FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY A STATE OF CALIFORNIA WATER AG.ENCY

Transcription

1 FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY A STATE OF CALIFORNIA WATER AG.ENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS Lynn E. Maulhardt, Chair, Director, United Water ConservatiiJn District Charlotte Craven, Vice Chair, Councilperson, City of Camarillo David Borchard, Farmer, Agricultural Representative Steve Bennett, Supervisor, County of Ventura Eugene F. West, Director, Camrosa Water District 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 1:31 p.m. 8. Pledge of Allegiance Director Michael Kelley led the Pledge of Allegiance. C. Roll Call Chair Lynn Maulhardt Director Charlotte Craven Director Steve Bennett (Arrived at 1 :39 p.m.) Director Michael Kelley Director David Borchard Alternate Directors Robert Eranio, Neal Andrews, and Andrew Waters (noted at 1 :37 p.m.) were in the audience. Agency Staff Alberto Boada, Agency Counsel Tully Clifford, WPD, Director Gerhardt Hubner, Deputy Director Rick Viergutz, Groundwater Manager Kathleen Riedel, Groundwater Specialist Jessica Kam, Clerk of the Board D. Agenda Review Mr. Tully Clifford, Watershed Protection District, Director, reminded the Board that Item No. 6 was pulled from the agenda. 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA (805) FAX: (805) Website: Item 2 - Page 1 of 11

2 Page 2 of 11 E. Public Comments No comments were made by the public. F. Board Member Comments Director Charlotte Craven announced that she will not be at the February 25, 2015 Board meeting. She confirmed Alternate Director Neal Andrews will attend the meeting. CONSENT ITEMS: 1. Approval of Minutes Director David Borchard noted a typo on page seven (7) paragraph eight (8); he recommended "service water" be changed to "surface water." Director Craven made the motion to approve the minutes with the proposed change. Director Borchard seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 2. United Water Conservation District South Oxnard Plain Brackish Water Treatment Feasibility Study Presentation Mr. Gerhardt Hubner, Deputy Director, introduced the speaker, Mr. Tony Morgan, United Water Conservation District (UWCD), Deputy General Manager for Groundwater and Water Resources. Mr. Morgan provided the presentation and status report on UWCD's proposed South Oxnard Plain Brackish Water Treatment Facility and Feasibility Study completed to date. Mr. Morgan informed the Board that the discussion topics would include: the study's background (i.e. "why consider this project?"); water quality (spatial and temporal variability); process selection and design; cost and conclusions. The purpose of this project is to explore the idea of a brackish water treatment facility as a new source and change the dogma of how seawater intrusion is managed. He stated that this study looks at the other side by viewing the intruded aquifers as an asset, and asking "how can we take advantage of the situation and turn it into an asset?" The concept is to create a brackish water extraction well field near the coast where the intruded aquifers are located. This facility would extract and treat the water before delivering it to the Pumping Trough Pipeline (PTP) and Pleasant Valley (PV) customers. It would help create a barrier to further seawater intrusion. In addition, brine disposal is available with the Salinity Management Pipeline (SMP). The water can be treated for agricultural use, which is simpler than treating it for potable use. It is a flexible operation, so the facility can be turned off at any moment for any length of time. He reviewed the current state of seawater intrusion and noted that when groundwater levels rise, the impaired water is swept down the coastline instead of retreating offshore. In 2010, UWCD performed a surface geophysical study to try to map out in more detail where the saline water is located. He provided a graphic for the lower part of the Upper Aquifer System (UAS) (-Mugu aquifer). He noted that the leading edge of the seawater intrusion is not a front or wave; it has a ragged front edge, which makes it a little more difficult when trying to design a remediation system or mitigation system with an Egyptian barrier well field for example. After reviewing the data, UWCD staff realized that not only Item 2 - Page 2of11

3 Page 3of11 does it vary by depth, but it varies by place and time. He reviewed a graphic for a single well's chloride levels. UWCD staff think that the proposed Brackish Water Treatment Plant offers a scenario to get around some of the complexity. UWCD commissioned Carollo Engineers to prepare a feasibility study. The major questions included: (1) is the desalter technically feasible; and (2) is the desalter a long-term water supply option? The typical parameters of success included reviewing: available raw water; identifying a viable waste brine disposal option; and who are the "treated water" customers. When treatment facilities are designed the rule is to identify starting water quality with and desired end water quality, and then the treatment process can be identified. They began by providing the water quality data from UWCD's monitoring wells to the consultants. The consultants came up with a composite raw water quality, and then calculated a series of buffers by increasing the numbers by 50%. This created a composite worst case scenario of the raw water. The guise is to design the treatment facility for a TDS ranging from -6,000 to -10, 000 milligrams per liter, or the target operational scheme for the plant. The product water, or water quality required by local agricultural users, would be: chloride is < 50 mg/l; sodium is < 50 mg/l; sulfate is < 150 mg/l; bicarbonate is < 150 mg/l; boron is < 0.8 mg/l; TDS < 600 mg/l; and the ph is> 6.5 and< 7.0 mg/l. Three desalting technologies were analyzed. They determined: (1) that distillation (a thermal process) is not practical for brackish groundwater; (2) electrodialysis reversal (EDR) (an electrically driven membrane process) is not competitive with reverse osmosis above 4,000 mg/l TDS); thus (3) reverse osmosis (RO) nanofiltration (NF) (a physical membrane process) would be the most appropriate treatment process for the South Oxnard Plain desalter facility. The RO treatment process is grouped into three major elements (RO pre-treatment; RO system; and RO post-treatment), and the major variables have been taken into consideration. They asked the engineers to do the treatment design for two different capacities: (1) a 10,000 AFY facility; and (2) a 20,000 AFY facility. He provided visuals of the facility and where the proposed desalter and wells might be located. He noted that for the feasibility study they had to give the engineers a potential location. Note: Locations have not been selected; locations discussed today were chosen for the purpose of conducting the feasibility study. An advantage to this system would be that not only is it delivering water to satisfy some active irrigation demands, if it can tie into those systems and the wells are appropriate, those wells could be used as injection points during periods of low demand (i.e. at night). He discussed the proposed desalter and well locations, and how the location could intercept the seawater intrusion occurring from both directions. He compared the costs for a 10,000 AFY facility and 20,000 AFY facility. The unit water cost is consistent with other projects with similar conditions. Des alter Plant Design 10,000 AFY 20,000 AFY Capacity, AFY Capital Costs, $ $85,137,000 $147,966,000 Operating Costs, $/AF $653-$821 $601-$733 Annual O&M with Capital $1,111-$1,278 $998-$1 I 130 Recovery, $/AF Item 2 - Page 3of11

4 Page 4of11 The cons associated with the project include: (1) inducing seawater towards well field (long-term); (2) future blending may be requested (keep TDS in specific range); and (3) may impact water levels and water quality for some UAS wells near the well field. The pros associated with the project include: (1) water supply (reliable and sustainable); (2) water quality (aquifer rehabilitation and extraction barrier); (3) groundwater management (in lieu recharge to PTP and PV customers and direct recharge); and (4) flexible operations. The next steps are as follows: (1) additional water quality analyses in potential area of well field (in progress); (2) grant research (in progress); (3) stakeholder outreach (in progress); (4) real estate for treatment plant and well field; (5) exploratory test holes with water quality sampling and analyses; (6) initiate Southern California Edison Load Study once a location is determined; and (7) start the CEQA process (one speed bump this project will encounter is greenhouse gases because RO membranes are power intensive operations). One of the ideas being discussed is does this project benefit from having solar power included as a component. The Agency's next steps include discussing this project relative to the Groundwater Sustainability Agency's Groundwater Management Plan (i.e. the project benefits, effort, offsetting existing demand, etc.). How will the new water be used as we work toward a sustainable pattern? Director Bennett inquired about the saltwater intrusion being swept down the coast and the ability for the project to impair wells further inland, or geographically increase, during periods when there is not enough groundwater to provide a head pressure. Chair Maulhardt commented on three possibilities: (1) a full aquifer that provides head pressure and the brackish water remains static (this is a function of the rain and UWCD's ability to divert water); (2) create an injection barrier; or (3) create a controlled pumping depression in that area which causes the water to not have the ability to go inland. Director Bennett stated that he would like to learn more about how it could affect the geographic expansion of saltwater intrusion. Chair Maulhardt stated that this project will not work unless whatever water produced is offset by reduced pumping. Discussions about subsidizing may also need to occur. Mr. Steve Nash, City of Oxnard resident, supported building the facility next to the AWPF; he encouraged UWCD to begin outreach, and implement an Ormond Beach Wetlands Plan. He advocated for UWCD to install solar panels for this project. Director Craven made the motion to receive and file the report. Director Kelley seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously. ACTION ITEMS: 3. List of Possible Solutions with Advantages and Disadvantages Identified for the Issues/Problems for Developing Measures to Assure Agency Long-Term Sustainable Groundwater Management Mr. Hubner introduced the item and background. Director Borchard supported releasing the list for a three-week public review and input period. Item 2 - Page 4of11

5 Page 5of11 Chair Maulhardt inquired if it was more important to the members to receive raw information with no analysis at the February meeting or if it would be better to give the staff time to analyze and bring their report to the Board at the March meeting. Chair Maulhardt requested a motion with the stipulation that provides time for the staff to review the stakeholders' feedback. Director Craven made the motion to approve Chair Maulhardt's recommendation to release the list for a three-week public review and agendize the staff's analysis for the March 25, 2015 Board meeting. Director Borchard seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously (Chair Maulhardt- Yes; Director Craven - Yes; Director Bennett- Yes; Director Kelley- Yes; Director Borchard - Yes). 4. Ventura Water/City of San Buenaventura Appeal of Executive Officer's Decision to Deny Request for Variance from the Requirement to Reduce Extractions Under Emergency Ordinance E The following persons were sworn in under oath: Ms. Kathleen Riedel, Agency Groundwater Specialist; Ms. Shana Epstein, Ventura Water's General Manager; and Ms. Susan Rungren, Ventura Water's Principal Engineer. Ms. Riedel introduced the item's background and key issues. The City of San Buenaventura (Ventura) has five wells associated with their account (two active, two inactive, and one destroyed). The wells are located near the northern border of the Oxnard Plain Basin, north of the Santa Clara River, approximately one mile west of the Oxnard Forebay Basin, and approximately 3.2 miles east of the coast. The active wells extract groundwater from the Lower Aquifer System (LAS). Areas shaded in yellow, orange and red on the Fall 2013 LAS Potentiometric Surface Map represent areas where the LAS water levels were below sea level, and areas shaded in green and blue represent areas where the LAS water levels were above sea level. The water level in fall 2013 near Ventura's wells was -12 to -19 feet below sea level. In accordance with Ordinance E, Ventura's Temporary Extraction Allocation (TEA) was calculated based on an average of reported extractions during the period of 2003 to Ventura has exceeded its Adjusted Historical Allocation (AHA) for the last nine reporting years (2005 to 2013). Upon reviewing Ventura's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, the Agency commented to Ventura that credits do not represent banked or stored water. Conservation "credits are intended to be used infrequently to offset extraction surcharges, but not as a strategy for new development or long-term drought relief." Ventura was advised that credits are "subject to revision or expiration at any time by the Agency's Board." The Agency also expressed concern that Ventura's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (June 2011 version) did "not have any long-term vision in addressing poor groundwater quality, for the City's eastern side." Ventura claimed that if allocations are reduced below the AHA then it is "an undue hardship." Ventura's AHA was 4, acre-feet per year (AFY). Ventura's TEA for 2014 is 4, AF, which is more than its current AHA. Their allocation for 2015 is 3, AF, which will be 3% ( AFY) below its pre-emergency Ordinance E AHA. For 2016, when the full 20% reduction to the TEA is scheduled to go into effect, Ventura's allocation will be 3, AFY. Staff do not feel that this is "an undue hardship." In the original variance request, Ventura requested 2,000 AFY additional allocation beyond the TEA of 4, AFY. In Ventura's appeal letter, they requested the TEA be set at 4, AFY, with now further reductions in allocations (similar to Crestview Mutual Water Company's variance request). In Ventura's second appeal letter, they changed their request to 1,000 AFY additional allocation beyond the TEA of 4, AFY. Item 2 - Page 5of11

6 Page 6 of 11 If Ventura receives their TEA with 2,000 AFY, their new TEA would be 6, AFY. This TEA is greater than any total annual extraction reported by Ventura. The largest volume reported was 6, AFY in Ventura believes that "there are inconsistencies in evaluating the variances" and in particular an inconsistency in the determination of "what is an appropriate demand" on the aquifers. The example cited was a single-family residence granted an allocation of 2 AFY by the Board on June 25, 2014 (Item 5) to Abby Rafieha for a new well on a acre undeveloped parcel in the Expansion Area. Ventura claimed that granting this allocation was inconsistent and indicative of not being equitable because its current allocation for residential customers is 0.41 AFY. Ventura did not provide information regarding the number of residential customers that it serves with similar parcel sizes, and the volume of water provided for cases where Ventura is the sole source of water. Based upon the information provided, the example cited does not show an inconsistency in evaluation of variances nor "what is an appropriate demand" on the aquifers. Ventura also asserted that "there are inconsistencies in evaluating the variances" and in particular an inconsistency in "applying what is detrimental" to the aquifers. As an example of an inconsistency in the no net detriment determination, Ventura cited the Board granting exceptions to the prohibition on new extraction facilities for UAS agricultural wells. The "inconsistency cited was for exceptions granted for new extraction facilities to replace either: water provided by UWCD's Pumping Trough Pipeline (PTP) System; or active, inactive or destroyed wells (Board Meeting on July 23, 2014, Item 10). The agricultural land was irrigated during the Agency's Historical Allocation base period ( ). Those customers that were provided water via UWCD's PTP chose to participate in the Agency's management strategy of receiving blended water so as to protect the UAS by limiting extractions. Ventura cited that the proposed extraction of 1,425.4 AFY represent an increase in extractions; however, it should be noted that this is the proposed extraction, it does not deduct groundwater that the operators had been pumping or was delivered. The actual increase will be smaller. Ventura failed to mention (in their letter dated August 21, 2014) the 1, AFY of Historical Allocation associated with the parcels to be irrigated. Ventura claimed there are inconsistencies in the determinations made by the Board regarding net detriment for exceptions to Article 4 (Prohibition on New Extraction Facilities) of Emergency Ordinance E versus the Executive Officer's findings of no net detriment to the aquifer systems for variances to Article 2 (Reductions of Groundwater Extractions) of Emergency Ordinance E. These determinations are different as Article 4 pertains to a moratorium on new wells (and expanded use). The PTP is not a new use, but there may be an increase in groundwater extractions associated with those wells from that which was delivered during the past five years. She reviewed Emergency Ordinance E's Article 4 and Article 2. Ventura is asking for a variance to have: (1) an allocation that exceeds all annual extractions ever reported by Ventura (6, AFY); or (2) an annual allocation (5, AFY) that exceeds all but two years of reported annual extractions (1985 and 1989); or (3) their AHA with no further reductions. In evaluating Ventura's requests, Ms. Riedel looked at all extractions within a one-mile radius of Ventura's active wells, within the Agency's boundaries, for the year 2012 and In 2012, 6,535 AF was extracted; Ventura was responsible for extracting 86% of that volume. In 2013, the total extraction from all wells within the area was 6,513 AF; Ventura's extraction was 84%. A 2,000 AF increase would represent a 30% volume increase, and a 1,000 AF increase would represent a 15% increase. Ms. Riedel noted the reductions in the potentiometric surface map and stated that there is a potential that the hydraulic head could be higher here (i.e. the location of Ventura's wells), and the Item 2 - Page 6of11

7 Page 7of11 hydraulic gradient might be going towards the Forebay, and possibly this area in drought conditions could be recharging the Forebay. Ms. Riedel reviewed the fall 2014 water levels. Water levels declined by approximately fourteen (-14) feet to an elevation of approximately thirty-four (-34) feet below sea level between fall 2013 and September Ms. Riedel stated that with the drop in water levels and the water levels being below sea level, there is a potential for saltwater intrusion; thus, degradation of water quality could occur from additional pumping in this area. Additionally, as far as recharge to the Forebay (or recharge area) water from this area could possibly recharge the recharge area under these current drought conditions. Per paragraph H of Article 2, the Executive Officer may grant or deny a variance based upon the owner or operator showing: "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 that strict application 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 that the granting of such variance will result in no net detriment to the aquifer systems." Ms. Riedel concluded that Ventura has not demonstrated that these conditions have been met. Agency staff recommended the Board deny Ventura's appeal, and that Ventura's TEA remain at 4, AFY and be reduced per the scheduled mandated reductions in accordance with Emergency Ordinance E. Ms. Epstein informed the Board that Ventura Water serves a population of 113,000 people. Her presentation discussed how Ventura Water operates their water supplies, how it makes Ventura different from some of the other municipalities in this area, and how Ventura views the variances. She reviewed Ventura's HA (5472 AFY) and the Municipal and Industrial (M&I) reductions from previous years (1992 = 5198 AFY; 1995 = 4925 AFY; 2000 = 4651 AFY; 2009 = 4378 AFY; and 2010 = 4104 AFY (a 25% reduction)). She reviewed Ventura's TEA and the 20% reduction that will occur on January 1, 2016 at 3,862 AFY. When compared to Ventura's original HA, Emergency Ordinance E is asking Ventura for a 29% reduction, and there is not a lot of hope of when Emergency Ordinance E will end. Up to 2005, when the river was flowing well, Ventura was accruing credits since they were not utilizing their full allocation (Ventura's credits totaled 25,595 AF). She discussed the well exemptions approved by the Agency's Board. She stated that Ventura's request for a variance does not mean that Ventura is not committed to conservation. The community has demonstrated that they are conserving. As of December 2014, they saw a 29.95% decrease in water production. Ventura has a special task force dedicated to the drought. In 2013, Ventura compiled an Annual Comprehensive Water Resources Report (supply/demand). It not only looked at supplies, but how Ventura defines the demand when development is being considered, etc. It allows Ventura to identify how much water has been allocated to projects that have been approved and how it is measured. When the demand factors were identified, Ventura reviewed its past history and what the customers are using, and took into account new building codes that use less water. She provided the breakdown of water demand per dwelling unit (du) based on different densities. For example, a single-family home on an acre is allocated 0.41 AF, or 370 gallons per day (gpd) per dwelling unit. She requested that the Agency keep Ventura's well numbers private in the future as they believe displaying the well number with the location is against the Bioterrorism Act. Primary sources of water Item 2 - Page 7of11

8 Page 8of11 for Ventura include: water from the Casitas Municipal Water District to serve the demand in that area; the Ventura River; the groundwater basins (mostly in the UWCD area) and Santa Paula Mound Basin; and reclaimed water. Potential supply sources include: (1) State Water Project (10,000 AF entitlement to State Water, but no formal connection); (2) recycled water; (3) desalination; (4) significant water conservation measures/water efficiency plan; and (5) Regional Integrated Water Resource Management. Ventura provided the following response to the three findings. In response to Finding No. 1 (Special circumstances or exceptional characteristics of the water operator): Ventura has a service population of over 113,500 people (Oxnard= 203,645, Port Hueneme= 21,555 both have access to State Water); Ventura has no connection to State Water Supply; decreasing supplies: Ventura River, Mound Basin, Santa Paula Basin, Casitas (exceeding in district demand for CY 2014); Water quality issues: need higher quality Oxnard Plain water to blend with lower quality water from other sources. If Ventura loses the Oxnard Plain, they could lose other supply sources due to not meeting drinking water standards. In response to Finding No. 2 (Reductions will result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships): low supply projections for all sources for Fiscal Year ; management strategy has always been to rely on groundwater when Ventura River's supply is low. (Conjunctive use and efficient operational practices allowed for large supply of conservation credits that are no longer available. Without conservation credits major difficulties in meeting demand for the City.); and Ventura currently relying heavily on groundwater (November 2014 supply sources: Ventura River= 10%, Casitas = 26%, Groundwater= 64%; 40% of groundwater sourced from Golf Course Wells in November (26% of total supply)). In response to Finding No. 3 (Variance granted will result in no net detriment to the aquifer systems): Ventura extracts from northwest portion of the Oxnard Plain Basin, which has been shown to be in better condition than other areas in the Oxnard Plain. In the Agency's Well Ordinance, "no net detriment" is not clearly defined (the Irrigation Allowance Index appears to cause net detriment with increased pumping by changing from two crops/year to three crops/year and by changing to more water intensive crops (citrus to berries). Finally, Ventura conserved 25,595 AF, requesting additional 1,000 AFY; therefore will cause no net detriment due to water balance based on the City's conservation. She requested the Board consider the Water Code which provides "that the use of water for municipal/domestic purposes is the highest use of water; that every human being has the right to safe, clean affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes; and that the rights of a municipality to acquire and hold rights to the use of water are to be protected to the fullest extent necessary for existing and future uses." Ms. Epstein also noted that Ventura does not want their allocation, during this emergency, to be given away to others, thus putting the city at a detriment. For final consideration, she stated that Ventura has reasonably relied on the ability to utilize a small portion of its conservation credits, and Ventura is not requesting a large or even a moderate redemption of those credits. Ms. Epstein concluded with Ventura's variance request of 5, 104 AFY, which would be their AHA of 4, 104 AFY (25% reduction from historical) + 1, 000 AFY (or 1, 000 AFY from 25, 595 AF of conservation credits), since their customers are conserving and they are about to bring other wells online. Chair Maulhardt, Director Kelley, and Ms. Epstein discussed the Abby Rafieha allocation. Ms. Epstein noted that the demand factor calculations have 20% fudge factor for storage, additional needs, plus Item 2 - Page 8of11

9 Page 9of11 additional 6% for unaccounted water; thus a total of 26% more than what the actual customers are using. Mr. Alberto Boada, Agency Counsel, provided the following guidance; this appeal is made pursuant to Chapter 6 of the Ordinance Code which requires the Board to act equitably on the appeal; to decide the issue based on what is just, right, or fair under all the circumstances, and those circumstances may include any factor the Board considers relevant to the issue. As set forth in both presentations, there are two grounds being presented for the appeal as set forth in Emergency Ordinance E; which are: the strict application of the pumping reductions would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships; or that granting of such variance will result in no net detriment to the aquifer systems. A finding of either of those grounds will be sufficient to support the appeal. Director Craven commented on the potential influx of M&I variance requests if the appeal was approved. Director Borchard commented on Board's previous decision to approve well permits for those on the PTP System. He stated that he could not make the finding for undue hardship, because if the drought continues these kinds of cutbacks will be made by M&I in the vicinity. Director Kelley stated that the exceptions made for the AG operators were made because their supply was going to be taken away from them, which is different than supply being reduced. Chair Maulhardt reviewed the text in Emergency Ordinance E. He stated that he believes the item, pertaining to "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," does not apply, because cities need to be compared to other cities, and he does not find the special circumstance or exceptional characteristics applicable. Item 2 states, "the strict application of the direction as they apply to the owner/operator result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose of the emergency ordinance," but the general purpose of the emergency ordinance is to reduce pumping. He stated that he does not find the application of the reductions results in a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardships. Regarding Item 3, "that the granting of such variance results in no net detriment to the aquifer," the numbers show the flow of the water. He stated that he does not believe the City of Ventura has met the criteria for exemption, so he would not support granting a waiver. Director Craven made the motion to deny the appeal. Director Kelley seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously (Chair Maulhardt - Yes; Director Craven - Yes; Director Bennett - Yes; Director Kelley- Yes; Director Borchard - Yes). 5. Application for Permit to Construct and Exception from Temporary Prohibition on, New Well for Property Located at 2020 East Wooley Road, Oxnard; Ramon D. and Marcia C. Hernandez, Owners; Sundance Berry Farms, LLC, Operator Ms. Riedel introduced the item and informed the Board that the property had been receiving water from UWCD's PTP. The water was a blend of surface and groundwater, and they have an onsite domestic well. She reviewed the background for Emergency Ordinance E. She stated that this is not a new proposed use of water. The land has been irrigated since The proposed well is to be located in the central portion of the Oxnard Plain Basin. She provided aerial photographs from 1945, 1984, 1989, and She noted that it was irrigated during the Historical Allocation period. Item 2 - Page 9of11

10 Page 10of11 The Fall 2013 UAS Potentiometric Surface Map showed that the water levels ranged from about +4 feet above to -15 feet below sea level. The Fall 2013 LAS Potentiometric Surface Map showed that water levels ranged from -50 to -120 feet below sea level. The parcel is right on the line, approximately 60 feet 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 The staff report provides an analysis to Section She reviewed Table 1 provided in the staff report. 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. The proposed site is within the central portion of the Oxnard Plain Basin and the impact should be negligible on recharge to the aquifer systems. In granting approval to projects, the Board may impose any conditions as may be appropriate. Proposed permit conditions are listed on page 4 of the staff report. She concluded that the parcel was irrigated during the Agency's HA base period. Staff recommended that an exception to the Emergency Ordinance E Article 4 drilling moratorium be granted with the permit conditions. Director Borchard commented on the owner/operators' reductions from -80 AF to -50 AF during exceptional drought years. The Public Hearing was opened at 3:31 p.m. Mr. Robert Eranio, Crestview Mutual Water Company, commented on the no net detriment argument. He inquired why the Board is considering this well application when the PTP System is still online. Mr. Dave Murray, Sundance Berry Farms, the tenant for this property, made the following clarifying points: (1) the existing well on the property currently produces five gallons per minute, and (2) if the Boards deems necessary, they are willing to destroy the well to make the new well the sole existing source of water. Chair Maulhardt highlighted that one of the conditions for this well, and the previously approved well applications, is that the operator must stop pumping their well and let it sit idle when the PTP System is running. Ms. Riedel addressed Mr. Eranio's comment regarding no net detriment. She stated that per Section , lowering the water table within the Oxnard Plain reduces the water that is pushing off saltwater intrusion, and therefore, by reducing the water even by 6.41 AFY, would in cumulative, cause water quality degradation along the coast line, so we cannot say that water quality would not deteriorate. However, because recharge to any aquifer within the Agency is not materially diminished, the recharge zone is in the Forebay, and therefore, this being in the central portion of the Oxnard Plain it is not reducing recharge in the main recharge area, so the impact to recharge is negligible. Director Borchard commented on the argument he raised when the Board heard the initial seven well applications. The concept that he raised was that these were lands that were being served by groundwater initially. They went off groundwater to receive PTP water to benefit the basin in that area. Item 2 - Page 10of11

11 Page 11 of 11 PTP water became unavailable so those property owners at that point had no source of water, yet they had historical source. This wasn't new use; it was use coming from a different place; it wasn't reduced use; it was the prospect of having zero water. The Board discussed: (1) the potential criteria for the property owner to destroy/abandon the existing domestic well; and (2) the potential water source prior to the PTP. The Public Hearing was closed at 3:44 p.m. Director Borchard made the motion to approve the application with the permit conditions listed in the staff report. Director Kelley seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously (Chair Maulhardt - Yes; Director Craven - Yes; Director Bennett - Yes; Director Kelley - Yes; Director Borchard - Yes). EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT: 7. Administrative Reports Director Kelley made the motion to receive and file the reports. Director Craven seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously. Director Kelley announced that Mr. Eugene (Gene) West has been appointed as the new Director to represent the mutual water companies and small water districts. Mr. West will be appointed as Director at the February Board meeting, and Alternate Director Andrew Waters was re-elected for another term. 8. Adjourn Board Meeting Chair Maulhardt adjourned the meeting at 3:48 p.m. Submitted by: Item 2 - Page 11of11