SQUAW VALLEY PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT

Transcription

1 EXHIBIT # F-3 15 pages SQUAW VALLEY PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT DATE: June 28, 2016 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act TO: FROM: SUBJECT: District Board Members Dave Hunt, District Engineer Sustainable Groundwater Management Act BACKGROUND: The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was passed into California law in fall of 2014 and took effect in January Prior to passage of the SGMA, groundwater was largely unregulated in the state of California, especially compared to the comprehensive permit system for the state s surface water rights. California was the last state in the West to adopt a groundwater management law. Historically there were four basic options for local groundwater management: management by local agencies under AB 3030, management by special act districts under special authority granted by state statute, city and county ordinances, or court adjudications. SGMA requires that state designated medium and high priority basins and subbasins must form a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) and develop a longterm groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) allowing 20 years to achieve sustainability with limited state intervention. Olympic Valley has been classified as a very low priority basin under the California Department of Water s (DWR s) California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Program, and therefore is not required to comply with SGMA. The SGMA legislation does give agencies in low and very low priority basins the option to voluntarily form a GSA and develop a GSP. The prioritization of all basins in California will be revised in It appears that it is unlikely Olympic Valley will be ranked as a medium or high priority basin based on the amount of groundwater pumped from the basin. DISCUSSION: Discussions and public inquiry surrounding the requirements of SGMA have come up a number of times in recent Board meetings and at staff level; specifically whether or not the District should form a GSA and prepare a GSP. The purpose of this report and the attached Resolution is to clarify the District s position on voluntary compliance with SGMA. The District contracted with our hydrogeologist, Derrik Williams, to prepare the attached memorandum 305 Squaw Valley Road P. O. Box 2026 Olympic Valley, CA p. 1 of 4 (530)

2 discussing the background and requirements of SGMA, as well as provide recommendations on whether the District should become a GSA and prepare a GSP (California s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Analysis and Recommendations, Hydrometrics WRI, July 11, 2016). The District has long been proactive in managing the limited resources of the small sole source aquifer in the Olympic Valley including preparation of: A Numerical Groundwater Model (MODFLOW) Olympic Valley Groundwater Management Plan (OVGMP) and periodic Reviews and Reports Water Management Action Plan (WMAP) Capacity and Reliability Studies and Maximum Supply Analysis Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan Watershed Sanitary Survey Creek / Aquifer Interaction Study Water Conservation Program Redundant Water Supply Preferred Alternative Evaluation Aquifer Monitoring Program (AMP) Many other evaluations and analyses of groundwater resources The OVGMP was established in 2007 with a primary goal to, Manage the groundwater in a manner that provides a sustainable supply for current and future beneficial uses. The WMAP was first prepared in 1991 and was envisioned as a tool for curtailment of pumping should the valley s aquifer be stressed by over allocation of the resource for purposes of snowmaking, golf course irrigation, drought or be limited by contamination. Since the OVGMP was implemented the District has spearheaded formation of the OVGMP Advisory Group, a consortium of stakeholders and valley pumpers that collectively manage the Olympic Valley aquifer. The District has increased oversight of the aquifer by implementation of the Aquifer Monitoring Program which has included installing transducers in 15 monitoring wells and 5 pumping wells to date. The District promotes water conservation through a variety of avenues and is currently updating the WMAP. For a basin to be managed sustainably under SGMA, the basin must avoid undesirable results in each of six sustainability indicators. Undesirable results are locally agreed to impacts that are significant and unreasonable. The phrase significant and unreasonable is not defined in the legislation, and is left to local interpretation. The six sustainability indicators and the associated undesirable results are: Chronic lowering of groundwater levels indicating a significant and unreasonable depletion of supply (not including overdraft during a drought, 305 Squaw Valley Road P. O. Box 2026 Olympic Valley, CA p. 2 of 4 (530)

3 if a basin is otherwise managed) Significant and unreasonable reductions in groundwater storage Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion Significant and unreasonable degradation of water quality Significant and unreasonable land subsidence Surface water depletions that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses Based on staff s thorough review of the SGMA legislation and recommendations provided by Hydrometrics WRI, there is currently little benefit to the District in developing a GSP, and it is not recommend that the District develop a GSP at this time. This recommendation is based on the following observations: Five of the six sustainability indicators suggest that current groundwater management activities are already promoting sustainable groundwater management. A GSP will likely not significantly modify how the District manages its pumping. Only the depletion of interconnected surface water indicator might change how groundwater is managed. Developing a GSP as a low priority basin precludes state intervention in the Valley. Therefore, developing a GSP provides no additional regulatory oversight that might change groundwater management practices. The District is already collaborating with stakeholders on groundwater management. It is far less costly for the District to continue discussions with stakeholders about appropriate groundwater management, rather than develop a formal GSA and GSP. Productive ongoing discussions with stakeholders could result in management changes that are as effective as anything developed under SGMA. Developing a GSP will potentially cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. A GSP will require ongoing, annual costs. Also, there is a chance that Olympic Valley may be reclassified as a medium or high priority basin in 2017 based on impacts to local habitat and local streamflow. If Olympic Valley is reclassified as medium or high priority basin, a GSP for Olympic Valley will be required at that time. It is recommended that, at a minimum, the District delay any decision to form a GSA until the new basin priorities are released in ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution and take a position to not form a GSA and prepare a GSP at this time. 2. Do not adopt Resolution FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACTS: The District contracted with Hydrometrics WRI to prepare the California s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, Analysis and Recommendations as well as attend the July 26, 2016 Board meeting. The cost for 305 Squaw Valley Road P. O. Box 2026 Olympic Valley, CA p. 3 of 4 (530)

4 this is approximately $3,500. No reliable costs have been developed for forming a GSA or developing a GSP. Estimates have been presented to be in the range of hundreds of thousands of dollars for smaller basins. The District would also incur additional costs annually to implement and update a GSP. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adopting Resolution supporting a policy to not voluntarily comply with SGMA, not form a GSA, and not prepare a GSP. ATTACHMENTS: California s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, Analysis and Recommendations (Hydrometrics WRI, July 11, 2016) and Resolution DATE PREPARED: July 21, Squaw Valley Road P. O. Box 2026 Olympic Valley, CA p. 4 of 4 (530)

5 1814 Franklin St., Suite 501 Oakland, CA Mr. Mike Geary, General Manager Squaw Valley Public Service District PO Box 2026 Olympic Valley, CA July 11, 2016 Subject: California s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, Analysis and Recommendations Mr. Geary: In September, 2014, California passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). In May, 2016, the California Water Commission approved regulations for implementing SGMA. This letter reviews key aspects of the SGMA legislation, and assesses the benefits and drawbacks of becoming a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA). At the end of this letter, we provide recommendations on whether Squaw Valley Public Service District (SVPSD) should become a GSA and prepare a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). This letter is not a legal opinion. SVPSD should check with their counsel regarding any legal questions about SGMA or its implementation. Background In September, 2014, California passed SGMA legislation. This legislation was viewed as a compromise between interests that wanted the state of California to centrally manage groundwater, and interests that wanted to keep local control over groundwater management. The act requires local agencies in certain groundwater basins in California to develop a GSP. The SGMA legislation gives local agencies the authority to manage groundwater in a sustainable manner, and allows for limited state intervention when necessary to protect groundwater resources. 1

6 Who Must Comply with SGMA? The SGMA legislation requires all high and medium priority basins, as defined by the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program, to comply with SGMA. Olympic Valley is a very low priority basin under CASGEM, and therefore is not required to comply with SGMA. The SGMA legislation does give agencies in low and very low priority basins the option to voluntarily form a GSA and develop a GSP. Olympic Valley s very low priority ranking under CASGEM is not a reflection on the importance of groundwater to the Valley, or the importance of groundwater management in the Valley. The very low priority ranking reflects the fact that a relatively small amount of groundwater is pumped from Olympic Valley when compared to the total amount of groundwater pumped in the state of California. The State Department of Water Resources (DWR) developed this ranking system to allow DWR to focus its limited resources on basins that pump the majority of California s groundwater. The prioritization of all basins in California will be revised in It is our opinion that it is unlikely Olympic Valley will be ranked medium or high priority based on the amount of groundwater pumped from the basin. However, the SGMA legislation added... adverse impacts on local habitat and local streamflows as a new criterion to be considered when revisiting basin prioritization. It is unclear how DWR will implement this criterion. In our opinion, this new criterion provides an opening for DWR to potentially rank Olympic Valley as a medium or high priority basin in Key Concepts The SGMA legislation includes a number of key concepts that are fundamental to any discussion of the act. There is not space in this letter to detail all of the concepts in the SGMA legislation and regulations. We have detailed a few of the more important concepts that are relevant to SVPSD s assessment and understanding of the legislation. GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY GSAs are locally formed groups responsible for implementing SGMA. Groundwater sustainability agencies must be formed by local agencies with water supply, water management, or land use responsibilities within a groundwater basin. Is our understanding that SVPSD and Placer County are the only qualifying local public agencies in Olympic Valley. 2

7 Groundwater sustainability agencies can take many forms, including a single agency, a memorandum of understanding among groups, a joint powers authority, etc. Mutual water companies and private water companies can be invited by local agencies to be members of a GSA, although they cannot form a GSA by themselves. More information on GSA formation, and optional governance structures, can be found at: GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN A GSP is a plan proposed by the GSA that details how groundwater sustainability will be achieved within 20 years of plan adoption. The recently adopted SGMA regulations identify a number of components that each plan must contain. ALTERNATIVE PLAN The SGMA legislation provides an opportunity for local agencies to submit alternative plans in lieu of a GSP. This option was intended to provide local agencies an opportunity to show that their existing management and existing plans meet all the requirements of a GSP. Regulations require that an alternative plan must be functionally equivalent to a GSP, although the definition of functionally equivalent is not well defined. In our conversations with DWR, they appear to have purposely left the requirements of an alternative plan vague to give their staff leeway in approving or rejecting alternative plans. Alternative plans must be submitted to DWR by January 1, It appears as though alternative plans can be submitted by any local agency, and need not be submitted by a GSA. However, it is unclear if the authorities provided GSAs are available to local agencies that submit alternative plans without declaring to be a GSA. Additional legal advice should be sought before pursuing the alternative plan approach. SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS AND UNDESIRABLE RESULTS For a basin to be managed sustainably, the basin must avoid undesirable results in each of six sustainability indicators. Undesirable results are locally agreed to impacts that are significant and unreasonable. The phrase significant and unreasonable is not defined in the legislation, and is left to local interpretation. The six sustainability indicators (in bold) and the associated undesirable results are: 3

8 Chronic lowering of groundwater levels indicating a significant and unreasonable depletion of supply (not including overdraft during a drought, if a basin is otherwise managed) Significant and unreasonable reductions in groundwater storage Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion Significant and unreasonable degradation of water quality Significant and unreasonable land subsidence Surface water depletions that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses Many of these undesirable results will be addressed in the non binding WMAP that SVPSD is currently updating. When developing a GSP, the GSA and stakeholders must identify what constitutes a significant and unreasonable impact for each of the six sustainability indicators. In our opinion, Olympic Valley has not shown a chronic lowering of groundwater levels, a chronic loss of groundwater storage, any subsidence, or any seawater intrusion. The groundwater quality degradation section of SGMA is interpreted as a do no harm clause rather than a requirement to mitigate poor groundwater quality. Therefore, of the six sustainability indicators, only depletion of interconnected surface waters is likely to have a potential undesirable result that leads to any changes in groundwater management. It is generally acknowledged that agreeing on what constitutes an undesirable result for interconnected surface waters is one of the most difficult aspects of implementing SGMA. The Creek/Aquifer Interaction Study (CAIS) conducted for SVPSD addresses some of the issues raised by SGMA s focus on interconnected surface waters. The CAIS demonstrated that SVPSD s municipal pumping has a small and relatively insignificant impact on creek flows in the trapezoidal channel. We believe the CAIS results would address this undesirable result in the trapezoidal channel area. However, implementing SGMA would require an assessment of all stakeholderʹs pumping on all reaches of Squaw Creek, and would require that the definitions of significant and unreasonable impacts to the meadow reach of Squaw Creek be defined in a public process. The SGMA legislation notes that, a GSP may, but is not required to, address undesirable results that occurred before January 1, 2015 ( (b)(4)). GSPs must therefore prevent future undesirable results, but are not necessarily required to mitigate past undesirable results. 4

9 Procedures and Timeline The general procedures for implementing the SGMA legislation are: A GSA must be formed within two years of being identified as a high or medium priority basin. A GSP must be developed and submitted to DWR within five years of forming a GSA. The basin must achieve sustainability (no undesirable results) within 20 years of GSP adoption. The basin must be managed sustainably for 50 years. Of particular importance for Olympic Valley is that low or very low priority basins can form a GSA and develop a GSP at any time in the future. Low and very low priority basins are not subject to the specific dates listed in the SGMA legislation. Furthermore the opportunity to form a GSA and develop a GSP does not expire after a certain date. Authorities The SGMA legislation provides GSAs with a significant number of authorities. These include the authority to: Regulate groundwater extractions, including limiting or prohibiting groundwater production ( (a)(2)). There are many legal issues associated with this authority, notably how to limit or prohibit groundwater pumping in accordance with existing water rights. SGMA would give SVPSD binding authority to limit pumping. Impose fees and assessments ( 10730(a), ). These fees can be used to fund the preparation, adoption, and amendment of a groundwater sustainability plan. After a GSP is submitted to DWR, a GSA can use fees to fund groundwater management activities including: administering, operating, and maintaining groundwater supplies, acquiring land or other properties and services production, treatment, or distribution costs other activities necessary or convenient to implement the GSP. Require well registration ( ) Require pumpers to measure and report extractions ( (a),(c)). Costs for measuring devices shall be borne by the pumper ( (b)). SVPSD is currently addressing extraction measurements through its Aquifer Monitoring Program. Impose well spacing requirements ( (a)(1)) 5

10 Adopt rules, regulations, ordinances, and resolutions ( (b)) Acquire real property and water rights ( (a),(b)) Conduct investigations and studies, including investigations of water rights ( (a), (b)) Require reporting of surface water diversion used for underground storage ( 10726) Perform any acts necessary or proper to enable the agency to purchase, transfer, deliver, or exchange water or water rights of any type with any person that may be necessary or proper ( (d)) Treat and manage reclaimed water ( (e)); and Undertake enforcement actions for noncompliance ( 10732) Finally, an apparent catch all authority provides that: A groundwater sustainability agency may perform any acts necessary or proper to carry out the purposes of this part ( (a)). Establishing itself as a GSA would give SVPSD groundwater management authorities that it does not currently have. Becoming a GSA does not give SVPSD land use authority. This was a contentious issue during SGMA drafting, and counties retained land use authority in the final legislation. Additionally, the legislation specifically does not modify or alter any groundwater or surface water rights ( ). Any actions taken by a GSA are still required to be consistent with water rights law. Impact on State Agencies The SGMA legislation states that all relevant state agencies shall consider any adopted GSPs when revising or adopting policies, regulations, criteria, or when issuing orders ( ). It is unclear how this section of the legislation will be interpreted. State Oversight and Intervention If a medium or high priority basin does not meet the requirements of SGMA, the State can intervene to institute an interim GSP. There are a number of prescribed points in the GSA formation/gsp development/gsp implementation procedure where the State can intervene. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is the agency that will intervene in basins that fail to meet certain SGMA requirements. 6

11 The most common path of state intervention is that DWR first makes a finding that a basin is out of compliance with SGMA. DWR then refers the basin to SWRCB. The SWRCB can declare the basin as a probationary basin. After an opportunity to remedy any deficiencies, the SWRCB can develop an interim GSP for the basin. The SWRCB has the authority to charge groundwater users in the basin to develop this interim GSP. Of particular relevance to Olympic Valley, the State cannot intervene in a low or very low priority basin that voluntarily forms a GSA or develops a GSP ( (b)). Difference from Groundwater Management Plans Olympic Valley has an active Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) that is compliant with AB3030 and SB1938. This existing GMP forms the basis for SVPSD s ongoing groundwater management. A few important differences between GMPs formed under SB1938 and GSPs formed under SGMA are listed below. This is not an exhaustive list of differences between the two plan types. GSPs provide the associated GSA with the authorities listed above (among others). GMPs provided no new authorities. GSPs must set measurable (quantitative) objectives and goals. The objectives and goals in GMPs need not be quantitative. GSPs have a set timeline, requiring them to achieve sustainability within 20 years of plan adoption. The basin must be managed sustainably for 50 years. GMPs have no such required timelines. GSPs must demonstrate regular and consistent progress towards meeting the goals set in the GSP. Demonstrating regular progress towards meeting the goals of a GMP is not required, although SVPSD has achieved and documented regular progress since the plan was adopted. Under (b), the State cannot intervene in low and very low priority basins that fail to show regular progress. GSPs for medium and high priority basins are subject to State intervention if they fail to meet the requirements of the legislation. No such State intervention is allowed under GMPs. Costs No reliable costs have been developed for forming GSA s, or developing GSP s. We have seen estimates ranging from hundreds of thousands of dollars per basin to many millions of dollars per basin. Significant cost drivers include the availability of existing groundwater data, existing relationships among groundwater users, relationships with 7

12 stakeholders, existing relationships among local agencies, the severity of undesirable results, etc. GSAs will incur additional annual costs for GSP implementation. Any new projects or programs identified in the GSP will need funding. Annual reporting of groundwater elevations and a groundwater budget will be required, and will result in new annual costs. Additionally, the GSP must show progress towards sustainability goals every five years, and the plan must be reassessed if adequate progress is not made. It is difficult to assess the magnitude of these new annual costs before the GSP is developed. Recommendation In our opinion, there is currently little benefit to the SVPSD in developing a GSP, and we don t recommend developing a GSP at this time. This recommendation is based on the following observations: Five of the six sustainability indicators suggest that current groundwater management activities are already promoting sustainable groundwater management. A GSP will likely not significantly modify how SVPSD manages its pumping. Only the depletion of interconnected surface water indicator might change how groundwater is managed. Developing a GSP as a low priority basin precludes state intervention in the Valley. Therefore, developing a GSP provides no additional regulatory oversight that might change groundwater management practices. SVPSD is already collaborating with stakeholders on groundwater management. We believe it will be less expensive for SVPSD to continue discussions with stakeholders about appropriate groundwater management, rather than develop a formal GSA and GSP. Productive ongoing discussions with stakeholders could result in management changes that are as effective as anything developed under SGMA. Developing a GSP will potentially cost hundreds of thousands of dollars A GSP will require ongoing, annual costs. Finally, there is a chance that Olympic Valley may be reclassified as a medium or high priority basin in 2017 based on impacts to local habitat and local streamflow. If Olympic Valley is reclassified as medium or high priority, a GSP for Olympic Valley will be required at that time. We suggest that, at a minimum, SVPSD delay any decision to form a GSA until the new basin priorities are released in

13 The one reason that the SVPSD might consider forming a GSA and developing a GSP is if the Board of Directors feels they require, or would benefit from, the additional authorities provided GSAs. In particular, if the Board of Directors now or in the future, feels that the authority to restrict pumping would benefit the health of the groundwater basin and the Valley, it can obtain this authority by declaring itself as a GSA. However, if the authorities provided to GSA s are not required or needed, we recommend the Board of Directors not pursue developing a GSP. We are happy to provide SVPSD with any other information regarding California s sustainable groundwater management act. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions. Sincerely, Derrik Williams President, HydroMetrics Water Resources Inc. 9

14 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SQUAW VALLEY PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT REGARDING A SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT POLICY WHEREAS, the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) applies to all high and medium priority basins, as defined by the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Program, and requires the formation of Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSA) and preparation of Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSP); and WHEREAS, the Olympic Valley is ranked as a very low priority basin under CASGEM, and therefore is not required to comply with SGMA; and WHEREAS, the legislation gives agencies in low and very low priority basins the option to voluntarily form a GSA and develop a GSP now or at any time in the future and are not subject to the specific dates listed in the SGMA legislation; and WHEREAS, establishing itself as a GSA would give the District groundwater management authorities that it does not currently have; and WHEREAS, becoming a GSA does not give the District land use authority; and WHEREAS, SGMA does not modify or alter any groundwater or surface water rights; and WHEREAS, formation of a GSA and development of a GSP will incur initial and ongoing annual costs; and WHEREAS, current groundwater management activities are promoting sustainable groundwater management. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Squaw Valley Public Service District support the current and ongoing groundwater management activities that continue the promotion of sustainable groundwater management in the Olympic Valley groundwater basin; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Squaw Valley Public Service District does not support the voluntary formation of a GSA and development of a GSP as provided for in the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26 th day of July, 2016 at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors duly called and held by the following vote: AYES: NOES:

15 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: APPROVED: Dale Cox, Board President ATTEST: K. Obayashi-Bartsch, Secretary to the Board