AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT

Transcription

1 AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Board Room Rancho California Water District Winchester Road Temecula, California Tuesday, July 22, :30 a.m. INTRODUCTION ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT Any person may address the Board at this time upon any subject not identified on this Agenda but within the jurisdiction of the Rancho California Water District. Please note that for items not listed on the agenda, the Brown Act imposes limitations on what the Board may do at this time. The Board may not take action on the item at this meeting. As to matters on the Agenda, persons will be given an opportunity to address the Board when the matter is considered. If you wish to speak during public comment, please fill out a "Speaker Request Form" and give it to the Board Secretary. When the Board President calls your name, please immediately step to the podium and begin by giving your name and address for the record. Each speaker will be given three (3) minutes to address the Board 1. GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP 2. ADJOURNMENT Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the District Secretary at (951) at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the members of the Board of Directors regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the District s Administrative Headquarters Building located at Winchester Road, Temecula, California, during normal business hours.

2 BOARD OF DIRECTORS GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP BOARD ACTION July 22, 2014 Page 1 of 2 ITEM 1: GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP RESPONSIBLE/LEAD STAFF MEMBER: Assistant General Manager, Richard Williamson RECOMMENDATION: This item is presented for the Board of Directors (Board) review, discussion, and direction to staff relative to the focus of optimizing the management of the groundwater basin as partially described in Rancho California Water District s (RCWD/District) Strategic Plan document as follows: Focus Area 3: Develop and Implement a comprehensive groundwater management strategy: RCWD overlies a productive groundwater basin, the expanded use of which would add significant reliability to the service area DISCUSSION: Three presentations from subject-matter experts will be made during this workshop include: Charles Binder, P.E. Watermaster, Santa Margarita River Water will discuss the Cooperative Annual Water Resource Management Agreement and its impact on groundwater management; Dennis Williams, Ph.D. with Geoscience Support Services, Inc. will present information on the District s groundwater modeling efforts and their contribution to groundwater management; and consultant Michael Welch, Ph.D. will present a draft of the Local Area Management Plan that the District is preparing with his assistance to ensure the protection of the Temecula Groundwater Basin. Discussion with, and direction from, the Board will then be undertaken as staff presents alternative pathways for optimally managing the groundwater basin consistent with the focus elements the Board adopted in the most recent amendments to the District s Strategic Plan. ALTERNATIVES: Not applicable FISCAL ANALYSIS: Not applicable

3 Board of Directors July 22, 2014 Item 1 Page 2 of 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS: Not applicable EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS: None

4 Charles W. Binder WATERMASTER SANTA MARGARITA RIVER WATERSHED CIVIL NO. 51-CV-1247-GPC-RBB

5 Federal case started in 1951 when United States filed suit against Fallbrook Public Utility District and other parties to quiet title to the water rights for Camp Pendleton Referred to as Fallbrook Case Adjudication covers entire Santa Margarita River Watershed including Murrieta-Temecula area 1966 Modified Final Judgment and Decree Court established Watermaster and Steering Committee CWRMA and other orders related to Murrieta-Temecula Groundwater Basin incorporated into Decree

6

7 Fallbrook Public Utility District, 1989 Rancho California Water District, 1989 United States (Camp Pendleton and other federal interests), 1989 Eastern Municipal Water District, 1992 Metropolitan Water District of S. California, 1994 Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians, 1996 Western Municipal Water District, 2007

8 Meet on a quarterly basis to receive status reports on Watermaster activities Review expenditures and fund the annual budget for the Watermaster Office Provide data and information requested by Watermaster Other tasks determined by the Court

9 Administer and enforce Modified Final Judgment and Decree and subsequent orders Assist the Court as requested Collect water use data from all Substantial Users in Watershed Submit annual report to the Court Operate gaging stations and monitoring wells under agreement with U.S. Geological Survey Administer MOU s for Lake Skinner and Diamond Valley Lake

10 Incorporates 44 Interlocutory Judgments for specific issues or sub-basins throughout the Watershed Incorporates 1940 Stipulated Judgment in prior state case in Rancho Santa Margarita v. Vail Company Has been amended to incorporate subsequent agreements, MOUs, and orders

11 IJ-30: Describes non-indian water rights subject to Court jurisdiction IJ-30A: Describes land and water rights not subject to Court jurisdiction IJ-35 and IJ-35A: Vail Company IJ-41: Recognizes federal reserved water rights for Pechanga Reservation

12 SWRCB Permit No for Vail Lake (amended in 2009) RCWD Agency Agreements for Landowners CWRMA signed in Wolf Valley Groundwater Management Agreement 1975 MOU for Lake Skinner (amended in 2005 for FPUD change in Point of Diversion) 1995 MOU for Diamond Valley Lake

13 Certain groundwater and all surface water subject to Court jurisdiction Within jurisdiction if water contributes to flow of Santa Margarita River and it s tributaries Younger Alluvium riparian water right Older Alluvium overlying groundwater right Did not quantify water rights Retained continuing jurisdiction

14 Identifies parcels and then-current landowners not within Court jurisdiction Lands overlie Basement Complex Groundwater in Basement Complex determined by Court to not contribute to flows of the Santa Margarita River

15 SWRCB and Watermaster both have jurisdiction for administration and reporting Appropriative storage right up to 40,000 AFY Storage season November thru April Releases for groundwater recharge Re-diversion by recovery from 12 production wells Permit allows for municipal, irrigation, and recreation uses Place of use within entire service area of RCWD

16 Agreement between RCWD and Camp Pendleton signed in 2002 Physical solution to resolve water rights dispute between those two parties Dispute surrounded 1940 Stipulated Judgment and1966 Decree in Fallbrook Case Allows parties to manage water resources within essential provisions of the two judgments CWRMA governs as long as it is in effect Either party can terminate with 2 years written notice

17 Stipulation and Order filed in Fallbrook Case on August 20, 2002 Court can make further orders under continuing jurisdiction Court cannot modify terms of CWRMA or 1940 Stipulated Judgment CWRMA is administered by Watermaster Watermaster prepares separate annual report on CWRMA to submit to the Court

18 RCWD guarantees certain flows at Gorge Flow requirements vary by month and hydrologic year type: min 3 cfs and max 11.5 cfs Make-Up Water provided by RCWD primarily from imported water discharged to river at Gorge Maximum Make-Up Water is 4,000 AFY RCWD must pump groundwater on Safe Yield basis Establishes emergency supplies for Camp Pendleton including 5,000 AF groundwater storage

19 RCWD and Camp Pendleton to cooperate on groundwater monitoring program Parties to cooperate on separate monitoring program to assess impacts of CWRMA on water supply, water quality, and riparian habitat on Camp Pendleton Parties to maintain groundwater model Establishes Technical Advisory Committee RCWD, Camp Pendleton, USGS and Watermaster

20 Annual Streamflow (acre-feet) Annual Streamflow for Santa Margarita River near Temecula (USGS Gaging Station No ) 1989 through , , , first full year for CWRMA 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Water Year Natural Flows RCWD Augmentation Releases

21 RCWD is primary groundwater pumper and importer of water for Basin Camp Pendleton rights established by CWRMA Additional existing groundwater pumpers: Other Substantial Users WMWD Murrieta Division Pechanga Band Others with imported supplies: WMWD Murrieta Division Eastern MWD retail service area Elsinore Valley MWD portion of service area in Watershed

22 Total Production (acre-feet) Total Production Rancho California Water District 1967 through ,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Water Year Groundwater Imported Supplies

23 Total Production (acre-feet) Groundwater Production Murrieta-Temecula Groundwater Basin 1967 through ,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Water Year RCWD Other Substantial Users WMWD-Murrieta Division Pechanga

24 Other Parties Expected to Increase Groundwater Pumping Increased Coordination of Groundwater Management Pechanga Settlement Agreement is Forthcoming TAC to Conduct Groundwater Model Runs Requested by Watermaster Quantification of Safe Yield (in future) Quantification and Apportionment of Pumping Allocations (in future)

25

26 1882 Pechanga Reservation established 1882 O Neill purchased 200,000 acre Rancho Santa Margarita 1883 Towns of Temecula and Murrieta established 1904 Walter Vail buys 87,500 acre ranch 1924 Rancho Santa Margarita sued Vail Company 1940 Stipulated Judgment entered in Rancho Santa Margarita v. Vail Company 1942 U.S. condemned Rancho Santa Margarita to establish Camp Pendleton 1948 Vail Dam completed and Permit 7032 issued

27 1951 U.S. filed complaint in U.S. District Court to quiet title to water rights in Fallbrook Case 1966 Modified Final Judgment and Decree 1966 Rancho California Water District formed 1968 MOU between FPUD and Camp Pendleton 1968 Santa Rosa Ranches Water District formed 1975 MOU for Lake Skinner added to Decree 1977 RCWD consolidation 1989 Court appoints Watermaster and establishes Steering Committee 1989 RCWD and Camp Pendleton begin negotiations for water resources management agreement

28 1995 MOU for Diamond Valley Lake added to Decree 2002 CWRMA signed by parties on March 26, CWRMA added to decree on August 20, First full year of operation of CWRMA 2005 Lake Skinner MOU amended for FPUD change in point of diversion 2006 Wolf Valley Groundwater Management Agreement 2009 Permit 7032 amended to reflect current operations 2009 RCWD and Pechanga Band agree to Settlement Conceptual Agreement Current Pechanga Settlement pending

29 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT GROUNDWATER WORKSHOP Groundwater Production History and Outlook for the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin by: Dennis Williams July 22,

30 Overview Geohydrology of the Rancho California Area RCWD Ground Water Management Plan Ground Water Management Tools Results of Annual Water Audit 1-Jul-14 to 30-Jun-15 Groundwater Production History and Outlook for the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin 22-Jul-14 2

31 Upper Santa Margarita River Basin Lower Santa Margarita River Basin 3 3

32 Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed Groundwater Production History and Outlook for the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin 4 22-Jul-14 4

33 Geologic Map 5 5

34 Pauba Valley Wolf Valley Temecula Gorge Murrieta Valley Groundwater Production History 6 22-Jul-14 6 and Outlook for the Temecula Valley Groundwater Upper Basin Santa Margarita River Basin

35 Aquifer Systems Stream Younger Alluvium 500 ft Pauba Aquifer Temecula Aquifer 1,000 ft Groundwater Production History and Outlook for the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin 22-Jul-14 7

36 Groundwater Production History and Outlook for the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin Basin Divided Into Eleven Hydrologic Subunits 22-Jul-14 8

37 Pauba Valley Hydrologic Subunit Groundwater Production History and Outlook for the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin 22-Jul-14 9

38 Ground Water Management Process Planning, Implementation And Operation Necessary To Provide Safe And Reliable Ground Water Supplies Groundwater Production History and Outlook for the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin 22-Jul-14 10

39 RCWD s Ground Water Management Plan Goals And Objectives Defined Tools And Resources Available Meaningful Milestones Reasonable Time Schedule California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Program Annual Water Audits Groundwater Production History and Outlook for the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin 22-Jul-14 11

40 Sustainable Yield Extraction That: Does Not Exceed Recharge on Long-Term Basis Does Not Permanently Lower The Water Table To An Undesirable Level Does Not Allow Degradation Of Water Quality Does Not Create Subsidence Groundwater Production History and Outlook for the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin 22-Jul-14 12

41 Sustainable Yield Example PUMPING = 200 RECHARGE = 100 STORAGE CHANGE = Long Term Pumping Greater Than Recharge Exceeds Sustainable Yield Groundwater Production History and Outlook for the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin 22-Jul-14 13

42 Sustainable Yield Example PUMPING = 200 Artificial Recharge = 100 Natural Recharge = 100 STORAGE CHANGE = 0 Artificial Recharge Increases Sustainable Yield Groundwater Production History and Outlook for the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin 22-Jul-14 14

43 RCWD Ground Water Management Tools Integrated Ground Water and Surface Water Model Yearly Water Audit Index Well Groups CASGEM Program Timely Measurement And Reporting Of Data SCADA, GIS Agency Agreements Groundwater Production History and Outlook for the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin 22-Jul-14 15

44 CWRMA Model Update and Refinement 3D Lithologic Model Used Watershed Model (PRMS) Incorporated 16

45 400 ft Model Grid and Active/Inactive Cells 1 1 PRMS 320 MODFLOW ft Inactive Active 300 Groundwater Production History and Outlook for the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin 22-Jul-14 17

46 Lithologic Model 5 Layers 18

47 Ground Water Model 5 Model Layers Younger Alluvium Layer 1 Pauba Fm. Layer 2 Temecula Fm. Layer 3 Temecula Fm. Layer 4 Groundwater Production History and Outlook for the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin 22-Jul-14 19

48 Summary of Murrieta-Temecula Updated Model The calibration of the updated model has a relative error of 7.2%, which is an improvement from the relative error of 8.8% of the original Murrieta-Temecula Ground Water Basin model, and well below the recommended error of 10%. Groundwater Production History and Outlook for the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin 22-Jul-14 20

49 Daily Streamflow, cfs Summary of Murrieta-Temecula Updated Model (Cont.) 10,000 Hydrograph of Measured and Model-Calculated Daily Streamflow at the Santa Margarita River at Temecula Gorge Gaging Station - GSFLOW Calibration The updated model can simulate 1,000 Observed Model-Calculated streamflow on a daily basis which is an improvement from quarterly of the original model Results of the model calibration indicate a good match of daily measured and model-calculated streamflow in creeks within the model area Date Temecula Gorge Figure 68 Groundwater Production History and Outlook for the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin 22-Jul-14 21

50 Summary of Murrieta-Temecula Updated Model (Cont.) The updated model has been used to evaluate impacts related to the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) storm drainage regulations. The updated model can be used to assist Watermaster to calculate ground water storage, evaluate return flow credits and confirm the Vail Recharge Account and Imported Water Carryover Account. The updated model can run predictive scenarios to evaluate water levels and streamflow under various management conditions. Groundwater Production History and Outlook for the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin 22-Jul-14 22

51 RCWD Index Well Group Index Wells Characterize the Entire Basin

52 California Statewide Groundwater Monitoring (CASGEM) Program Goal of the CASGEM program to monitor groundwater elevations that demonstrate seasonal and long-term trends to make this information available to the public. A Monitoring Network with 20 Wells. 24

53 Annual Water Audits RCWD Conducts Yearly Water Audits (1-Jul Jun-15) Annual Meeting With RCWD Personnel (Nov 2013) Preparation Of Pumping Schedule Analysis Of Hydrographs Run Ground Water Basin Model Preparation Of Annual Report Constant Updating Throughout Year of Pumping Schedule Groundwater Production History and Outlook for the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin 22-Jul-14 25

54 Monthly Production, acre-ft Ground Water Elevation, ft AMSL Water Audit Considers Short and Long Term Water Level Changes and Production - 83 Wells Analyzed 500 WELL 110 1, Land Surface 1, , , Production Recommended production for : 900 acre-ft 1,

55 Monthly Production, acre-ft Ground Water Elevation, ft AMSL Water Audit Considers Short and Long Term Water Level Changes and Production - 83 Wells Analyzed WELL , Land Surface 1, , Production Recommended production for : 700 acre-ft

56 Water Audit Considers Well Interference Example of One Well Pumping Alone 28

57 Water Audit Considers Well Interference Example of Several Wells Pumping Together 29

58 Model-Generated Water Levels Selected Pauba Wells Vail Lake Release of 4,000 AF Vail Lake Release of 1,000 AF 30

59 Model-Generated Water Levels Selected Temecula Wells Vail Lake Release of 4,000 AF Vail Lake Release of 1,000 AF 31

60 Recommended Production Note: Upper VDC purchased untreated water recharge of 12,700 af and an additional 1,000 to 4,000 af of local water from Vail Lake releases 40,140 Acre-ft 42 Active Wells 32

61 Effective Basin Management Ground Water Management Tools Understanding The Geohydrology RCWD Ground Water Mgmt Plan Yearly Water Audits 33

62 Historical Production Rancho California Water District Production and Artificial Recharge Year FY = Jul-Jun Recommended Groundwater Actual Groundwater Artificial Recharge [AF] Groundwater Production WY = Oct-Sep Production* [AF] Production (AF) Vail Releases Imported Recharge (VDC) Total Less Artificial Recharge [AF] 1990 FY = Jul 89-Jun 90 33,865 33, , FY 34,925-43,725 27,053 6, ,954 20, FY 33,745 29,925 2, ,244 27, FY 30,435-39,035 31,003 31, , FY 32,860 32,421 8, ,469 23, FY 30,750 31,549 11, ,158 20, FY 38,950 34,234 9, ,427 24, FY 35,230 33,224 1,725 1,315 3,040 30, FY 36,750 31,810 4,514 2,785 7,299 24, WY = Oct 98-Sep 99 37,050 37,523 1,010 9,425 10,435 27, WY 40,520 39, ,929 19,929 19, WY 40,555 42, ,080 18,080 24, WY 40,210 39, ,265 16,265 23, WY 40,590 38, ,694 15,694 22, WY 36,845 36, ,088 16,088 20, WY 38,545 38, ,504 16,504 22, WY 38,180 40,216 1,399 18,820 20,219 19, WY 38,090 39, ,175 14,879 24, ? 37,653 4,845 12,419 17,264 20, FY 39,775 40,541 1,236 14,828 16,064 24, FY 37,700 36, ,858 13,659 23, FY 37,500 36,512 2,470 13,873 16,343 20, FY 39,075 39, ,643 14,643 24, FY 38,825 38, FY 39, FY 40, Average ( ) 37,349 35,996 3,824 9,496 13,320 22, * Recommended groundwater production for fiscal year (July through June) for and , and for water year (October through September) for

63 Questions? 35

64 Summary of Issues: Local Agency Management Program (LAMP) Temecula-Murrieta Basin Michael R. Welch, Ph.D., P.E.

65 The State Water Code requires Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) to establish water quality standards and regulate wastewater discharges to implement the water quality standards The San Diego RWQCB has jurisdiction for establishing water quality standards and wastewater regulation in the Temecula- Murrieta area The RWQCB establishes water quality standards for ground and surface waters in a document called the Basin Plan

66 Basin Plan Groundwater Objectives Temecula-Murrieta Area Parameter Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Nitrate (as nitrogen) Basin Plan Groundwater Objective: Murrieta Valley area, Lower Pauba Valley Basin Plan Groundwater Objective: Eastern/Upgradient Portion of RCWD * * Typical Septic Tank Discharge * The San Diego RWQCB is considering relaxing the Basin Plan nitrate objective to 10 mg/l as nitrogen (45 mg/l as NO3)

67 The California Water Code requires the RWQCB to regulate discharges to groundwater or surface waters through the issuance of permits called waste discharge requirements that implement assigned water quality standards. The current version of the Basin Plan authorizes the RWQCB to delegate regulation and permitting of OWTS discharges to the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health for discharges of less than 1200 gallons per day. Riverside County DEH determines septic tank/leach field sizing requirements. Riverside County DEH is not required to address compliance with Basin Plan standards in issuing OWTS permits.

68 This practical approach solves two problems: Prevents the RWQCB from being backlogged with timeconsuming permitting for each OWTS Prevents OWTS users from being burdened with water quality standards that they cannot meet Allows for local control of land use through regulation of OWTS by Riverside County DEH

69 Assembly Bill 885 (enacted in 2000) requires the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to develop minimum statewide OWTS standards In compliance with this directive, the SWRCB evaluated public health, environmental, and water quality issues associated with OWTS discharges After extensive review, the SWRCB adopted the OWTS Policy in 2012

70 Establishes responsibilities of OWTS owners, local agencies, RWQCBs, and the SWRCB in regulating OWTS discharges Establishes five tiers of OWTS requirements Implements a Matrix Alternative approach for establishing minimum statewide standards for the design, siting, operation of new or replacement OWTS (Tier 1) Provides local agencies with the ability to address local conditions with additional OWTS requirements (Tier 2)

71 OWTS Policy Tiers OWTS Tier Description Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Applicable to existing properly operating OWTS Applicable to new or replacement OWTS Establishes criteria for approval of low-risk OWTS Recognizes that statewide one-size-fits-all approach is not applicable in many areas of the state Allows local agencies to address local conditions that require special consideration Applicable to OWTS near designated impaired waters Implements additional local regulation to protect water quality Applicable to existing OWTS that are failing or not operating properly Specifies required corrective actions

72 Minimum depth to groundwater requirements are established as a function of soil percolation Maximum application rates (gallons per square foot) are established as a function of soil percolation Minimum setback requirements from water supply facilities are established as a function of depth to groundwater Establishes maximum OWTS development density as a function of annual precipitation (establishes minimum 2.5 acre lot size for single family homes in areas with <15 inches of annual rainfall)

73 Historic Regulation County allowed to approve 1200 gpd OWTS discharges without RWQCB review and approval. County regulations address required size of septic tanks. County regulations address leach field design requirements. County regulations address minimum depth-to-water requirements. No separate application rate standards are established. OWTS density requirements based on zoning and OWTS design criteria. OWTS Policy Regulation Allows County to approve 3500 gpd OWTS discharges without RWQCB approval, subject to conformance with other OWTS Policy requirements. Allows County to regulate size of septic tanks. Allows County regulation, subject to minimum statewide site and design criteria. Implements statewide minimum depth-togroundwater requirements on basis of soil percolation. Implements statewide maximum application rates on basis of soil percolation. Establishes minimum statewide OWTS development density requirements on basis of annual precipitation.

74 The OWTS Policy requires local agencies to determine if the statewide standards are adequately protective of water quality The OWTS Policy allows local agencies to develop alternative requirements to the statewide Tier 1 and Tier 3 standards LAMPs can include any or all of the statewide OWTS Tier 1 or Tier 3 standards Local agencies must provide technical justification for proposed alternative standards The OWTS Policy requires all LAMPs within Riverside County be approved by the Colorado River RWQCB, even through the San Diego RWQCB has jurisdiction in water quality regulation in the Temecula area

75 Focus of Technical Effort: Review technical, environmental, public comment, peer review, and policy support documents on which statewide OWTS requirements are based Assess the adequacy of the statewide requirements in protecting RCWD groundwater resources Identify if any recommended clarification to the statewide OWTS requirements are necessary to ensure groundwater quality protection Identify if any alternative Tier 1 requirements are required to replace or supplement the minimum statewide OWTS requirements to ensure groundwater quality protection

76 1. For OWTS that have already been approved: No change proposed from statewide standards. 2. Density of New Single-Family Residences: No change proposed from statewide standards. Require minimum lot size of 2.5 acres as per statewide OWTS Policy Tier 1 standard. Clarify within LAMP that minimum lot size is to be based on use of < 15 inches of annual precipitation. Size septic tanks/leach fields per Riverside County DEH standards.

77 3. Density of New Commercial OWTS Discharges: No change proposed from statewide standards. Clarify within LAMP that minimum of 2.5 acres of land is required for each 250 gpd of discharge. Size septic tanks/leach fields per Riverside County DEH requirements on the basis of projected peak flows. 4. Seepage Pits No change proposed from statewide standards. The statewide OWTS Policy prohibits use of seepage pits for OWTS discharges serving new development.

78 5. For new proposed development in areas currently served by sanitary sewer: Implement OWTS Policy directive prohibiting approval of new OWTS for properties in areas that receive sanitary sewer service. 6. For new proposed commercial development in areas for which future sewers are planned: Establish LAMP requirements that allow OWTS discharges per state OWTS Tier 1 Policy, but as a condition of map approval, require future sewer connection when sewer service becomes available. Incorporate OWTS Policy language governing availability of sewer service.

79 7. 303(d) Impaired Waters Identify 303(d) impaired waters within the LAMP, but note that no additional local requirements over and above the minimum OWTS Policy Tier 3 requirements are proposed. The RWQCB will have to evaluate impacts of OWTS on 303(d) impaired waters as part of proposed RWQCB relaxation of Basin Plan nitrate objectives and as part of Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDL) assessments.

80 8. Setbacks from public supply wells and groundwater recharge facilities. OWTS Policy is based on achieving a 2 year underground retention time. Establish within the LAMP a local set-back threshold from RCWD water facilities within which compliance with the 2-year underground retention requirement must be addressed by a qualified professional per OWTS Policy requirements. 9. Alternative OWTS treatment or discharge technology: Establish within the LAMP that RWQCB review and approval will continue to be required for OWTS discharges exceeding 1200 gpd that involve alternative discharge or treatment technologies.