing the projects & management actions to be implemented, satisfactorily meets the needs of local stakeholders,

neighboring GSAs, regional stakeholders, state regulators, and SGMA’s statutory requirements.

Agenda Packet pg.26


Undesirable Result Criteria Considerations

7

Terms to Consider when developing UR Criteria:

• Minimum Threshold• Representative Monitoring Sites• Monitoring Area• Management Area

• Majority• Percentage• Adjacent• Sustainability Indicator

SustainabilityIndicator

Lowering of GW Levels

Reduction of Storage

Seawater Intrusion

Degraded Quality

Land Subsidence

Surface Water

Depletion

Metric(s) Groundwater elevation

Total volume that can be

withdrawn *

Chloride concentration isocontour *

Migration of plumes

Number of supply wells,

volume of water, or

isocontour affected

Rate and extent of

subsidence

Rate or volume of

surface water depletion

Note: Contrary to the general rule, these indicators with an “*”are set for a basin or management area rather than at each representative site

Each Undesirable Result has an associated Sustainability Indicator and Minimum Threshold Metric

Note: Groundwater elevation may be used as a proxy metric for monitoring other sustainability indicators. (See Regs. § 354. 28 (d))

Agenda Packet pg.27


Framing the Discussion: Minimum Thresholds

8

Agricultural Economics

Public Water Supply

Subsidence

Depth: Additional energy costs to pump

Quality: Health risks and additional costs to treat drinking water

Change in Storage/Overdraft: Relative pace of potential crop land use changes, and community’s economic threshold to experience such changes

Depth: Cost to drill new wells

Depth: Cost to drill new wells

Depth: Additional energy costs to pump

Depth: Crises resulting from well failure and lack of supply redundancy

Depth & Quality: Entrained air and cascading water

Depth: Inadequate pump submergence leading to well failure and/or inability to meet peak demand

Subsidence: Relative cost to fix critical infrastructure that is impaired by potential future subsidence

Surface Water Supply: Temporal disparity between the experience of increasing conveyance-related supply restrictions and fix completion

Note: Minimum Thresholds within the Tule Subbasin cannot impede on adjacent Basins’ abilities to implement their Plans and achieve their sustainability goal.

Driver Metric Potential Impact

Agenda Packet pg.28

Updated Groundwater Flow Model Results

January 16, 2019

Prepared for: Tule Subbasin MOU Group

Abridged & Shorte

ned by ETGSA Staff;

Full presentatio

n available on

www.easterntulegsa.com

Agenda Item #6.a Exhibit B

Agenda Packet pg.29

DRAFT

Presentation Overview

Summary of Model Updates Model Calibration Model Results

Projections of Groundwater Levels by GSA

Projections of Land Subsidence Subsidence Sensitivity by GSA

Next Steps

Agenda Packet pg.30

DRAFT

Model Updates

Incorporated 2014 Land Use

City of Porterville Pumping 1986-1995

Porter Slough Channel Losses

Revised Model Layer 2 Thickness per Ken Schmidt

Revised Surface Water Supply and Pumping in

Alpaugh Area

Refined Angiola Water District Surface Water Deliveries

And Pumping

Agenda Packet pg.31

DRAFT

Water Budget Areas Areas of similar land use and water source

Agenda Packet pg.32

DRAFT Model Calibration – Groundwater Levels

Porterville area

Agenda Packet pg.33

DRAFT Model Calibration – Groundwater Levels Agenda Packet pg.34

DRAFT Model Calibration – Land Subsidence Agenda Packet pg.35

DRAFT Model Projections of Future Pumping and Recharge Were Used to Evaluate the Sustainable Yield

Assume Subbasin-Wide Sustainable Yield of 257,725acre-ft/year

Assume Average Hydrological Conditions for WaterDeliveries (Average of 1986 – 2017)

Assume Municipal Groundwater Production(Including Porterville) Remains Constant at 2017 Rates

Assume Average Hydrological Conditions forRecharge (Mountain Block Recharge, Stream BedInfiltration)

Maintained Constant Groundwater Elevation at theBoundaries

Agenda Packet pg.36

DRAFT Model-Projected Groundwater Elevations

Model Layer Becomes Dry in Scenarios 1-4

Agenda Packet pg.37

DRAFT Model-Projected Groundwater Elevations Agenda Packet pg.38

DRAFT Model-Projected Groundwater Elevations Agenda Packet pg.39

DRAFTModel-Projected Land Subsidence Scenario 4 10 -Yr Ramp Down

August 2018 January 2019

Agenda Packet pg.40

DRAFTModel-Projected Land Subsidence Scenario 3

2020 – 2030 No Change 2030 – 2040 Yr Ramp Down

August 2018 January 2019

Agenda Packet pg.41

DRAFTModel-Projected Land Subsidence Beneath Friant-Kern Canal 2017 - 2040

Maximum of Approx. 7 ft of Additional Subsidence Between 2017 and 2040

Agenda Packet pg.42

DRAFT GSA Land Subsidence Analysis Agenda Packet pg.43

DRAFT Relative Contribution to Subsidence Beneath the

Friant-Kern Canal

5

0

Total Simulated Historical Land Subsidence

What Historical Land Subsidence Would Have Been If the Individual GSAs Had Not Pumped Groundwater 4

3

2

1

Subs

iden

ce (f

t)

Agenda Packet pg.44

DRAFT Relative Contribution to

Subsidence Tri-County North Area

What Historical Land Subsidence Would Have Been If the Individual GSAs Had Not Pumped Groundwater Total Simulated Historical Land Subsidence

10

0

5

Subs

iden

ce (f

t)

Agenda Packet pg.45


Agenda Item 7.a

Report on ETGSA GSP Drafting


Overview: GSP drafting is underway. 4-Creeks, Inc. and Staff are developing the various components necessary to complete the document. 4-Creeks and Staff meet twice per month (at minimum) to review progress, review recommendations and Board decisions, and identify next steps.

Timely receipt of Board direction, timely receipt of information from TH&Co, and timely completion of draft materials by Staff and 4Creeks are essential for staying on schedule.

The latest version of ETGSA’s Draft GSP Creation Schedule can be found on its website at www.easterntulegsa.com/resources/#gsp. It is anticipated that the Draft GSP will be completed in June, 2019.

The status of each of the draft GSP chapters is noted below:

• Chapter 1 (Introduction): Chapter 1 is in Draft Form. Executive summary,anticipated costs and funding, legal authority, discussion regarding land useplanning, and discussion on plan implementation are to be completedfollowing policy decisions and other Chapters’ subsequent completion.

• Chapter 2 (Basin Setting): The majority of this section is being developed byTH&Co. 4Creeks is currently structuring this Chapter based on the most

Agenda Packet pg.46

http://www.easterntulegsa.com/resources/#gsp


recently received Draft Basin Setting document. Certain policy decisions (e.g. Management Areas) will be necessary for final completion.

• Chapter 3 (Sustainable Management Criteria): Staff and TH&Co havedeveloped a draft methodology for developing SMCs that is to bedeliberated upon by the other Subbasin GSAs. Following agreement on themethodology, it is anticipated that TH&Co’s ongoing analyses on rampdown, subsidence, and GSA projects and management actions will be usedto set agreeable minimum thresholds and provide a projection ofachievable future conditions.

• Chapter 4 (Monitoring Networks): The majority of this section is beingdeveloped by TH&Co. It is anticipated that the Updated Draft will bedistributed in Early 2019. Upon receipt of the updated document, 4Creeksand Staff will begin discussing potential additional features for ETGSA andphased implementation, seeking policy direction as needed.

• Chapter 5 (Projects and Management Actions): Guidance on policy pointshas been received; Staff and 4Creeks are developing the draft sectionsaccordingly. Staff will continue to seek Committee and Stakeholder inputand Board direction as this section is developed. Additionally, Staff will beworking with Member Agencies and other interested groups to ensureinclusion of those projects and management actions that 1) are eithercomplete, near complete, or planned and highly feasible, and 2) have animpact on ETGSA’s Water Budget and ability to achieve sustainability.

• Chapter 6 & 7 (Plan Implementation and References to Technical Studies):These sections will be developed iteratively following completion of otherChapters and additional policy direction. It is anticipated that significantwork on these chapters will begin in early 2019.

Agenda Packet pg.47


Agenda Item 7.b

Discuss and consider new GSP policy matters; may make a recommendation


Overview: At the January Board meeting, the following items were discussed as new policy matters to be discussed and recommended on by the Committees:

• Management Areas• Sustainable Management Criteria• Results of TH&Co Task Items and implications on Projects & Management

Actions• Mechanisms and functioning of a sharing system• Criteria for validating a recharge project• Defining historical use• Evaluating transfer impacts• Inter-GSA transfers

NOTE: Presentation (Exhibit A) to be distributed on day of Joint Committee Meeting for discussion.

Agenda Packet pg.48

ETGSANew Policy Matters

Presentation for Joint Meeting of theStakeholder & Executive Committees

______February 21, 2019

Bryce G. McAteerExecutive Director, ETGSA


Agenda Item #7.bExhibit A

Table of Contents

2 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

New Policy Matters• Sustainable Management Criteria• *Management Areas• Results of TH&Co Task Items (and implications)• *Mechanisms and Functioning of a Sharing System• Criteria for Validating a Recharge Project• *Evaluating Transfer Impacts• *Inter-GSA Transfers• *Historical Use

Color Key for Table of Contents• *Red Text – Indicates topic that, following today’s discussion, is potentially

suitable for Committee Recommendation• Black Text – Indicates topic that, following today’s discussion, may still warrant

more discussion prior to Committee Recommendation


Sustainable Management Criteria

See Agenda Item #6.a Exhibit A

Note: TH&Co will be providing GSAs with data and graphics in March to assist in SMC development


Management Areas


Question - Should ETGSA Consider Management Areas?

5

Potential Local Issues to Consider in ETGSA:

Water Use Sector (e.g. Ag, Urban)

Cross-boundary management (e.g. KTWD)

Subsidence

DWR GSP Regulations Sec. 351 (r):“Management area” refers to an area within a basin for which the

Plan may identify different minimum thresholds, measurable objectives, monitoring, or projects and management actions based on

differences in water use sector, water source type, geology, aquifer

characteristics, or other factors.


Results of TH&Co Task Items (and implications)


Anticipated TH&Co Results

7

• Impact of pumping distance from FKC

• Impact of pumping depth (i.e. different aquifers)

• Delineate “Area of Subsidence Concern” or AoSC (i.e. area from which groundwater pumping contributes significantly more to subsidence on FKC than other areas)

FKC Subsidence Analysis Historical Water Budget

• Updated Sustainable Yield

• Updated Historical & Current (through 2017) GSA Water Budgets

• Individual GSA groundwater pumping reduction (per the 5 benchmark scenarios)

• Adjusted GW Levels and Subsidence, based on Projects & Actions proposed

Rampdown Scenarios & Future Projection Scenarios

1 2

3


Mechanisms & Functioning of a Sharing System


Key Areas for Discussion

9

Major Topics

• Parcel Registration

• Groundwater Accounts

• Well Registration & Well Registration Permits

• Relationship between Parcels Registration, Accounts, and Well Registration Permits

• Debiting Accounts (i.e. Groundwater Use)

• Initiating Transfers/Trades

Key Question

If parcels need to be registered to receive groundwater shares and other credits, what might that process look like?

What might a Groundwater Account look like?

How might wells be registered, and what information might need to be supplied?

How do these elements function together?

How might Groundwater Accounts be debited following groundwater use?

What might a groundwater transfer among users look like?


Groundwater Accounts

10

Creating a Groundwater Account

• Go to ETGSA Account Portal and click “Create ETGSA groundwater account”

• As necessary, upload information such as:• Contact information• SSN/EIN• Verification of Entity Representation• Payment Preferences• Allocation Debiting Preferences

Use your Account to link, view, and/or manage any of the following:

Registered Parcels

Registered Wells & Well Registration Permits

Allocation Balances

Allocation Transfers

Account Users and User Privileges

NOTE - DETAILS & PROCESS DESCRIBED ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE & SUBJECT TO CHANGE


What might registering your parcel look like?

11

Beginning the Registration Process

• Go to ETGSA Account Portal and click “Register Parcels”

ILRP Non-ILRP

• Login to ILRP Account• Click “Upload my data to ETGSA Groundwater Account”,

and provide confirmation & authorization to share/link data• Your data is uploaded to ETGSA Portal and your account is

automatically created on ETGSA Account Portal• Modify settings, contact info, and user privileges

• Select from pre-sorted Map the parcels you wish to register

• Verify information & APNs• Sign documents and pay registration fee

• Groundwater Account is credited with entitled number of allocations (SY & TVOs) for the Allocation Period

• Select from Map the parcels you wish to register

(Note: Parcels within Public Water Supplier Service Area or smaller than X acres may be in-eligible, unless substantiated with verifiable claim; subject to further policy deliberation)

• Provide Proof of Title and, if necessary, Power of Attorney (if registering on behalf of owner) documentation



What might registering your well look like?

12

Login to your Groundwater Account

Select “Register Well”

• View Map and “drop” digital pin on location of the Well you wish to register

Provide Well information, such as:

• Owner Contact Information (if other than Account user) • Capacity

• Primary Use Type • Power Source

• Depth and Screen Intervals • Construction Date

• Active/Inactive Status • Construction Data

Upload documents, such as: • Well Sharing Agreements (if multiple users)• Drillers Log• Photo of Well

Delineate “Irrigation Area”:• Select APNs irrigated by this well• Adjust field boundaries/size if needed• If APNs identified are not registered by you, then those parcel owners will be

sent a link to “approve” your delineation (for properly debiting allocations from accounts) and sign a Well Sharing Agreement (if not already in place)

Consent to Well Registration Permit Conditions• Irrigation Area adjustments within 30 days of

actual physical adjustment• Premises Audit (if required by Agency)• Keep Allocation Balance in Positive Balance• Use consistent with Management Areas, GSP, and

other local applicable ordinances/regulations

Select Monitoring Method (if eligible)

Sign documents, link appropriate Accounts, & pay registration fee

Registration complete; receive Well Registration Permit



Parcels, Well Registration Permits, & Allocations

13

Must be registered in order for your Allocation Balance (hosted on your Account) to be credited with your entitled number of allocations.

Parcels

Groundwater Account Must be created in order to manage any of the below

Well Registration Permits

Must be acquired and designate the Irrigation Area boundaries to properly debit allocations • Note – Irrigation of parcel areas not bounded by a Well Registration Permit “Irrigation Area” Boundary

would result in parcel owner being subject to the full Penalty Fee (and other procedures) for the volume of groundwater improperly used

• Note – Irrigation Area requirement different for metered systems such as Public Water Systems

Allocations • Can be credited through parcel registration, verified recharge, or transfer• Can be debited through use, transfer, or exhaustion• Different types of allocations with different rules may exist (e.g. Sustainable Yield,

Transitional Volume Option, Recharge, etc.)• Balance of allocations is recorded and displayed through your Groundwater

Account Allocation Balance, hosted on your Account

Function



E.g. Parcels, Well Registration Permits, & Allocations

14

1

2 3

• Parcels 1 & 2 are owned and registered by Owner X

• Parcel 3 is owned and registered by Owner Y

• Owner Y owns a Well that is used to irrigate one half of Parcel 3. The Well Registration Permit reflects this and allocations from their account are debited accordingly.

• Owner X & Owner Y share a Well to irrigate Parcels 1, 2, and half of 3.

• The Well Registration Permit reflects this with the Irrigation Area and with a Well Sharing Agreement.

• Allocations are debited from Owner X’s & Owner Y’s Account accordingly

• Owner X’s account is credited with allocations resulting from Parcel 1’s & 2’s registration

• Owner Y’s account is credited with allocations resulting from Parcel 3’s registration


Initiating Transfers

15

Login to your Groundwater Account

Click “Groundwater Transfers”

View the Transfer Dashboard, where you can:• View your Allocation Balance• Initiate a Transfer• View/Post Offers, by Allocation Type• View/Post Asks, by Allocation Type

Allocation Class Latest Bid Latest Ask

SY Allocation ? ?

TVO 1 ? ?

TVO 2 ? ?

Recharge Credits*(*Note – May be multiple classes, based on surface water source)

? ?

Pre-Identified User (or) Select from Transfer Dashboard

Enter User ID/Code& Transfer Terms

• Other User is notified of your intent to initiate a Transfer and the Transfer Terms.

• They may to confirm, deny, or adjust

Users sign appropriate forms, agree to terms, agree to pay fees, and complete the transfer.



Policy Questions

16

Key Questions?

• Should non-well owners and/or non-landowners (e.g. lessees) be permitted to maintain Groundwater Accounts?

• Should ETGSA allow users to manage allocation debiting preferences, or have a standard allocation debiting procedure?

• Should ETGSA maintain a “market board” to help connect potential transferors and transferees?

• Should prices paid as a result of transfers be reported?

• How often should Accounts be debited as a result of GW use? (e.g. Monthly, Quarterly, Bi-Weekly, etc.?)


Criteria for Validating a Recharge Project

To Be Verbally Discussed by Consulting Engineer – 4Creeks Inc.


Evaluating Transfer Impacts& Inter-GSA Transfers


Key Policy Questions

19

Evaluating Transfer Impacts

1) If sufficient data indicates that transfers of groundwater credits from one area to another could cause undesirable results, what mechanisms might the GSA consider using to manage such impacts?

Approaches discussed in the past include:

• Transfer Fees• Exchange Rates• Trade Balance Caps

2) Should ETGSA consider policies in the interim (i.e. while data gathering) to manage potential unforeseen effects?

Inter-GSA Transfers

1) If ETGSA and another Tule Subbasin GSA have similar policies, should they coordinate to establish a process to allow for Inter-GSA transfers?

CA Adjudications, SGMA, the Concept of “Historical Use”

Presentation for Joint Meeting of theStakeholder & Executive Committees

______February 21, 2019

Aubrey MauritsonRuddell, Stanton, Bixler, & Mauritson Evans LLP

Bryce G. McAteerExecutive Director, ETGSA



What is an Adjudication?

21

Definition: In an adjudication of a groundwater basin, the court generally defines and determines water rights for all users and provides court-supervised basin management by a Watermaster, who is usually appointed by the court to ensure that the basin is managed in accordance with the court’s decree.

Overview of Adjudicated Areas• There are currently 20+ adjudicated

groundwater basins in CA• Primarily concentrated in Southern

California in coastal and desert areas• Take anywhere from ~1 to ~25 years• Are usually expensive, not always

conclusive, and involve 10s to 1000s of parties (i.e. potential rights holders)

Image Source: DWR Adjudicated Basin Map Viewer


What Groundwater Rights Exist?

22

Overlying Rights• A landowner’s right to take water from the ground underneath for use on his land within the basin or

watershed. It is based on the ownership of the land and appurtenant thereto. As between overlying owners, the rights are correlative, meaning each may only use his reasonable share when water is insufficient to meet the needs of all.

Appropriative Rights• Any water not needed for the reasonable beneficial uses of those having prior rights is excess or

surplus water and may be appropriated on privately owned land for non-overlying uses, such as devotion to a public use or exportation beyond the basin or watershed. Appropriative rights are not derived from land ownership but depend on the actual taking of water.

Prescriptive Rights• Prescriptive rights arise when an appropriator continues to pump water during times of overdraft. An

appropriative taking of water which is not surplus is wrongful and may ripen into a prescriptive right where the use is actual, open and notorious, hostile and adverse to the original owner, continuous and uninterrupted for the statutory period of five years, and under claim of right.

• Overlying rights do not take on a prescriptive character and merely maintain their priority to the extent actually exercised during overdraft conditions. An overlying landowner’s correlative right may be reduced by a claim of prescriptive rights, but only to the extent he did not engage in self-help by pumping during the period of the prescriptive claim.


SGMA, Water Rights, and Allocations

23

SGMA § 10720.5(b) – No Modification of Water Rights or Priorities and no Determination of Water Rights• “Nothing in this part, or in any groundwater management plan adopted pursuant to this

part, determines or alters surface water rights or groundwater rights under common law or any provision of law that determines or grants surface water rights.”

SGMA § 10723.2 – Consideration of all Interests of All Beneficial Uses and Users of GW• “The groundwater sustainability agency shall consider the interests of all beneficial uses

and users of groundwater, as well as those responsible for implementing groundwater sustainability plans…”

SGMA § 10726.4. – Additional Authorities of Groundwater Sustainability Agency• (a) “A ground water sustainability agency shall have the following additional authority and

may regulate groundwater extraction using that authority:”• (a)(2) “To control groundwater extractions by regulating limiting, or suspending

extractions… or otherwise establishing groundwater extraction allocations… A limitation on extractions… shall not be construed to be a final determination of rights…”

• (a)(3) “To authorize temporary or permanent transfers of groundwater extractions…”• (a)(4) “To establish accounting rules to allow unused groundwater extraction allocations

issued by the agency to be carried over from one year to another…”

While Courts consider legal precedent and review concerns that are typically common at the outset of all adjudications, every adjudication’s outcome and formula for determining groundwater rights has been different.

Adjudications often do not quantify groundwater rights; if quantified, physical solutions often describe ongoing adjustment mechanisms


Adjudicated Rights and Reduced Pumping

24

When undertaking an adjudication, Courts determining the rights of claimants do so by considering Groundwater Rights Priority and develop Physical Solutions further informed by:• Local Conditions & Equity • Presence or likelihood of Overdraft• Ability to accomplish of a

Physical Solution Examples of Adjudicated RampdownPeriods:• Antelope Valley – 7 years, adjustable

(if necessary) beginning in Year 17• Mojave – 5 Years, then annually

adjusted (if necessary)


Overview of Adjudications Since Mojave

25

Table Source & Further Reading: Leon Szeptycki, et al. A Flexible Framework or Rigid Doctrine? Assessing the Legacy of the 2000 Mojave Decision for Resolving Disputes over Groundwater in California, 37 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 185 (2018) – Table 1. Overview of adjudications since the 2000 Mojave California Supreme Court decision.

Adjudication Year of Final Judgement

Length of Process No. of Parties Major Groundwater Uses (Year)

Mojave 1996, appeal decidedin 2000

6 years (10 includingappeal)

423 named producers,over 1000 served

57% urban, 25%agricultural, 10%wetlands, 8% other(2015)

Group I: Settled Cases

Beaumont 2004 1 year 22 83% overlying, 17%appropriative (2015)

Seaside 2006 (amended in 2007)

3 years 16 100% urban (2016-17)

Santa Paula 1996 (amended in 2010)

5 years (to initial judgement) 103 (including 101members of Santa Paul Basin Pumpers Association)

25% urban, 75%agricultural (2015)

San Jacinto 2013 1 year 5 (includes “privatepumpers group of upto 100 individuals)

54% urban, 32%agricultural, 4%pumped by Sobobatribe (2016)

Los Osos 2015 11 years, but 4 between complaint and interlocutory judgement

4 63% urban, 37%agricultural (2016)

Group II: Litigated Cases

Santa Maria 2008 (appeal decided in 2012

11 years, (15 with appeal) 1000 (750 stipulated) 15% urban, 83%agricultural, 2% other(2015)

Antelope Valley

2015 16 years Over 4,000 (70,000including non-pumperclass)

33% appropriative,66% overlying, 1%state/federal (2016)


Court Approaches to GW Rights Post-Mojave

26

Adjudication Treatment of Overlying Rights

Role of Prescription

Burden of Reductions to Safe Yield

Trading Allowed?

Exemption for Minimal Producers

Treatment of Unexercised Rights


Beaumont Entire safe yield granted to overlyers. Rights are quantified individually andjudgment allows for transfers from overlyers toappropriators, who aregranted rights to store water.

Not Argued Appropriators wereallowed 10 years ofsurplus pumping butthen rights reduced tozero except for any rights transferred from overlyers, or storage of imported water.

Yes Less than 10 AFY

Not discussedexplicitly, butjudgmentallows for theaddition of new parties.

Seaside Overlyers can choose from two classes of rights: Alternative, enabling them to avoid reductions but no trading, and Standard, imposing limits but allowing trading.

Judgment found mutual prescriptionbut does notImpose equalreduction requirements

Standard allocationholders must reduceto zero beforeAlternative producersmake any reductions.

Yes Less than 5 AFY

Not discussedexplicitly, butjudgmentallows for theaddition of new parties.

Santa Paula

Members of pumpers'association have individually quantified rights assessed on a 7-year running average, allowing for year-to-year flexibility, with clear rules for trading.

Not argued The appropriativeparty (City ofBuenaventura) bearsthe primary burden ofreductions.

Yes Less than 5 AFY

Not explicitly addressed.

Table Source & Further Reading: Leon Szeptycki, et al. A Flexible Framework or Rigid Doctrine? Assessing the Legacy of the 2000 Mojave Decision for Resolving Disputes over Groundwater in California, 37 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 185 (2018) – Table 2. Approaches to water rights in adjudications since the 2000 Mojave decision.

Part 1



27




Trading Allowed?




San Jacinto

Overlyers have three options: 1) participate under Class A, which avoids reductions but allows no trading, 2) participate under Class B, with generously defined but limited right that allows trading, or 3) do not participate.

Not argued Appropriators bear entire burden (up to 10% reductions peryear for 6 years toreach safe yield).

Yes Less than 25 AFY

New pumpers may join the judgement, but only as Class A participants.

Los Osos Overlying rights holders not included as parties to the judgment. Their wateruse is accounted for in three “water entitlement pools” (Agricultural, Private Domestic, andCommunity), which are not required to reduce pumping.

Not argued Appropriators bear the entire burden.

No Judgement exempts all overlying pumpers

Judgmentexempts alloverlying rightsholders so newoverlyingpumperswould not facerestrictions.


Part 2



28




Trading Allowed?



Group II: Litigated Cases

Santa Maria

Overlying rights holders are granted the entire safe yield, although safe yield isnot quantified. This effectively allows overlyersto continue to pump without restriction.

Grants prescriptive rights to two public agencies, but only against nonstipulatingparties. Public agencies waived right to claim prescription against future pumping of stipulating parties.

Limits on pumping can only be imposed by the court under narrowly defined conditions of “severe water shortage.” Conditions vary across the three Management Areas, but restrictions on overlyers would be limited.

No (only ofreservoirwater in onemanagementarea)

No exemption, but judgment does not impose Restrictions

JudgmentacknowledgesunexercisedOverlying rights as prior and paramount, without placing limits.

Antelope Valley

Prescriptive rights awarded to public agencies against certain parties, including those who defaulted or failed to appear.

IdentifiedSmall pumpers granted 1.2 AFY, but may pump up to 3 AFY without paying fees.

Establishes a“non-pumper”class. Newuses requirewatermasterapproval andare subject tofees above thede minimusamount. Thisaspect of thejudgment is onappeal.


Part 3


Other States – GW Management Summaries

29

Arizona – Maximum Annual Groundwater Allotments were codified through the Groundwater Management Act and determined by considering historical use, acres under production, crop type, and other factors from the period between 1975-1980 within designated Active Management Areas (“AMAs”). In Irrigation Non-Expansion Areas (“INAs”), only lands irrigated in the 5 years preceding the INA declaration may continue to be irrigated. For groundwater us outside of AMAs and INAs, Arizona applies the doctrine of reasonable use and the use is largely unregulated.

Texas – Texas follows “rule of absolute ownership”, or commonly coined “rule of capture”, not correlative rights doctrine. Use can be constrained based on certain exceptions, such as groundwater use that is maliciously used for the sole purpose of harming a neighbor or that causes subsidence. Texas also passed a constitutional amendment in 1917 that allowed for the creation of Groundwater Conservation Districts that can regulate the drilling and pumping of groundwater.

Nevada – Groundwater rights comport with the prior appropriations doctrine. “Junior” rights holders can be called and curtailed. The State Engineer may also designate “Critical Management Areas” whereby water rights holders may submit a petition to create a “groundwater management plan” that, upon approval by the State Engineer, may be implemented to remove the basin’s designation as a critical management area.

Sources: ADWR (http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/WaterManagement/documents/Groundwater_Code.pdf), TAMU (https://texaswater.tamu.edu/water-law), NDWR (http://water.nv.gov/waterlaw.aspx)


Historical Use & Policy Questions

30

Policy Questions

Defining “Historical Use”

Implies some sort of time element.

• When? (Since 1960? 1914? 2014?) Or, What Period (10 years, 5 years, or X Years between [Beginning Year] and [End Year])?

• How is the time period justified?• How are periods of dormancy handled?• What is the equation? Average use,

median use, highest & lowest use, or something else?

Implies some sort of usage/quantity.

• Is usage based on total irrigation, crop type/demand, potentially irrigable (gross acres), or explicit groundwater use?

• What if crops types and/or irrigation practices (i.e. irrigation efficiency) changed over time?

• Are different users types (e.g. Ag, Municipal, Partial Users, etc.) treated differently?

• How is usage verified and how are discrepancies/different sources treated?

SGMA does not prescribe a methodology for determining allocations. Assuming aggregate Historical Use is greater than Sustainable Yield, should “Historical Use” be considered in terms of allocating…

1) Sustainable Yield; and/or2) Transitional Groundwater

andIf so, how?

Joint Meeting of the ETGSA Executive & Stakeholder ......2019/02/21 · Attached hereto and...

Documents

Transcript of Joint Meeting of the ETGSA Executive & Stakeholder ......2019/02/21 · Attached hereto and...