Monday, January 9, 2017 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.full).pdf · Donna Gentile, Administrative...

January 6, 2017 BOARD MEETING: WRA Board of Directors– January 9, 2017 Enclosed you will find the Agenda for the upcoming Board meeting.

Monday, January 9, 2017 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

MEETING LOCATION: Woodland Community & Senior Center 2001 East St., Woodland, Rooms 1 & 2

The full agenda packet can be accessed on-line by the Friday before the Board Meeting at: http://www.yolowra.org/meeting_directors.html Please contact us should you have any questions.

Beverly Sandeen, WRA Chair Donna Gentile, Administrative Coordinator

The January packet includes the following: • Agenda for January 9, 2017 WRA Board Meeting

• Consent Items:

- Approve November 14, 2016 Meeting Minutes - Receive Minutes of the Executive Committee - Receive Minutes of the Technical Committee - Receive FY2016 -17 Financials Reports: November - December 2016 - The Year in Review: 2016 Annual WRA Newsletter (included separately)

• Informational Items: - Report from the WRA Chair

• Presentations/Discussion/Reports: - Water Legislation & Regulatory Issues Update, David Guy - WRA Technical Committee & Westside IRWMP Update, Elisa Sabatini - SGMA Implementation in Yolo County Update, Tim O’Halloran - Presentation: City of Winters Hexavalent Chromium 6 Compliance Update - Presentation: Assessing Perspectives on Land Subsidence in Yolo County, Stanford

University, Survey Results

WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION OF YOLO COUNTY

P.O. Box 8624, Woodland, CA 95776 Phone: (530) 666-2733 Fax: (530) 666-4257

Website: www.yolowra.org Email: [email protected]

http://www.yolowra.org/meeting_directors.html

http://www.yolowra.org/

mailto:[email protected]

1

BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ MEETING


AGENDA Online agenda: www.yolowra.org/meetings.html

DATE/TIME: Monday, January 9, 2017, 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. LOCATION: Woodland Community Center, 2001 East St., Woodland, Meeting Rooms 2-3

3:00 1. CALL TO ORDER and INTRODUCTIONS 3:02 2. APPROVE AGENDA and ADDING ITEMS TO THE POSTED AGENDA- In order to add

an agenda item, it must fit into one of the following categories: a) A majority determination that an emergency (as defined by the Brown Act) exists; or b) A 4/5ths determination that the need to take action that arose subsequent to the agenda being posted.

3:03 3. PUBLIC FORUM –The Public may address the WRA relating to matters within the WRA’s jurisdiction. 3:10 4. CONSENT ITEMS

a. Approve minutes: November 14, 2016 Board meetings, pages 3- 7 b. Receive financial reports: November- December 2016, pages 8 - 13 c. Receive minutes of Executive Committee: 11/7/16, pages 14 - 16 d. Receive minutes of Technical Committee: 11/3/16 pending approval, Dec. mtg. cancelled e. Receive The Year in Review: 2016 WRA Annual Newsletter (included separately)

3:15 5. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: a. Report from the WRA Chair

3:20 6. UPDATE ON WATER LEGISLATION & REGULATORY ISSUES a. Delta Update, Legislation and Regulatory Update, David Guy, Northern CA Water Association

3:35 7. PRESENTATION: City of Winters Hexavalent Chromium 6 Compliance Update,

John Donlevy, City Manager, City of Winters

3:55 8. WRA TECHNICAL COMMITTEE UPDATE, Elisa Sabatini, Committee Chair a. Technical Committee (TC) Activities and Westside IRWMP Update, pages 17 - 18

4:05 9. SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT (SGMA)

a. SGMA Implementation Activities – Tim O’Halloran, YCFC&WCD 4:25 10. PRESENTATION: Assessing Perspectives on Land Subsidence in Yolo County,

Esther Conrad, Stanford University, Baseline Survey Results, pages 19 - 25 4:45 11. MEMBERS’ REPORTS & FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: WRA Members are invited to briefly

report on important current issues and recommend topics for future WRA Board meetings.

http://www.yolowra.org/meetings.html

2

WRA Board Agenda January 9, 2017 Page 2 4:55 12. NEXT MEETING: Monday, March 20, 2017, 3-5 p.m., Woodland 5:00 13. ADJOURNMENT Consideration of items not on the posted agenda: items in the following categories: 1) majority determination that an emergency (as defined by the Brown Act) exists; or 2) a 4/5th determination that the need to take action arose subsequent to posting of the agenda. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing agenda for the January 9, 2017 meeting of the Board of Directors for the Water Resources Association of Yolo County was posted by January 6, 2017 in the office located at 34274 State Highway 16, Woodland, CA and was available to the public during normal business hours.

MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 14, 2016 BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ MEETING

WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION OF YOLO COUNTY DRAFT

1. CALL TO ORDER & INTRODUCTIONS The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Chair, Cecilia Aguiar-Curry. Board members present: Cecilia Aguiar-Curry - City of Winters, Chair Duane Chamberlain - Yolo County Beverly Sandeen – City of West Sacramento Camille Kirk – University of California Davis Roger Cornwell – Reclamation District 108 Alternate members present: Tim O’Halloran – Yolo County Flood Control & WCD, WRA Treasurer Donita Hendrix - Dunnigan Water District Associate members present: Jeanette Wrysinski – Yolo County Resource Conservation District Robin Kulakow – Yolo Basin Foundation Key Loy – West Yost Associates Member agencies absent: City of Davis City of Woodland Reclamation District 2035 Public & Agency Staff: Elisa Sabatini, Yolo County, WRA Technical Committee Chair Max Stevenson - Yolo County Flood Control & WCD Todd Manley - Northern California Water Association (NCWA) Richard Reed – Yolo County Supervisor Provenza, District 4 Todd Bernardy - CA Department of Water Resources Jeremy Arrich - CA Department of Water Resources Ric Reinhardt – MBK Engineers Dave Pratt Mike Wademan – Brown & Caldwell Casey Liebler – Yolo County 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chair Curry requested Item 4e. removed from the Consent Item

agenda for further discussion. Item was added after Item #5. The Board motioned, seconded and unanimously approved the agenda with the above change.

3. PUBLIC FORUM: No comments from the public. 4. CONSENT ITEMS: The Board motioned, seconded and unanimously approved the consent items

(a) through (d). a. Approved minutes: September 19, 2016 Board meeting b. Received minutes of Executive Committee: 9/12, 10/10/16 c. Received minutes of Technical Committee: 9/1, 10/6/16 d. Received FY2016-17 financial reports: September - October 2016 e. Nominating Committee Recommendations for Annual Board Officer Elections and Appointments

for 2017 - Item removed for further discussion after Consent agenda.

5. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a. Report from the WRA Chair: This will be Cecilia’s last meeting as she has been elected to an

State assembly position.

3



6. NOMINATING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ANNUAL BOARD OFFICER ELECTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS FOR 2017: Tim O’Halloran, Nominating Committee Chair, reported on the discussions to select Board members for recommendation to the Chair and Vice-chair positions for the remainder of 2016 and the 2017 year. The Board motioned, seconded and unanimously approved the Nominating Committee’s recommendations for 2017 Board officers and appointed positions, which are: Chair – Beverly Sandeen, Vice-chair – Roger Cornwell, Treasurer – Tim O’Halloran, Technical Committee Chair – Elisa Sabatini, Board Secretary – Donna Gentile and Auditor – Perry, Bunch & Johnston, Inc.

7. UPDATE ON WATER LEGISLATION & REGULATORY ISSUES

a. Legislation, Regulatory and Delta Updates: Todd Manley, Northern California Water Association (NCWA), provided the following updates. All his handouts distributed are available at: www.yolowra.org/meeting_directors.html.

• The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) released the “Working Draft Scientific Basis Report for New and Revised Flow Requirements (Report) on the Sacramento River and Tributaries, Eastside Tributaries to the Delta, Delta Outflow, and Interior Delta Operations” in October 2016. The Report recommends new inflow requirements for fish–bearing tributaries. The Report recommends the Bay-Delta Plan update consider a 35% to 75% range of unimpaired Sacramento River inflow to meet water quality objectives in the Delta. This would be coupled with increased Delta outflow targets yet to be named, retaining cold water in storage at the upstream reservoirs and limiting Delta exports. Todd discussed how NCWA and other local agencies feel this is not the best approach to address water quality challenges in the Delta (reference two handouts distributed: California State Board of Food and Agriculture letter to the Governor, 11/2/16 and NCWA’s op-ed “Changing the Conversation: Environmental Water for the Sacramento Valley”, 9/16/16). NCWA is encouraging the SWRCB to consider shifting the conventional approach to consider out-of-stream functional flow strategies instead of in-stream strategies. NCWA believes thinking outside of the box will continue to help shape water policy resulting in more benefits for environmental conservation and agriculture. Comments on the Draft Scientific Report are due on December 16th. NCWA will be submitting comments.

• The Governor signed into law AB 1755 (Dodd) water data information sharing and AB 2551 (Gallagher) surface water storage bill. On the federal side, the drought legislation is still under development and discussions will continue next year. Todd reviewed the election results on Proposition 53 that appears to be defeated. Todd congratulated Cecilia on her election to the assembly. He commented that we are very fortunate to have water knowledgeable elected officials in our state legislature.

• Todd distributed information about the upcoming event for “Pacific Flyway Partnerships to be Celebrated in the Yolo Bypass” on November 17th at 11 am to be held in the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area.

8. WRA TECHNICAL COMMITTEE UPDATE, Elisa Sabatini, Committee Chair

a. Technical Committee (TC) Activities and Westside IRWMP Update – Elisa introduced Casey Leibler, Yolo County Natural Resources Division, who took her position after she was promoted. She gave a short bio on his education and credentials. He has familiarized himself with local programs and issues by interning with Yolo County and the Cache Creek Conservancy.

4




Elisa highlighted a few recent TC meeting activities. Dr. Stephen McCord gave an interesting presentation on the EPA Brownfields Assessment grant awarded to the Westside-Sacramento IRWM group. He has been prioritizing and assessing Brownfields sites in the upper watershed in all four counties. This is a 3-year $500,000 grant. After he completes this project, the Brownfields sites will become eligible for Round 2 EPA funding for actual clean-up. Also of note, the 2016 Yolo County Subsidence Network Monitoring project was also completed. The team was led by Jim Frame, Frame Surveying & Mapping in June/July 2016. The ~$92,000 contract was funded primarily by the WRA, YCFC&WCD, Yolo County and Reclamation District 2035/Conaway. The observations were collected by volunteer local agency staff and the project came in under budget. Frame’s final report is under review by the TC. This effort will tie-in with DWR’s Sacramento Valley network subsidence monitoring update scheduled for 2017. DWR will also be looking to local agencies to provide volunteer staffing for their observation efforts. Both local and State efforts correlate to the Stanford University research team’s study that is using an InSAR satellite -based analysis. It will be informational to see how it relates to the land-based GPS data.

9. SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT (SGMA)

a. Update on SGMA Implementation Process in Yolo County: Tim O’Halloran, SGMA Working Group, began the update by reviewing current groundwater conditions as reported by the YCFC&WCD’s real-time well monitoring data. The graph/table illustrated the historical groundwater levels and trends since 1975 for the YCFC&WCD service area and how groundwater conditions correlate to surface water supplies. Groundwater levels are starting to come up as would typically be expected for this time of year. Tim’s PPT is available at: www.yolowra.org/meeting_directors.html.

Tim reviewed the phases outlined for SGMA compliance to develop a Groundwater Sustainability

Agency (GSA) by the 2017 deadline. Tim summarized the various types of meetings that have been held since the last WRA Board meeting to define GSA development and governance. The SGMA Working Group has met several times, there were several farmer group meetings, and four facilitated focus groups were conducted to survey farmer perceptions of SGMA implementation in Yolo County. Tim reviewed the official Yolo subbasin boundary modifications accepted by DWR and the GSA organizational framework proposed with five Management Areas covering different regions of the subbasin. One GSA with one Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) covering multiple entities is being proposed for Yolo County in a very collaborative and comprehensive approach. A GSA governing authority flow chart or “decision-tree” was developed to help an entity or management area determine whether groundwater conditions are sustainable and what process they need to follow to prove or attain sustainability. Tim explained the water balance model and how it can be used to describe the flow of water in and out of a system and thereby assist in determining a subbasin’s sustainability for GSA entities. When a GSP is submitted to the State they will review whether the Plan addresses the “six undesirable results” as a measure of the basin’s sustainable management. Tim explained how the SGMA process is based on “nested collaboration” of all the local and state agencies participating in the subbasin’s management. He reviewed how the “white areas” not covered by any of the individual entities within the Yolo subbasin boundaries are being addressed.

The Working Group began discussions about a draft JPA agreement and proposed GSA fee

structure. There are two types of fees being proposed; administrative and project. It is proposed

5




that administrative fees in the amount of approximately $400,000/year be collected for the first two years of the GSA. The fee structure can be revisited and adjusted if desired. Tim reviewed the WRA’s current membership dues and groundwater program contributions for its 10 member agencies. He also noted that before deciding on a particular voting structure, it is important to answer the question of “what will be voted on”. He explained that the GSA’s authorities and decision-making will be limited; therefore, it probably won’t be as contentious how the voting is structured. It would be best to keep it as simple as possible. There are many voting models that could be used, such as, acreage based, population based, consensus based and ratio of fees to name a few.

Tim mentioned that DWR will be broadcasting a webinar on November 15th at 9:30 am on the

Draft SGM Best Management Practices (BMP). Tim will be hosting a viewing in the YCFC&WCD’s Board room for anyone who is interested. Tim answered questions about the SGMA implementation process.

10. PRESENTATION: Department of Water Resources (DWR) Informational Briefings: Elisa

Sabatini introduced Jeremy Arrich and Todd Bernardy who will be giving today’s presentations. She also introduced Ric Reinhardt, MBK Engineers, who has been involved with the regional flood management planning group and the FloodProtect Plan since its inception. Some of the local agencies participating in regional planning are Solano County, Yolo County, West Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, Reclamation District 2068 and the Solano County Water Agency. The local agencies have been very active in developing the Lower Sacramento Delta North Regional Flood Management Plan submitted to DWR. Ric provided some history and context for this planning effort and related implementation projects.

a. Status Update: 2017 Update to the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan, Jeremy Arrich,

DWR, informed that this is an update to the 2012 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP). The general goals, objectives and principles for operating, maintaining and improving the system remain the same. The 2017 Update includes refinements through the efforts of the regional planning process and stakeholder involvement that better defines specific regional priorities as well as the systemwide projects. The CVFPP will take 30 years to implement and an estimated $21.3 billion. Full implementation will not be feasible without new State, federal and local funding. Collaborative efforts to implement projects will demonstrate their value and benefits to secure additional implementation funding. The Lower Elkhorn Project is the first systemwide improvement project to be implemented. There are many supporting documents, feasibility studies and outreach efforts that are contributing to the development of the 2017 CVFPP Update. Jeremy distributed a briefing packet with a working draft summary that includes policy discussions and recommendations for the 2017 Update process. A Working Draft of the 2017 Update has been released to the CVFP Board for review. The anticipated public review period will be January – May 2017 with a June 2017 adoption. Jeremy’s PPT presentation can be viewed here: http://www.yolowra.org/meeting_directors.html. Jeremy answered questions.

b. Lower Elkhorn Basin Levee Setback Project (Widening of the Sacramento & Yolo

Bypass), Todd Bernardy, DWR, provided some context to the planning and collaboration for implementation projects in the Yolo Bypass. Todd illustrated the major flood management projects in a map, Potential Yolo Bypass/Cache Creek Slough Flood & Ecosystem Improvements,

6




highlighting features planned for Phase 1, Phase 2 and the near- and mid-term BiOps Actions being implemented. DWR worked with a broad spectrum of stakeholders and agencies to develop these features to improve public safety (flood management), economic stability (agriculture), and enhance ecosystem vitality. Todd explained in detail the proposed project features for the 7 miles of setback levee (slide #4 yellow line area) that will maintain agriculture in the Bypass, degrade existing levee with portions preserved for habitat and wind/wave riparian protection, maintain area for expansion of the East Side of the Tule Canal, and provide grading and drainage improvements. Current and ongoing activities include evaluation of design features, CEQA/NEPA process is underway, public outreach engagement with Reclamation District managers, and landowners to answer questions and receive feedback. They are also coordinating with Yolo County and Tribal staff. They are working with the US Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies on design documentation. They are nearing completion of the surveys to support CEQA. Todd reviewed the anticipated project milestones and schedule from 2016 to completed construction in 2020. Todd and Ric answered questions. Todd’s PPT can be viewed at: http://www.yolowra.org/meeting_directors.html. Todd’s email is: [email protected].

11. MEMBERS’ REPORTS & FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: The following agencies gave a brief

update on recent activities: University of California Davis gave an implementation update on their portion of the surface water project. Also UC Davis recently hosted a delegation from Vietnam who is currently experiencing a severe drought. Cecilia thanked everyone for the mentoring she received while on the WRA Board. She commented on her activities and networking in preparation for her beginning her state assembly position.

12. NEXT REGULAR MEETING: Monday, January 9, 2017 from 3-5 pm, Woodland Community &

Senior Center. 13. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned by Chair Cecilia Aguiar-Curry at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna L. Gentile Board Secretary &Administrative Coordinator

7



3:30 PM 01/05/17 Accrual Basis

Water Resources Association of Yolo County Balance Sheet

As of December 31, 2016

Page 1 of 1

Dec 31, 16

ASSETS

Current Assets

Checking/Savings

LAIF 168,113.36

First Northern - Savings 3,611.89

First Northern - Checking 1,906.05

Total Checking/Savings 173,631.30

Accounts Receivable

Accounts Receivable 40,049.94

Total Accounts Receivable 40,049.94

Total Current Assets 213,681.24

TOTAL ASSETS 213,681.24

LIABILITIES & EQUITY

Liabilities

Current Liabilities

Accounts Payable

Accounts Payable 3,534.59

Total Accounts Payable 3,534.59

Other Current Liabilities

Direct Deposit Liabilities (Direct Deposit Liabilities) -1,466.00

SIMPLE IRA Liabilities 245.28

Payroll Liabilities 1,352.61

Total Other Current Liabilities 131.89

Total Current Liabilities 3,666.48

Total Liabilities 3,666.48

Equity

Opening Bal Equity 16,689.30

Revenue in Excess of Expenses (Retained Earnings) 97,830.31

Net Income 95,495.15

Total Equity 210,014.76

TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY 213,681.24

8


Water Resources Association of Yolo County Budget vs. Actual

July through December 2016

Page 1 of 2

Jul - Dec 16 Budget % of Budget

Ordinary Income/Expense

Income

Member Dues - Administrative 73,887.00 73,887.00 100.0%

Member Dues - Associate 473.00 516.00 91.67%

Interest Income 421.61 650.00 64.86%

Calendar - Revenue (Donations) 2,800.00 3,200.00 87.5%

In-Kind Income (non-cash) 2,500.02 5,000.00 50.0%

YCFC Admin Support 571.19 1,900.00 30.06%

Total Income 80,652.82 85,153.00 94.72%

Gross Profit 80,652.82 85,153.00 94.72%

Expense

Salaries - Gross 26,573.95 53,150.00 50.0%

Payroll Taxes & Expenses 2,057.41 4,300.00 47.85%

Employer Paid Benefits 7,414.68 15,000.00 49.43%

Workers Comp Insurance 0.00 800.00 0.0%

General Liability Insurance 769.00 800.00 96.13%

Accounting Services 0.00 400.00 0.0%

Bank Charges, License Fees 55.00 200.00 27.5%

Books, Maps, Subscriptions 0.00 150.00 0.0%

Calendar - Water Awareness (Contest & Printing) 1,943.09 3,200.00 60.72%

Computer Equipment 0.00 875.00 0.0%

Conferences & Seminars 0.00 1,500.00 0.0%

Copies, Printing & Binding 339.00 1,500.00 22.6%

Internet Service 842.56 1,700.00 49.56%

Legal Consultation Fees 0.00 500.00 0.0%

Meeting Expenses 2,234.88 2,600.00 85.96%

Mileage 81.54 650.00 12.55%

Miscellaneous Expense 0.00 500.00 0.0%

Office Rent (non-cash) 2,500.02 5,000.00 50.0%

Office Supplies/Expenses 158.59 1,500.00 10.57%

Postage 131.65 850.00 15.49%

Telephone Utilities 474.75 900.00 52.75%

Contingency 0.00 600.00 0.0%

Total Expense 45,576.12 96,675.00 47.14%

Net Ordinary Income 35,076.70 -11,522.00

Other Income/Expense

Other Income

Project Fund

Assoc. Mbr Dues - Projects 627.00 684.00 91.67%

Member Dues - Projects 97,943.00 97,943.00 100.0%

9


Water Resources Association of Yolo County Budget vs. Actual

July through December 2016

Page 2 of 2

Jul - Dec 16 Budget % of Budget

Total Project Fund 98,570.00 98,627.00 99.94%

SpecProject-GWMonProg $ Income 89,000.00 89,000.00 100.0%

SGMA Implementation Income (Addt'l contributions) 35,000.00 35,000.00 100.0%

Subsidence Monitoring Income (Addt'l income) 37,378.92 37,378.92 100.0%

Total Other Income 259,948.92 260,005.92 99.98%

Other Expense

Project Fund Budget

City of Winters Cr6 Compliance 16,127.00 16,127.00 100.0%

Winters Storm Water Mgmt Plan 0.00 15,000.00 0.0%

CCC-Invasive Weed Mgt Huffs Crn 3,276.03 15,500.00 21.14%

PCC Salmon in Classroom/Bypass 0.00 5,000.00 0.0%

Pilot Prg Lrg Landscp Ir Audits (Davis, Woodland, West Sac) 0.00 12,000.00 0.0%

Westside IRWMP (WRA cost share) 20,000.00 20,000.00 100.0%

Yolo Bypass Integ Project-YBF 1,800.00 5,000.00 36.0%

YCRCD- CC Invas Weed Map&Prior 9,999.20 10,000.00 99.99%

YoloSubsidence Netwk Monitoring 33,104.17 37,378.92 88.56%

Total Project Fund Budget 84,306.40 136,005.92 61.99%

SpecProject-GWMonProg $ Expense 89,000.00 89,000.00 100.0%

SGMA Implementation Expense 0.00 35,000.00 0.0%

Total Other Expense 173,306.40 260,005.92 66.66%

Net Other Income 86,642.52 0.00 100.0%

Net Income 121,719.22 -11,522.00

10


Water Resources Association of Yolo County Profit & Loss

November through December 2016

Page 1 of 1

Nov 16 Dec 16 TOTAL

Ordinary Income/Expense

Income

Interest Income 0.00 4.58 4.58

Calendar - Revenue (Donations) 2,100.00 250.00 2,350.00

In-Kind Income (non-cash) 416.67 416.67 833.34

Total Income 2,516.67 671.25 3,187.92

Gross Profit 2,516.67 671.25 3,187.92

Expense

Salaries - Gross 4,088.30 4,088.30 8,176.60

Payroll Taxes & Expenses 316.26 318.00 634.26

Employer Paid Benefits 1,225.56 1,225.56 2,451.12

Bank Charges, License Fees 40.00 0.00 40.00

Calendar - Water Awareness (Contest & Printing) 0.00 1,943.09 1,943.09

Copies, Printing & Binding 0.00 126.10 126.10

Internet Service 120.00 180.00 300.00

Meeting Expenses 0.00 71.06 71.06

Mileage 34.56 18.36 52.92

Office Rent (non-cash) 416.67 416.67 833.34

Office Supplies/Expenses 0.00 53.61 53.61

Postage 0.00 48.96 48.96

Telephone Utilities 78.45 76.51 154.96

Total Expense 6,319.80 8,566.22 14,886.02

Net Ordinary Income -3,803.13 -7,894.97 -11,698.10

Other Income/Expense

Other Income

Subsidence Monitoring Income (Addt'l income) 37,378.92 0.00 37,378.92

Total Other Income 37,378.92 0.00 37,378.92

Other Expense

Project Fund Budget 3,217.28 19,403.03 22,620.31

Total Other Expense 3,217.28 19,403.03 22,620.31

Net Other Income 34,161.64 -19,403.03 14,758.61

Net Income 30,358.51 -27,298.00 3,060.51

11

3:33 PM 01/05/17

Water Resources Association of Yolo County Transaction List by Date November through December 2016

Page 1 of 2

Type Date Num Name Memo Account Split Amount

General Journal 11/01/2016 aje-265 In-Kind Income (non-cash) Office Rent (non-cash) -416.67

Transfer 11/03/2016 Funds Transfer First Northern - Savings First Northern - Checking -14,000.00

Liability Check 11/04/2016 EFT QuickBooks Payroll Service Created by Payroll Service on 11/03/2016 First Northern - Checking -SPLIT- -1,464.64

Paycheck 11/07/2016 DD1068 Donna L Gentile Direct Deposit First Northern - Checking -SPLIT- 0.00

Bill Pmt -Check 11/07/2016 2436 AT&T First Northern - Checking Accounts Payable -76.39

Bill Pmt -Check 11/07/2016 2437 Yolo County Flood Control & WCD_v Copies, postage, internet/computer exp. First Northern - Checking Accounts Payable -145.39

Bill Pmt -Check 11/07/2016 2438 Yolo County Resource Conservation Distric Project Fund First Northern - Checking Accounts Payable -9,999.20

Liability Check 11/08/2016 E-pay Employment Development Department 499-0728-0 QB Tracking # 393922237 First Northern - Checking -SPLIT- -183.11

Liability Check 11/08/2016 E-pay United States Treasury 68-0306647 QB Tracking # 393922517 First Northern - Checking -SPLIT- -1,169.50

Liability Check 11/08/2016 EFT Capital Bank and Trust Co. 73814903 First Northern - Checking -SPLIT- -245.28

Bill Pmt -Check 11/08/2016 EFT Business Card (Mastercard) First Northern - Checking Accounts Payable -57.37

Deposit 11/10/2016 Deposit First Northern - Savings -SPLIT- 1,300.00

Bill 11/11/2016 9233 Iris Software Quarterly web maintenance fee Accounts Payable Internet Service -120.00

Bill 11/14/2016 2552 Frame Surveying & Mapping Project Fund Accounts Payable YoloSubsidence Netwk Monitoring -3,217.28

Liability Check 11/18/2016 QuickBooks Payroll Service Created by Payroll Service on 11/17/2016 First Northern - Checking -SPLIT- -1,464.64



Invoice 11/21/2016 2016-30 Yolo County Flood Control & WCD Accounts Receivable Subsidence Monitoring Income (Addt'l income) 12,328.98

Invoice 11/21/2016 2016-31 County of Yolo Accounts Receivable Subsidence Monitoring Income (Addt'l income) 12,720.96

Invoice 11/21/2016 2016-32 Reclamation District # 2035 Accounts Receivable Subsidence Monitoring Income (Addt'l income) 12,328.98

Check 11/22/2016 EFT Kaiser Permanente First Northern - Checking -SPLIT- -1,102.92

Transfer 11/22/2016 Funds Transfer First Northern - Savings LAIF -65,000.00

Check 11/22/2016 Service Charge First Northern - Savings Bank Charges, License Fees -40.00

Deposit 11/23/2016 Deposit First Northern - Savings -SPLIT- 800.00

Bill 11/25/2016 8913547 AT&T Accounts Payable Telephone Utilities -78.45

Transfer 11/28/2016 First Northern - Savings First Northern - Checking -1,000.00

Check 11/30/2016 2439 Donna Gentile First Northern - Checking Mileage -34.56

General Journal 12/01/2016 aje-266 In-Kind Income (non-cash) Office Rent (non-cash) -416.67

Bill 12/01/2016 2016.1201 Yolo County Flood Control & WCD_v Copies, postage, internet/computer exp. Accounts Payable -SPLIT- -233.89

Bill 12/01/2016 Nov 2016 Business Card (Mastercard) Accounts Payable -SPLIT- -82.15


Deposit 12/02/2016 Deposit First Northern - Savings Calendar - Revenue (Donations) 250.00

Bill 12/02/2016 Cr6 Project City of Winters_v Project Fund Accounts Payable City of Winters Cr6 Compliance -16,127.00



Liability Check 12/12/2016 E-pay Employment Development Department 499-0728-0 QB Tracking # 398531897 First Northern - Checking -SPLIT- -183.12

Liability Check 12/12/2016 E-pay United States Treasury 68-0306647 QB Tracking # 398532457 First Northern - Checking -SPLIT- -1,169.52

Liability Check 12/12/2016 EFT Capital Bank and Trust Co. 73814903 First Northern - Checking -SPLIT- -245.28

Bill Pmt -Check 12/13/2016 EFT Business Card (Mastercard) First Northern - Checking Accounts Payable -82.15

Payment 12/14/2016 53400 Yolo County Flood Control & WCD Undeposited Funds Accounts Receivable 12,328.98

Deposit 12/14/2016 Deposit First Northern - Checking Undeposited Funds 12,328.98


12

3:33 PM 01/05/17

Water Resources Association of Yolo County Transaction List by Date November through December 2016

Page 2 of 2

Bill 12/16/2016 87881 Printer's Ink Accounts Payable Calendar - Water Awareness (Contest & Printing) -1,943.09



Bill Pmt -Check 12/19/2016 2440 AT&T First Northern - Checking Accounts Payable -78.45

Bill Pmt -Check 12/19/2016 2441 City of Winters_v First Northern - Checking Accounts Payable -16,127.00

Bill Pmt -Check 12/19/2016 2442 Frame Surveying & Mapping First Northern - Checking Accounts Payable -3,217.28

Bill Pmt -Check 12/19/2016 2443 Iris Software First Northern - Checking Accounts Payable -120.00

Bill Pmt -Check 12/19/2016 2444 Printer's Ink First Northern - Checking Accounts Payable -1,943.09

Bill Pmt -Check 12/19/2016 2445 Yolo County Flood Control & WCD_v First Northern - Checking Accounts Payable -233.89

Check 12/19/2016 EFT Kaiser Permanente First Northern - Checking -SPLIT- -1,102.92

Bill 12/20/2016 596 Cache Creek Conservancy_v Project Fund Accounts Payable CCC-Invasive Weed Mgt Huffs Crn -3,276.03

Bill 12/21/2016 Business Card (Mastercard) Accounts Payable Meeting Expenses -42.52

Bill 12/24/2016 9051694 AT&T Accounts Payable Telephone Utilities -76.51

Liability Check 12/30/2016 QuickBooks Payroll Service Created by Payroll Service on 12/22/2016 First Northern - Checking -SPLIT- -1,467.75

Bill 12/31/2016 2016.1231 Yolo County Flood Control & WCD_v Copies, postage, internet/computer exp. Accounts Payable -SPLIT- -121.17

Bill 12/31/2016 Donna Gentile Accounts Payable Mileage -18.36

Deposit 12/31/2016 Interest First Northern - Savings Interest Income 4.58

13

MINUTES of Executive Committee (EC) Meeting Water Resources Association of Yolo County

November 7, 2016, 8:30 – 9:30 am

Present: Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Kurt Balasek, Tim O’Halloran, Kristin Sicke and Donna Gentile. Elisa Sabatini via teleconference.

1. Call to Order: Meeting was called to order by Chair Cecilia Aguiar-Curry at 8:30 am. 2. Approve Agenda and Adding Items to the Posted Agenda: Approved as presented. 3. Public Comment: No public in attendance. 4. Administrative Items:

a) October 10, 2016 EC minutes were approved. b) Review financials FY2016-17: October 2016: Donna reported that after Jim Frame sends the final

subsidence project invoice that a bank transfer will be prepared to move a sum of money from the First Northern Bank account to the WRA’s LAIF account. She anticipates Jim’s invoice soon. Donna explained that she will be rectifying a software idiosyncrasy on the Budget vs Actual and Profit & Loss reports. A couple of old account items that have not been used recently are suddenly appearing under Other Expenses. It is probably something simple in the report printing feature. She pointed out the additional funding received for SGMA activities ($35,000), which is in addition to what was not expended in the Project Fund budget in FY2015-16. The total SGMA project funds available in FY2016-17 will be ~ $64,000. The two projects that do not have a budget amount associated with them (CCC-Wacky Wilderness and Davis-Wdld Water Conser Concept) are funds that were invoice after FY2015-16 ended and paid in the current fiscal year. The line item for the Yolo Subsidence Network Monitoring project will include the additional funding contributions from the 3 other project partners (Yolo County, YCFC&WCD, RD2035) once all the project expenses are received (~$47,000 additional). The WRA funded approximately half of the project from the FY2015-16 Project Fund Budget. The WRA will invoice the partners in November.

c) Approve payments of invoices: All invoices were approved for payment.

5. Update on Water Legislation & Regulatory Issues Cecilia reported that official election results are pending, but she is the anticipated victor for the State Assembly District 4 representative. Congratulations! Tim reported that David Guy will be reporting in more depth on legislative and regulatory issues at the November Board meeting. Tim reported to the TC last week on the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)’s process underway that would reduce diversions/increase exports in the Delta. NCWA’s Bay Delta Taskforce is meeting this afternoon to discuss this process. According to David Guy, there is a long way to go on this process before it becomes reality, but we need to be watchful.

6. SGMA Planning & Implementation Tim reported that the Working Group met a few weeks ago and will meet again this Wednesday, 11/9, at the YCFC&WCD. He presented the “decision-tree” concept document that should address the concerns expressed by the entities about the unknowns in the GSA formation process. David Purkey, Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), will utilizing their WEAP model to develop a water balance as part of the SGMA data gathering process to assist with defining groundwater sustainability in Yolo County . A boiler plate JPA agreement has been circulated to the Working Group for further discussion. A fee and voting structure will also be discussed in upcoming Working Group meetings. Tim briefly discussed elements of both that will need to be discussed. David Purkey and Kevin O’Brian, attorney, will both speak and participate in the Working Group meeting on 11/9 in their

14


November 7, 2016, 8:30 – 9:30 am

areas of expertise. As a discussion starting point, a fee structure of $400,000/year for two years will be presented (divided among the GSA participating entities). Cecilia recently found out that SACOG is receiving grant money for a sustainable groundwater planning process. She wanted to know if Tim was aware of their activities and whether they are collaborating with others in the area. She asked Tim to follow up on what SACOG is doing.

7. Technical Committee (TC) & Westside IRWMP Update: Elisa mentioned that the WRA Technical Committee is planning a special meeting to tour the WDCWA regional water treatment facility on a 3rd Thursday of the month in either December or January. The Westside IRWM has been focused on the Proposition 1 IRWM DAC Involvement funding application process. There is $37 million available for the entire Sacramento River Funding Area and only a single applicant can apply for the entire area. Applications will be accepted through January 2017. The Environmental Coalition for Water Justice (EJCW) is being considered as the applicant for our Funding Area.

8. WRA Board Meeting

a) November 14, 2016 - Discuss agenda items: The EC reviewed and finalized the November agenda: • SGMA Update Implementation Activities: (Tim O.) • Nominating Committee Recommendations for 2017 Board Officers & Appointments • Presentation/Update: DWR Lower Elkhorn (setback levee) project, DWR staff • Presentation/Update: 2017 CVF Protection Plan update, DWR staff

b) Board Meeting Topics - discussed for January 9, 2017: • Mercury 1995 Study Update, Dr. Slotton/UCD (Elisa coordinate speaker) • 2016 Yolo County Subsidence Network Monitoring Final Report - Jim Frame, Frame

Surveying & Mapping • SGMA Update Implementation Activities (Tim O.)

c) Board Meeting Topics – On-going list (alphabetical):

• Annual Water Resources Conditions – Tim O’Halloran • Central Valley Flood Protection Plan – MWH/DWR (Janet Atkinson 916-803-4779) • Davis-Woodland Surface Water Supply Project Update, WDCWA • Delta Counties Coalition update • Delta related planning updates, allow time to discuss at each meeting (Yolo County, NCWA) • Desalination projects – Kurt identified a speaker for a presentation • Drought Conditions Update • Effects of Fire on the Watershed – Kurt confirmed Rich Marovich for a 2016 presentation • Flood Update – pending TC discussions and recommendations on what/who to present • Lower Cache Creek Feasibility Study Update (Tim Busch/City of Woodland) • Member agency concerns, such as West Sac and flood protection • Mercury issues and TMDL’s • North Bay Aqueduct Project (SCWA) – progress updates • RD 2035 Joint Intake project update • RWA, John Woodling, Update on priority issues for the new year • Speakers representing positions/interests seen as potential threats to our region • Underground well conditions update • Water quality • Water rate studies – sharing results

15


November 7, 2016, 8:30 – 9:30 am

• Water re-use projects • Westside IRWMP process updates - ongoing • WRA Board Strategic Planning Session: coordinate with a potential dues increase? • WRA funded projects, lead project partner update at end of FY (as appropriate) • Yolo IRWMP Foundational Actions update • Yolo IRWMP Foundational Actions Update by TC (tie-in to FY budget process)

9. Other Updates & Future Executive Committee Agenda Items – Nothing additional discussed

10. Next Executive Committee Meeting Date: December 19, 2016, 12-1 pm, Yolo County Flood

Control & Water Conservation Board Room.

11. Adjourned at 9:15 am. Respectfully submitted,

16

COMMITTEE REPORT

Date: January 9, 2017 To: WRA Board and Alternates From: Elisa Sabatini, Technical Committee Chair Subject: TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES UPDATE Recommendation For Information Only Background The WRA Technical Committee (TC) continues to focus on implementing Board priorities at their monthly meetings. A few of the TC’s activities are highlighted below. SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT (SGMA) Tim O’Halloran provides regularly updates to the TC on the discussions of the Yolo SGMA Working Group for the implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The Yolo SGMA Working Group continues to hold monthly meetings to discuss the formation of the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) with the eligible entities in Yolo County. A “decision tree” concept was presented to the Group in October 2016. The decision tree is intended to help an entity or management area determine whether groundwater conditions are sustainable and what process they need to follow to prove or attain sustainability. In November 2016, the Working Group began discussions about GSA membership fees and voting structure. A draft Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) is being reviewed by a Yolo SGMA Subcommittee and will be vetted by the larger Yolo SGMA Working Group. They hope to have a formal draft JPA Board-level consideration by the end of January 2017. The details of forming a GSA include agreeing on the membership, governance, funding and white area administration. YOLO COUNTY SUBSIDENCE NETWORK MONITORING OBSERVATION - 2016 The Yolo County Subsidence Network was established in 1999, with subsequent monitoring events in 2002, 2005, and 2008. The 2008 observation was part of a DWR conducted Sacramento Valley wide monitoring effort. Jim Frame, Frame Surveying & Mapping, coordinated the team of local and State volunteers for the June 2016 field observation schedule. Collected subsidence data was analyzed by Jim Frame. The draft report has been reviewed by TC and in pending finalization. The final report will be posted on the WRA’s website: http://www.yolowra.org/projects_subsidence.html. The 2016 survey indicates continued subsidence in the areas where it was previously observed. In the areas most affected the rate has averaged more than 2 cm per year over the last 8 years. Additionally, DWR is planning a Sacramento Valley network subsidence monitoring update in 2017 that will tie-in with our local effort. All pertinent data will be shared with the Stanford University research team to be incorporated into the technical and social science components of their Yolo County SGMA and subsidence research. Stanford will be conducting a direct comparison of methods for the land-based data to InSAR satellite-based data. Subsidence monitoring is a key SGMA element to document the sustainability of our groundwater resources.


P.O. Box 8624, Woodland, CA 95776 Phone: (530) 666-2733 Fax: (530) 666-4257

Website: www.yolowra.org Email: [email protected]

17

http://www.yolowra.org/projects_subsidence.html

http://www.yolowra.org/


Technical Committee Report January 9, 2017 Page 2 WESTSIDE-SACRAMENTO IRWMP The Westside IRWM Coordinating Committee and McCord Environmental, Inc. are engaged in the Brownfields Coalition Assessment Project (EPA funded grant program) that will engage communities in the Cache and Putah Creek watersheds about abandoned mining sites. Brownfields are lands contaminated by industrial processes that pose significant public health risks to our community and environmental threats to our ecosystems. The project tasks include creating an interactive database of mine sites, assessing prioritized mine-scarred sites, evaluating sites for potential clean-up and creating an overall brownfields cleanup plan for the region. For more information please visit: http://www.westsideirwmbrownfields.org. The Westside Regional Water Management Group has developed a small grant program to help accomplish the vision of the Westside IRWMP. The small grant program will disperse funds on an annual basis to projects or programs that meet the goals and objectives of the IRWMP. No more than 25% of the Westside IRWMP funds will be expended per fiscal year towards this program and awards will be capped at a maximum of $25,000 per project. There is no match requirement for this program; however, points will be awarded to projects or programs that demonstrate a local match. The Westside selected grant recipients for FY2016-17. The next Committee meeting is scheduled for January 11, 2017 at the Yolo County Flood Control & Water Conservation District at 10 am. An agenda will be posted here: http://www.westsideirwm.com/meetings.html. ON-GOING UPDATES AND DISCUSSIONS • Quarterly project updates from the agencies allocated WRA project funding for FY2016-2017 • Westside- Sacramento IRWMP - http://www.westsideirwm.com/ • Monthly updates from DWR on relevant grant opportunities, drought conditions and water

management planning • Grant opportunities and awards relevant to issues and concerns for Yolo County agencies and

communities • Local drought response and critical water conditions monitoring discussions • Regulatory and legislative updates on water and groundwater related issues • CASGEM Program (DWR groundwater monitoring) • Delta activities & FloodProtect Planning progress

18

http://www.westsideirwmbrownfields.org/

http://www.westsideirwm.com/meetings.html

http://www.westsideirwm.com/

Perspectives on Land Subsidence in Yolo County: Baseline Survey Results Esther Conrad, Erin Pang and Tara Moran Stanford University September 26, 2016 1. Overview

This document summarizes the findings of a survey conducted of a group of participants in the Water Resources Association of Yolo County (WRA) regarding land subsidence (hereafter referred to as subsidence). The survey is part of a project entitled “Facilitating Collaborative Decision Making Processes for a Sustainable Groundwater Future,” an Environmental Ventures Project supported by Stanford’s Woods Institute for the Environment. The project examines how the utilization of advanced geophysical techniques can promote an improved understanding of groundwater issues and support better decisions. Specifically, Stanford researchers are using Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) techniques to understand subsidence in Yolo County, and assessing how the availability of these satellite-based data influence Yolo County stakeholders’ understanding of subsidence and help in identifying appropriate policy responses. This research is being undertaken as local agencies and stakeholders implement the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), which requires that plans be developed to avoid “significant and unreasonable” levels of six “undesirable results,” including subsidence, in 127 high and medium priority groundwater basins across California. On July 7, 2016, a survey was conducted of attendees at a WRA Technical Committee meeting, immediately following a presentation by Stanford University researcher Jesse Crews summarizing subsidence and monitoring efforts to date in Yolo County. The goal of the survey was to assess participants’ levels of knowledge about subsidence in Yolo County and understand their perspectives on the appropriate degree of management action, prior to the InSAR analysis. The results of this survey will serve as a baseline for a second survey to be conducted in late 2016 or early 2017, following a presentation summarizing the InSAR-based analysis of subsidence. WRA Technical Committee participants are the focus of the two surveys because this group is the primary entity that monitors groundwater conditions in the county, and has undertaken ground-based monitoring of subsidence since 1999. All 21 attendees at the July 7, 2016 WRA Technical Committee meeting completed the survey in hard copy. Of these, 12 respondents represented local government agencies, including cities, irrigation districts, reclamation districts, and other special districts. The remaining respondents represented state or county government, non-governmental agencies, educational institutions, consulting firms, and a private water company. The survey consisted of eight questions, including some multi-part questions. In these questions, participants were asked about:

• their prior familiarity with subsidence in Yolo County, and information they gained from the presentation about subsidence-related topics;

• perspectives on the need for action to address subsidence; • the adequacy of existing subsidence data for decision-making purposes; and • their level of concern, with respect to Yolo County, about SGMA’s six undesirable results.

19

2. Results 2.1 Prior familiarity and information gained from the presentation about subsidence In response to the first survey question, the majority of meeting participants (13 out of 21) indicated that they were either familiar or very familiar with subsidence in Yolo County prior to the presentation (Figure 1). Respondents were then asked about the extent to which Jesse Crews’ presentation provided them with new information about a range of topics related to subsidence. They could also indicate that they were already aware of the information presented (see Figure 2). About a third of participants reported that they were already aware of information regarding the locations of subsidence, the WRA’s current monitoring efforts, and the factors contributing to elastic versus inelastic subsidence. The remaining respondents indicated that they gained some level of knowledge about this from the presentation. Participants gained the greatest amount of new information about the rate of subsidence; only three participants reported prior knowledge while 18 learned something about it. With respect to the impacts and causes of subsidence, only two respondents indicated prior knowledge, and less than half indicated that they learned “to a great extent” or “to some extent.” This suggests that following the July 7 presentation, the level of knowledge among participants in the WRA Technical Committee meeting was slightly lower for impacts and causes of subsidence compared to the other topics. Figure1.FamiliaritywithsubsidenceinYoloCountypriortopresentation.

Figure2.Extenttowhichparticipantsgainednewinformationfromthepresentation.

Note:Respondentswhoindicatedthattheydidnotgainanynewinformationaboutatopicarenotshown.

0 2 4 6 8

NotFamiliaratAll

SlightlyFamiliar

SomewhatFamiliar

Familiar

VeryFamiliar

#ofRespondents n=21

0 5 10 15 20 25

Causes

Impacts

Rateofsubsidence

Factorsforelasticvs.inelastic

HowtheWRAmonitorssubsidence

Locationsofsubsidence

#ofRespondents

Toagreatextent

Tosomeextent

Toasmallextent

Alreadyaware

n=21

20

Responses to survey questions 1 and 2 were analyzed together to assess how participants with different levels of prior familiarity with subsidence varied in terms of how much information they gained from the presentation. To do this, a “gain in knowledge factor” was calculated for each subsidence-related topic. Respondents who said they gained new information to “a small extent” were scored as 1, “to some extent” were scored as 2, and “to a great extent” were scored as 3. Respondents were placed in three groups according to their level of prior familiarity (as shown in Figure 3), and scores were normalized by dividing by the number of respondents in each group. As might be expected, Figure 3 shows that respondents who had the least prior familiarity gained the greatest amount of new information. However, even those who were already familiar with these topics learned something. The “total gain in knowledge factor,” calculated for each topic, shows that respondents gained the most information about the rate of subsidence (6.3), followed by the locations of subsidence (5.8), WRA’s monitoring efforts (5.1), factors contributing to elastic vs. inelastic subsidence (5.0), impacts (5.0), and finally, causes (4.7). Figure3.Increaseinknowledgefollowingthepresentationonsubsidence.

2.2. Perspectives on the need for action to address subsidence Respondents were asked to choose one statement that “best describes your views regarding whether actions should be taken to reduce or prevent subsidence in Yolo County.” Options included: 1) taking action in all areas where subsidence is detected; 2) acting only in areas where subsidence is most serious; 3) taking no action now but possibly in the future; or 4) taking no action now and probably not in the future. Respondents could also indicate that they did not have enough information to judge. Fifteen out of 21 participants responded that at least some level of action should be taken now, while the

6.35.8

5.1 5.0 5.0 4.7

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Gain-in-KnowledgeFactor

SlightlyFamiliar/NotFamiliar

SomewhatFamiliar

VeryFamiliar/Familiar

TotalGain-in-KnowledgeFactor

21

remaining six indicated that action was not needed now but might be in the future. No one indicated that action in the future would be unlikely, or that they did not have enough information to judge. Responses were also analyzed to detect any differences depending the level of prior familiarity with subsidence. Figure 4 shows that 100% of participants who indicated little or no prior familiarity believed that some action should be taken now to address subsidence. In contrast, less than 60% of those who had a high level of initial familiarity thought that action should be taken now (the remaining 40% indicated that action is not needed now but might be needed in the future). Given the small number of respondents to this survey, it is not possible to say whether these differences in attitude are statistically significant. However, research suggests that a number of factors may affect peoples’ opinions on policy-making. First, beliefs about the need for action may be related to how people perceive the risks associated with a given problem, and researchers have uncovered differences in how experts and laypeople perceive risks. Experts tend to base their views on specific quantitative information, while laypeople take into account a wider range of qualitative factors such as perceptions of irreversibility, personal experience, or associations with other risks (Slovic 1987, Viscchers et al. 2007, Siegrist and Gutscher 2006). In this context, we might consider those with a high level of familiarity with subsidence to be “experts,” while those with lower familiarity could be considered “laypeople.” However, in response to a later survey question about degree of concern about subsidence (discussed in Section 2.4), people with greater initial familiarity expressed about the same level of concern about subsidence as people with less familiarity. Second, opinions on policy-making may also be shaped by peoples’ perceptions of the risks involved in implementing specific policy responses. For example, Niles et al. (2013) examined farmers’ attitudes toward climate policies in Yolo County, and found that their perceptions of the risks associated with the policies themselves, informed by past experiences with environmental policies, influenced their attitudes. The results of this survey do not indicate one way or another whether this factor is at play. However, as discussed in Section 2.3, respondents indicated a high level of interest in receiving more information about the nature of policy responses to subsidence. Figure4.Degreeoffamiliaritywithsubsidencevs.needforaction.

0 20 40 60 80 100

VeryFamiliar/Familiar

SomewhatFamiliar

Slightly/Notatallfamiliar

PercentageofRespondents

InitialFam

iliaritywith

Subsidence

Takeactionwhereverdetected

Onlywheresubsidenceisserious

22

2.3. Adequacy of current monitoring and the need for additional information Respondents were asked the following question: “Based on the information presented today, is the data being collected so far through the Water Resources Association’s subsidence surveys adequate for the purposes of deciding whether actions should be taken to reduce or prevent subsidence in the county?” In response, 15 out of 21 respondents said yes, 2 said no, and 4 said they were not sure. The next question asked respondents to “imagine that you are part of a decision-making process charged with assessing whether steps should be taken to reduce or prevent subsidence in Yolo County,” and to rate how useful it would be to have information about certain topics (listed in Figure 5), beyond what is currently available. For each topic, at least 85% of respondents indicated that additional information would be either “useful” or “very useful.” In order to discern some level of ranking as to which information respondents considered most useful, Figure 5 plots the number of respondents that rated each type of additional information as “very useful.” The majority thought that information about costs and implementation of additional monitoring and the policy measures that could address subsidence would be “very useful.” Fewer respondents indicated that more frequent observations, a greater spatial density of observations, and information about impacts would be “very useful.” However, it is important to note that almost all respondents still indicated that these types of information would be “useful.” Figure5.Respondentswhosaidthisinformationwouldbe“veryuseful”fordecision-makingaboutsubsidenceinYoloCounty.

*GW=Groundwater

2.4. Relative levels of concern about SGMA’s six “undesirable results” in Yolo County Finally, respondents were asked to rate their level of concern in Yolo County about SGMA’s six “undesirable results.” Figure 6 indicates that 80% (17 out of 21) were either concerned or very concerned about the chronic lowering of groundwater levels and the reduction of groundwater storage. About half of respondents were either concerned or very concerned about subsidence.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

GreaterspatialdensityofobservationsImpactsofsubsidence

MorefrequentobservationsSeasonalvs.long-termsubsidence

Reversiblevs.irreversiblesubsidence(geology)LinkbetweensubsidenceandGW*pumping

PotentialpolicymeasuresMonitoringimplementationcosts

Respondentswhosaidthisinformationwouldbe"VeryUseful"N=21

23

Figure6.LevelofconcernaboutSGMA’sundesirableresultsinYoloCounty.

Note:Responsesof“notsure”arenotshownonthisgraph.

The finding that high-familiarity respondents were less likely than others to believe that action is needed now to address subsidence (discussed in Section 2.2) suggested the possibility that those with greater familiarity might perceive subsidence to be less of a risk. However, analysis of the data presented in Figure 6 does not support this. Among those who rated themselves as familiar or very familiar with subsidence, 54% indicated that they were either concerned or very concerned about subsidence. The percentage was about the same (50%) for those were somewhat familiar or slightly familiar, and for those who were not familiar at all. Studies involving a larger number of participants would be needed to determine whether a relationship actually exists between the degree of familiarity and the willingness to support policy actions to address subsidence, and if so, what factors play a role. 3. Conclusions Key findings from this baseline survey are as follows:

• Combining their previous knowledge and information gained from Jesse Crews’ presentation, participants in the July 7 WRA Technical Committee meeting had the highest levels of knowledge about the locations and rate of subsidence, the WRA’s monitoring efforts, and the factors that determine elastic versus inelastic subsidence. Participants appeared to have slightly less information about the impacts and causes of subsidence.

• The majority of respondents believed that some level of action should be taken now to address subsidence, and the remainder thought that action might be needed in the future. Those with little or no prior familiarity with subsidence were more likely to believe that action was needed than were respondents with more familiarity. However, in order to determine if this relationship is a robust one, a study with a larger number of participants, as well as more explicit questions regarding the degree and types of knowledge and attitudes toward risk, would be needed.

• The majority of respondents believed that WRA’s current monitoring efforts provided adequate data for decision-making. At the same time, when asked how useful additional information would be for decision-making, the vast majority indicated that each topic listed would be either

0 5 10 15 20

SeawaterIntrusion

LandSubsidence

DegradedWaterQuality

DepletionsofInterconnectedSurfaceWater

Reductionofgroundwaterstorage

ChronicloweringofGWlevels

#ofRespondents

VeryConcerned/Concerned

Moderatelyconcerned/slightlyconcerned

Notconcerned

N= 21

24

“useful” or “very useful.” Rankings of “very useful” were highest for information about the costs and implementation of monitoring, and information about possible policy responses.

• Among SGMA’s six “undesirable results,” respondents were most concerned with the chronic lowering of groundwater levels and reductions in groundwater storage. About half indicated high levels of concern about subsidence.

The main limitation of this study was the small number of survey respondents. Generalizations cannot be made to populations beyond the WRA Technical Committee, and findings regarding differences in attitudes among participants with different levels of familiarity are not conclusive. However, it is hoped that these results will be useful as a baseline for a second survey that will also be conducted among participants in a WRA Technical Committee meeting, following a presentation of findings from an InSAR-based analysis of subsidence. ReferencesNiles, M. T., Lubell, M., and Haden, V.R., 2013. Perceptions and responses to climate policy risks

among California farmers. Global Environmental Change 23: 1752-1760. Siegrist, M. and Gutscher, H., 2006. Flooding risks: A comparison of lay peoples’ assessments and

experts’ assessments in Switzerland. Risk Analysis 26: 971-979. Slovic, P., 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236: 280-285. Viscchers V., Meertens, R.M., Passchier, W.M., and de Vries, N.K., 2007. How does the general public

evaluate risk information? The impact of associations with other risks. Risk Analysis 27: 715-727.

25

Monday, January 9, 2017 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.full).pdf · Donna Gentile, Administrative...

Documents

Transcript of Monday, January 9, 2017 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.full).pdf · Donna Gentile, Administrative...