Meeting of the ETGSA Stakeholder Committee

EASTERN TULE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY

County of Tulare

City of Porterville

Porterville Irrigation District

Saucelito Irrigation District

Teapot Dome Water District

Vandalia Water District

Terra Bella Irrigation District

Kern-Tulare Water District

Meeting of the ETGSA Stakeholder

Committee Thursday, March 14, 2019

Convenes at 2:00 p.m.

Eric Borba GSA Chairman

Steve Kisling GSA Vice-Chairman

Aubrey Mauritson Legal Counsel

Bryce G. McAteer Executive Director

Transit Multi Purpose Center 15 E. Thurman Ave

Suite D Porterville, California 93257

[email protected] www.easterntulegsa.com

-----------------------------AGENDA----------------------------- Action items are listed in bold.

1. ROLL CALL

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

At this time, members of the public may comment on any item not appearing on the agenda. Under state law, matters presented under this item cannot be discussed or acted upon by the Committee at this time. For items appearing on the agenda, the public is invited to make comments at the time the item comes up for Committee consideration. Any person addressing the Committee will be limited to a maximum of three (3) minutes or the Chairman’s discretion. At all times, please state your name for the record.

3. MINUTES

a. Approval of the February 21, 2019 Joint Meeting of the Executive and StakeholderCommittees Minutes

4. STAKEHOLDER_OUTREACH & COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

a. Report on ongoing outreach efforts and upcoming events

5. ETGSA MEETINGS REVIEW

a. Report on ETGSA Board Meeting of March 7, 2019

Agenda Packt pg.1

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.easterntulegsa.com/


a. Report on updated draft Historical Tule Subbasin Water Budget and updated draftEstimated Sustainable Yield

b. Report on draft framework for defining Tule Subbasin Sustainability Goal andUndesirable Results; may make a recommendation

c. Report on Tule Subbasin Coordination, TH&Co Task Items, and upcoming TAC Meetingon March 20, 2019

d. Report on Inter-Basin & Regional Coordination

7. GSP DRAFTING

a. Report on ETGSA GSP Drafting; may make a recommendationb. Discuss and consider new GSP policy matters; may make a recommendation

8. NEXT MEETING DATE

a. Next Meeting (Stakeholder Committee) – Thursday, April 11, 2019 at Transit MultiPurpose Center (15 E. Thurman Ave, Suite D, Porterville); may make arecommendation

9. ADJOURMENT

A person with a qualifying disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 may request the GSA Authority to provide a disability-related modification or accommodation in order to participate in any public meeting of the GSA Authority. Such assistance includes appropriate alternative formats for the agendas and agenda packets used for any public meetings of the GSA. Requests for such assistance and for agendas and agenda packets shall be made in person, by telephone, facsimile, or written correspondence to the GSA Authority Secretary or to the City of Porterville Public Works Department (559) 791-7804, at least 48 hours before a public GSA meeting.

6. TULE SUBBASIN COORDINATION

Agenda Packt pg.2

Stakeholder Committee March 14, 2019

Agenda Packet

Other materials, exhibits, and presentations may be distributed on the day of the Committee Meeting.

Agenda Packt pg.3


Agenda Item 3.a

Approval of the February 21, 2019 Joint Meeting of the Executive and Stakeholder Committee Minutes

Staff Report to the ETGSA Stakeholder Committee

Subject: Minutes

Submitted By: Executive Director

Recommended Action: Move to approve the Minutes of the February 21, 2019 Joint Meeting of the Executive and Stakeholder Committees

Executive Summary:

n/a

Background:

n/a

Fiscal Impact:

n/a

Attachments:

• Exhibit A – Minutes of the February 7, 2019 Joint Meeting

Agenda Packt pg.4

EASTERN TULE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE

HELD FEBRUARY 21, 2019

At approximately, 2:00 p.m. on February 21, 2019, at the City of Porterville Transit Main Purpose Conference Room, Chairman Eric Borba, called to order a joint meeting of the Executive Committee and Stakeholder Committee of the Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency Joint Powers Authority (“ETGSA”).

Executive Members Present: John M. Domondon Mike Reed Denise England Steve Dalke Steve Etchegaray Eric Borba Sean Geivet

Executive Members Absent: Eric Limas

Stakeholder Members Present: John Konda Bill Bennett Tom O’Sullivan Don Castle Kathy Briano Matthew Leider James Parsons Julia Inestroza Jason Guthrie Sopac Mulholland

Stakeholder Members Absent: Matt Watkins Ben Magana

Others Present: Bryce McAteer Peter Harman Aubrey Mauritson Matt Feaver Armando Leal Phil Pierre Michael Knight Richard Garcia Mehmet McMillan Julie Allen Dale Brogan Ryan Jensen Terry Schuler Don Tucker Bill Morgan Stacie Ann Silva Garrett Busch

PUBLIC COMMENT

Chairman Eric Borba announced the public comment period. No public comment was received.

Agenda Item #3.aExhibit A

Agenda Packt pg.5

2

MINUTES

Approval of Stakeholder Committee Minutes of January 10, 2019

Committee member Castle moved for approval of the January 10, 2019 Stakeholder Committee minutes. The motion was seconded by Committee member Briano and the committee unanimously approved the motion. Approval of Executive Committee Minutes of January 17, 2019 Committee member Reed moved for approval of the January 17, 2019 Executive Committee minutes. The motion was seconded by Committee member England and the committee unanimously approved the motion. STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH & COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Report on Ongoing Outreach Efforts and Upcoming Events Executive Director McAteer referred the committees to Agenda Item #4a, attached hereto and incorporated by reference, a copy of his report on ongoing outreach efforts and upcoming events. ETGSA MEETINGS REVIEW Report on ETGSA Board Meeting of February 7, 2019 Executive Director McAteer provided a report on the ETGSA board meeting of February 7, 2019. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #5a is a copy of his report. TULE SUBBASIN COORDINATION

Report on Tule Subbasin Coordination, TH&Co Task Items, Other Inter-Basin & Regional Coordination, and Tule Subbasin TAC Meeting of January 16, 2019

Executive Director McAteer provided a report on ongoing coordination activities. Attached hereto an incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #6a is a copy of his report. Additionally, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #6.a Exhibit A is a copy of the visual timeline of Subbasin Coordination and TH&Co deliverables presented to the Committees, and, as Agenda Item #6.b Exhibit B, an abridged copy of the TH&Co presentation on the groundwater flow model updates. *Executive Committee member Dalke arrived during this agenda item. Discussion ensued regarding Friant-Kern Canal future supply calculations being prepared by Delano Earlimart ID.

Agenda Packt pg.6

3

*Stakeholder Committee Chairman Leider arrived during this agenda item.

Public comment was received from Peter Harman.

Executive Director McAteer continued with his presentation.

GSP DRAFTING

Report on ETGSA GSP Drafting

Executive Director McAteer provided a report on the GSP drafting. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #7a is a copy of his report.

Public comment was received from Julie Allen, Bill Morgan, and Ryan Jensen.

Discussion ensued amongst the committees regarding CEQA and its relevance to the development and implementation of the GSP.

Discuss and Consider New GSP Policy Matters; May Make a Recommendation

Executive Director McAteer provided a presentation on new GSP policy matters. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Agenda Item #7b is a copy of report on the new policy matters and, as Agenda Item #7.b Exhibit A, a copy of his PowerPoint presentation reviewing ETGSA’s New Policy Matters.

Sustainable Management Criteria

Executive Director McAteer provided a report on the current status of the development of sustainable management criteria.

Management Areas

Executive Director McAteer reviewed the definition of a management area and local considerations that might apply to ETGSA. He then opened the discussion up to the committee and for public comment.

Discussions amongst the committees ensued regarding the possibility of Kern-Tulare Water District as a management area, the three local issue considerations presented by staff, the possibility of Terra Bella Irrigation District as its own management area due to its unique operations which include delivery of M&I water, and the possibility of developing management areas over time.

Public comment was received from Julie Allen.

Agenda Packt pg.7

4

Executive Director McAteer further discussed why GSAs may consider management areas and directed the committees to the definition of a management area provided in the presentation. Public comment was received from Ryan Jensen. Discussion amongst the committees ensued regarding the possibility of urban use areas as management areas, each irrigation district as its own management area, and non-district lands being its own management area. The Executive Director recommended, based on the local issues for consideration, that the committees may wish to consider four general management areas to cover urban areas, Kern-Tulare Water District, subsidence, and the remaining general agricultural area. EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: Executive committee member Etchegaray moved to accept staff’s recommendation for separate management areas including urban areas, Kern-Tulare Water District, subsidence, and the remaining agricultural lands. Executive committee member England seconded. The committee further deliberated the recommendation. Executive Committee member Etchegaray withdrew his previous motion. He then moved to create management areas around urban lands, Kern-Tulare Water District, Terra Bella ID, the subsidence area, and the remaining ag lands. Executive committee member England seconded the motion. Discussion amongst the committee again ensued. The committees discussed the need for Vandalia Water District to be its own management area, management areas within the “white area”, the option for staff to bring back to the next committee meetings criteria for formations of management areas. Committee member Geivet moved to recommend the use of management areas and have staff bring back to the committees draft criteria and visualizations. Committee member Reed seconded the motion. There was no further discussion and the Executive Committee unanimously approved the motion. STAKEHOLDER RECOMMENDATION: Committee member O’Sullivan moved to recommend the use of management areas and have staff bring back to the committees draft criteria and visualizations. Committee member Bennett seconded the motion. Discussion ensued regarding the need to look at management areas within the white lands. The committee then unanimously approved the motion. Public comment was received from Peter Harman. Executive Director McAteer reported no specific area of subsidence concern, per the TH&Co subsidence analysis, had yet been identified.

Mechanisms & Functioning of a Sharing System

Agenda Packt pg.8

5

Executive Director McAteer provided a summary of a possible sharing system and reviewed several policy questions would be important to consider before finalizing the system. Discussions amongst the committees ensued regarding the feasibility of completing this type of sharing system in an expedited fashion. Executive Director McAteer reported there are numerous vendors that could assist with the needed technology. *Committee member Etchegaray left at this time. Public comment was received from Peter Harman. Discussion amongst the committees ensued regarding whether non-well owners or non-landowners can be permitted to have an account and who might be eligible to create a groundwater account. STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Committee member Konda moved to have staff bring back a summary of potential criteria for groundwater account users. Committee member Castle seconded. Discussions amongst the committees ensued. The committee then unanimously voted to approve the motion. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Committee member Geivet moved to have staff bring back a summary of potential criteria for groundwater account users. Committee member Reed seconded. Discussion amongst the committee ensued. The committee then unanimously approved the motion.

Criteria for Validating a Recharge Project

The item was pulled from the agenda and will be raised at a future date.

Evaluating Transfer Impacts The item was pulled from the agenda and will be raised at a future date.

California Adjudications, SGMA, and the Concept of “Historical Use” Executive Director McAteer and General Counsel Mauritson began a presentation discussing adjudications, SGMA, and the concept of historical use. Discussions amongst the committees ensued regarding the concept of historical use. Concerns were relayed that it may encourage those who have pumped more to be rewarded, and the difficulty in verifying historical use and if a specific parcel had ever been irrigated. Public comment was received from Ryan Jensen. Discussion ensued regarding availability of data to determine past use on various parcels.

Agenda Packt pg.9

6

Public comment was received from Julie Allen.

Discussion ensued regarding staff’s recommendation on an allocation method, which includes a pooled mechanism for ag and rural areas for the sustainable yield based on an equal pro rata share based on gross acreage and a separate mechanism for transitional pumping.

Discussion ensued regarding continuing the discussions on historical use. Questions were also raised how historical use is related to prescriptive rights in an adjudication.

No action was taken by either committee.

NEXT MEETING DATE

Next Meeting (Stakeholder Committee) – Thursday, March 14, 2019 at Transit Multi-Purpose Center (15 E. Thurman Ave., Ste. D, Porterville)

The next meeting of the Stakeholder Committee is set for March 14, 2019, 2:00 p.m.

Next Meeting (Executive Committee) – Thursday, March 21, 2019 at Transit Multi-Purpose Center (15 E. Thurman Ave., Ste. D, Porterville)

The next meeting of the Executive Committee is set for March 21, 2019, 2:00 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT

Since there was no further business to come before the Committee, Chairman Borba adjourned the meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

____________ Bryce G. McAteer, Secretary to the Board

Agenda Packt pg.10


Agenda Item 4.a

Report on ongoing ETGSA outreach efforts and upcoming events


Subject: Summary of February outreach and upcoming March events


Recommended Action: n/a (report is for informational purposes)

Executive Summary:

In addition to its regular Board and Committee Meetings and email correspondence to its Interested Parties List, ETGSA continues to conduct community outreach regarding SGMA, ETGSA, and the development of ETGSA’s Draft GSP through a variety of events and other media.

A summary of ETGSA’s outreach efforts in February 2019 is listed below:

• (Website) – A Spanish version of ETGSA’s Stakeholder Survey was made available onlinein both print and digital form

• February 6, 2019 (Event) – ETGSA Executive Director presented on SGMA, the TuleSubbasin, and Monitoring at a local agricultural industry event in Visalia with ~50attendees

• February 13, 2019 (Event) – ETGSA Executive Director served on a panel discussingSGMA, GSP development, and GSP implementation at the World Agricultural Expositionin Tulare with ~50 attendees.

• February 14, 2019 (Member Agency Outreach) – ETGSA Executive Director presented atthe KTWD Board Meeting.

• February 14, 2019 (Interested Parties) – ETGSA received the results of its Sacred LandsFile search from the Native American Heritage Commission. The results were positive,and NAHC recommended that ETGSA contact the Tule River Indian Tribe and othertribes for more information. Email correspondence was sent to the Tule River IndianTribe on February 20, 2019 with follow up postal correspondence sent on February 25,2019 (Note: No response received to date).

Agenda Packt pg.11


• February 22, 2019 (Event) – ETGSA Executive Director gives presented on SGMA, theTule Subbasin, and Monitoring at a local agricultural industry event in Visalia with ~150attendees.

• February 25, 2019 (Local Collaboration) – ETGSA is formally accepted as a member to theAdvisory Group of the Tule River Basin IRWMP GROUP.

• February 26, 2019 (Workshop) – ETGSA hosts its first of four initial CommunityWorkshops in Ducor, in collaboration with local partners SHE and CWC. Materials and apresentation highlighting SGMA, ETGSA, and ongoing groundwater sustainabilityplanning efforts were provided in English and Spanish. 15 attendees were present.

Upcoming events and outreach are listed below:

• March 12, 2019 (Workshop) - ETGSA will host a Community Workshop regarding SGMAand groundwater sustainability planning in Terra Bella from 5:30pm-7:30pm at (locationchange) Carl Smith Middle School (23825 Ave 92, Terra Bella, CA). Event and materialswill be in English and Spanish.

• March 20, 2019 (Subbasin Coordination) – The Tule Subbasin MOU Group TAC willconvene at 2pm at the Lower Tule River Irrigation District Conference Room (357 E.Olive Ave, Tipton, CA).

• March 22, 2019 (Regional Collaboration) – USGS, in partnership with ETGSA, the TuleSubbasin MOU Group, and FWA, will present on “Subsidence in the Central Valley” andprovide an onsite tour of the recently refurbished Extensometer now operating near theFriant-Kern Canal. Time and location are:

o 10am-11:30am–Indoor Presentation (City of Porterville Transit Multi PurposeCenter -15 E Thurman Ave, Ste D, Porterville, CA 93257)

o Noon-1pm–Extensometer Site Tour (Southeast of Intersection Ave 112 and Rd208; Adjacent to Friant-Kern Canal near Mile 101.6)

• March 26, 2019 (Workshop) – ETGSA will host a Community Workshop regarding SGMAand groundwater sustainability planning in Porterville from 5:30pm-7:30pm at ComisionHonorifica Mexicana Americana (466 E. Putnam Ave, Porterville, CA). Event andmaterials will be in English and Spanish.

Background:

SGMA requires that, “The groundwater sustainability agency shall consider the interests of all beneficial uses and users of groundwater, as well as those responsible for implementing groundwater sustainability plans…” (WAT § 10723.2). ETGSA undertakes outreach efforts, both

Agenda Packt pg.12


individually and in collaboration with regional partners, to ensure that these interests are considered and provided with information pertinent and relevant to SGMA and the development of ETGSA’s GSP. The ETGSA Board of Directors adopted a Communication and Engagement Plan on October 5, 2018 that serves as a living guide to ETGSA’s outreach efforts.

ETGSA’s Board and Committee meetings occur on a regular basis and, save for closed session as permitted pursuant the Brown Act, are open to the public.

ETGSA continues to encourage its stakeholders to engage the Agency with other opportunities for outreach.

Fiscal Impact:

n/a

Attachments:

• Exhibit A: ETGSA Community Workshop (Terra Bella) Flier• Exhibit B: ETGSA Community Workshop (Porterville) Flier• Exhibit C: ETGSA Community Workshop (Richgrove) Flier• Exhibit D: USGS “Subsidence in the Central Valley” Event Flier

Agenda Packt pg.13

Join the ETGSA and its partners to discuss the future of our local groundwater resources!

Why When

Tuesday, Mar. 12

5:30-7:30pm

New projects and policies are being

developed that will have an impact

on local groundwater starting 2020.

��:-? . . ·. .

�,;;, ,. W�at's going on r:�-.' _--with Groundwater? t�:::-_L;_. , .. ,-,·_ ·.- -- -- - . _ ·:_ · .

Groundwater supplies -95% of drinking water and over half of the irrigation water used in our area. The Sustainable Groundwater

Management Act (SGMA) is a new law that will fundamentally change the way we use and manage groundwater in California. The Act requires local agencies to form Groundwater Sustainability

Agencies (GSAs) to manage and regulate groundwater.

The Eastern Tule GSA (ETGSA) is a new GSA that was formed in 2016. ETGSA needs to draft and adopt Groundwater Sustainability

Plan (GSP) by January 31, 2020. Among other things, this Plan will describe how our local groundwater resources will be sustainably managed through the implementation of projects and management actions that improve local groundwater conditions.

Join us as we work to develop our GSP!

�-�·�•:��- , ····,;

..... . .... ,-. . - ,- . -· :'' ' �i/ .. ,)'.';,Event and materials will:be If"" .... ·,·. . • ··< :· . '•. . .. ' . :

i:d(f inJnglishan�;spa_nish ··-.. _ ....

J.:'.

Sponsors & Partners

Where Carl Smith

Middle School

23825 Ave 92,

Terra Bella, CA 93270

Richgrove

Eastern Tule GSA 881 W. Morton Avenue, Suite D

Porterville, CA 93257

W: www.easterntulegsa.com

E: [email protected]

l� COMMUNITY WATER CENTER {---•� ELCENrROCOMUNIIARIOPOHl.:LAC.UA

T!;:RRA B!;:LLA

IRRIGATION

DISTRICT

�P

:""�;�;;iTb·;;;·��;si·t� (:�'w.eastern�ulegsa.com) for more informati�� regarding sustainable groundwater management. ,., :• , . . . . . ' . �•�.. � . ... . . .


Agenda Packt pg.14

Unase a ETGSA y sus socios para hablar sobre el futuro de nuestros recursos Locales de agua subterranea!

Porque Cuando

Martes, Mar. 12 5:30-7:30pm

Se estan desarollando nuevos proyectos y polfticas que tendran un impacto en Las aguas subterraneas

Locales a partir de 2020.

lQue esta pasando con el agua subterraneo?

El agua subterranea suminstra a - 95% de agua potable y mas de la

mitad del agua de riego utilizada en nuestra area. La Ley de

Manejo Sostenible de Aguas Subterraneas (SGMA) es una nueva Ley

que cambiara fundamentalmente la forma en que usamos y

manejamos las aguas subterraneas en California. La Ley requiere

que las agencias locales formen Agencias de Sostenibilidad de

Agua Subterranea (GSA) para administrar y regular el agua

subterranea.

El GSA del Este de Tule (ETGSA) es un nuevo GSA que se form6

en 2016. ETGSA necesita redactar y adoptar el Plan de

Sostenibilidad de Agua Subterranea (GSP) antes del 31 de Enero de

2020. Entre otras cosas, este Plan describira c6mo seran nuestros

recursos locales de agua subterranea gestionado de forma

sostenible a traves de la implementaci6n de proyectos y acciones

de gesti6n que mejoren las condiciones locales de agua

subterranea.

• • • • •I• • I • I• • I • • I •

i El Evento y materiales estara disponible

en Ingles y Espanoli

Patrocinadores y Socios

/; COMMUNITY WATER CENTER �� ELCl!NTRO COMUNITARIO POR EL AGUA II

Donde Carl Smith

Middle School

23825 Ave 92,

Terra Bella, CA 93270

Terra Bella

Ducor

Richgrove

Eastern Tule GSA 881 W. Morton Avenue, Suite D

Porterville, CA 93257

W: www.easterntulegsa.com

E: [email protected]

T!;RRA Bi;:LLA

IRRIGATION

DISTRICT

Visite el sitio web be ETGSA (www.easterntulegsa.com) para mas informaci6n sabre la gesti6n sostenible de aguas subterraneas.

Agenda Packt pg.15

Agenda Item #4.aExhibit B

Agenda Packt pg.16

Agenda Packt pg.17

Agenda Item #4.aExhibit C

Agenda Packt pg.18

Agenda Packt pg.19

Time & Location:

Land Subsidence in the Central Valley

Co-Hosted by:

Hosted by:

www.tulesgma.com www.easterntulegsa.com www.friantwater.org

Join us for a presentation to learn more about the history of subsidence in California and enjoy an onsite tour of USGS’s recently refurbished extensometer along the Friant-Kern Canal.

Friday, March 22, 2019

- Presentation & Site Tour -

10am-11:30am – Indoor Presentation (City of Porterville Transit Multi Purpose Center -15 E Thurman Ave, Ste D, Porterville, CA 93257)

Noon-1pm – Extensometer Site Tour(Southeast of Intersection Ave 112 and Rd 208; Adjacent to Friant-Kern Canal near Mile 101.6)

www.usgs.gov

Agenda Item #4.a

Exhibit D

Agenda Packt pg.20

http://www.tulesgma.com/


http://www.friantwater.org/

http://www.usgs.gov/


Agenda Item 5.a

Report on ETGSA Board Meeting of March 7, 2019


Subject: Summary of Most Recent ETGSA Board Meeting



Executive Summary:

The ETGSA Board of Directors met on March 7, 2019. Below is a summary of the meeting:

Directors Present – Director Borba, Director Leider, Director Kisling, Director Corkins, Director Wheaton, Director Townsend, Director Reyes, Alternate Director Dalke

Directors Absent – Director Holmes, Director Schneider

Summary of Actions Taken -

• Approve the Minutes of February 7, 2019 Board Meeting• Approved the Printer Agreement between Cline’s Business Equipment and ETGSA for a

printer rental• Approved Resolution 2019-001 “RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR A NON-MATERIAL GSA

BOUNDARY CHANGE”• Approved payment of the bills

Background:

n/a

Fiscal Impact:

n/a

Attachments:

Agenda Packt pg.21


Agenda Item 6.a

Report on updated draft Historical Tule Subbasin Water Budget and updated draft Estimated Sustainable Yield


Subject: Updates to the draft Historical Tule Subbasin Water Budget



Executive Summary:

Thomas Harder & Company (hereafter, “TH&Co”) recently updated the Draft Tule Subbasin Basin Setting. Updates to this document resulted in a new draft Historical Tule Subbasin Water Budget and new draft Estimated Sustainable Yield. TH&Co also provided each of the GSAs with an individual draft Historical Water Budget.

The Historical Water Budget is subject to further update and revision based on Cal Poly ITRC data that is expected to be received in March and additional comments provided by GSA technical leads.

Based on the period of 1986/87-2016/17, the draft estimated Tule Subbasin average annual change in storage is -165,000 acre-ft/yr.

The estimated Sustainable Yield is subject to further update and revision based on the final chosen Future Water Budget (due to future projected variables that may have an impact on the estimated Sustainable Yield) and additional comments provided by GSA technical leads.

Based on the period of 1986/87-2016/17, the draft estimated Tule Subbasin average annual sustainable yield is 297,000 acre-ft/yr.

Exhibit A summarizes these updates, provides estimates for applied agricultural water adjustments necessary to reach sustainability, and indicates several example draft reduction schedules for ETGSA based on the 5 bookend ramp down scenarios.

Agenda Packt pg.22


Background:

The Basin Setting “refers to the information about the physical setting, characteristics, and current conditions of the basin as descried by the Agency in the hydrogeological conceptual model, the groundwater conditions, and the water budget, pursuant to Subarticle 2 of article 5.” (GSP Regs. § 351.(g)).

Fiscal Impact:

n/a

Attachments:

• Exhibit A: Summary Slides – Updated Preliminary Draft Sustainable Yield and PreliminaryDraft Reduction Schedules

Agenda Packt pg.23

Preliminary Draft – For Discussion Purposes Only

Potential Applied Water Reduction Schedules


Agenda Packt pg.24


Updated Historical Water Budget

Historical Sustainable Yield for 1986/87 – 2016/17 =297,000 acre-ft/yr

Previous Sustainable Yield for 1990/91 – 2009/2010 =257,725 acre-ft/yr

Average Annual Change in Storage from 1986/87 –2016/17 = -165,000 acre-ft/yr

Agenda Packt pg.25


Preliminary Agricultural Applied Water Rates – 2017 vs. Sustainable

Note: Applied Water Includes Both Surface Water and Ground-Water Supplies

Preliminary Sustainable Rate2017

Agenda Packt pg.26


Potential Applied Water Reduction Schedule for ETGSA

13,000

26,000

39,000

52,000

65,000

4,0007,000

11,000

15,00018,000

22,000

26,000

30,00033,000

37,000

41,00044,000

48,000

52,00055,000

59,000

63,000

67,000

70,00074,000

0

7,000

14,000

21,000

28,000

35,000

42,000

49,000

56,000

63,000

71,000

78,000

7,000

14,000

21,000

28,000

35,000

42,000

49,000

56,000

63,000

71,000

78,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

20

17 -

20

18

20

18 -

20

19

20

19 -

20

20

20

20 -

20

21

20

21 -

20

22

20

22 -

20

23

20

23 -

20

24

20

24 -

20

25

20

25 -

20

26

20

26 -

20

27

20

27 -

20

28

20

28 -

20

29

20

29 -

20

30

20

30 -

20

31

20

31 -

20

32

20

32 -

20

33

20

33 -

20

34

20

34 -

20

35

20

35 -

20

36

20

36 -

20

37

20

37 -

20

38

20

38 -

20

39

20

39 -

20

40

Ap

plie

d W

ater

(acr

e-ft

/yr)

Agricultural Applied Water in Excess of Sustainable Yield

Eastern Tule GSA

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5

Preliminary Total Applied Water Reduction Target

-13,000 afy -7,000 afy -4,000 afy

10-yr Ramp DownAfter 2030-7,000 afy

Estimated Annual Applied Water Reduction to Meet Target

Agenda Packt pg.27


Agenda Item 6.b

Report on draft framework for defining Tule Subbasin Sustainability Goal and Undesirable Results; may make

a recommendation


Subject: Development of Draft Tule Subbasin Sustainability Goal and Undesirable Results


Recommended Action: Move to recommend approval of the framework proposed in the Discussion Draft (Exhibit A) for defining Undesirable Results

Executive Summary:

Executive Director McAteer and Thomas Harder & Company (hereafter, “TH&Co”) have developed a Discussion Draft and associated Presentation to suggest a draft Subbasin Sustainability Goal and various alternative criteria for consideration when defining Undesirable Results in the Tule Subbasin.

An initial Discussion Draft (Exhibit A) was circulated for discussion amongst the Tule Subbasin GSAs, and is currently being revised with preferred alternative criteria. A presentation (Exhibit B) helps to explain the approach recommended by Executive Director McAteer and TH&Co fordeveloping Undesirable Result criteria, and Exhibit C visualizes this approach by applying themconceptually to areas within the Tule Subbasin.

Background:

The Tule Subbasin GSAs are coordinating on the development of their Sustainable Management Criteria (hereafter, “SMCs”). SMCs are composed of: Sustainability Goal, Undesirable Results, Minimum Thresholds, Interim Milestones, and Measurable Objectives.

Fiscal Impact:

Agenda Packt pg.28


n/a

Attachments:

• Exhibit A: Working Discussion Draft for Tule Subbasin Sustainability Goal andUndesirable Results

• Exhibit B: Presentation – Draft Methodology for Developing Undesirable ResultDefinitions & Criteria

• Exhibit C: Presentation – Selecting RMSs and Minimum Thresholds, Preliminary Draft forDiscussion Purposes (TH&Co)

Agenda Packt pg.29

Tule Subbasin MOU Group DRAFT COORDINATION AGREEMENT/GSPs Pg. 1 -SUBJECT TO DELIBERATIVE PROCESS-

TULE SUBBASIN MOU GROUP WORKING DISCUSION DRAFT – SUBJECT TO DELIBERATIVE PROCESS

Section 3 – Sustainable Management Criteria

Introduction (Reg. § 354.22)

This Chapter describes criteria that constitute sustainable groundwater management for the Tule Subbasin, including its sustainability goal and the characterization and definition of undesirable results for each applicable sustainability indicator.

Sustainability Goal (Reg. § 354.24)

The Sustainability Goal of the Tule Subbasin is the absence of significant and unreasonable undesirable results associated with groundwater pumping, accomplished by 2040 and achieved through an integrated program of sustainable groundwater management.

Achievement of this goal will be accomplished through the coordinated effort of the Tule Subbasin GSAs in cooperation with their many stakeholders. It is further the goal of the Tule Subbasin GSAs that coordinated implementation of their respective Groundwater Sustainability Plans will achieve sustainability in a manner that facilitates the highest degree of collective economic, societal, environmental, cultural, and communal welfare and provides all beneficial uses and users the ability to manage the groundwater resource at least cost. Moreover, this coordinated implementation is anticipated to ensure that the sustainability goal, once achieved, is also maintained through the remainder of the 50-year planning and implementation horizon, and well thereafter.

In achieving the Sustainability Goal, these Plans will inherently balance average annual inflows and outflows of water so that negative change in storage does not occur over time. The stabilization in change in storage should also drive stable groundwater elevations, which, in turn, works to inhibit water quality degradation and arrest land subsidence.

Undesirable Results (Reg. § 354.26) Undesirable Results are caused by groundwater conditions occurring throughout a significant and unreasonable portion of the basin that, for any sustainability indicator, are considered significant and unreasonable. These conditions, or sustainability indicators, include:

• Chronic lowering of groundwater levels indicating a depletion of supply if continued over theplanning and implementation horizon;

• Reduction of groundwater storage;• Seawater intrusion;• Degraded water quality, including the migration of contaminant plumes that impair water

supplies;• Land subsidence that substantially interferes with surface land uses; and• Depletions of interconnected surface water that have adverse impacts on beneficial uses.

Agenda Item #6.b

Exhibit A

Agenda Packt pg.30



The Tule Subbasin GSAs have evaluated the potential for each of these groundwater conditions and have established criteria wherein, if any such significant and unreasonable conditions were to become present, they would constitute an undesirable result.

There are five groundwater conditions with sustainability indicators that must be evaluated due to their relative potential to cause significant and unreasonable effects within the Tule Subbasin. These conditions are:

• Chronic lowering of groundwater levels indicating a depletion of supply if continued over theplanning and implementation horizon;

• Reduction of groundwater storage;• Degraded water quality, including the migration of contaminant plumes that impair water

supplies;• Land subsidence that substantially interferes with surface land uses; and• Depletions of interconnected surface water that have adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the

surface water.

The Tule Subbasin GSAs have defined undesirable results for each of the five conditions listed above. Each condition’s undesirable result includes a description of:

1. The cause of groundwater conditions that would lead to or has led to undesirable results;2. The criteria used to define when and where the effects of the groundwater conditions cause

undesirable results; and3. The potential effects on beneficial uses and users of groundwater, and land uses and property

interests, and other potential effects that may occur.

Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels Causation: Chronic lowering of groundwater levels occurs when groundwater pumping exceeds the available recharge of the basin over a prolonged period of time. While the Tule Subbasin has experienced periodic fluctuations in its groundwater levels as a result of seasonal and short-term hydrological variability, a consistent average-annual overdraft within the Subbasin since 1987 has contributed substantially to the chronic lowering of groundwater levels throughout the Subbasin (see Basin Setting Section 2.3.2.4).

Projects and management actions will be implemented in order to decelerate and arrest chronic lowering of local groundwater levels within the Tule Subbasin by 2040.

Criteria: The Tule Subbasin GSAs have defined __ (#) criteria that, when met, would constitute an undesirable result for the chronic lowering of groundwater levels:

• Alt. 1: An undesirable result for the Tule Subbasin would be the lowering of groundwater levelsbelow the minimum thresholds of Representative Monitoring Sites with monitoring areas thatrepresent __% or more of the total Subbasin area.

• Alt. 2: An undesirable result for the Tule Subbasin would be the lowering of groundwater levelsbelow the minimum threshold of Representative Monitoring Sites with adjacent monitoringareas that represent ___% or more of the total Subbasin area.

Agenda Packt pg.31



• Alt. 3: An undesirable result for the Tule Subbasin would be the lowering of groundwater levelsbelow the minimum threshold at more than ___% of the total Representative Monitoring Sitesin the Tule Subbasin.

Effects: An exceedance of minimum thresholds to the extent that the undesirable result is experienced would likely induce hardship on groundwater users such as well failures and failure to access groundwater (e.g. collapsed casing due to excessive groundwater level decline or land subsidence), additional operational costs for groundwater extraction from deeper pumping levels, and additional costs to lower pumps, deepen wells, or drill new wells. Corollary effects might also include land subsidence resulting in damage to critical infrastructure, migration of contaminant plumes, and production of poor water quality that is no longer beneficially useable at a reasonable cost.

Reduction of Groundwater Storage Causation: Chronic reduction of groundwater storage occurs when pumping exceeds the available recharge of the basin over a prolonged period of time. The Tule Subbasin has experienced consistent groundwater overdraft since 1987 resulting in a negative average annual change in groundwater storage (see Basin Setting Section 2.3.2.4).

Projects and management actions will be implemented in order to decelerate and arrest chronic negative change in groundwater storage within the Tule Subbasin by 2040.

Criteria: The Tule Subbasin GSAs have defined __ (#) criteria that, when met, would constitute an undesirable result for the reduction of groundwater storage:

• Alt. A.1.: An undesirable result for the Tule Subbasin would be a __-year rolling average changein groundwater storage that, when negative, exceeds the average annual change ingroundwater storage of the Tule Subbasin estimated from the historical average period of 19__to 20__ (“Baseline”) by:

o __%, for the period of 2020-25o __%, for the period of 2026-30o __%, for the period of 2031-35o __%, for the period of 2036-40

OR• Alt. B.1: An undesirable result for the Tule Subbasin would be a total estimated negative change

in storage that:o For the period of 2020-25, is greater than ___ acre-feeto For the period of 2026-30, is greater than ___ acre-feeto For the period of 2031-35, is greater than ___ acre-feeto For the period of 2036-37, is greater than ___ acre-feet

• Alt. C.1: An undesirable result for the Tule Subbasin would be a total estimated change instorage that, during the 20-year statutory implementation horizon, exceeds ____ acre-feet.

OR• Alt. D.1: An undesirable result for the Tule Subbasin would be the lowering of groundwater

levels below the minimum thresholds of Representative Monitoring Sites with monitoring areasthat represent __% or more of the total Subbasin area.

• Alt. D.2: An undesirable result for the Tule Subbasin would be the lowering of groundwaterlevels below the minimum threshold of Representative Monitoring Sites with adjacentmonitoring areas that represent ___% or more of the total Subbasin area.

Agenda Packt pg.32



• Alt. D.3: An undesirable result for the Tule Subbasin would be the lowering of groundwaterlevels below the minimum threshold at more than ___% of the total Representative MonitoringSites in the Tule Subbasin.

Effects: Experiencing the undesirable result for change in groundwater storage would likely induce hardship on groundwater users such as well failures and failure to access groundwater, additional operational costs for groundwater extraction from deeper groundwater levels, and additional costs to lower pumps, deepen or drill new wells. Corollary effects might also include land subsidence resulting in damage to critical infrastructure, loss of aquifer storage capacity, migration of contaminant plumes, and production of poor water quality that is no longer beneficially useable at a reasonable cost.

Degraded Water Quality Causation: Groundwater quality may be degraded to the extent that it is no longer suitable for beneficial uses as a result of three conditions:

• Demonstrated changes in the direction of contaminant plume migration attributable to a shift ingroundwater gradient resulting from excessive drawdown;

• Spills and/or general spreading and application of certain compounds that, followingsubsequent percolation, enter from the surface into the underlying groundwater system andaccumulate into concentrations that degrade the potential of the groundwater to be beneficiallyused for certain purposes; and

• Naturally occurring groundwater constituent concentrations that exceed regulatory levels or areotherwise undesirable are encountered at certain depths and/or locations within the subbasinand, as a result of perforation intervals, the groundwater extracted from various sites accessingthese areas results in discharge water that exceeds regulatory levels.

Active sites of local contamination, as well as maps showing groundwater nitrate concentrations and electrical conductivity measurements are shown in the Tule Subbasin Setting Section 2.1.7.4.

Within the Tule Subbasin, potential causes of degraded water quality may include: • Intentional and unintentional spills of toxic compounds.• Groundwater gradients that cause the migration of identified contaminant plumes into areas

where they previously did not exist;• Application and/or recharge of treated municipal effluent;• Application and use of fertilizer, chemical additives or other substances that leech into the

subsurface and percolate to the groundwater;• Leeching of septic system effluent; and• Naturally occurring constituents that are native to the groundwater and sediments within the

aquifer;

Significant local, state, and federal regulation already exists in order to manage human use, treatment, and disposal of compounds that may have an effect on our environment. In order to avoid an undesirable condition, the Tule Subbasin GSAs will partner, as needed, with the appropriate entities already currently regulating activities that may have an effect on groundwater quality.

Projects and management actions will be implemented in order to decelerate and arrest the degradation of groundwater quality within the Tule Subbasin by 2040.

Agenda Packt pg.33



Criteria: The Tule Subbasin GSAs have defined __ (#) criteria that, when met, would constitute an undesirable result for the degradation of groundwater quality:

• Alt. A.1: An undesirable result for the Tule Subbasin would be the exceedance of the minimum threshold concentrations for one or more constituents of concern (or, “would be the lowering of groundwater levels below the minimum thresholds”) at Representative Monitoring Sites with monitoring areas that represent __% or more of the total Subbasin area. s

• Alt. A.2: An undesirable result for the Tule Subbasin would be the exceedance of the minimum threshold concentrations for one or more constituents of concern (or, “would be the lowering of groundwater levels below the minimum thresholds”) at Representative Monitoring Sites with adjacent monitoring areas that represent __% or more of the total Subbasin area.

• Alt. A.3: An undesirable result for the Tule Subbasin would be the exceedance of the minimum threshold concentrations for one or more constituents of concern at ___% of the total Representative Monitoring Sites in the Tule Subbasin.

o OR • Alt B.1: An undesirable result for the Tule Subbasin would be the exceedance of the minimum

threshold concentrations for one or more constituents of concern (or, “would be the lowering of groundwater levels below the minimum thresholds”) at Representative Monitoring Sites within monitoring areas that represent __% or more of the total area of any single Municipal Management Area,

Effects: An exceedance of minimum thresholds to the extent that the undesirable result is experienced would likely induce hardship on groundwater users such as groundwater quality that adversely affects crop growth, additional costs to treat water for household and drinking water use, additional costs to treat water for agronomic use, acute and chronic health risks, the inability to use existing wells for agricultural or municipal purposes, and significant costs to remediate groundwater resources within the Subbasin. Land Subsidence Causation: Permanent land subsidence is attributable to the dewatering and subsequent compaction of water bearing formations composed of substantial thicknesses of fine-grained deposits. Land subsidence within the Tule Subbasin has been reactivated since 1987 with the onset of overdraft conditions (see Basin Setting Section 2.2.6) and has negatively affected land use property interests and entities relying on critical infrastructure. Projects and management actions will be implemented in order to decelerate and eventually arrest land subsidence within the Tule Subbasin by 2040. Criteria: The Tule Subbasin GSAs have defined __ (#) criteria that, when either is met, would constitute an undesirable result for land subsidence:

• Alt A.1a: An undesirable result for the Tule Subbasin would be subsidence rates in exceedance of the minimum threshold(s) at the Representative Monitoring Site(s) with monitoring areas representing __% or more of the total area within the Friant-Kern Canal Management Area (or, “any single designated Land Subsidence Management Area”)

• o OR

Agenda Packt pg.34



• Alt. B.1: An undesirable result for the Tule Subbasin would be subsidence rates in exceedance ofthe minimum thresholds at Representative Monitoring Sites with monitoring areas representing__% or more of the total Subbasin area.

• Alt. B.2: : An undesirable result for the Tule Subbasin would be subsidence rates in exceedanceof the minimum thresholds at Representative Monitoring Sites with adjacent monitoring areasrepresenting __% or more of the total Subbasin area.

• Alt B.3: An undesirable result for the Tule Subbasin would be subsidence rates in exceedance ofthe minimum thresholds at ___% of the total Representative Monitoring Sites in the TuleSubbasin.

OR• Alt. C.1: An undesirable result for the Tule Subbasin would be the lowering of groundwater

levels below the minimum thresholds of Representative Monitoring Sites with monitoring areasthat represent __% or more of the total Subbasin area.

• Alt. C.2: An undesirable result for the Tule Subbasin would be the lowering of groundwaterlevels below the minimum threshold of Representative Monitoring Sites with adjacentmonitoring areas that represent ___% or more of the total Subbasin area.

• Alt. C.3: An undesirable result for the Tule Subbasin would be the lowering of groundwaterlevels below the minimum threshold at more than ___% of the total Representative MonitoringSites in the Tule Subbasin.

Effects: An exceedance of minimum thresholds to the extent that the undesirable result for the Friant-Kern Canal Management Area (or, “any single designated Land Subsidence Management Area”) is experienced would critically impair the conveyance infrastructure. Such an impairment would severely diminish the ability of certain surface water contractors to receive total allocated supplies and would create excessive costs that would need to be funded in order to undertake an adequate fix to return the canal to designed capacity.

An exceedance of minimum thresholds to the extent that the undesirable result for the Tule Subbasin is experienced would induce financial hardship on land and property interests, such as the redesign of previously planned construction projects and the fixing and retrofitting of existing critical infrastructure.

Surface Water Depletion Causation: [TBD]

Criteria: [TBD]

Effects: [TBD]

No Establishment of Undesirable Results for Seawater Intrusion (Regs. §354.26 (d)) One groundwater condition, seawater intrusion, does not apply as a sustainability indicator because, as presently apprised and assessed, it cannot occur within the Tule Subbasin (see Basin Setting Section 2.2.3) and, therefore, cannot create adverse conditions that are significant and unreasonable.

While this condition does not presently apply, the Tule Subbasin GSAs will re-evaluate this condition’s status every five years as part of the five-year review process.

Agenda Packt pg.35

1 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

Draft Methodology for Developing Undesirable Result

Definitions & Criteria

Bryce G. McAteerExecutive Director, ETGSA

Presentation to the ETGSA Stakeholder Committee March 14, 2019

Agenda Item #6.bExhibit B

Agenda Packt pg.36

Table of Contents


• Draft Methodology for Developing UndesirableResult Definitions & Criteria

• Table of Contents• Hierarchy of Monitoring

• Hierarchy of Monitoring• Definition of Terms• Example of Monitoring Hierarchy Overlay

• Defining Undesirable Results• Major Components of UR Description• Criteria Considerations• Questions to Consider

Agenda Packt pg.37


Hierarchy of Monitoring

Agenda Packt pg.38

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

Hierarchy of Monitoring

4

Basin/Subbasin

Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA)

Management Area

Monitoring Area

Representative Monitoring Site (RMS)

Agenda Packt pg.39


Definition of Terms

5

Basin/Subbasin

Groundwater Sustainability Agency

Management Area

Monitoring Area

Representative Monitoring Site

Regs. § 351 (f) - “Basin” means a groundwater basin or subbasin identified and defined in Bulletin 118 or as modified pursuant to Water Code 10722 et seq.

Regs. § 351 (r) - “Management area” refers to an area within a basin for which the Plan may identify different minimum thresholds, measurable objectives, monitoring, or projects and management actions based on differences in water use sector, water source type, geology, aquifer characteristics, or other factors.

Regs. § 351 (a) – “Agency” refers to a groundwater sustainability agency as defined in the Act.

Regs. § 354.36 (a) - Representative monitoring sites may be designated by the Agency as the point at which sustainability indicators are monitored, and for which quantitative values for minimum thresholds, measurable objectives, and interim milestones are defined.

Regs. § 354.36 (c) - The designation of a representative monitoring site shall be supported by adequate evidence demonstrating that the site reflects general conditions in the area.

(Note: Not necessarily found in statute, but a term conceived from the language and direction found in the Regulations.)

Agenda Packt pg.40


Example of Monitoring Hierarchy Overlay

6

Basin/Subbasin

GSA

Management Area

Monitoring Area

Representative Monitoring Site

Key

Agenda Packt pg.41


Defining Undesirable Results

Agenda Packt pg.42


Major Components of UR Description

8

Causation - Regs. § 354.26 (b)(1)“The cause of groundwater conditions occurring throughout the basin that would leadto or has led to undesirable results based on information described in the basin setting,and other data or models as appropriate.”• Recommended Approach: Short, qualitative general description that references the Basin

Setting and other technical portions of the CA/GSP

Criteria - Regs. § 354.26 (b)(2)“The criteria used to define when and where the effects of the groundwater conditionscause undesirable results for each applicable sustainability indicator. The criteria shallbe based on a quantitative description of the combination of minimum thresholdexceedances that cause significant and unreasonable effects in the basin.”• Recommended Approach: Numeric definition of the number of undesirable results defined, with

quantitative criteria based on minimum threshold exceedances and the critical mass necessary to evaluate a condition as an undesirable result.

Effects - Regs. § 354.26 (b)(3)“Potential effects on the beneficial uses and users of groundwater, on land uses andproperty interests, and other potential effects that may occur or are occurring fromundesirable results.”• Recommended Approach: Short, qualitative general description of the potential effects that

might occur, or has occurred, as a result of the undesirable result.

Agenda Packt pg.43


Criteria Considerations

9

Terms to Consider when developing Criteria:

• Minimum Threshold• Representative Monitoring Sites• Monitoring Area• Management Area

• Majority• Percentage• Adjacent• Sustainability Indicator

SustainabilityIndicator

Lowering of GW Levels

Reduction of Storage

Seawater Intrusion

Degraded Quality

Land Subsidence

Surface Water

Depletion

Metric(s) Groundwater elevation

Total volume that can be

withdrawn *

Chloride concentration isocontour *

Migration of plumes

Number of supply wells,

volume of water, or

isocontour affected

Rate and extent of

subsidence

Rate or volume of

surface water depletion

Note: Contrary to the general rule, these indicators with an “*”are set for a basin or management area rather than at each representative site

Each Undesirable Result has an associated Sustainability Indicator and Minimum Threshold Metric

Note: Groundwater elevation may be used as a proxy metric for monitoring other sustainability indicators. (See Regs. § 354. 28 (d))

Agenda Packt pg.44


Question to Consider

10

Questions for Consideration

• Do we consider differently a critical mass ofexceedances in adjacent areas versus acritical mass of exceedances in non-adjacentareas, or both?

• Do we consider differently a critical mass ofexceedances at a specific number ofrepresentative monitoring sites versus acritical mass of exceedances within multiplelandmass areas – and at what scale (e.g.management area v. monitoring area v.GSA v. etc.)?

• Should there be multiple potentialundesirable results (or criteria that, if met,constitute an undesirable result) for aspecific sustainability indicator, or simplydifferent minimum thresholds?

Examples

1. General Land Subsidence Undesirable ResultAnd

2. Management-Area Specific UndesirableResult (e.g. FKC)

• Indicates Non-Exceedance• Indicates Exceedance

Key

OR

OR

Agenda Packt pg.45


Potential Upper Aquifer Groundwater Level Monitoring Wells

Agenda Item #6.bExhibit C

Agenda Packt pg.46


Potential Lower Aquifer Groundwater Level Monitoring Wells

Agenda Packt pg.47


Potential Monitoring Areas and Representative Monitoring Sites – LTGSA

Zone 4

Zone 2

Zone 1

Zone 3

Agenda Packt pg.48


-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

Gro

un

dw

ate

r El

eva

tio

n (

ft a

msl

)

21S/24E-35A01 (L1)

Measured Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Calibration

21S/24E-35A01LTGSA Zone 3

Land Surface (260 ft amsl)

135 Wells360 ft deep

Or Shallower

276 Wells Deeper than 360 ft

411 Total WellsIn DWR Database in

Zone 3

Agenda Packt pg.49


21S/24E-35A01LTGSA Zone 3


Potential Minimum Threshold - A

Potential Minimum Threshold - B

Potential Minimum Threshold - C 360 ft bgs

310 ft bgs

260 ft bgs

73 Wells 105 Wells 135 Wells

Number of Wells in LTGSA Zone 3 that are Shallower than the Minimum Threshold

18 % 26 % 33 %

Percentage of Zone 3 Wells

Agenda Packt pg.50


-750

-650

-550

-450

-350

-250

-150

-50

50

150

250

Gro

un

dw

ate

r El

eva

tio

n (

ft a

msl

)

32K1 (L1)

Measured Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Calibration

21S/24E-32K01LTGSA Zone 4


47 Wells370 ft deep

Or Shallower

133 Wells Deeper than 370 ft

180 Total WellsIn DWR Database in

Zone 4

Agenda Packt pg.51


-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

Gro

un

dw

ate

r El

eva

tio

n (

ft a

msl

)

32K1 (L1)

Measured Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Calibration

21S/24E-32K01LTGSA Zone 4


Potential Minimum Threshold - A

Potential Minimum Threshold - B

Potential Minimum Threshold - C 370 ft bgs

320 ft bgs

270 ft bgs

25 Wells 37 Wells 47 Wells

Number of Wells in LTGSA Zone 4 that are Shallower than the Minimum Threshold

14 % 21 % 26 %

Percentage of Zone 4 Wells

Agenda Packt pg.52


Agenda Item 6.c

Report on Tule Subbasin Coordination and TH&Co Subbasin Task Items


Subject: Updates Regarding Tule Subbasin Coordination and Task Items



Executive Summary:

Coordination amongst the Tule Subbasin GSAs is ongoing. Below is a summary of major areas of coordination, updates from Thomas Harder & Company (hereafter, “TH&Co”), recent or current consensus on certain items, and anticipated next steps:

• Draft Coordination Agreemento As of February 25, 2019, TH&Co has supplied their comments and updates to the

draft Coordination Agreement. The updated draft is being re-reviewed by4Creeks and GSA leads. Certain sections are subject to update and completionfollowing finalization of the Monitoring Plan, Basin Setting, and otherdocuments.

• Draft Basin Settingo As of February 13, 2019, TH&Co has updated the Draft Basin Setting per the

comments of the GSA leads and other work related to its completion. Theupdated draft is being re-reviewed by GSA leads, who are to supply TH&Co withfinal comments. Certain sections are subject to update and completion followingfinalization of the Future Water Budget, decisions regarding GSA ManagementAreas, receipt of Cal Poly ITRC data, and development of SustainableManagement Criteria.

• Draft Monitoring Plano The Draft Monitoring Plan continues to be updated by TH&Co and receipt is

anticipated in early March. Anticipated updates include the addition of certainmonitoring sites currently also within the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program

Agenda Packt pg.53


Monitoring Plan and, potentially, identification and inclusion of representative monitoring sites.

• Future Water Budgets & Future Projection Scenario Runso Development of Future Water Budgets by TH&Co is contingent upon submission

of Tule Subbasin GSA Projects and Management Actions, which is beingcoordinated through the development of Sustainable Management Criteria andFuture Projection Scenario Runs.

o Assumed projected future pumping for the City of Porterville is required todevelop the Future Water Budget.

o General Consensus: Future Projection Scenario Runs will not be run until aftercompletion of the Friant-Kern Canal Area of Subsidence Concern analysis hasbeen completed, as the results of this analysis may have an impact on theprojects and management actions proposed by various GSAs.

o General Consensus: Several key factors are relevant to the Future Water Budget.The below are generally agreed upon amongst the Tule Subbasin GSA Managers: For local watersheds (Tule, Deer, and White) and local hydrological

conditions, Future Scenarios should be run under average hydrologicalconditions (likely using the period of 1990-2010, but subject to furtherdiscussion)

For imported Friant-Kern Canal supplies, Future Scenarios should bebased on the conditions provided in the latest Friant Water AuthorityTechnical Memorandum (likely without assuming implementation ofpump-back and other SJRRS projects, but subject to further discussion)

• Sustainable Management Criteriao A Discussion Draft for the Tule Subbasin Sustainability Goal and various

alternative criteria for Undesirable Results was developed by Executive DirectorMcAteer and TH&Co and presented to the Subbasin Managers for discussions.The Subbasin Managers directed Executive Director McAteer and TH&Co torevise the Discussion Draft and provide them with their preferred alternatives, tobe discussed and agreed-upon in concept in Mid-March.

o General Consensus: Representative Monitoring Sites should be used to tracksustainable management criteria.

• Friant-Kern Canal Area of Subsidence Concern Analysiso TH&Co continues to work on the Subsidence Analysis, with results now expected

in April.• NEXT METING OF THE TAC SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 20, 2019 at 2pm at LOWER TULE

RIVER ID (357 E Olive Ave, Tipton, CA)

Agenda Packt pg.54


Background:

ETGSA is member to the Tule Subbasin MOU Group. This group consists of the various GSAs overlying the Tule Subbasin. More information can be found at: www.tulesgma.com

The Tule Subbasin GSAs have collectively engaged and contracted TH&Co to undertake various scopes of work to assist them in the completion of their GSPs, Coordination Agreement, and various technical matters that must be addressed in a coordinated Subbasin manner. Additionally, R.L. Schafer serves as the Tule Subbasin Coordinator and David De Groot/4Creeks serves as Technical Lead/Grant Lead/Secretary. Lower Tule River Irrigation District serves as Fiscal Agent to the Tule Subbasin MOU Group.

Fiscal Impact:

n/a

Attachments:

• Exhibit A: Updated Tule Subbasin Coordination Timeline and TH&Co Task Item FlowChart

Agenda Packt pg.55

http://www.tulesgma.com/

Updated Tule Subbasin Coordination Timeline and

TH&Co Task Item FlowChart

1

Presentation to ETGSA Stakeholder CommitteeMarch 14, 2019


Agenda Item #6.cExhibit A

Agenda Packt pg.56


Coordination Timeline – GSPs & Public Review

2

Present April June September Jan. 31, 2020

Draft GSP Development-Ongoing Coordination-

-SMC Development--FKC Results-

-FPSRs & Projects Runs-

Finalize Draft Subbasin Coordination Items-Finalize SMCs-

-Finalize Future Water Budget--Finalize Coordination Agreement-

-General Subbasin Consensus re: GSPs--General Inter-Basin Consensus re: GSPs-

Min. 90 Day Public Review Period-Individual GSA Workshops-

-Coordinated Tule Subbasin Workshops--Iterative Review of Public Response-

Public Hearing & Adoption-Coordinate on Final Adjustments (if any)-

-Individual GSA Public Hearings/Adoptions--Coordinated Submission-

Post-Submission-DWR begins 60 public

comment period--DWR has 2 years to

review and accept plans-

Tule Subbasin GSAs

Agenda Packt pg.57


Flow Chart: TH&Co Task Items

Receive Recalibrated GWFM & GSA on/off

Results

3

Receive Subsidence Analysis Results & Delineation of

“Area of Subsidence Concern”

Submit Future Projection Scenario

Runs (FPSRs)

Coordinate Sustainable Management Criteria (SMC) & Finalize Future Water Budget (e.g. final FPSR)

Mid-January

AprilEarly-to-Mid

April

1 2 3

5Receive (FPSRs)

Results

Mid-to-Late April

4

June-July

By reviewing TH&Co’s results between each of these steps and data deliverables, the GSAs will be able to iteratively:• Consider how they might set SMCs based on the results received,• And/or propose Projects and Management Actions to help them

achieve certain sustainability objectives

Agenda Packt pg.58

EXAMPLE - Subbasin FPSR Finalization

4

B

GSA A

CD

FE

A

G

GSA C

Rampdown

A B C

Subsidence

A B C

Tule Subbasin TAC

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Subsidence

A

Rampdown

GSA A GSA B

B A

Subsidence

C

Subsidence

B

A B CDEF B B F

G

1. GSAs IndividuallyCompile Proposed

PMAs

2. Proposed PMAsare discussed @ TAC

3. Desired PMAs areSorted, Arranged &

Finalized

4. Desired PMAScenarios are sent to

TH&Co

Excluded

STEPS

2

3&4

1 1

5. FutureHydrographs, Land Subsidence results, and Water Budgets provided by TH&Co

GSA B1

Rampdown

A B C FG

Rampdown

GSA A GSA B

C C

Rampdown

GSA A GSA B

A B


Agenda Packt pg.59


Agenda Item 6.d

Report on Inter-Basin & Regional Stakeholder Coordination


Subject: Inter-Basin and Regional Coordination



Executive Summary:

ETGSA continues to undertake various efforts to coordinate and collaborate with regional partners and stakeholders. Below is a summary of these efforts:

• USGS will be hosting a presentation and site tour for their recently refurbishedExtensometer, now operating near the Friant-Kern Canal. ETGSA is serving as one of theCo-Hosts to this event, scheduled for March 22, 2019.

• ETGSA is partaking in the development of Friant Water Authority’s “San Joaquin ValleyBlueprint”, an initiative focused on identifying major areas for regional cooperation toprovide a strategy for addressing the substantial overdraft occurring within the region.

Background:

n/a

Fiscal Impact:

n/a

Attachments:

n/a

Agenda Packt pg.60


Agenda Item 7.a

Report on ETGSA GSP Drafting; may make a recommendation

Staff Report to the ETGSA Board

Subject: Drafting of the ETGSA Groundwater Sustainability Plan


Recommended Action: Move to recommend approval of the framework proposed in the Draft Outline (Exhibit A) for describing Projects & Management Actions in ETGSA’s GSP

Executive Summary:

Staff and 4Creeks, Inc. continue to develop the Draft GSP document. Policy direction is sought from ETGSA’s Committees and the Board as necessary, and technical matters are further informed by ongoing Subbasin work being undertaken by Thomas Harder & Company (hereafter, “TH&Co”). It is anticipated that the Draft GSP will be completed in June, 2019.

Below is a summary of the current status of the Draft GSP:

• Chapter 1 (Introduction): Chapter 1 is largely complete, excluding sections on planimplementation, land use planning coordination (note: Staff is undertaking discussionswith the County on this issue), and costs and funding. Staff is currently re-formatting thisChapter.

• Chapter 2 (Basin Setting): 4Creeks is currently drafting this section based on theupdated Draft Basin Setting recently received from TH&Co.

• Chapter 3 (Sustainable Management Criteria): A methodology for use of RepresentativeMonitoring Sites is currently being deliberated by GSA leads, and coordination isongoing for developing Undesirable Result criteria.

• Chapter 4 (Monitoring Networks): This section will be completed following receipt ofTH&Co’s updated draft Monitoring Plan.

• Chapter 5 (Projects and Management Actions): A Draft Outline (see Exhibit A) wasrecently developed. Staff is assembling Project & Management Action descriptions

Agenda Packt pg.61


accordingly from Member Agencies and other interested groups. Staff will continue to seek Committee and Stakeholder input and Board direction as this section is developed.

• Chapter 6 & 7 (Plan Implementation and References to Technical Studies): These sections will be developed iteratively following completion of other Chapters and additional policy direction. It is anticipated that significant work on these chapters will begin in early 2019.

Background:

Development of the ETGSA Draft GSP is being undertaken by Staff with assistance from 4-Creeks, Inc. and incorporation of work completed on behalf of the Tule Subbasin GSAs by TH&Co. 4-Creeks and Staff meet twice per month (at minimum) to review progress, review recommendations and Board decisions, and identify next steps

The latest version of ETGSA’s Draft GSP Creation Schedule can be found on its website at www.easterntulegsa.com/resources/#gsp. It is anticipated that the Draft GSP will be completed in June, 2019.

Fiscal Impact:

n/a

Attachments:

• Exhibit A – Draft Outline of Draft GSP Section 5

Agenda Packt pg.62

http://www.easterntulegsa.com/resources/#gsp

http://www.easterntulegsa.com/resources/#gsp

[GSA Name] DRAFT GSP-SUBJECT TO DELIBERATIVE PROCESS-

SECTION 5 – Projects and Management Actions

Introduction (Reg. § 354.42) This Section describes the projects and management actions that the Agency, its member agencies, and/or its regional partners intend to undertake in order to achieve the sustainability goal of the [Subbasin Name] and maintain sustainable groundwater conditions thereafter over the planning and implementation horizon.

Projects and Management Actions (Reg. § 354.44) As a result of the [Basin Name’s] current status as a critically overdrafted basin (see Basin Setting Section X.X) and the ongoing potential or trajectory of groundwater conditions within the Subbasin to cause undesirable results, the Agency has identified the following projects and management actions (hereafter, “Actions”) or categories of Actions that it, its member agencies, and/or its regional partners may undertake as a means to accomplish local groundwater sustainability:

1. Supply Optimization2. Surface Water Development3. Managed Aquifer Recharge4. Municipal Water Supply and Quality Projects5. Multi-Entity Water Management Role Coordination6. Groundwater Allocation, Accounting, Sharing, and Demand Reduction System7. [Other Action Type]

Each of the identified Actions will increase the [Subbasin Name’s] overall ability to achieve its sustainability goal through one or more of the following effects:

• Increased or optimized availability of sustainable water supplies;• Decreased consumptive use of non-sustainable groundwater supplies to mitigate overdraft;• Improved or stabilized groundwater levels;• Reduction or cessation of subsidence near critical infrastructure and across the local area;• Improved or stabilized water quality for agronomic and municipal purposes;• Increased or more efficient funding for local water management; and/or• Improved quantities, quality, and transparency of relevant regional water management data.

Because of the relative diversity of the Agency, particularly its makeup of member agencies and other regional entities whose actions may affect local groundwater conditions, it is anticipated that there are several Actions wherein the entity coordinating and/or administering the undertaking of the Action (hereafter, “Lead Entity”) will be an entity other than the Agency. In these circumstances, the Agency is committed to collaborating with the appropriate Lead Entity and providing its support and/or approval, if necessary.


Agenda Packt pg.63


In this Section, all identified individual projects and management actions have been listed and categorized according to the nine (9) aforementioned Actions. Each individual Action includes a description that meets the Regulation’s requirements and provides:

• A general summary of the Action and the Lead Entity anticipated to undertake the Action [Reg. §354.44(a)]

• A description of the circumstances that have or will lead to the consideration and/or trigger theimplementation of the Action [Reg. § 354.44(b)(1)(A)]

• A summary of the anticipated process of public notice regarding the consideration andimplementation of the Action [Reg. § 354.44(b)(1)(B)]

• If applicable, a quantification of the anticipated groundwater demand to be reduced as a resultimplementing of the Action [Reg. § 354.44(b)(2)]

• A summary of the permitting and regulatory processes that may be required to undertake theAction [Reg. § 354.44(b)(3)]

• A timeline summarizing the expected initiation, completion, and accrual of expected benefits forthe Action [Reg. § 354.44(b)(4)]

• An explanation of the benefits that are expected to be realized and how those benefits will beevaluated for the Action [Reg. § 354.44(b)(5)]

• A general explanation of how the Action will be accomplished and, if applicable, the source andreliability of waters relied upon from outside of the Agency’s jurisdiction to accomplish theaction [Reg. § 354.44(b)(6)]

• A summary of the legal authority of the Lead Entity to undertake the Action [Reg. § 354.44(b)(7)]• An estimate of the cost and funding source anticipated to undertake the Action [Reg. §

354.44(b)(8)]• If applicable, an explanation of how groundwater extractions and/or recharge during periods of

drought will be offset during other periods to ensure the avoidance of chronic lower ofgroundwater levels and/or the depletion of supplies [Reg. § 354.44(b)(9)]

It is anticipated that several Actions under the appropriate authority of various Lead Entities may have already begun prior to, or may begin soon after, the adoption of this Plan.

[Action Category A] [Category] Actions are those Actions that a Lead Entity may implement to [enter text]. Through the [type of action], entities will be able to:

• [general description of benefit]• [general description of benefit]

Implementation of successful [category] Actions will, in general, [effect; usually reduce groundwater pumping] within [Agency].

The following [category] Actions have been identified:

1. [Action Name] ([Lead Entity])

Agenda Packt pg.64


2. [Action Name] ([Lead Entity])

Action 1 – [Action Name] ([Lead Entity]) Description

[Lead Entity] (hereafter, “[acronym]”) [text]

Lead Entity

[acronym]

Circumstantial Considerations

[text]

Public Notice Process

[text]

Quantification of Water Budget Impact

[text]

As a result of this Action, it is anticipated that there will be a net reduction of average annual groundwater pumping within [Lead Entity] of approximately X,XXX AF/yr.

Permitting and Regulatory Process

[text]

Timeline

Implementation of the Action is anticipated to occur [text].

Anticipated Benefits

[text]

Evaluation of Benefits

Evaluation of the benefits of this Action will occur under [number] primary methods:

1. [method]2. [method]

Should the expected benefits associated with this Action actually occur, annual reports should [description of expected conditions, per method]

Accomplishment

If implemented by [Lead Entity], this Action will be accomplished through the process described in the Timeline.

Agenda Packt pg.65

[GSA Name] DRAFT GSP -SUBJECT TO DELIBERATIVE PROCESS-

Accomplishment of this Action assumes [text]

Legal Authority

[text]

Cost & Funding

Cost: Implementation of this Action includes [number] major cost components:

• [component]

The costs generally incurred for each of the [number] components are provided below:

1. [cost component] • [$$ and description of cost]

Therefore, based on the costs provided above, full implementation of this Action is anticipated to cost:

• [$$]

Funding: [Number] sources of funding are anticipated to meet the full cost of implementing this Action.

[text]

Drought Offset Measures

[text]

Corresponding Attachments

• [Attachment A] • [Attachment B]

Agenda Packt pg.66


Agenda Item 7.b

Discuss and consider new GSP policy matters; may make a recommendation


Subject: Current GSP Policy Matters


Recommended Action: General - Committee recommendation(s) to Staff and/or the Board regarding the ETGSA Policy Matters.

Executive Summary:

ETGSA Staff provided the Executive and Stakeholder Committees with an introduction to new policy matters during their January 2019 Meetings. A more in-depth presentation fostered additional discussion amongst the Committees at their Joint Meeting on February 21, 2019. Subjects of particular discussion included Management Areas, mechanisms and functioning of a sharing system, and defining historical use. The following recommendations were provided by the Committees:

• Executive Committee Recommendations on Policy Matters:o Moved to recommend the use of management areas and have staff bring back to

the committee draft criteria and visualizations.o Moved to have staff bring back a summary of potential criteria for groundwater

account users.• Stakeholder Committee Recommendations on Policy Matters

o Moved to recommend the use of management areas and have staff bring back tothe committee draft criteria and visualizations.

o Moved to have staff bring back a summary of potential criteria for groundwateraccount users.

Agenda Packt pg.67


Background:

At its January 2019 Board Meeting, the following items were discussed as new policy matters to be discussed and recommended on by the Committees:

• Management Areas• Sustainable Management Criteria• Results of TH&Co Task Items and implications on Projects & Management Actions• Mechanisms and functioning of a sharing system• Criteria for validating a recharge project• Defining historical use• Evaluating transfer impacts• Inter-GSA transfers

Fiscal Impact:

n/a

Attachments:

• Exhibit A: ETGSA New Policy Matters (Note - To be distributed on day of meeting)

Agenda Packt pg.68


Agenda Item 8.b

Next Meeting (Stakeholder Committee) – Thursday, April 11, 2019 at Transit Multi Purpose Center (15 E.

Thurman Ave, Suite D, Porterville); may make a recommendation


Subject: Next Meeting


Recommended Action: No Action (i.e. maintain meeting once per month); or

Move to recommend the next Meeting of the ETGSA Stakeholder Committee be scheduled for 2pm on Thursday, March 28, 2019.

Executive Summary:

The Stakeholder Committee may wish to schedule a series of Special Meetings on the 4th Thursday of Month (in addition to the regular meeting on the 2nd Thursday of the Month) for the next few months in order to continue to review, discuss, and recommend on the many policy matters before the Agency as it develops its GSP.

Background:

The ETGSA Stakeholder Committee met, generally, twice per month between September and December, 2018 in order to review, discuss, and recommend on the many policy matters before the Agency.

Fiscal Impact:

n/a

Attachments:

n/a

Agenda Packt pg.69

Meeting of the ETGSA Stakeholder Committee

Documents

Transcript of Meeting of the ETGSA Stakeholder Committee