FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY A STAH OF CALIFORNIA 'NAUR AGENCY

Transcription

1 FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY A STAH OF CALIFORNIA 'NAUR AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS Lynn E. Maulhardt, Chair, Director, United Water Conservation 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. B. Pledge of Allegiance Director Neal Andrews led the Pledge of Allegiance. C. Roll Call Chair Lynn Maulhardt Alternate Director Neal Andrews Director Steve Bennett Director Eugene F. West Director David Borchard Alternate Directors Robert Eranio, David Schwabauer, and Andrew Waters (noted at 1 :33 p.m.) were in the audience. Agency Staff Jeff Pratt, Executive Officer Alberto Boada, Agency Counsel Tully Clifford, WPD, Director Gerhardt Hubner, Deputy Director Rick Viergutz, Groundwater Manager Kathleen Riedel, Groundwater Specialist Mandi Freitas, Administrative Assistant Jessica Kam, Clerk of the Board D. Agenda Review Mr. Jeff Pratt, Executive Officer, requested the Board consider hearing Item Nos. 3-5 before Public Comments and the Consent Agenda as Director Steve Bennett would need to leave for another meeting at 2:20 p.m. The Board approved the requested changes with no objection. 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA (805) FAX: (805) Website: Item 1 - Page 1 of 8

2 Page 2 of 8 REGULAR AGENDA: 3. Proposed Plan to Develop a Groundwater Sustainability Plan Within One Year Mr. Gerhardt Hubner, Deputy Director, presented the item's background and the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) steps to development. At the April 22, 2015 FCGMA Board Meeting, the Board directed staff to return with a proposed plan to develop a GSP in one year; and identify policy decisions the Board will need to make that will be foundational for addressing sustainable yield, the allocation system, and funding to cover the costs associated with GSP development. The steps to development included: (1) stakeholder "buy-in" and Board approval on the scope of work to be performed by staff and consultant services; (2) funds allocated to pay for the work effort; (3) clear Board direction given to staff regarding several long-term policy issues; (4) implementation of a rapid process for scoping and acquiring consultant services; and (5) implementation of an accelerated stakeholder, technical and Board review, comment, and approval process for the draft and final GSP prior to submittal to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires DWR to create technical criteria and regulations before June 1, Some of the assumptions in moving forward are: (1) one GSP for the entire Agency will be produced with the different basins addressed in sections or chapters and/or appendices of the final document; and (2) Agency staff will rely on existing published data, information, and studies including the Agency's existing 2007 Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) and work done by United Water Conservation District (UWCD), the Las Posas Users Group (LPUG) and others. To expedite the GSP process, Agency staff proposed using an industry recognized GSP outline as the starting point for scoping the GSP (UC Davis Center of Watershed Sciences). Agency staff have reviewed and edited the outline to better fit the characteristics, conditions and needs of the basins within the Agency. Mr. Hubner noted that DWR may change the draft outline as they get closer to the June 1, 2016 deadline. In the initial scoping for the GSP elements and development, Agency staff will identify areas from the existing 2007 GMP for update; develop the scope of work; and work towards the solicitation and selection of a consultant to assist with the GSP development, award of contract, and consultant contract oversight and management, and technical and public review. It will include the following evaluations: water budget parameters, basin specific groundwater allocations systems, definition of sustainable yield, monitoring programs, how change in storage will be calculated, definition of undesirable results, and management strategies. A draft GSP will be circulated for review, and upon adoption by the Board, it will be provided to DWR. Any existing geological and hydrogeological data gaps will be fully explored, but any outstanding gaps would have to be addressed at a later time. Agency staff will rely on existing available data from UWCD, Calleguas Municipal Water District (CMWD), and any past modeling efforts and conceptual models. Agency staff included with the data gaps a draft list of technical questions that will have to be reviewed for GSP development. One of the elements that would be a part of the GSP include the sustainable yield/water budget. Agency staff proposed that a comprehensive sustainable yield analysis, including a water budget, be Item 1 - Page 2 of 8

3 Page 3 of 8 done for the seven sub-basins: Oxnard Plain, Forebay, Pleasant Valley, Arroyo Santa Rosa, and Las Posas 0f\Jest, East, and South). The sustainable yield approach would be based on an estimated water balance taking into account groundwater extractions and hydrologic conditions. There may be a high range of uncertainty with the timeframe and scoping of the available data. Second big element to be proposed in the GSP is the allocation system/methodology. Agency staff will review other groundwater allocation systems, evaluate their merits, and make recommendations. They will look at an allocation system on a basin-by-basin approach, as one size fits all may not be appropriate. Basins that have an allocation system, or are in the process of vetting an allocation system would be included as long as they can demonstrate it is linked to the sustainable yield of that particular basin. Agency staff will examine existing 2007 GMP, update the list of management strategies and build upon the efforts in the previous completed elements. To complete the GSP in one year, funding will need to be included in the Fiscal Year (FY) Budget. The estimated cost to fund and complete the GSP in a one-year timeframe is $1,000,000. The proposed amount is based on professional judgment, experience with other plan developments, and talks with UWCD staff in terms of the cost of completing sustainable yield in other basins. The Board will also need to look at several long-term policy issues that will directly impact sections of the GSP. The decisions need to be made prior to writing those sections of the GSP (for example, those that pertain to yield, such as seawater intrusion) as it would be beneficial prior to scoping work for consultant services. Later, policy decisions will need to be made on allocations and management strategies. He reviewed the process for scoping work and acquiring consultant services and noted that the process is estimated to take approximately three months. SGMA requires public and stakeholder involvement in the GSP development (which the Agency practices through good routine activities), so for a one year GSP development, this process would need to be accelerated. It is likely that a Technical Advisory Group would be needed to discuss and vet certain technical elements of the draft GSP. Agency staff propose that the Agency's Board meetings be used as the at-large public outreach forum versus trying to replicate something else. Once a draft GSP has been reached, Agency staff recommend: (1) holding a Special Board meeting in late spring/early summer 2016; (2) revise draft GSP based upon comments received; (3) Board adopts final GSP; and (4) submits it to DWR. The elements in the One Year Plan include: (1) it would use only easily accessible existing knowledge, studies, data and reports; (2) existing basin/sub-basin boundaries remain unchanged; (3) sustainable yield methodology based upon research by other entities, estimated basin inflows and outflows and groundwater level responses to the inflows and outflows; (4) accelerated public and technical review process - public and technical input may be limited; (5) GSP available for submittal to DWR in one year; and (6) GSP will remain a work in progress. Agency staff are looking for the Board's endorsement of these assumptions if the Board decides to move forward (with the One Year Plan). The One Year Timeline highlighted the following key dates: By October 1, 2015 o Board to decide key policy issues o Consultant services - award/execute contract October 1, April 1, 2016 o Basin Characterization/Hydrogeology o Water Budget/Yield o Allocation System o Basin Management Objectives/Management Strategies Item 1 - Page 3 of 8

4 Page 4 of 8 April 1, 2016 o Draft GSP July 1, 2016 o Final GSP Agency staff recommended the Board provide staff with feedback and direction on: (1) endorsement of One Year Plan; (2) funding; and (3) review and decision making process. Mr. Pratt provided supplementary comments: (1) regarding Item 3A, he reminded the Board that DWR is not due to have guidelines for what is in a GSP until 2016; Item 3A is a draft and the staff's best guess/roadmap; (2) regarding the proposed $1,000,000, he reminded the Board that the Agency has a tight process for controlling expenditures, and this is the staff's best guess based on what they have heard from others; (3) the dark gray rows in Item 3C can be grouped into three categories, which the Board will need to address: (a) basin yield, (b) allocation methodology, and (c) management strategies; and (4) he noted that if the Board decides to move forward with the One Year Plan it marries three things: (a) the Work Plan, (b) SGMA, and (c) the Bennett/Maulhardt plan. Director Bennett inquired that assuming the Board moves forward and the Agency develops a GSP before the State releases guidelines, can the Agency adjust the GSP based on the new guidelines. Mr. Alberto Boada, Agency Counsel, responded that SGMA does allow for GSPs to be updated from time-to-time and as-needed based on new information. The Board received public comments from representatives of: COLAS Ventura County, Crestview Mutual Water Company, Wishtoyo FoundationNentura Coastkeeper Program, LPUG, California Food and Agri Business Advocates, City of Camarillo (City), and Calleguas Municipal Water District. Director Bennett informed the Chair that his plans have changed; thus, he can remain in attendance for the remainder of the meeting. The Board discussed the staff's report and their concerns. Director Borchard announced that a Fiscal Committee meeting is scheduled for June 4, 2015 at 1 :30 p.m. Chair Maulhardt directed staff: (1) to include the One Year Plan in the cost of the Budget; (2) include a policy statement that if it takes more time (i.e. more than One Year), then the Agency will give it the time as appropriate, and the Board will make the determination; (3) to provide clarity on stakeholder involvement/input; (4) provide clarity on range of basin yield based on what is known now and identify the missing data points for each individual basin; and (5) reemphasize to stakeholders to generate a proposal for the allocation methodology. Director Borchard inquired about the Agency's ability to collect a replenishment fee. Mr. Boada stated that it is his reading of SGMA that the financial authority to collect a replenishment fee and engaging in projects to enhance supply and groundwater storage is contingent on the adoption of a GSP. Chair Maulhardt also requested Agency staff return with what they feel the meeting schedule should be for the year including the stakeholder process. Item 1 - Page 4 of 8

5 Page 5 of 8 E. Public Comments Chair Maulhardt reordered the agenda to hear Public Comments, Board Member Comments, and the Consent Agenda before Item No. 4. No comments were made by the public. F. Board Member Comments Chair Maulhardt commented on the inflow to Lake Texoma (on the borders of Texas and Oklahoma). He stated that Lake Texoma has 3.5 million acre-feet (AF) of storage, and the inflow is 300,000 cfs a day. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Approval of Minutes - April 22, 2015 Director West made the motion to approve Consent Item Nos. 1 and 2. Director Andrews seconded the motion, and the motion passed. 2. Approval of Minutes - May 8, 2015 Director West made the motion to approve Consent Item Nos. 1 and 2. Director Andrews seconded the motion, and the motion passed. REGULAR AGENDA (continued): 4. Proposed Resolution No , A Resolution Specifying Requirements for Establishing an Annual Efficiency Allocation By Operators That Supply Groundwater for Agricultural Use by Others Mr. Rick Viergutz, Groundwater Manager, reviewed the development background for Resolution No He presented Agency staff's responses to stakeholder concerns that remained following outreach. Mr. Viergutz noted that the proposed Resolution creates certain exceptions to filing the Annual Efficiency Allocation (or Irrigation Allowance): (1) a grower who is also a well operator (i.e. a well operator is already required to do the annual filing); and (2) a grower who is not a well operator within the Agricultural Water Supplier's service area but is a well operator in same basin. That grower is authorized to "add in" the acreage within the water suppliers' service area with the Annual Efficiency Allocation. The proposed Resolution does allow Agricultural Water Suppliers to perform the Irrigation Allowance Index (IAI) reporting in the aggregate, rather than having to demonstrate the IAI for each grower within its service area. The proposed Resolution does not include language proposed by Pleasant Valley County Water District (PVCWD) that would require other operators to do the IAI reporting whenever PVCWD is not the sole source of groundwater. It also does not have language absolving water suppliers of any responsibility for surcharges if the IAI is exceeded. Item 1 - Page 5 of 8

6 Page 6 of 8 The approach in proposed Resolution No provides needed direction to mutual water companies, special districts, and others that provide agricultural water to growers. If the Board wishes to consider changes to the IAI program as it relates to water suppliers, the issue may be agendized for discussion or action at a future Board meeting. Agency staff recommended the adoption of Resolution No The Board heard from Mr. Robert Krimmer, PVCWD, regarding the comment letter submitted to the Agency on May 26, He reviewed the suggested provisions outlined in the comment letter. The Board heard from : (1) Mr. Jason Weiner, Wishtoyo Foundation; (2) Ms. Carol Schoen, Zone Mutual Water Company; and (3) Mr. Dave Sasek, Waterworks Districts. Director West made the motion to adopt Resolution No amending the term "Agricultural Operator" to be "Agricultural Well Operator" everywhere it appears, and to include in the Resolution the paragraph labeled "New Section 3" in Mr. Krimmer's May 26, 2015 letter to the Board (and renumber the following sections). Director Bennett seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously (Chair Maulhardt- Yes; Director Andrews - Yes; Director Bennett - Yes; Director West - Yes; Director Borchard - Yes). 5. Follow-Up for Ordinance Compliance Concerns Made Evident Through the Well Inspection Pilot Program, and Approaches to Future Well Inspections Mr. Viergutz reminded the Board that Agency staff presented a report at the April 22, 2015 Board meeting of the pilot program for inspection of wells in the Las Posas Basins. The Board requested staff to return with additional information on how to follow-up on the data and reporting concerns, nonresponsiveness or refusal of requests for the well inspection, and approaches for a future Well Inspection Program. The data and reporting concerns include: (1) 22 serial number issues; (2) 12 multiplier and divisor issues; and (3) five possible under reporting. The recommendation was to continue with staff action as outlined in the Board letter table. Mr. Viergutz reported that 79 wells (27%) identified for inspection were not inspected (most due to unresponsiveness); approximately half of these wells are understood to be active or inactive in the Agency's records or active in the County's records. Staff recommend completing the remaining inspections to provide better data and compliance "baseline." The better baseline would be used to develop future random sampling programs. The Agency may wish to develop more specific standards for conducting routine well inspections. In the event the Agency seeks an inspection warrant, the Board should determine whether or not to delegate the decision to seek an inspection warrant to the Executive Officer. Staff recommended the Board direct staff to develop specific standards for conducting well inspections, and delegate authority to the Executive Officer to decide under what circumstances the Agency should seek an inspection warrant. In developing approaches to a future Well Inspection Program, staff discussed using random sampling as it would provide useful information. However, the better the baseline is in moving into this type of program, the better the random sampling would be. To determine a sample size, staff would use some basic statistical methods that incorporates margin of error and confidence level. Conceptually, if the Agency moved forward with a random well inspection it would include somewhere between 200 to 275 wells. Completing the well inspections in the Las Posas Basins will provide a better baseline to develop a random inspection program. Compliance related inspections may also be necessary. Item 1 - Page 6 of 8

7 Page 7 of 8 Staff recommended: (a) that the Agency complete the well inspections in the Las Posas Basins for well owners and operators that were not responsive or that refused the earlier well inspection request by making new requests for well inspections. The inspection would draw on the expanded Agency authority only if necessary to complete the inspection; and (b) in FY begin a Well Inspection Program that selects wells randomly and also includes compliance based inspections. Chair Maulhardt directed a question to Mr. Andy Waters, inquiring if it would be appropriate for LPUG to draft a letter trying to explain to the owners what LPUG has been trying to accomplish, what the Agency is trying to accomplish and make an overture to let the inspection continue. The alternative would be giving the Executive Officer the authority to move forward with a legal process. Mr. Waters agreed that a letter could be drafted and LPUG is interested in working with staff to streamline the process. Director West inquired if there is a process in place so that if a warrant is necessary to effect an inspection the cost can be borne by the well operator. Agency staff informed the Board there is no process in place, but Mr. Boada stated that a process could be put in place. Chair Maulhardt made the motion to accept staff's recommendations with two caveats: (1) to look at the warrant issue and the nature of random inspection; and (2) the use of penalty monies; and attain a balance between County and Agency wells. Director Bennett seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously (Chair Maulhardt - Yes; Director Andrews - Yes; Director Bennett - Yes; Director West - Yes; Director Borchard - Yes). INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 6. North Pleasant Valley Groundwater Desalter Facility Status Report Mr. Hubner provided the follow-up to the May 8, 2015 Special Board meeting request for a status report. First, he reported that Agency staff did contact City of Camarillo (City) staff to request a meeting, and the meeting is still pending. Secondly, at 10:30 a.m. this morning, the Agency received the Peer Review Report from the City. Lastly, the agenda for the certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on June 10, 2015 (originally scheduled for ). Mrs. Lucia McGovern, City, confirmed Mr. Hubner's report and informed the Board that the City is talking to other parties, and they are hoping, in the near future, to bring all three parties before the Board to present the project. They would like to hold these discussions with the parties before meeting with Agency staff. She noted that several meetings are scheduled for May 28, Director Andrews made the motion to receive and file the report. Director West seconded the motion, and the motion passed. CLOSED SESSION MEETING: 7. Conference With Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation (Gov. Code, ) Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to Sub-Division (d)(4) of Section : One case. The Board meeting was adjourned to Closed Session at 3:31 p.m. The meeting was called to order at 3:45 p.m. Item 1 - Page 7 of 8

8 Page 8 of 8 Mr. Boada reported out the Board's vote. EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT: 8. Administrative Reports Director Borchard made the motion to receive and file the reports. Director West seconded the motion, and the motion passed. 9. Adjourn Board Meeting Chair Maulhardt adjourned the meeting at 3:46 p.m. Submitted by: Item 1 - Page 8 of 8