INTERPRETING AND IMPLEMENTING THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT. (Revised December, 2015)

Transcription

1 SANTA YNEZ RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT PRELIMINARY COMMENTS ON INTERPRETING AND IMPLEMENTING THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT (Revised December, 2015) INTRODUCTION The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (Water Code Section et. seq.) as amended, referred to here as SGMA, provides for certain agencies to become Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) and adopt Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) in order to manage and regulate groundwater in underlying basins. It also provides specific provisions for the State to step in if local GSAs are not formed, do not develop adequate GSPs or do not otherwise comply with the new law. Thus, although groundwater will be regulated, the SGMA is an opportunity for local control. SGMA has been described as AB 3030 with teeth. The Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District (SYRWCD or District) had considerable experience with this earlier legislation that promoted local groundwater management in the mid-1990s. After a Phase I planning document was prepared with water purveyors throughout the watershed, management areas were developed and the parties in those areas were contacted with regard to developing plans. Of the two areas interested in plan development, a plan was approved for the Buellton Uplands, but the one for the Santa Ynez Uplands was not completed at that time. More recently, the City of Lompoc approved an AB 3030 plan for its service area on the Lompoc Plain. Thus, SYRWCD and other water agencies have a history of working together on local water management issues, and it is with this in mind that the District has been proceeding with coordination and implementation of SGMA within the watershed. This document is intended as an update to an earlier version prepared in February, SGMA defines basin as a basin or sub-basin identified and described in California Dept. of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 118. Bulletin 118 describes the Santa Ynez Valley Groundwater Basin (SYV Basin) as consisting of three portions, based on various hydrologic investigations. These portions include the Western Portion (Lompoc Terrace, Lompoc Plain, Lompoc Uplands), the Central Portion (Buellton Uplands) and the Eastern Portion (Santa Ynez Uplands). Since February, 2015, DWR has confirmed that the SYV Basin is of medium priority for monitoring and that, as expected, it is not a critically overdrafted basin. DWR also adopted basin boundary revision regulations and has provided more insight into the formation and operation of GSAs. DWR is now focused on June 1, 2016, the deadline by which it is to adopt regulations for evaluating and implementing GSPs and coordination agreements, as well as regulations for evaluating alternatives to GSPs; draft regulations should be available in early June 1, 2016, is a critical milestone in SGMA and it is important to move forward in anticipation of it at this time. 1

2 PRELIMINARY BASIN BOUNDARY RECONCILIATION DWR s recently promulgated (November 16, 2015) basin boundary regulations provide for basin or sub-basin boundary modifications based on either scientific (hydrogeologic) or jurisdictional (political) grounds, both with the intent of improving the likelihood of sustainable management within a groundwater basin. Comparison of the DWR s SYV Basin by its three Portions and five parts compares well with the District s basins (Figures 1, 2 and 3). There are a few minor differences in detail and some conceptual differences. However, these differences are easily reconciled in favor of DWR s analysis or can be deferred without inhibiting sustainable groundwater management. These differences are discussed below. First, for the purposes of administering its well registration and groundwater production program, the District distinguishes the eastern area of the Lompoc Uplands as the Santa Rita Uplands. However, most investigators do not make this distinction and Santa Rita can appropriately be included in the Lompoc Uplands. Second, DWR s boundaries for the Western Portion of the SYV Basin extend outside the District to the west. These areas are exclusively on Vandenberg Air Force Base, which as a Federal entity is exempt from SGMA. Although it does not produce water in the SYV Basin, the Air Force may wish to voluntarily participate in SGMA. It is difficult to see how Vandenberg AFB s inclusion could hamper sustainable groundwater management. Finally, the area between the Santa Ynez Uplands and the River Alluvium is relatively complex from a hydrogeologic standpoint, but this is best addressed during GSP development when detailed studies will be undertaken. In summary, it appears feasible to accept DWR s SYV Basin boundaries, avoid the effort and expense of modifying boundaries now, and proceed directly to the important task of determining how to manage the basin at this time. SYV BASIN MANAGEMENT AREAS Interpretation and application of the SGMA within the SYV Basin is perhaps approached best by considering each Portion of the SYV Basin within the context of various attributes: 1) structural geology; 2) potential GSA s and others (the parties); 3) the available information relating to groundwater levels and quality (monitoring); and 4) special issues (existing plans, white areas, etc.). Prior to dealing with specifics, some generalities about these attributes are given below. With the exception of the Western Portion, the structural geology of the SYV Basin is derived from legacy studies prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and County Water Agency mostly in the 1970s and before. The District s Annual Reports and the County Water Agency s Tri-Annual Reports have tracked groundwater storage based on the County s groundwater-level monitoring efforts over the years, but little recent water quality data exist. SYRWCD s Annual Reports have tracked groundwater use over the years. The District registers wells and requires groundwater production reporting and payment of groundwater charges. On the other hand, the County permits groundwater wells and conducts DWR-approved groundwater-level monitoring activities under the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program (CASGEM). SYRWCD s area essentially encompasses most of the SYV Basin. The County is the other cosmopolitan agency which encompasses the watershed basin, and is the default agency for white areas where no other public agency has jurisdiction. 2

3 Western Portion (Lompoc Terrace, Lompoc Plain and Lompoc Uplands) Definitive USGS hydrogeology studies were completed between 1988 and 1997 and over twenty-six years of detailed water level and water quality data by zone are available from an ongoing multi-agency study. The recently-approved City of Lompoc Groundwater Management Plan provides an update on the hydrogeology and water quality of the area. The Lompoc Uplands, Lompoc Terrace and Lompoc Plain are inter-connected, and the Plain is recharged significantly by Santa Ynez River flows and by water rights releases conducted in accord with State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order WR The District covers all of the Western Portion except parts on Vandenberg Air Force Base. In addition to SYRWCD, the principal water agencies include the City of Lompoc, Vandenberg Village CSD and Mission Hills CSD. La Purisima State Park produces groundwater for its operations. Two federal agencies are potentially involved: Department of Defense (Vandenberg AFB) and the Department of Justice (U.S. Penitentiary). However, the Air Force essentially does not use groundwater in the area. The prison uses groundwater for its farming activities. The parties in the Lompoc area have worked together for many years. Central Portion (Buellton Uplands) Relevant information available in the Buellton Uplands includes legacy studies, the Buellton Uplands Groundwater Management Plan (including a hydrology analysis indicating basin surplus at that time 1995), and on-going activities of the SYRWCD and the County Water Agency. Little water level data are available in the western part of the Buellton Uplands and current water quality data are unavailable, generally. The Buellton Uplands may be in hydrologic continuity with the Lompoc Uplands to the west, and about half of the Uplands is in direct contact with the River Alluvium along its southern boundary. SYRWCD encompasses the Buellton Uplands. Other parties include the City of Buellton and several mutual water companies. The District, the City and Bobcat Springs Mutual Water Company developed and approved the Buellton Uplands Groundwater Management Plan. Eastern Portion (Santa Ynez Uplands) Knowledge of the structural geology, groundwater levels and groundwater quality in the Santa Ynez Uplands is based on legacy studies and the on-going activities of the County (Tri- Annual Reports), SYRWCD (Annual Reports) and ID No. 1 (studies and operational activities). Current groundwater quality information is mostly unavailable. The Santa Ynez Uplands has only limited contact with the Buellton Uplands. It is separated by bedrock from River Alluvium, but there is some drainage to the river through streams and shallow deposits of aquifer material between bedrock outcrops. SYRWCD encompasses the southwest and eastern portions of the Santa Ynez Uplands, leaving about 67% of the basin as a white area. Other parties include ID No. 1, the City of Solvang and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. The latter two parties cover only small parts of the area. There are several mutual water companies both in and outside of SYRWCD. The U.S. Forest Service is represented by small areas. Notably, the 1995 attempt to develop an AB 3030 plan was withdrawn because of opposition from outside the District. The obvious issue here is the existence of the relatively large white area. Options, in no particular order of desirability, include: 1) expand District; 2) coordinate with the County should 3

4 it accept responsibility; and 3) if the County declines responsibility, leave it to the State. However, the District and the County are in discussions with regard to management of this area. Consolidated Rock Considerable area within the watershed and SYRWCD is underlain by consolidated bedrock. This area is exempt from SGMA. Most of this area has low groundwater production and/or imported SWP water use (Vandenberg AFB, City of Solvang). River Alluvium Groundwater in alluvium along the Santa Ynez River is recognized as flowing in a known and defined channel and is directly under the jurisdiction of the SWRCB. As such, it is exempt from SGMA. However, the CASGEM Act (10920 et seq.) was amended to provide that when prioritizing basins, DWR is to consider adverse impact on local habitat and local stream flows. This could affect the Santa Ynez and Buellton Uplands, in particular. Additionally, relatively narrow alluvial areas along tributary streams, while probably under the jurisdiction of the SWRCB, have nevertheless been included with the area surrounding the tributary streams (i.e., Alamo Pintado Creek in Santa Ynez Uplands, San Miguelito Creek in Consolidated Rock) by DWR and SYRWCD. This issue may need to be revisited during GSP development. GOVERNANCE OPTIONS AND ASSOCIATED ISSUES Assuming DWR publishes its regulations on June 1, 2016, agencies will have only 13 months (until June 30, 2017) to establish GSAs, develop and execute coordination agreements, and move forward with appropriate strategies for GSP development. Given the background on geologic structure, available groundwater level and water quality data, potential GSA candidates and other attributes for each Portion of the overall SYV Basin, several governance options exist. The overall goal of any option should be to minimize the costs and regulatory burden of development and implementation of a plan or plans (or alternative), while nevertheless timely complying with the SGMA. The timeline suggests that GSA coordination and GSP strategy(ies) should be developed concomitantly. Given all of the foregoing, one might predict that the Western and Central Portions of the SYV Basin may be better candidates than the Eastern Portion for the development and implementation of a successful GSP. Predictions aside, it seems very prudent to organize and coordinate the Portions of the SYV Basin such that problems in one Portion do not jeopardize successful plans in other Portions. Section (e) allows the SWRCB to exclude from probationary status any portion of a basin for which a GSA demonstrates compliance with the sustainability goal. Option A involves pursuing an Alternative Submittal under Section (b)(3) of the SGMA for the entire basin. This section of the Act provides for less rigorous alternative plans in basins that have been managed sustainably for at least 10 years. It is not clear that the overall basin has operated within its sustainable yield over a period of at least 10 years. The viability of this option will depend on the nature of the regulations being developed and the ability to address the situation expeditiously. 4

5 Option B involves pursuing sustainability for the entire SYV Basin, but developing a GSA within each Portion, so that if the coordinating agencies in one Portion do not develop a timely GSA agreement or GSP, this would not impact the other Portions as applicable under Section (e). Under Option B, a SYV Basin coordinating agency also would be necessary to ensure a uniform approach and methods by the GSA within each Portion and to integrate the results for the overall SYV Basin. Option C involves requesting DWR to establish new sub-basins and then establishing GSA relationships and GSPs within each sub-basin, separate from the rest. This would involve substantially more effort than Option B, which may or may not result in additional benefits. Regardless of the option selected above, an issue emerges as to the contractual relationships that would need to exist between the coordinating agencies forming a GSA. SYRWCD already has, but does not implement, many powers in its Principal Act that also are included in the SGMA. How these and additional powers would be implemented between the agencies in a GSA is one of the more important issues to be addressed. DEVELOPING GSPS Assuming GSAs are approved by DWR on June 30, 2017, they would have four years and seven months to develop GSPs. Plans are scheduled to be implemented by January 31, IMPLEMENTATION PHASES The following four phases are planned for full implementation and compliance with the SGMA: Phase I - Informal Outreach and Team-Building Extending from January 1 to June 1, 2016 (five months), the objective of this phase is informal outreach, education and team-building. Discussions and presentations would be conducted to provide greater awareness and understanding of SGMA and its regulations. The goal of this phase would be to execute a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among agencies within each Portion of the SYV Basin, indicating a willingness to enter into more serious GSA formation discussions. Agency contacts and teams would be established during this phase. Phase II - Development of GSA Agreements and Strategy for GSPs Based on the relationships formed in Phase I, development of GSA agreements would occur between June 1, 2016, when DWR s guidelines for such agreements are released, and June 30, 2017, the deadline for development of GSA agreements. After this date, if GSA(s) were not formed within the SYV Basin or Portions of it, the non-compliant areas would be deemed probationary and the SWRCB would assume control. Concomitantly with GSA formation, strategies for GSP and/or the GSP Alternative Approach (Option A above) would be developed, assuming time exists. This would be based on the guidelines for GSPs and GSP Alternatives issued with the GSA regulations by June 1, A schedule challenge exists with regard to assessing the Alternative (to GSP) Approach in that the deadline for submittal of an Alternative Proposal to DWR is January 1, 2017, allowing only seven months for analysis and development. 5

6 Phase III - Development of GSPs SYV Basin and/or SYV Basin Portion GSPs would be completed and coordinated, as appropriate, during this four year-seven month phase (June 30, 2017 January 31, 2022). Phase IV - GSP Implementation SYV Basin and/or SYV Basin Portion GSPs would be coordinated and implemented, as appropriate on January 31,