GBA Coordinating Committee MeetingFeb ruary 11, 2015 - 10:15 a.m. to 12:00 p .m.California Water Service Company, Conference Room1602 East Lafayette Street, Stockton, California

- - - - Agenda Topics - - --

A. Follow-up Discussion on Board of Directors Agenda Items

B. Discussion Items

• IRWMP Project List Update Process

• Water Investigation Zone 2 Successor Effort

• 2014 Drought Related Supplemen tal Groundwater Monitoring (See Attache d)

• Groundwater Susta inability Act Implementation Discussion (See Attached)

Fu ture Agenda Items:

• GBA Joint Exercise of Powers Agreemen t Expiration, June 30, 2015• IRMWP Project List Additions - Lower San Joaquin River & Delta Sou th Regional Flood

Management Plan

The next regularly scheduled GBA Coordinating Committee meeting is

March 11, 2015, 10:15 a.m,

Agendas and Minutes may also be found on the GBA Website at:htttJ://Www.}lbawater.or~l

Note: If you need disability-related modification or accommodation in order to participate in this meeting, pleasecontact the Water Resource Staff at (209) 468-3089 at least 48 hours prior to the start of the meeting.

Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin AuthorityCoordinating Committee Meeting Summary

Wednesday, November 12,2014

Follow-up Items:None at this-time.

A. Follow-up Discussion Board of Directors Agenda Items:• 2014 IRWM Drought Grant Proposal funded by Proposition 84 - no further discussion• Discussion of and Update on the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring

Program (CASGEM) - Staff stated they have a list of names to whom they will besending the letter. It was suggested the letter be narrowed to only the informationactually needed. There was discussion regarding whether the GroundwaterSustainability Area should be established individually by entities or collaboratively as aregion. It was noted some of the San Joaquin basin is covered through CASGEM effortsin Calaveras County.

B. Discussion Items:• Water Investigation Zone 2 Successor Effort - Staff stated simply extending what exists

is not legal under current law. It was fifteen years ago when Zone 2 was instituted.Case law has affected assessment districts so that there has to be a defined benefit foreach affected property assessed. There is no statute of limitations for challenging Prop218 violations. A determination needs to be made whether to proceed with anassessment district or a fee.

There is no possibility of using assessment district proceeds for monitoring sustainability.It is quite common to use a fee to pay for water service and storm drains. Currentiy,Zone 2 is used for costs supporting investigation, coordination, and management.

Mr. Nakagawa provided some history for context. He said Zone 2 was first conceived in1989. In the late sixties, the Water Advisory Commission was reformed as a forum fordiscussions. Subsequently, the Water Resources Department was created. In 1999,the bulk of the work was done to pass a Prop 218 compliant assessment district. Of the165,000 ballots, approximately 30% were returned.

Mr. Nakagawa then showed examples of costs for parcel rates and area rates. He saidthey are looking at a cost of $1.2-1.5 million to fund the Zone 2 successor effort. Zone 2ends on June 30th of this year.

He continued that part of what has been accomplished is the task of developing andimplementing a strategic plan to address existing and emerging issues. The issues havenot been solved, but there have been efforts to deal with them. Some of the majorissues and accomplishments that have been worked on include:

1. Water rights and areas of origin - preserve and protect through policies, legalaction, and coordination of diverse interests

2. Restore and maintain the Eastern San Joaquin Basin - utilize efforts such as theUSGS Salinity Study, the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, datamanagement, the Groundwater Banking Authority, and the MokeWISE program

1

3. Protect water quality - support the development of salinity objectives, partiallystaff stormwater pollution prevention program, oppose interpretation of Deltaexporters

4. Maintain and develop new water supplies-to meet the SW County needs­SSJID, Tracy, Mountain House, and other districts

5. Develop funding/financial programs to meet water supply needs - acquire andleverage funds

6. Support water conservation efforts - coordinate conservation efforts andImplement the drought management campaign

There is still much work to continue to address the above issues and to address: theDelta in crisis, new legislation approaches and action, groundwater management,understanding and monitoring the basin, and implementing the IRWMP. $629 millionhas been invested, but there needs to be a determination of where to put the nextinvestment. Also needed Is continued watershed partner coordination, inter-regionalconjunctive use projects., stormwater quality treatment control, and working on thebalance of water supply and demand.

Discussions are around the nature of the continued role of the GSA - whether it shouldcontinue as a coordinating effort or move into implementation.

The next step with the consultants is to work on outreach. Staff started with the County,Advisory Water Commission and GSA. Now they are moving to community leaders andonto focus groups and other stakeholders. Staff needs to determine the tolerance pointfor the fee or assessment. The messaging will be developed in conjunction withinformation gleaned from the focus groups. Work is also ongoing in regards todeveloping a budget for the funds that will be raised. The goal is to have therecommendations to the board of supervisors in the spring so the decision is in time forcoordinating with the August tax rolls.

• Groundwater Management Legislation Implementation Timeline - continued

Next Coordinating Committee Meeting: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 at 10:15 a.m.

Submitted by:Carolyn Lot!, Senior Facilitator, PrincipalCarlon Consulting

2

ATTACHMENT B.2014 Drought Related

SupplementalGroundwater Monitoring

o

: \"

A,......

,..

,"-

001

02S09 E12ROOI~.

03N09E25ROO I

1N09E13000,1r .. ,

Figure XX

Potential Analysis Wells

1;'" 4 '7n yl cn0 N09E26A001

01NOBE~5R002EB

EB OfS09 E07AOEB • 0 S09El 1J002

ffiol S0BE14BOOl EB

03NOBE22AOOI

EB

Legend

EB Potential Analysis Wells

StudyArea

Calaveras River to Mormon Slough

Mokelumne River

Southeastern San Joaquin County

Central San Joaquin County

EBMUD Mokelumne Aqueduct

u,

.. .... 100:.

O2So8EOBEOOl ""1! 02S09E07DOOI02S07EOBROOIEB EB

EB

Sources: Esri, DMETI, Esri Chi.!]

03N07E1B0 012EB EB03N07E17K002

e

I, ~. ... :

02N07El1FOOl 02N08E09G002

EB : EB "OiN07E2;m.Q01, O'

2N07E30EOO I EB .. 02N08E28H002EB 02NOB E33E°EeB

01N07El ll00l

EB ~ •,01N07E21ROO I

EB (lot..,....:..•"

'oO,

l ' . .. . .

arcektcn

01S07E09QOOI01S06E23C003EB ..

EB "" '....'-.

"'_." Q4N08 128011

ffi 04 09E18A01104N09EI 8D?g2EEE!1 w

4.,0.4N07E28J002 04N07E25G01S::" 04N08E26A 12

04N06E34J002EB EBc- ..~, EBWOOtlhrl"E9 _.,..

,, -

Project Name: Dry-Year Data Preliminary AnalysisCity, State : Stockton, Ca lifornia

-: -.

"V

r, ~""......T...... (; ••,.. 11"

'r..qo

,~

Date: 0210312015Drawn by: JADChecked By: JAD

EBMUD Mokelumne Aqueduct

,..

-.

, ".ft • I • •

. . .. ,A ..,. .,.

... /. ,

",. ,10,/

1.'. " ..1

"

H,r v,"

"I""

OlocO'l<'fY

' "

"""/"

"1· ..!

••VI.I.,

". " " c •• • , 11'1

, , 11,1

II"

,oj I "

"

..

-e

.,•"

Ar ch Rd

SEW-$-

,\••

"

H'It I, ,, ' I, ....~

'" "

,,,,\,,..•,,1-° '••"

F<>"l"" "" . II

r M.l ln S l

.,

Lane

Sperry_Road

.",.

•z

"•

Morada

,. ~ I I ~

~'I 'I', ~ .

1-' ",. ,,~ I

\'..,,~

S lockIon :>t/(rY"\l1:

•

' Ie,,, ",,,, ,..... "

" . •, 0 ..

•

II ,·"tv l " " 'j 111 .. ,1

!,

v "U " J ,I- .. , I!' " ' "

r, .wy IJ I

"'"f ' ' "

" ..... .., .~ .." •.,r

",~ F II h· , ,,

M " II .. , Rrl

W It ,mlO' ''' l"

R(>'I'lt: Il ,' (/

R. : .: • .-;a

'0 'd'"n, 10'"0)"0,,

~~

Sandman Park-$- -

"t/•

Oak Grove -Ra rk.s,k ' " '' - -v ,j" " ,

r "

•.

-e

'".8«

"..::.I.... ~ 1(>" ::

Sources: Esri, DeLorme. NAVTEd',"'U:SG'S ~ Intermap, iPC, NRCAN. Esri Japan,METI. ~,~~! c9h ina (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2013 ;

Figure XX

Cluster Well Locationson

~me.'l" od"'l L- --'

Ii J S t 1011oAn

f :'lll h

Project Name: Dry-Year Data Preliminary AnalysisCity, State: Stockton , California

Date: 0210312015Drawn by: JADChecked By: JAD

ATTACHMENT B.Groundwater

Sustainability ActImplementation

Discussion

Groundwater Legislation TimelineDWR M opts regula',jons to revise b ~si n oouM aries

"11(;

Adjudicated eeen c submit fina! juogmer,t \C DWR

and begin submll tl llg annual reports to D'NR

.. --.

O"NR publishe, Buuetm 118- IlIl el lin Updatew l ~ h updated B~s,n Boundanes, updated Basin

Fr i ar , l i l ~ ll on , and feissues {as neeoed} ba31ns

e.crecuc Qrd,cal CO ndi tion, oi ove rdraf t

Local Agencies mal' no

longer accot or updateGMP, for high ancmedium p rim i ~ , basins

DWR accpts tequlatmna i« eval'Jating

and nn piemenunq GSDS ar-dcocru.nat.cn

screemeou e-c DWR adepts regulations

for e ~a l l; all n g eaemeu-es to GSPsDWR ccbnsnea aM Ps lor sustainable manaqernentof groJr,u'/laie'

DWR publishes Bulletin 11B- C Olr, pr8 he n Sl ''' ~ Update

,A,llolfna:i 'ie to a GSP due 10 D'NR

DWR updates basmpriol il lzabon ,.

DWR identities ~ asi ns

sUbject 10 cnucarconcnione

of cverc-ea

CWR pubhsl-esreport on wafer avail­

able for g rou naw~ ter

replM ishmer.1

Estaolish GSr,s lor equ" alenll fOT allhigh and medium prior ity basins

COllntv must aifil ~l or disaffirm l es pOll S I ~ i l l l y

as GSA It no GSA has been estacnshed

Higr, and meciurn ~ r i cr i l y basin, Idenlitied

subject to t;ri:ic , 1concuions 01overcraltmust be maoaced uocer ~ GSP

0 '1Ap' il l lollo.\'ing GSP "CCpl'Ofl and

annuauylneteaftet . G5M pO 'lId ~ reper t

on progress towa:d, w. lainabil ily Ie OWR

1\11olo er high e-o n1&0Il' I:1pr iorily bas.ins

must te rn ~ n " g ~ d once- a GSP

On Apr.t I rene....:ng GSP ad o ~tlon aoj

a n ~ lIa l l:llhe re ~ ;\er , GS",s pro" lde .eccn on

progress towards s Ui ta i r,ab i l il~ 10 DWFi

Board mo, desigll ole " caem as

'pr ooatica ar( rt DWR, in conslI:tation

wi'h f~e Board detarmine, tr,al the GSP

re inM equa!e or 1101b61'l g i rr,p l ement~ d

cor.e cu, and lhe Beard deterrn -es that 'teba>ln ten a concit.on where g ro J l l d y, ~ lef

extroClions resull in 3igMH;a nt dep'etion of

interc onnecte d surfa ce waters

80. rd rna, ro ld d hearing 10 d&s gnale

a hlgll anc medium pll orl11 basin as·probal iOllar:l' <I DWR, In ccnsuuancn ,..:lh

u-e Beare , uecenrunes that tne GS" is

inadeqoale or wil l not ac ~ i e ,~ s '"s tal n a ~ d i t,

Beard mo1 b ~gl n d e Y~ lop, " g I nl~r i ~ l

plans for c r i! lc~ lI y cvercratten"probatronary basins' one year afte.

the prooallonar, desig ~a ! i o ll, utn e

Board, In cooeonanc - ",,'Ih tbe DWR,

determines ttta l a local a',Efie y has

nQI remeoec tns osqcrenc y Ihat

r es~ll ed in the proIJaiiortar1 statusTn,

BOord ma~' begin 10develop lntenrn plans If a loca l agencv has not

remedieu 1M a ll ',c i ~ n cy thal resul'ed In ue · p ro ~ a l l or1 a r j ~~3in'

status lne Hoare consclts witn D'\\ 'R

Probationary basma may pet.tlon tor un-uesiqnahon. Tr,e Board

conscus wiln DWR 10 determine if the peji l lon I, complele The

Board acts on ve petinon wi:hin 90 days ot subculta l

Boad m. y ncld a ne~ r i n g 10 cesiqnetea crll ica ly·oys' Orai:e d basina.

"probatio nary ' if DWR, in consultatio n with

the Beare determines thallhe GSP re

i r, a ce~u ate 0' "'''11 net act -eve sustaina b.lity

Beard adopts a iesschedli le for ' stale back­

stor' reratec costs

Board begin. cclle cncn of annuatreccns from

persons e~ t' a : t i r g more t~ a, two aces tee per

yea.' trcen areas not rr,ar,aGed by a GSA

Board m. y he'd 0 heali ng 10 designale

a nasra as ·probatlonar y' if a GSAor

approved alternative is ,' 01eslablisbed

r- ·Mtijj'Ni' ----..I I ImllJnki

i

.--

W~ler Beard Aclion

DWR AClion

_ Joinl W~ 'ef Board and OWR A,UOfl

Local ~ CI I Cll

GMP G'O'Jild-o'i aler M ~ i\ ~ ?<-me n( P I ~ n

GSA G'oomdwaler $l l. la,nanili ty AJsncy

GSP G rou nd"' ~tgr Su, lalnattl lil l Plaf1

8MP$ Best M J ~ aiJ~'1' e l1l Pr<lCHCeS

EI ",m s nl~ 10be doeun'lent&d in Bullahn 118 Up d 9,a~

*'" Basin pr l l)li l i l ~t'oll \10';11be updaled prio r 10eachBullelln 1IS Update i~sbmal e 1 10 be everv S I'~~'s)

October 2014

Groundwater Sustainability Agency Governance

Principal Governance Options

Govern anceForm

Specia lComm ittee

Memorand um

ofUnderstanding

(MaUl

Description

• Esta blished and led byan exist ing public agency

• Can be a st and ing or adhoc group• Single agency fundseffort, acts as fisca l andcontract agent• No fo rmal or bindingagreements bet wee npart icipants

• Voluntary participation• Advi sory wi t h limitedability to makecomm it ments

• Involves mult ipleagencies and fundingsources as defined in a

MOU

• Can be st and ing or adhoc• Single f iscal and contractage ncy fo r grants• Volunt ary participa t ion• No legal standing to sueor be sued

• liabil ity is only toindividua l participatio n

Examples

• San Joaquin CountyAdvisory WaterCommission

1

• Sacramento WaterFor um

• M oke lum ne WaterForum

• Semitropic WaterStorage District

Gro undwater BankingProje ct

• Poso Creek (SemitropicWater Storage District)

• Greater l os AngelesCounty Region al WaterManagement Group

• East Stanislau s Regiona lWater Ma nageme nt

Part nership

• Madera IRWM P• Upper Kings lRWMP

• Antelope IRW M P• eABYIRWMP• Greater l.A. IRWM P

• Bay Area IRWMP• Vent ura IRWMP• Santa Barbar a IRW M P• San l uis Obispo IRW M P

Pros and Cons

Pros: Easy t o form t o address single purposeor issue, or d issolve if fal ters. Flexible- can add

expertise and leadership as needed. Adequatefor planning. No legal st anding t o sue or be

sued. limite d liabili t y for participa nt s.

Cons: Weak govern ance model w it h limi t ed

author it y .Act ive participat ion may be lacking due t ovoluntary nat ure. Cannot ho ld pr operty of sign

cont racts .

Pros: More fo rmal than a specia l committeesince a M OU is adopted and signed byparticipants. MO U's prov ide a f lexible met hodto assemb le agencies and stakeholders.

Cons: No contractua l relations hip bet w eenpart icipant s. The underlying MOU goals are

reliant on the individual agencies to implementpro jects. A M OU is not an adeq uate st ruct urefor proj ect implementation wit hout firm and

binding agreeme nts w ritten int o t he MOU, orside agreements and contracts fo r projects.M OU governance t ypi cally includes a sing le

fi scal agent and contract ing entity, and thesame agency assumes liabil it y fo rimplementat ion of grant programs.

1 SJC Flood Contro l & Water Conservat ion District Act , Sect ion 7 (Stats. 1956, Chapt er 46), SJC Flood Control & Water

Conservation Dist rict Ordi nance #l-F; Board of Supervisors' Resolut ion R-86 -438 & Ordinance #34S7 dated 1/31/89; Board

Order B-90-44 dated 1/ 9/ 90; & Ordina nce #3920 dated 3/18/97.

For Discussion Purposes Only

GovernanceForm

ContractualAgreement s

Joint PowersAuthority (JPA)

FormallyChart eredOrganization

Description

• l egally bindingagreements amongentities for specificpurposes or projects

• Could include hiringstaff, joint fundingactivities, etc.

• Formed by localagreement amonggovernment agenciespursuant to state law• Creates legally bind ingcommitm ents amongent it ies for specificpurposes or projects

• Used as a localagreement to defineauthorities, liabiliti es,responsibilities, funding,and revenue generatio ncapaciti es per agreement• Can do business, hirestaff, contract for service,enter into agreements• Can include def inedliabilities; t.e., can sue and

be sued• Formed by state statute• Governance st ructurecan be variable andinclude mult iplegovernmenta l ent itie s• Statutorily defin edpowers and auth oritiestargeted to specificpurposes or projects• Cando business, hirestaff, cont ract for service,enter into agreements• Can include definedliabilities; i.e., can sue andbe sued

Examples

Typically used as anadjunct to a MOU forimplementation grants orother special purposes.

• SanLuis & Delta­Mendota Water Authority(IRWMPj• Eastern SanJoaquinGroundwater BasinAuthority• Mokelumne River Wate rand Power Authority• Eastern Water Alliance• Kings River WaterAut hority

• SacramentoGroundwater Authority· SAWPA

• San Joaquin CountyFlood Control and WaterConservation Distr ict• Moja ve Water Agency• KingsRiverConservatio nDistrict• Santa Anna Wate rshedProjects Authority

• County flood controldist rict s• Imperial Irr igationDistr ict• San LuisObispo CountyFlood Control and WaterConservation District

Pros and Cons

Pros: Very specific and binding. Definescontractua l relationships, liabili tie s,responsibilities, funding, etc.

Cons: May be complicated to administer formultiple projects with multiple proje ctcontracting entities operating with grant fund sunder a DWR cont ract.

Pros: Integrates exist ing agency powers,authorit ies, and funding mechanisms. Formedlocally by participating agencies, is shaped tobenefi t local purposes, and includes an annualbudget approved by a Board of Directo rs.Powers of a JPAare established in by thecombined powers of the signatory agencies.JPA.Powers can include borrowing, collectingfees, taxation, condemnatio n, police powers,etc.

Cons: Limit ed to powers held in common . Nomembership opt ion for non-governmentorganizations, except as advisory. Memb ers areusually appointed rather than direct ly electe d.Takes t ime for adopti on by particip atingagencies.

Pros: Can include non-governmenta lorganizat ions in voting, and in who sits on theboard or council. Very specific powers andauthor itie s, decision process, funding andrevenue generation, etc. Good for specialpurpose in a defined geography. Can incurdebt, and sell bonds. Empowered to facili tatestate and federal coordination.

Cons: Takes longer to form new statutorilydefin ed agency. Typically more politicallychallenging than a locally form ed JPA.

For Discussion Purposes Only