FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY A State of California Water Agency

Transcription

1 FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY A State of California Water 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 Lynn Maulhardt called the meeting to order at 1:34 p.m. B. Pledge of Allegiance Director Neal Andrews led the Pledge of Allegiance. C. Roll Call Chair Lynn Maulhardt Alternate Director Neal Andrews Director Steve Bennett (Arrived at 1:35 p.m.) Director Michael Kelley Director David Borchard Alternate Directors Andrew Waters, Robert Eranio, and David Schwabauer (noted at 2:06 p.m.) were 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 No changes were made to the agenda. E. Public Comments Mr. John Mathews, Pleasant Valley County Water District (PVCWD), requested follow-up on the August 15, 2014 Special Board meeting regarding the motion for staff to clarify the issue of surcharges 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA (805) FAX: (805) Website: Item 2 Page 1 of 10

2 Page 2 of 10 on surface water. He inquired about when the item will return to the Board. Mr. Jeff Pratt, Executive Officer, informed the Board that it is on the agenda for the December 10, 2014 Board meeting. F. Board Member Comments Director Steve Bennett announced that on Tuesday, October 28, 2014 at 9:20 a.m. the Board of Supervisors will consider a well moratorium for Ventura County (specifically for the watersheds of Ventura River, Santa Clara River, Calleguas Creek, and Cuyama River). Since the Agency has a well moratorium, the Agency is exempt from the proposed Board of Supervisors moratorium. If the well moratorium is approved, it will cover the watersheds until January 31, 2015, because by then the State of California is required (by State law) to make their designations of high-, medium-, and low-priority basins. At that point in time, the ordinance will be narrowed down to basins designated as high- or medium-priority. If adopted, the ordinance will expire as soon as a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) or alternative plan is filed by an agency for that particular basin; thus, some basins could come out of the moratorium before others. He invited questions from the public, and explained that he supports this proposed ordinance because it would provide some stability while GSPs are being developed. CONSENT ITEMS: 1. Approval of Minutes Director Michael Kelley made the motion to approve Consent Items Nos. 1 and 2. Director Bennett seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously. 2. Approval of Minutes Director Kelley made the motion to approve Consent Items Nos. 1 and 2. Director Bennett seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously. ACTION ITEMS: 3. Draft List of Possible Solutions for the Issues/Problems for Developing Measures to Assure Agency Long-Term Sustainable Groundwater Management Mr. Gerhardt Hubner, Deputy Director, introduced the item and reminded the Board that this is the next step in the four part process. He reviewed the Board s previous actions and the staff s actions since the August 27, 2014 Board meeting. He reviewed an example of a potential solution with various options for C.1. Sea Water Intrusion. Options included: (1) monitor only; (2) abate sea water intrusion at current position (2014); (3) reverse and push sea water intrusion front back to the ocean shoreline and recover resource over time. Install and operate sea water intrusion barrier; or (4) allow sea water intrusion front to mitigate further inland. Staff recommended the Board approve the Draft List of Possible Solutions for release, with modifications as appropriate, for a three-week public review (due November 12, 2014) and input process. Feedback will be presented at the December 10, 2014 Board meeting. Director Bennett commended the staff for drafting the list. He believes Items B.1, B.2, B.3, and A.5 will be important to stakeholders. He directed staff to include a cover letter that explains that this is a comprehensive list and the Agency is not equally committed to all of the solutions. Item 2 - Page 2 of 10

3 Page 3 of 10 Chair Maulhardt proposed that before the list is sent to stakeholders, or after feedback has been received, that the list be reordered to show its impact or priority to the Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Director David Borchard suggested asking the stakeholders to include their sense of prioritization first. Then the Agency can take the input into consideration. Director Andrews agreed. Director Kelley inquired if the sounding tube requirement was Agency-wide or limited to Las Posas Basin. Mr. Rick Viergutz, Groundwater Manager, confirmed that currently the sounding tube requirement is only in place for the Las Posas Basin. Chair Maulhardt and Mr. Mathews had a brief discussion on prioritizing the list. Director Borchard made the motion to approve the release of the Draft List of Potential Solutions for a three-week public review with the inclusion of a cover letter explaining that: (1) this is a comprehensive list and does not represent the Agency s commitment to any one solution, and (2) request from the stakeholders, with the GSP in mind, to comment on the logical sequence of priorities to tackle. Director Bennett seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously (Chair Maulhardt Yes; Director Andrews Yes; Director Bennett Yes; Director Kelley Yes; Director Borchard Yes). 4. Crestview Mutual Water Company Appeal of Executive Officer s Decision to Deny Request for Variance from the Requirement to Reduce Extractions Under Emergency Ordinance E Ms. Kathleen Riedel, Groundwater Specialist, introduced this item and reviewed the background and chronology of Emergency Ordinance E s Temporary Extraction Allocation (TEA). The TEA is based on an operator s average annual reported extractions for calendar years 2003 to 2012 and was designed to limit extractions from groundwater extraction facilities. She informed the Board that Crestview Mutual Water Company s (Crestview) TEA is acre-feet per year (AF/yr). Per Emergency Ordinance E, the TEA is reduced to AF (or 1.20 AF/yr per customer account) for 2014 and is scheduled to be reduced to AF (or 1.09 AF/yr per customer account) in 2015 and AF (or 1.05 AF/yr per customer account) in She informed the Board that Crestview is a domestic water provider and its service area is approximately 900 acres located in the Camarillo Hills between the West Las Posas Basin (WLP), Pleasant Valley Basin, and Oxnard Plain Basin. It serves 618 customers (i.e. accounts) with property sizes ranging from one to 20 acres. Crestview has less than 20 acres of fallow land remaining within its service area. Crestview s wells are adjacent to a pumping trough depression in which the potentiometric surface is 50 to 100 feet below sea level. In fall 2013, the Lower Aquifer System (LAS) potentiometric surface in all but the northwest corner of the WLP Basin was below sea level, which indicated an overdraft condition exists in the WLP Basin. Well No. 5 is Crestview s backup well, and well No. 4 is their primary well. Crestview reported 806 AF as their total extraction in They monitored water levels at well Nos. 5 and 6 in the fall of The water level at well No. 5 was at 122 feet below mean sea level. In the area of well No. 6, the water level was approximately 53 feet below mean sea level. Ms. Riedel reminded the Board that per paragraph H. of Article 2 of Emergency Ordinance E, the Executive Officer may grant or deny a variance based upon the land owner or operator showing: (1) that there are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics of the owner or operator which do not apply generally to comparable owners or operators in the same vicinity; or (2) that strict application Item 2 - Page 3 of 10

4 Page 4 of 10 of the reductions as they apply to the owner or operator will result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose of the emergency ordinance; or (3) that the granting of such variance will result in no-net detriment to the aquifer systems. On June 26, 2014, Crestview requested a variance from Emergency Ordinance E. Crestview claimed that because of operational and system efficiencies contributing to a lower than average groundwater demand, that further allocation reductions would result in a hardship (Item 4A). They felt that their operational and system efficiencies are not comparable to other Municipal and Industrial (M&I) operators within the same vicinity. They inferred that they are more efficient than other operators, but they did not say who or provide information. Crestview requested an annual groundwater allocation (for 2014 and beyond) of AF/yr, which they reported to be equivalent to 0.83 AF per acre (AF/ac), and 1.22 AF/yr per account. Their request is equivalent to their Adjusted Historical Allocation (AHA) plus Baseline Allocation (BA). Crestview cited the following reasons for their request: (1) Agency management strategy of reducing pumping by 25%. As of 2010, the allocation was reduced by 25% resulting in an allocation of 0.83 AF/ac; (2) over the past five years, the total water demand has averaged 1.1 AF/ac; (3) Crestview has been acquiring supplemental water to meet demand; (4) starting in , Emergency Ordinance E will cut allocation by 20%, thus to 0.72 AF/ac (however, the full effect of the 20% reduction will not be in place until 2016); (5) the allocations of efficient water users should not be further reduced without consideration for investments in infrastructure and efficiencies obtained; and (6) Crestview feels that the Agency should instead develop a minimum/floor allocation that is based upon sustainable yield of a basin. On July 11, 2014, the Agency notified Crestview that their variance request had been denied based on the following: (1) the Executive Officer did not find any special circumstances or exceptional characteristics that apply to Crestview which do not apply generally to comparable owners or operators in the same vicinity; (2) reference was made to operational and system efficiencies made by Crestview, but no information or evidence was provided; and (3) the letter received stated that efficiencies were made in response to the Agency s previous multi-year 5% step-wise reductions that began in 1992 and reached the target 25% reduction in allocation in The operational and system efficiencies made, were likely similarly made by other M&I operators throughout the Agency in order to attain their Agency pumping reduction targets. The Executive Officer did not find, nor was sufficient information provided, that the strict application of the reductions as they apply to Crestview will result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose of the emergency ordinance. Crestview s calculated TEA is AF/yr which is more than its current AHA and BA of AF/yr (same as variance request). Without Emergency Ordinance E they would have an allocation of AF/yr. With Emergency Ordinance E their 2014 allocation is 743 AF which is approximately 11 acre-feet less than their old AHA plus BA. Their 2010 reported extraction value is very close to the 20% reduced TEA value, indicating Crestview has the ability to meet this reduction target. On July 30, 2014, Crestview formally requested an appeal of the Executive Officer's decision to deny their variance request. No supporting documents or additional information was provided with their appeal request letter to support the appeal. On August 28, 2014, Agency confirmed receipt of the appeal request, and Crestview was notified of the Appeal Hearing date. Based upon the information provided, Crestview has not demonstrated that the general criteria and specific criteria in Article 2, paragraph H of Emergency Ordinance E were met for granting a variance or appeal from the calculated TEA. Based upon the Ordinance Code criteria, the appeal should therefore be denied. Ms. Riedel and Mr. Robert Eranio were sworn in by the Clerk of the Board. Item 2 - Page 4 of 10

5 Page 5 of 10 Mr. Eranio, Crestview, General Manager, presented his appeal. He informed the Board that he will present five points/issues, any one of which could stand alone as a reason or ability for the Board to grant the appeal. The five issues include: (1) how Crestview is viewed and grouped within the Agency; (2) inconsistencies and incorrect actions/reasons the staff used to deny the variance; (3) basin conditions; (4) what is the basin yield; and (5) equity. Mr. Eranio described Crestview s territory as on the extreme west end of the Las Posas hills and is surrounded by Spanish Hills Country Club, Sterling Hills Country Club, and Las Posas Country Club. He reviewed the history of Crestview: formed in 1950, it provides water for 603 domestic connections. He stated that they have a complete record of their demands and need for water in the basin. A lot of the facilities are in conjuncture with how the properties were developed when the Janss Corporation took it from an active avocado orchard and started breaking it up into lots and parcels for sale. Mr. Eranio stated that he believes Crestview was incorrectly grouped. He described Crestview as an overlier because the water rights and articles for incorporation state that Crestview holds those water rights as they are the Parent Corporation for the area in which they serve. Water rights are doled out in the issuance of shares. Shares cannot be bought, traded, or moved from parcel to parcel. This ensures that no parcel is left fallow. The customer has a certain prorated equity for what is Crestview s drawing rights; which is how the rate structure is developed (i.e. tiered structure). In this sense, Crestview is not an appropriator and is similar to a traditional agricultural operation. He informed the Board that the total service area is 932 acres. Crestview s Historical Allocation (HA) is AF (or ~1.0 AF/ac). In 2013, the reduced HA plus BA totaled AF/yr (or 0.81 AF/ac). The TEA totals AF (or 0.70 AF/ac). The appeal is to request AF/yr, or an increase of AF/yr above the TEA. The past 5-year average ( ) total water demand equal 1.06 AF/ac. He stated that this is not a water-intensive area. Crestview has pricing in place to prohibit and provide a strong financial signal to individuals that they should not be using more than what is absolutely necessary. Mr. Eranio addressed point No. 2 regarding inconsistencies with the staff s report in which they used as a basis and why Crestview should not be granted a variance. He presented that the West Las Posas Basin has 11,700 AF/yr based on historical conditions, but it is expected to decline to 11,200 AF/yr this decade due to reduced Vern Freeman diversions. He stated that it has to do with the term overdraft. He referenced the staff s report and notation regarding the wells water levels below sea level which indicates that an overdraft condition exists in the WLP Basin. He stated that this is a very different statement because it has not be vetted through a technical committee, it is not in the Agency s management plan, and the Board has not made a ruling on overdraft. He stated that if staff truly believe the basin is in overdraft that is in conflict with how the Las Posas Basin Management Plan is being developed. There is group consensus that it is not in overdraft. He requested the Agency staff s definition of overdraft. Ms. Riedel stated that per the Agency s Ordinance Code Section 1.4.1, overdraft means the condition of a groundwater basin or aquifer, where the average annual amount of water extracted exceeds the average annual supply of water to a basin or aquifer. If the water levels in the WLP Basin are declining, that means more water is being pulled out than what is recharging the basin; therefore, it is in overdraft. If in fact the water levels are rising, then the extractions are less than the recharge. It is not in overdraft when extractions are less than or equal the recharge. If water levels have been declining to extremely low levels, does the Board want to maintain low water levels as they are currently in the drought conditions, or raise the levels? Mr. Pratt added that this was not a question the staff tried to answer in the analysis. The staff expect the Las Posas Basin Plan to be fully vetted in the future. Agency staff has not taken the positon that the WLP Basin is in overdraft, but they have heard from United Water Conservation District (UWCD) Item 2 - Page 5 of 10

6 Page 6 of 10 that there is a problem with leaving the depression low in the WLP Basin and drawing in water from the Forebay. The issue has not be settled. Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin defines overdraft as the condition when the groundwater basin where the amount of water extracted exceeds the amount of groundwater recharging over a period of time. He emphasized that it is not one or two years. The longer the record, the more of a sustainable case as to what is overdraft and if a basin is in overdraft. A draft hydrograph for the Western West Las Posas Subbasin and a draft USGS Monitoring Well Cluster LP West Las Posas Subbasin was presented. Mr. Eranio also submitted a water level elevation chart for SWN 02N21W22G01S (well #4) for June 4, 1986 to June 6, A water level elevation chart was also provided for SWN 02N21W22A01S (well #5/backup) for August 29, 1993 to September 7, For discussion purposes, he provided the following rough estimates for the current natural yield of the basin. A conservative estimate using total acreage for the Western Management Sub-Area (WMSA) is 1.2 AF/yr per acre, and for the Eastern Management Sub-Area (EMSA) is 1.8 AF/yr per acre. The future estimate (assuming there is no increase in planted acreage) is 1.1 AF/yr per acre for the WMSA (within ~5 years) and 1.5 AF/yr per acre for the EMSA (after 2027). He posed the following considerations for the Las Posas Basin: (1) the Las Posas Basin is not in overdraft, (2) no finding of overdraft was used to justify Emergency Ordinance E reductions for the Las Posas Basin; (3) written, oral and professional comments from three Groundwater Hydrogeologists have stated that the Las Posas Basin should have no reductions and a separate plan, and (4) the TEA was developed without consideration for M&I efficiency below basin yield. Mr. Eranio emphasized that Crestview s current TEA is only 65% basin Natural Yield. The fiscal impact of the TEA will cost Crestview over $125,000 per year in replacement water (or a 10% increase to the rate payers). At the July 23, 2014 Board meeting, the Board approved ~1,500 AF/yr of new groundwater demand in an area everybody agrees is in overdraft. He asked the Board if it is the GMA s intent to use M&I to subsidize unsustainable irrigation demands in the LPB and Oxnard Plain? He requested the Board approve Crestview s variance request. Ms. Riedel commented on the criteria for granting or denying a variance. She posed to the Board whether granting this variance would result in no-net detriment to the aquifer systems. This would be additional pumping in the West Las Posas Basin. As the WLP Basin is drawn down, it impacts the Oxnard Plain and Oxnard Forebay, and the water that would normally go to the coastal area to recharge. Yes, water levels have been increasing since 1990, because 1990 was a major drought. Ms. Riedel stated that the water levels and hydrographs presented by Crestview represent wells located primarily on the western end of the basin. She noted that she did not see any hydrographs from the eastern side of the basin. The central and western portion receive the majority of its recharge from the Oxnard Plain and Forebay. Lastly, there are delayed effects from this drought and all of the pumping, so we may not see it immediately. For the Board s consideration, Crestview s proposed TEA reductions (or 80% of the TEA) is a 14% reduction below their AHA plus Baseline Allocation. Director Bennett questioned Mr. Eranio about his definition of overdraft, and Mr. Eranio s knowledge regarding other M&I users efficiency. Director Borchard questioned Mr. Eranio about his statement regarding new pumping, and confirmed that he was referencing the permits approved in the Oxnard Plain served by the Pumping Trough Pipeline (PTP). Item 2 - Page 6 of 10

7 Page 7 of 10 Director Kelley inquired if Crestview s service area is defined as serving deeded acres or wetted acres. Ms. Riedel stated that Crestview identifies as a domestic water purveyor, so they are serving deeded acres. Chair Maulhardt inquired about the staff s calculation of 900 acres differing from Mr. Eranio s presentation which stated 932 acres. Mr. Pratt informed the Board that the value of 900 acres was provided in Crestview s original variance request letter (Item 4A). Director Borchard commented on Mr. Eranio s presentation, the arguments, and the criteria for granting or denying a variance request. The Board members commented on the criteria and burden of proof. Director Bennett made the motion to accept the staff s recommendation to deny the appeal. Director Kelley seconded the motion, and the motion unanimously (Chair Maulhardt Yes; Director Andrews Yes; Director Bennett Yes; Director Kelley Yes; Director Borchard Yes). 5. Public Hearing to Consider Two Applications for Exceptions from Temporary Prohibition on New Extraction Facilities, Proposed Moorpark Desalter Project Test Wells Ms. Riedel introduced the background. On April 11, 2014, the Board adopted Emergency Ordinance E which imposed a temporary moratorium on the issuance of any permit for construction of a groundwater extraction facility. The emergency ordinance does allow for issuance of permits for 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-by-case basis. Two applications were received for test wells that will be used to collect hydrogeologic information during the design phase of the proposed Moorpark Desalter Project (Project). (Note: the Board was provided an update regarding the proposed Project during the July 23, 2014 Board meeting.) The proposed Project (South Las Posas Basin Pump/Treat) is identified in the Agency s 2007 Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) as one of the Agency s management strategies. The South Las Posas Basin Pump/Treat aims to help solve an ongoing problem, to prevent further water quality degradation. The proposed wells are to be located in the South Las Posas Basin (Item 5C). The applications represent a new temporary use of groundwater. The extracted groundwater is to be treated and then recharged to the groundwater basin via percolation ponds. In the area of the proposed extractions, groundwater levels have been fairly stable since 2005 with fluctuations in spring water levels in State Well Number (SWN) 02N19W05K01S fluctuating +2 feet (VCWPD, 2013 Groundwater Section Annual Report). Fluctuations in water level (per quarterly monitoring events) during 2013 at two wells in the South Las Posas Basin varied less than one foot at SWN 02N19W05K01S and four feet at SWN 02N19W08H02S. Water levels at the two well locations were over 460 feet above mean 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. Item 2 - Page 7 of 10

8 Page 8 of 10 The purpose of the wells is to obtain hydrogeologic data, and no surface diversion is proposed. Extracted groundwater is to be: discharged to the local sewer main; processed at the treatment plant; and then discharged to existing percolation ponds, thus recharging the groundwater supply. 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: the proposed use does not result in the material degradation of water quality of any type, or recharge to any aquifer within the Agency is not materially diminished. Ms. Riedel informed the Board that the proposed use should have negligible impact on water quality and aquifer recharge. The estimated total annual pumping of 40 AF is approximately 2% of the five year average of reported groundwater extractions from the South Las Posas Basin. In granting approval to projects, the Board may impose any conditions as may be appropriate. Proposed permit conditions are listed on pages 3 and 4 of the staff report. Agency staff recommends that: exceptions to the Emergency Ordinance E Article 4 drilling moratorium be granted with the permit conditions, and the Agency should not levy a groundwater extraction charge, since the pumped groundwater will be piped directly to the wastewater treatment plant and discharged to the associated percolation basins. The acre-feet extracted should not be counted against the Ventura County Waterworks District No.1 pumping allocation. Chair Maulhardt opened the Public Hearing at 3:23 p.m. Chair Maulhardt closed the Public Hearing at 3:24 p.m. Director Borchard inquired if the test wells will be destroyed. Ms. Riedel confirmed that the test wells will be destroyed pursuant to Ventura County Watershed Protection District s permit four (4) years after construction. Director Andrews made the motion to approve the wells permits with the conditions recommended by staff. Director Kelley seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously (Chair Maulhardt Yes; Director Andrews Yes; Director Bennett Yes; Director Kelley Yes; Director Borchard Yes). 6. Adjusting Irrigation Allowance Index to Account for Agricultural Lands Taken Out of Production or Not Irrigated After August 1, 2014 Mr. Viergutz introduced the item and background. This item stems from the efforts of Emergency Ordinance E which seeks a cumulative 20% reduction in agricultural extractions starting August 1, The Agency may use up to three reductions in the Irrigation Allowances. The first reduction period is in effect now. The second and third reductions are scheduled to follow in February and August Growers are required by the Ordinance Code to meet an Irrigation Allowance Index (IAI) of 1.0 or less. An IAI greater than 1.0 is assessed a surcharged (IIIIII = WWWWWWWWWW AAAAAAAAAAAAAA TTTTTTTTTT IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA). During the development of Emergency Ordinance E, calendar year 2013 data indicated an agencywide average IAI of 0.63, or on average, growers were meeting the IAI, using only 63% of the Irrigation Allowance. Reducing the IA s by 25% was understood to affect growers differently. Some growers would meet the first reduction, and others may not. The non-reduced IA for summer berries and sod were reported by some to be close to what is actually required. But, farming with an IA lower than what the crop required while avoiding a surcharge had not been contemplated. The Board reiterated Item 2 - Page 8 of 10

9 Page 9 of 10 that the Agency s intent is to cause water conservation, not generate surcharges or eliminate farming; therefore, a solution to the math problem was needed. A provision was added to Emergency Ordinance E to allow a higher IA for crops, providing that some previously irrigated land would go unirrigated. However, the instructions and calculation methods had not been developed. Agency staff has worked closely with stakeholders (i.e. the Growers Group) to develop the proposed solution. The additional IA will be available to growers who grew irrigated crops in the 12 months prior to enactment of Emergency Ordinance E, but are not growing irrigated crops now. It requires the land be unirrigated for at least 90 days, which would help avoid the scenario when land is normally unirrigated as part of the business practices. This should preclude a grower requesting an irrigation allowance for land that is normally fallowed. The proposed method contains several components. An application form guides the applicant via a series of questions. It requires the applicant to provide documentation such as maps, calculations, and a signature. Agency staff will review and approve applications. The proposed method allows for two general scenarios: (1) a prospective scenario; a grower determines at the beginning of the year the IA is not sufficient, so some land will not be irrigated during the year to save water; and (2) a reactive scenario; a grower determines later in the year that the Irrigation Allowance is not sufficient, so some land will be taken out of production to save water. For example, an avocado grower (with 100 acres) has an irrigation allowance of 3.1 AF/acre or 310 AF per year. The grower determines that 330 AF per year will be required. The grower has two options: (1) pay the surcharge on 20 AF, or (2) cease irrigating some land. The Prospective Scenario example: the method allows for a higher IA per irrigated acre, but total IA is no greater than what is otherwise allowed. It requires that 6.1 acres go unirrigated so that 20 AF is not applied and no surcharge is assessed. The Reactive Scenario example: the method allows for a higher IA per irrigated acre, but total IA is no greater than what is otherwise allowed. It requires that 57.1 acres go unirrigated, so that 50 AF is not applied and no surcharge assessed. Other considerations for operators that can use this approach, the Agency will recalculate the applicant s IAI to remove the surcharge. Other scenarios may arise which may require solutions (i.e. extended harvest in lieu of replanting). For a number of reasons, this process will be separate from the IAI filings. Some programming changes will be necessary, but they will be kept to a minimum. Reprogramming the software application for this particular issue may or may not be necessary. If the volume of applications are small, it s better for the first year at least, to handle the applications manually. Software changes are complicated; thus, other tools will be prepared instead as Agency staff do not yet know how long this program will be in place. Staff recommended the Board approve the proposed calculation approach and application form. Director Kelley requested clarification on the activities listed for Question No. 4 (Item 6A). Mr. Edgar Terry explained that their intention on the vegetable side was, if they tear out a strawberry crop or remove the plastic, drip tape, disk it down and turn it over. This starts the clock for fallowing. However, through that 90-day period, to remain fallow, they would still have the ability to disk the weeds down because that is part of most of their agreements with their landlords. Chair Maulhardt inquired about when the clock stops in relation to prepping the land. He inquired if the Board could approve the form with additional adjustments based on the issues discussed. Item 2 - Page 9 of 10

10 Page 10 of 10 Mr. Sam McIntyre, Somis Pacific, inquired about the allowance for stomping avocado trees that are still irrigated. The Board stated that he could not use the Fallow Land Application, but he could use the allowance on the other acres. Director Borchard made the motion to approve the approach and application form with the following changes: (1) define the time clock on when fallowing begins and ends (particularly in regards to preparation and post production), and (2) define the issues in Question No. 4 by clarifying the activities that do not require the application of water. Director Kelley seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously (Chair Maulhardt Yes; Director Andrews Yes; Director Bennett Absent; Director Kelley Yes; Director Borchard Yes). EXECUTIVE OFFICER S REPORT: 7. Administrative Reports Mr. Hubner reported to the Board that the Las Posas Users Group (LPUG) meeting scheduled for at 8:30 a.m. did not occur. Director Andrews made the motion to receive and file the reports. Director Kelley seconded the motion, and the motion unanimously. 8. Adjourn Board Meeting Chair Maulhardt adjourned the meeting at 3:53 p.m. Submitted by: Jessica Kam Clerk of the Board Item 2 - Page 10 of 10