Implementing the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: Local Governance Approaches and Considerations

Transcription

1 Implementing the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: Local Governance Approaches and Considerations Workshop Objectives HOSTED BY STANISLAUS COUNTY & TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT February 5, :30 am 3:00 pm Modesto, CA Stanislaus County Harvest Hall 3800 Cornucopia Way Modesto, CA Learn about the governance requirements enacted through the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Explore common considerations and approaches to shaping a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA). Through discussion of local case studies, learn how governance considerations are being applied to local groundwater basins. Identify common themes and takeaways from local case studies. Agenda Time Topic Presenter(s) 9:30 a.m. 10:00 Check-in and Refreshments 10:00 10:15 Welcome & Introductions Supervisor Vito Chiesa, Stanislaus County 10:15 11:00 Overview of SGMA and Local Governance Considerations Kate Williams, California Water Foundation 11:00 11:35 Case Study: Stanislaus County Walt Ward, Stanislaus County 11:35 12:10 p.m. Case Study: Turlock Subbasin Herb Smart, Turlock Irrigation District 12:10 12:45 Case Study: Modesto Subbasin John Davids, Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin Association 12:45 1:30 Lunch 1:30 2:05 Case Study: Paso Robles Subbasin Mark Hutchinson, San Luis Obispo County 2:05 2:50 Practical Applications of Workshop Perspectives and Insights Mike Harty, Kearns & West Workshop Participants 2:50 3:00 Wrap-up and Evaluation Mike Harty, Kearns & West Sponsored by the Association of California Water Agencies, California State Association of Counties, Rural County Representatives of California, and California Water Foundation (an initiative of Resources Legacy Fund).

2 February 5, 2015 Modesto, California

3 Coordinated-Synergistic Management Walt Ward Stanislaus County February 5,

4 Groundwater Sustainability Agency Governance The enabling legislation is very broad in providing local agencies discretion in how the GSA is to be governed and what powers it is to have. There may be overlapping jurisdictions and different approaches to groundwater management. If groundwater management is not developed appropriately, the presence of multiple jurisdictions can lead to complicated and potentially conflicting groundwater management strategies within a basin. In California, surface water and groundwater rights have historically been considered separate and distinct. This has had a strong influence on how the resources are governed and managed at the local level. We need to build on the synergies that exist between these two resources. The SGMA does not establish groundwater rights or define a governance structure to ensure compliance. By nullifying existing groundwater management plans, which are to be superseded by the new GSA s, the SGMA essentially requires coordination amongst all basin management agencies and mutual agreement on a focused management strategy. 3

5 Potential Roles Provide leadership to focus cooperative efforts for broad regional planning and implementation efforts such as: Water import/export project implementation Regional or interregional groundwater banking Water Rights Protection Internal water transfers Regional water recycling Regional water quality management Regional water conservation programs Regional storm water management 4

6 Potential Roles Provide leadership to focus cooperative efforts for broad regional planning and implementation efforts such as: Regional data and information management Periodic update of objectives, priorities, and performance measures Update and expand membership, including members outside of the County Gather, compile and manage data and information Ability to execute and manage contracts Development of a stable funding source for ongoing GSA efforts Ability to finance project implementation Process facilitation 5

7 6

8 7

9 8

10 9

11 10

12 11

13 GSA Structures to Consider Ad-hoc Special Committee Memorandum of Understanding Contractual Agreements Joint Powers Authority Chartered Organization The role of LAFCO 12

14 13

15 14

16 Water Summit Breakout Questions 1. What are the desired outcomes of forming and administering a GSA? What does your interest group need? What else do you want out of the process? What are the opportunities and benefits? 2. What do you foresee as the hurdles to implementation? What action(s) need to be taken to address these matters? 3. What more do you need to know? What additional information is important to you? 4. What are the next steps? What else needs to be done to move the discussion forward? 15

17 Breakout Question Responses 1. What are the desired outcomes of forming and administering a GSA? Local Control Coordinated data management Balance and transparency 2. What do you foresee as the hurdles to implementation? Self-Interests Data Security/Sharing/Reliability 3. What more do you need to know? Explore other examples; what are others doing? Guidelines from DWR 4. What are the next steps? Public Education/Outreach Governance structure alternatives benefits & risks Explore costs estimates and funding sources 16

18 17

19 The Turlock Subbasin in post-sgma California Groundwater Governance Considerations and Conversations Herb Smart Water Resources Analyst Turlock Irrigation District

20 We are here Turlock Subbasin 347,000 acres 15 local agencies Two counties

21 Foothill Area TID Eastside WD Ballico- Cortez WD

22 Diverse, not divergent 15 local agencies 4 ag water districts 4 cities 3 CSDs 2 county WDs 2 counties Land use approximates (347,000 acres) 245,000 acres irrigated agriculture 69,000 acres native vegetation 20,000 acres urban development

23 Knowledge base exists Turlock Groundwater Basin Association Early 1990s: 15 local agencies cooperating 1995: TGBA formed via MOU 1997: First Subbasin GWMP Groundwater Management Plan (2008) Established basin management objectives Urban / Ag Water Management Plans TID as conjunctive use district

24 Discussions on many levels Turlock Groundwater Basin Association Open, monthly Conceptual Subbasin 1-on-1 discussions 1/16 Stanislaus County Water Summit Turlock Subbasin breakout discussion 1. Desired GSA formation outcomes? 2. Possible hurdles? 3. Next steps? Theme: Subbasins need surface water to have any chance at groundwater sustainability.

25 Groundwater elevations S.Mo. Ceres Hughson Keyes Denair Turlock Delhi Hilmar

26 Significant formation factors Motivators 2017 GSA formation deadline Current conditions Search for solutions Discussions since fall Eastside Water District pursuit of GSA Hurdles to overcome Fear, doubt, and drought Finding additional common ground JPA or MOU? How s it structured?

27 Tough decisions to be made Contractual formation of GSAs Authorities of GSAs Rules? Regs? Ordinances? Meters? Annual statements of use? Pumping thresholds? Investigations? Assess fees? Purchase land? Enforcement? GSP(s) Who prepares? Submits to DWR? Programs/projects in a GSP(s)?

28 Engagement Required per statute GSA needs to consider all water users in adopting GSP Public hearing after initial NOI (scoping) Interested persons list for docs/notices Inform DWR (and other city, county gov. bodies) in second NOI how interests considered GSA website

29 Engagement GSA governance GSAs shall encourage the active involvement of diverse elements of the basin prior to and during the devel./implementation of GSPs. Open meetings, Brown Act compliant May appoint advisory committees Learned best practices Over communication is best Additional outreach Public input to DWR re: reg. process

30 Thinking regionally is new norm Water Master Plan Domestic Water Project Partnering with neighbors Sustainability of the Subbasin means looking at much more than groundwater East Stanislaus IRWMP

31 All relevant state agencies, including, but not limited to, the board, the regional water quality control boards, the department, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife, shall consider the policies of this part, and any groundwater sustainability plans adopted pursuant to this part, when revising or adopting policies, regulations, or criteria, or when issuing orders or determinations, where pertinent.

32 Bay-Delta Plan, Phase 1 SED the State Water Resources Control Board is formulating demands to send vastly more water down the Merced, Tuolumne and Stanislaus rivers into the Delta. The goal is to improve survival for salmon

33 2015 will be busy Continue conversation within the Subbasin Multiple venues Follow Eastside WD GSA pursuit; share notes Conceptual details Find additional common ground, address significant formation factors Engagement and outreach From head nods to signatures? JPA/MOU drafting, discussions, decision Regular communication w/ DWR

34 What could the future hold? Compliance with the law, ideally favoring progressive steps Multiple GSAs, ideally adopting and implementing single GSP Non-regulatory, county-level subbasin coordination committees have merit Governance / GSPs can create opportunities to think regionally, where practical

35 Questions

36 John B. Davids, P.E. Chair, Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin Association

37 Option 1 Independent Sub-basins Option 5 Multi- County Governance Option 2 Independent Sub-basins w/ Coordination Option 4 Stanislaus County Option 3 Tur/Mod Sub-basins 36 February 5, 2015

38 Option 2 Governance to be at the sub-basin level with coordinating committee Existing local agencies are doing good things through existing groundwater management entities Why recreate the wheel? 37 February 5, 2015

39 Oakdale ID Stanislaus County Modesto ID City of Oakdale City of Modesto City of Riverbank Formed in 1994 under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Currently includes nearly all local agencies within Modesto Sub-basin Promote coordination of groundwater management planning activities and provides information and guidance for the management, preservation, protection and enhancement of groundwater quality and quantity in the 38 sub-basin February 5, 2015

40 39 February 5, 2015

41 40 February 5, 2015

42 Monthly meetings Recognized California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Monitoring Entity for the Modesto Sub-basin Work products: Integrated regional groundwater management plan (IRGWMP), Recharge Characterization, United States Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Characterization of Sub-basin, USGS Assessing Susceptibility to Contamination, USGS Groundwater Model (Pending) 41 February 5, 2015

43 Commitment to be the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) Reaching out to other local agencies within the Modesto Sub-basin Ongoing projects 2015 work plan 42 February 5, 2015

44 Four components: Finish USGS Model Update/Extend the MOU Develop STRGBA Outreach Material Governance MOU, Joint Powers Authority (JPA), contract, etc. 43 February 5, 2015

45 All Agencies Education and outreach Uncertainty Cost Stay the course STRGBA State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Phase 1 Substitute Environmental Document 35% Unimpaired flow Potential loss of up to 100,000 AF annually Don Pedro Project Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Relicensing 44 February 5, 2015

46 Education and outreach Relationships Coordination Cooperation Sustainability 45 February 5, 2015

47 46 February 5, 2015

48 San Luis Obispo County Department of Public Works SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT LOCAL APPROACH AND CONSIDERATIONS Mark Hutchinson, Deputy Director San Luis Obispo County Department of Public Works FEBRUARY 5, 2015 American Public Works Association Accredited 2014

49 Presentation Overview SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY BULLETIN 118 STATUS 22 BASINS 5 HIGH AND MEDIUM PASO ROBLES GROUNDWATER BASIN & AB 2453 BACKGROUND KEY ELEMENTS FORMATION PROCESS COST AND SCHEDULE RELATIONSHIP TO SGMA

50 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY 22 Bulletin 118 Basins 49

51 APPLICABILITY FIVE Priority Basins / One Critical 50

52 PASO ROBLES BASIN 51

53 AB2453 Paso Robles Basin Water District Provides for the formation of a new water district Authorizes the district to develop, adopt, and implement a groundwater management plan collect data conduct investigations require conservation impose extraction charges establish extraction allocations 52

54 AB2453 Formation Process Petition or Resolution LAFCO Public Hearings Vote 53

55 AB (a) On or before January 1, 2019, 10 percent of landowners may petition for, or an affected local agency within the county, including the County and the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, may apply for by resolution, the formation of a district... 54

56 AB2453 LAFCO Application Boundary Map Plan of Services Funding Description of Powers CEQA Document 55

57 AB2453 LAFCO LAFCO independent analysis Formal Public Hearings LAFCO decision to: Approve Modify Deny May add conditions of approval 56

58 AB2453 The Vote(s) Three questions: 1. Form the District? 2. Approve funding? 3. Elect Nine Board Members 57

59 AB2453 To Form the District Each voter, who shall be a landowner as defined in this section, may cast one vote on the [formation] of the district. 58

60 AB2453 Funding Subject to prop 218? Assessment? Fee for service? (50% +1 to protest) Special Tax? (66 2/3 to approve) 59

61 AB2453 Nine Member Board 60

62 AB2453 Time Frames Application Preparation: Boundaries Powers Funding Plan LAFCO Process: Application Review Public Hearing Process Elections: District formation Funding Board members Months:

63 AB2453 Financial Considerations Preliminary Cost Estimate: Plan of Services 25,000 Funding Plan 100,000 Boundary Legal Description 25,000 Election Services 200,000 TOTAL ESTIMATE $350,000 62

64 PASO ROBLES BASIN DISTRICT POTENTIAL GSA PARTNERS 63

65 San Luis Obispo County Department of Public Works American Public Works Association Accredited 2014

66 Questions

67 February 5, 2015 Modesto, California