FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY A S"fAH OF CALIFORNIA WAHR AGENCY

Transcription

1 FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY A S"fAH OF CALIFORNIA WAHR AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS Lynn E. Maulhardt, Chair, Director, United Water Conservation District Charlotte Craven, Vice Chair, Councilperson, City of Camarillo David Borchard, Farmer, Agricultural Representative Steve Bennett, Supervisor, County of Ventura Dr. Michael Kelley, Director, Zone Mutual Water Company EXECUTIVE OFFICER Jeff Pratt, P.E. MINUTES Minutes of the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency's (FCGMA) Regular Board meeting held Wednesday, in the Board of Supervisors' Hearing Room at the Ventura County Government Center, Hall of Administration, 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura California. A. Call to Order Chair Charlotte Craven called the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.m. B. Pledge of Allegiance Director Michael Kelley led the Pledge of Allegiance. C. Roll Call Chair Charlotte Craven Director Steve Bennett Director Michael Kelley Director David Borchard Director Robert Eranio (Sitting in for Chair Lynn Maulhardt) Alternate Director David Schwabauer was in the audience. Agency Staff Jeff Pratt, Executive Officer Alberto Boada, Agency Counsel Gerhardt Hubner, Deputy Director Rick Viergutz, Groundwater Manager Kathleen Riedel, Groundwater Specialist Jessica Kam, Clerk of the Board D. Agenda Review Mr. Jeff Pratt, Executive Officer, informed the Board that the attorneys for Vujovich & Vujovich, Inc. and Pleasant Valley County Water District request Item Nos. 5 and 6 be continued to a future Board meeting. Director Robert Eranio made the motion to approve the request. Director David Borchard seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously. 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA (805) FAX: (805) Website: Item 1 - Page 1 of 13

2 Page 2of13 E. Public Comments No comments were made by the public. F. Board Member Comments No comments were made by the Board. CONSENT ITEMS: 1. Approval of Minutes Director Kelley made the motion to approve Consent Items Nos. 1, 2, and 3. Director Eranio seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously. 2. Approval of Minutes Director Kelley made the motion to approve Consent Items Nos. 1, 2, and 3. Director Eranio seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously. 3. Approval of Minutes Director Kelley made the motion to approve Consent Items Nos. 1, 2, and 3. Director Eranio seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 4. Moorpark Desalter Project Update Mr. Gerhardt Hubner, Watershed Protection District, introduced the item and Mr. Reddy Pakala,. Director, Water and Sanitation Department, Public Works Agency. Mr. Pakala made a correction to the Agenda's recommendation, stating that he is representing Ventura County Water Works District No. 1 (WWD No. 1). He explained WWD No. 1 's purpose in pursuing the Moorpark Desalter by addressing the regional and local benefits. The regional benefits include: (1) helping the Calleguas Creek Watershed wastewater treatment plants comply with salts TMDLs adopted by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board in October 2007; (2) salts will be exported to the Pacific Ocean via the Calleguas Municipal Water District's (Calleguas) Salinity Management Pipeline; (3) reduce dependence on imported water; (4) provide an emergency water supply and help drought-proof; (5) consistent with the Agency's Resolution No ; (6) improve groundwater quality and help reduce migration of salts from the South Las Posas Basin to the East Las Posas Basin; (7) create underground storage within the South Las Posas Basin to capture more surface water for beneficial uses, improve groundwater quality, and increase local water supply; and (8) improve the local economy and create jobs. The local benefit entails stabilizing customers' water rates for WWD Nos. 1 and 19. Graphics were provided to review WWD Nos. 1 and 19's service area and the location of the proposed. Moorpark Desalter. A graphic of the Agency's groundwater basins showed that the proposed Moorpark Desalter Project would be located in the South Las Posas Basin. Item 1 - Page 2 of 13

3 Page 3of13 A larger map of the South Las Posas Basin was utilized to represent the flow of groundwater (and surface water) moving from east to west across the shallow aquifer. A cross section of the Fox Canyon aquifer and shallow aquifer was provided. He reviewed a 2012 map of areas impacted by high chlorides and informed the Board that the salts are migrating from the shallow aquifer to the East Las Posas Basin. WWD No. 1 believes salt migration is a problem in this area, and it needs to be addressed. He introduced the Project Team made up ofwwd No. 1 staff and consultants. The Preliminary Design Report by Kennedy/Jenks Consultants was completed a few years ago, which reported an estimated yield of 5,000 acre-feet per year (AF/yr) of treated water. The report also considered four membrane processes (reverse osmosis - 8-inch diameter; reverse osmosis - greater than 8-inch diameter; nanofilitration; and electrodialysis removal) before recommending the 8-inch diameter low pressure brackish water reverse osmosis (RO). For post treatment it recommended ph stabilization with sodium hydroxide and disinfection (with a chlorination system). The initial cost estimate for the well field and water treatment is $50 million. The $50 million would be invested by WWD No. 1 and serve customers in WWD Nos. 1 and 19. Mr. Pakala thanked the Board for awarding WWD No. 1 with $220,000 in 2012 to complete the first pilot well tests. The field testing was conducted by Hopkins Groundwater Consultants, Inc. and Fugro Consultants, Inc. The first pilot well tests were conducted in November 2012 and allowed them to characterize the area. In November 2013, additional geophysical tests were conducted, and additional ' testing is scheduled for One of the major permits WWD No. 1 needs to obtain is from the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). The initial conversation with CDPH happened eighteen months ago, and CDPH informed WWD No. 1 that the Desalter Project may be okay if it is 500 feet (ft.) away from the creek. Based on this information, WWD No. 1 conducted testing at well site Nos. 1 and 2 (as shown on the Field Pilot Wells Site Location graphic). Well No. 2 (which is close to the Arroyo Simi) had a pumping yield of 600 gallons per minute (gpm). The depth of the well was 230 ft. The maximum they could pump is 225. As WWD No. 1 tested farther away, the "e-load" production decreased because of the hydrogeology and geology in the area. After presenting the information to CDPH, CDPH requested to see if the water WWD No.1 plans to pump would be under the influence of wastewater discharge. CDPH informed WWD No. 1 that sucralose could be used as an indicator of groundwater under the influence of wastewater discharge, because it is an artificial sweetener that does not decompose. Five nano grams per liter (ng/l) or more is the method detection limit. Test well No. 2's first sampling revealed 200 ng/l, and the second sampling event yielded 160 ng/l. When the sampling was moved 500 ft. away from test well No. 2, the results yielded less than the 5.0 ng/l detection limit at test well No. 1, Muranaka east near Los Angeles Avenue, Muranaka north near Los Angeles Avenue, and Moorpark Water Treatment Plant MW-1. Based on the completed investigation to date, WWD No. 1 is proposing shallow groundwater wells that reach 200 to 250 ft. The maximum number of wells needed is twenty-two (22); twenty (20) for production and two (2) for redundancy to assist with mechanical failures and repairs. The maximum pumping, which WWD No. 1 believes they need to pump from the ground is 5,875 AF/yr (3,654 gpm) to produce 5,000 AF/yr (4.46 MGD; 6.9 cfs) of treated water. The treated water would have a chloride limit of 50 mg/l and total dissolved solids (TDS) of approximately 400 mg/l. Mr. Pakala reviewed the 3-Dimensional groundwater modeling completed by hydrologist Dr. Steve Bachman. He reviewed: (1) the construction of the model (covering the southern half of the East Las Posas Basin; a 200 ft. x 200 ft. grid spacing; six layers, including the Fox Canyon, San Pedro, and Item 1 - Page 3 of 13

4 Page 4of13 Shallow Aquifer; and stream flow routing calculating stream recharge and flow volumes); (2) how the model was calibrated (period quarterly stress periods, and calibrated against measured groundwater elevations and stream gauges); and (3) project modeling (30-year period, two wet/dry cycles and three scenarios). He reviewed the three scenarios and concluded that WWD No. 1 plans to present Scenario 2 for the Board's consideration based on its results. The results from Scenario 2 show that without the Moorpark Desalter Project, there is as much as 21,000 AF/yr of water percolating or recharging the Shallow Aquifer (which extends from the Simi Valley Treatment Plant to the Som is area). If the project exists, 25,900 AF/yr of water could recharge the aquifer, as the project would create 6,900 AF of storage. Mr. Pakala provided a graphic showing the results of a particle tracer study presented to CDPH. CDPH required that WWD No. 1 show that the groundwater will remain underground for at least one year before it is pumped from the wells. Graphical representations of the following wells were modeled to show the effects of the Project's pumping at the: (1) Shallow Aquifer (0.1 Mile from Project), (2) San Pedro Formation (0.5 Miles from Project), (3) Fox Canyon Aquifer (0.05 Mile from Project), and (4) Fox Canyon Aquifer (3.2 Miles from Project). Currently, without the project during normal rainfall years, the surface water in the creek is just upstream of Semis Road Route 34. During a dry year, the surface water is closer to Highway 118. If the Project is approved, WWD No. 1 is projecting that the stream will be dry during dry weather conditions. During a rain event, depending on the frequency, the water will go all the way to the ocean. Mr. Pakala reviewed how much water WWD No. 1 has been importing and how much groundwater has been stored by the Moorpark Wastewater Treatment Plant (MWTP). WWD No. 1 will need to increase the following infrastructure in order to transport the Project's water to customers: (1) connect to WWD No. 1 water distribution system; (2) connect to Calleguas Water distribution system for wheeling with a metering station; (3) treated water distributed to WWD Nos. 1 and 19 customers (consistent with GMA export policy); (4) Salinity Management Pipeline (SMP) discharge station; and (5) Calleguas SMP. Calleguas' Board recently adopted a CEQA document to extend the pipeline to the Moorpark Desalter. According to Ms. Susan Mulligan, Calleguas, General Manager, once WWD No. 1 completes the CEQA, Calleguas can begin to design and extend the SMP to the Moorpark Desalter by the time it is finished. Calleguas is also looking at two different alternate routes to extend the SMP to Simi Valley. Mr. Pakala provided the Board with a list of upcoming and completed presentations with stakeholders before concluding with the Project's next steps in calendar year The next steps include: (1) conducting additional testing to confirm total number of wells; (2) finalizing the 3-D model and preparing groundwater monitoring plans; and (3) completing a financing plan (this has been completed). If WWD No. 1 was to proceed with the current plan, they could produce the treated water for less than $800 per acre-foot. WWD No. 1 is currently paying $1,250 per acre-foot of imported water (projected to increase about 5% every year for the next ten years). EIR preparation is scheduled to be completed twelve months from now. WWD No. 1 's plan is to begin the construction process for the well field in 2015/2016 and the membrane treatment in 2017/2018. The Operation Plan to operate the Project to comply with the adopted mitigation and monitoring plans would be completed by 2017/2018 as well. Item 1 - Page 4of13

5 Page 5of13 Director Borchard inquired about the expected timeline for the SMP to be extended to Hitch Blvd. Mr. Pakala explained that when he discussed the proposal to complete the Project by 2018, Ms. Mulligan stated that Calleguas could extend the SMP by that time. Director Eranio inquired about how the project is going to be incorporated into WWD No. 19 and help stabilize WWD No. 19's rates when it is a WWD No. 1 project. Mr. Pakala explained that the plan is to use 5,000 AF in both WWD No. 1 and 19. To the extent that WWD No. 19 uses 1, 000 AF, those customers would pay the rates for the water; the balance would be paid by WWD No. 1 's customers. The purpose is to make this project benefit the entire Las Posas Valley. Director Eranio inquired about the potential impacts to the Project due to decreasing water levels in the Las Posas Basin. Mr. Pakala reassured the Board that WWD No. 1 will follow all mitigation measures that are developed and outlined during the process. Director Kelley made the motion to receive and file the report. Director Bennett seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously. ACTION ITEMS: 5. Request to Appeal the Decision by the Executive Officer to Impose Civil Penalties for Failure to Calibrate a Flowmeter or Submit Signed Exemption Form. State Well No. 01 N21W22C01. FCGMA Account: PVCWD Continued to a future agenda. 6. Appeal by Vujovich & Vujovich, Inc. of the Imposition of Civil Penalties for Failure to Calibrate a Flowmeter, State Well No. 01N21W11P01S Continued to a future agenda. 7. Draft List of Needed Information for the Issues/Problems for Developing Measures to Assure Agency Long-Term Sustainable Groundwater Management. Mr. Hubner introduced the item and background. At the April 11, 2014 Board meeting, the Board approved a plan and process for developing measures to assure long-term sustainable water management (withdrawals) from the groundwater basins and aquifer systems within the Agency's jurisdiction. The goal is to identify all of the major issues/problems and the relevant information about those issues and problems, and develop recommended solutions for the Board to consider. The process has four basic steps: (1) adoption of a list of issues/problems; (2) identify the information needed for each issue/problem (obtaining information, cost of studies, and timeline); (3) identify potential initial solutions; and (4) listing the advantages and disadvantages of each potential solution. A draft Initial List was developed by Agency staff and presented at the May 28, 2014 Board meeting. The List was organized by (1) Issue, (2) Description of Issue, (3) Category of Issue (legislative, policy, or operations), and (4) Priority Ranking. Under the "Description" column, narrative was provided as a problem statement(s) or question to articulate the issue as clearly as possible. The Revised List was adopted at the June 25, 2014 Board meeting. Item 1 - Page 5 of 13

6 Page 6of13 Building upon the same format utilized in the Draft List of Issues, the staff modified the table to include the new column headers: (1) Means of Obtaining Information; (2) Cost Range Estimates; (3) Measures/Actions/Methods; and (4) Timeline. Descriptive information was also added under each column with best professional estimates of: internal and external sources of information, range of costs, measures/methods/actions to obtain the information and time required. Mr. Hubner emphasized that the information in Item 7 A represents solely the "level of effort" in acquiring the information, not the entire level of effort or resources needed to complete or solve a particular issue. Furthermore, certain measures such as "stakeholder input" are considered essential in most, if not all, of the categories. The cost ranges generally represent a one-time cost, and do not include an ongoing maintenance for information updates. He reviewed an example of the data provided in row 1.2: Self Reporting. Mr. Hubner emphasized that the staff did not want to promote possible solution costs in the cost range; they focused solely on what it would take to obtain the data to evaluate the issue. Director Bennett agreed with the process and reinforced that the purpose is to identify possible solutions. Each issue/solution will be evaluated for its advantages and disadvantages. In response to Board direction from the previous meeting, an updated Revised Long-Term Issues/Problems Schedule was provided (Item 7B), and staff created a title for each meeting to assist in following each sequence. The staff recommended the Board consider approving the Draft List of Needed Information with modifications as appropriate and release the list for three-week public review. Director Bennett requested the staff add legal analysis (internal or external) to row B.3: Credits, Conservation, Storage, and In-Lieu before releasing it for a three-week public review. Director Bennett made the motion to accept staff's Draft List of Needed Information, with the addition of "legal analysis" to B.3, for a three-week public review. Director Borchard seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously (Chair Craven - Yes; Director Eranio - Yes; Director Bennett - Yes; Director Kelley - Yes; Director Borchard - Yes). 8. Change in Semi~Annual Reporting Period for Agricultural Operators Mr. Rick Viergutz, Groundwater Manager, introduced the staff report regarding the Agency's requirement in Emergency Ordinance E to apply the Irrigation Allowance (IA) program to all agricultural operators. In doing so, it changed the sequence of the IA program and shifted the semiannual reporting from a Calendar Year (January - December) to a Crop Year (August - July). The emergency ordinance currently shifts it to six-month increments of August to January and February to July. If this reporting sequence continues, the Agency will no longer receive an annual roll up of extractions in December, which is utilized in the Agency's Annual Report. Therefore, staff recommended the Agency use a seven-month (closing on July 31) and five-month (closing on December 31) reporting period. Director Bennett made the motion to approve the recommended action. Director Kelley seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously (Chair Craven - Yes; Director Eranio - Yes; Director Bennett- Yes; Director Kelley - Yes; Director Borchard - Yes). Item 1 - Page 6of13

7 Page 7of13 9. Mesa Union School District Application for AG to M&I Historical Allocation Transfer Ms. Kathleen Riedel, Groundwater Specialist, introduced the item and reviewed the background of the application. On June 23, 2014 Mesa Union School District requested an Agricultural (Ag) to Municipal and Industrial (M&I) Allocation transfer. Section 5.3 of the Ordinance Code provides for transfer of allocations when irrigated agricultural land(s) change to M&I use. Ag to M&I transfers are required to be approved by the Board. The site and adjacent irrigated agricultural land are located in the West Las Posas Basin. The aerial photograph taken in 1989 shows that agricultural land bordered the school site on the east, west and south. The agricultural land surrounding the school site is owned by Mittag Farms. The school received 3.4 acres on the east side that was irrigated by State Well Number (SWN) 02N21W16N01. An additional 3.43 acres was transferred on the south side which was irrigated by SWN 02N21W17F05. A well (SWN 02N21W17A01) was constructed on the school site in December A Baseline Allocation of 10.5 AF/yr was provided to Mesa Union School District effective July 1, 2004 for a seven to ten-acre school campus. The area of the school campus increased in 2011 when 6.85 acres, of then street and irrigated agricultural land, was added to the campus, and the tree crops were removed. A comparison of these photographs showed the change from Ag to M&I use in It was brought to Agency staff's attention that there was a need for Ag to M&I transfer when Mesa addressed the surcharges associated with their 2013 Semi-Annual Extraction Statements (SAES). At first, they thought it might be the meter; then they checked for water-line problems and irrigation practices in the field. It was then disclosed that they had added land to their campus. If approved, AF/yr of Historical Allocation will be transferred to SWN 02N21W17A01. Staff recommend that the transfer be made retroactive to January 1, Additionally, if approved the Historical Allocation associated with SWNs 02N21W16N01S and 02N21W17F05S will be debited by 1.57 AF and 2.30 AF respectively. Director Eranio and Ms. Riedel held a brief discussion on the history of Ag to M&I transfers. Mr. Pratt emphasized that the Emergency Ordinance did not address the current Ordinance Code requirement that requires two (2) AF per acre be transferred to an M&I operator. The wells supplying water will be reduced in proportion to the area supplied (the water divided by the acreage). This is consistent with the Board's direction in the Ordinance. Director Bennett noted that in the long-term, this is an issue that needs to be addressed. Mr. Michael Babb, Mesa Union School District, Superintendent, clarified the school's purchase of the acres and moving the playground away from underground natural gas and oil pipelines. He requested the Board consider their request. Director Bennett made the motion to approve the recommended action. Director Eranio seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously (Chair Craven - Yes; Director Eranio - Yes; Director Bennett- Yes; Director Kelley- Yes; Director Borchard - Yes). 10. Seven Requests for Exception from Temporary Prohibition on New Extraction Facilities Chair Craven opened the Public Hearing. Ms. Riedel introduced the item and provided the background history for the adoption of Emergency Ordinance E. The Ordinance places a temporary moratorium on the issuance of any permit for construction of a groundwater extraction facility; however, it allows for issuance of permits for Item 1 - Page 7of13

8 Page 8 of 13 replacement, backup, or standby facilities which do not allow the initiation of any new or increased use of groundwater. A "new" or "increased use" is one that did not exist or occur before the effective date of the emergency ordinance. The Board may grant exceptions to the moratorium on a case-bycase basis. Seven applications have been received for agricultural wells to either: (1) replace water provided by the Pumping Trough Pipeline (PTP) System, or (2) replace active, inactive, or destroyed wells. (Note: two (2) additional applications were not represented in this report because the applications were incomplete.) The proposed seven wells will serve agricultural land that was served by local private wells before or during the Agency's Historical Allocation base period ( ). The private water supply was replaced in whole or part with a blend of surface water and groundwater provided by United Water Conservation District's (UWCD) PTP System. The initiation of the delivery of the PTP water resulted in: (1) the destruction of the private Upper Aquifer System (UAS) wells, or (2) the modification of wells to limit use. The UWCD has indicated that water from its PTP System may not be available starting in September Agricultural operators will be without a water supply to irrigate their land. An aerial photograph taken in May 1989 was provided to identify the parcels on which the wells are to be located or irrigated by the proposed wells. (Note: not all of the area to be irrigated associated with application Nos. 202 and 203 are shown on this particular photograph.) The applications do not represent a new use of groundwater, as the land was irrigated during the Historical Allocation base period. Though the proposed use is in line with past PTP water deliveries (which included both surface water and groundwater), the amount of groundwater included within those deliveries is a fraction of, thus less than, the total water delivered. Emergency Ordinance E does not specify, and is therefore not clear regarding how far back one is to evaluate for new or increased use of groundwater. A five-year window was selected as a frame of reference as that was one of the periods used for evaluating M&I extractions for the purposes of Emergency Ordinance E. The proposed extractions represent an increase in groundwater extractions over the greatest amount of groundwater delivered by UWCD during the past five (5) years (2009 to June of 2014). As a UWCD prerequisite to receiving water from the PTP system, UWCD required: (1) existing UAS wells were to be destroyed or modified; and (2) wells reduced to "Limited Service" (not to exceed 5 AF/yr plus additional quantities if necessary due to "Emergency Conditions"). "Emergency Conditions" is defined by UWCD as "Unavailability of water from United to Owner for a continuous 24-hour period." Water delivered is a varying combination of groundwater and surface water. The range in groundwater delivered annually (by percent of total PTP water delivered) over the last five years varied from five to sixty-two (62%). In (through June) the percentage of groundwater varied from 75% to 96% because less surface water was available. Reported annual groundwater extractions from the PTP Lower Aquifer System (LAS) wells (2009 to 2013) varied from 512 AF/yr in 2010, to 4,647 AF/yr in The groundwater extractions in 2013 exceeded the available credits and allocation by 1, 190 AF/yr. For reference, and to provide an overview of groundwater conditions in the PTP area, Ms. Riedel provided a fall 2012 potentiometric surface map of the UAS. In fall 2012, water levels in the PTP area ranged from approximately one to twenty-five feet above mean sea level. In fall 2013, water level elevations in the PTP area ranged from +4 feet (ft.) above to -15 ft. below mean sea level. Between 2012 and 2013, water levels declined approximately five to twenty feet. The fall 1990 map was provided for reference, and it showed water level elevations approximately ten to twenty feet lower than in fall Item 1 - Page 8 of 13

9 Page 9of13 Water elevations in the LAS in fall 2012, ranged from approximately -20 to -90 ft. below sea level. In fall 2013, water levels in the PTP area ranged from approximately -30 to -110 ft. below sea level. In 1990 the water level elevations ranged from approximately -114 to -250 ft. below sea level. Per Emergency Ordinance E, applications for exceptions to the moratorium on well permits shall conform to the requirements of Section of the Agency Ordinance Code and will be approved only if the Board makes the findings set forth in Section of the Agency Ordinance Code. Ms. Riedel discussed the analysis for each well application including: (1) the acreage irrigated, (2) the proposed crop, and (3) the Historical Allocation. Section requires an analysis of potential impacts on the water balance in any basin resulting from the proposed use(s). Typically, Agency staff evaluates the water balance from the increase in use relative to total basin extractions. The findings resulted in: (1) an increase in groundwater extractions at approximately 771 AF/yr; (2) a five-year average of the reported extractions from Oxnard Plain Basin is 55,655 AF/yr; (3) the estimated increase of pumping in the basin is approximately 1.4%; and (4) this increase in pumping would occur during a drought when groundwater levels are declining. Per Section , the Board may approve the proposed use if, after a public hearing, it finds that the proposed use will result in no net detriment to the basin, or aquifer associated with the use, by determining that either: (1) the proposed use does not result in the material degradation of water quality of any type, or (2) recharge to any aquifer within the Agency is not materially diminished. Regarding the "recharge to any aquifer within the Agency is not materially diminished," the proposed groundwater well locations are in the south and central portions of the Oxnard Plain Basin, and not in an identified recharge area. The impact to aquifer recharge should be negligible. In regards to "the proposed use does not result in the material degradation of water quality of any type," a potential source of degradation (or concern) is the lowering of groundwater levels below sea level or diminishing water flow to recharge the coastal areas resulting in expansion of the area impacted by saltwater intrusion. To address the quantity of water that the applicants would be using for the proposed wells, the staff provided five options for the Board to consider. Option No. 1 - deny the applications; Option No. 2 - limit extractions to past groundwater use (this does not increase the groundwater demand and the potential impact water quality is low); Option No. 3 - limit extractions to IAI (this has a potential to increase groundwater demand and impact water quality); Option No. 4 - limit extractions to surface water and groundwater use (this has a potential to increase groundwater demand and impact water quality); and Option No. 5 - other. In granting approval to projects, the Board may impose any conditions as may be appropriate, including limitations on the quantity of water use, term of the approval, and periodic reporting to the Agency. Chair Craven opened the floor to public comments. Mr. James dubois, Reiter Brothers and Tara Enterprises, introduced Mr. Geoffrey Bate, Project Manager for Pacific Coast Drilling, before providing additional information about Application No Director Bennett inquired of Agency staff if a customer in the PTP area could begin pumping from one of their wells if the well was in good condition. Ms. Riedel confirmed that the agreement with UWCD allows the customers to have backup/emergency wells. Item 1 - Page 9of13

10 Page 10 of 13 Mr. Chris Halstead, Fukutomi Farms (Application No. 213), addressed the 1.4% increase mentioned in the staff's presentation. He recommended the Board consider and approve Option No. 3 (IAI) as part of approving the permits. Ms. Riedel, Director Bennett and Director Borchard discussed the history of the PTP System. Mr. Mike Chandy, owner of E&H Line Company (Application Nos. 210 and 211 ), discussed previous reductions and requested the Board approve the permits because the properties have no other way of obtaining water. Mr. Steve Dodge, Application No. 209, commented on the UWCD agreement and the domestic wells on his property. Mr. Bob Suzuki, Mimaki Farms (Application No. 203), commented on the history of agreements between Mimaki Farms, Reiter Brothers, and UWCD. The property has limited Domestic well water, but additional water will be needed to support Syngenta Bioline Inc. (Syngenta). Director Kelley inquired about the IAI value that would be utilized to represent the water applied to Syngenta's mites and insects. Mr. Suzuki responded that they would use beans to represent the food source grown for the mites. Director Bennett inquired if there are other properties on the PTP System that have not contacted the Agency to request a well permit because they have an available well(s) to begin pumping when the PTP is closed, and whether they have wells that were supposed to be destroyed. Ms. Riedel responded that she does not have that information at this time. Director Eranio inquired if water quality changes or degradation have been noticed in the areas where the proposed wells are located, and whether an increase in chlorides could be exacerbated. Ms. Riedel informed the Board that she would need to review the Basin Management Objectives Report Card to answer this question, but the UAS is in better shape than the LAS. Director Eranio commented on the permits' requests to drill deep wells. Ms. Riedel informed the Board that they could limit the applicants to a specific aquifer. This was included as part of the Possible Permit Conditions (No. 8) for the Board to consider. Mr. Mike Solomon, UWCD, General Manager, provided additional history of the PTP System. He informed the Board that the properties located in the PTP area were extracting water from the UAS before the PTP was created. In the late 1970s, it was believed that the LAS was not only not intruded by seawater, but the freshwater extended offshore, or about 160 years of freshwater availability. However, the UAS was being inundated with seawater intrusion. The farmers' wells were also having difficulties, so instead of drilling 62 new wells, it was decided (with the County and UWCD) to build the PTP System (by drilling five deep aquifer wells) to help solve the issue. He reviewed how UWCD and the Agency have not fulfilled their missions and what the State has asked them to accomplish. UWCD is unable to deliver surface water to the PTP users. A majority of the water delivered has been groundwater, with the exception of February and March. The five wells will be shut down by September 2014 because the water level will have reached the depth of the bowls. UWCD's Board considered the option of drilling deeper and lowering the bowls, but the State told UWCD not to mine the aquifers. Lowering the bowls would mine the aquifers; therefore, UWCD's Board will need to shut down the PTP System until conditions change. In the 1970s, the State made it clear that fixing the seawater intrusion problem was the key issue, because it was being caused by the overdraft in the UAS. The Item 1 - Page 10of13

11 Page 11 of 13 short-term strategy, that was approved to keep the State from involving itself in this issue, was to build the Vern Freeman Diversion and PTP System with the following understandings: (1) surface water would be used to provide all the water; and (2) lower aquifer water would only be used during dry years. This has not been the case up to now. While credits have been building, there is no water to back it up. The State also said that forty-five (45) of the forty-seven (47) wells that existed needed to be abandoned on the PTP System. UWCD and the County offered the well owners the ability to keep the well for an emergency purpose or small domestic use. Mr. Solomon explained his understanding of the word "emergency" in the agreements; his understanding is that the word refers to a situation like when a pipe breaks and UWCD is unable to deliver water to a property on a temporary basis; it is not meant to reference the inability to conserve water. The State's requirement for the Agency to place cut backs on pumping was meant to act as a short-term solution, while the agencies worked on identifying the long-term solution for the bigger problem. The long-term solutions were: (1) to bring on 40,000 AF of recycled water by the year 2000, and (2) increase imported water including the 20,000 AF the Ventura County Flood Control District owns. To date, UWCD is bringing in 3,000-5,000 AF/yr. The strategies were based on the belief that the LAS was healthy and extended out into the ocean. Unfortunately, in the early 1990s after data determined that this was not true and seawater intrusion was occurring, the strategies were never modified. The State has also pointed out that the concept of Safe Yield does not work for a coastal community because with Safe Yield, in some years it's good, and in some years it's bad, but during those bad years, the seawater intrudes. Once the seawater intrudes, it cannot be pushed back out. The water quality may appear to improve when the brackish water is diluted, but the seawater wall continues to move in further. The State gave UWCD the following comments regarding what has to be committed to in order to solve the seawater intrusion problem. Solving seawater intrusion means: (1) no long-term mining of the Fox Canyon Aquifer (mining has occurred since 1979); (2) no further degradation of the Oxnard/Upper Aquifer after January 1, 1983 even in dry years or critical years; (3) commitment by the groundwater pumpers to prevent groundwater degradation; and (4) a commitment that the Vern Freeman Diversion would offset all groundwater extractions. Mr. Solomon suggested to the Board, that if they approve the permits, they should restrict the pumpers to the amount of groundwater UWCD provided over the last five years, and not place them on the IAI reporting system, which would exacerbate the upper aquifer. He discussed the $2 million surcharge UWCD incurred for pumping the PTP wells in 2013, and he informed them that from January - June 2014, they have incurred an additional $5 million surcharge, which will be paid with the use of credits. Mr. Jason Weiner, Wishtoyo Foundation, commented on their position for the Agency to develop a safe yield for the Oxnard Plain aquifers that are protective of the Santa Clara River Public Trusts resources and prevent withdrawals in excess of that safe yield. Mr. Weiner reviewed several questions that the Board should consider when managing and approving groundwater use. Mr. Halstead, Mr. Chandy, and Mr. Eric Reiter spoke to Mr. Solomon's comments and discussed their challenges. Mr. Solomon informed the Board that he heard from UWCD staff that approximately 30% of the wells that were out there in the 1980s are still active. Mr. Solomon suggested that if any permits are. approved, the Board should place the condition on the well owner(s) to return to the PTP System once it is in operation. Mr. Alberto Boada, Agency Counsel, reminded the Board that they have the discretion to approve the applications based on a finding that granting them will result in no net detriment and that would be based on a determination, alternatively, either that they will result in no material degradation of water Item 1 - Page 11of13

12 Page 12 of 13 quality, or will not materially diminish recharge to the aquifer. Either finding or determination would support the no net detriment determination. Director Kelley commented on the inequity of the situation, and approving the well permits with the same intended cut backs as adopted in the emergency ordinance. Director Eranio commented on: (1) the Agency's mission; (2) the conflict with UWCD's Priority Matrix; and (3) establishing equal treatment to all (sixty-two) PTP turnouts. Chair Craven inquired of Agency Counsel if it is possible to consider other properties other than the seven who are present. Mr. Boada responded that the Board can impose any conditions on the approval that the Board deems appropriate, and if the Board considers linking these approvals to water use on other parcels, then it could be considered in the approval. Director Bennett commented on: (1) the Agency's fundamental mission; (2) the difficulty of this situation; and (3) hearing the potential ways to solve this problem. Director Borchard stated that he does not believe the Board can say the wells will affect water quality or be detrimental to recharge. However, new wells are part of the problem, and it moves the condition of the aquifer into the wrong direction. He commented further on the inequity to the farmers in the PTP System, and if the Agency is going to allow an accommodation to some growers to pump on the Oxnard Plain, then it should allow all growers to pump on the Oxnard Plain. Director Bennett inquired about Director Borchard's comments regarding the effects of the wells on the aquifer, and if any information regarding water quality and/or history was provided to a purchaser or lessee when they looked at the land over the pumping trough depression in the Oxnard Plain. Director Eranio discussed the option of allowing the applicants to pump the same amount of groundwater that was delivered to them. If they pump the groundwater that was historically delivered to them, then it is a net zero. It may not lead to degradation of water quality, because they are not taking any more water than what has been presented to them. If a larger group participates, then a larger savings could be achieved. Director Bennett commented that this option assumes that the withdrawals were not causing the seawater intrusion problem; therefore, maintaining the same pumping means the mission is not achieved. ' The Public Hearing was closed at 4:22 p.m., and Board deliberations began. The Board discussed: (1) the options for including the remaining fifty-five (55) PTP turnouts under the same conditions that are imposed on the seven applicants; (2) allowing growers to utilize the IAI system in the pumping trough depression; and (3) fallowing land. Director Bennett made the motion to continue the item to the next Board meeting on August 15, 2014, and instruct Agency staff to agendize an item that could help the Board examine the possibility of including the remaining PTP turnouts. Director Eranio seconded the motion, and motion did not pass (Chair Craven - No; Director Eranio - Yes; Director Bennett - Yes; Director Kelley - No; Director Borchard - No). Mr. Pratt informed the Board that Agency staff could present the issue, including the rest of the PTP users, with recommendations on how the PTP users might be treated equally. Item 1 - Page 12of13

13 Page 13 of 13 Director Borchard made the motion to approve the permits under Option No. 3 based on the second finding that it will not have a negative impact to aquifer recharge, with the proposed conditions (Nos. 1-8) as written on page 6, with the addition of No. 9 requiring the operators to return to the PTP System when it becomes available. Director Kelley seconded the motion, and the motion passed (Chair Craven - Yes; Director Eranio - No; Director Bennett - No; Director Kelley - Yes; Director Borchard - Yes). EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT: 11. Administrative Reports Director Kelley made the motion to receive and file the reports. Director Bennett seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously. 12. Adjourn Board Meeting. Chair Craven adjourned the meeting at 5:03 p.m. until the Special Board meeting on August 15, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. Submitted by: Item 1 - Page 13of13