Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13 SGMA Updateenda Item # To: Board of Directors From: Steven Poncelet Date. November 02, 2016 Subject: Update on Compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) 13 1. WHY THIS MATTER IS BEF®RE THE B®ARD The District's Board has responsibility for stewardship of groundwater resources and for compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). 2. HIST®RY SGMA requires agencies to achieve "sustainable groundwater management" by implementing various elements of the Act. SGMA contains the following dates for compliance with the Act that pertain to the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin (MVGB): • January 1, 2017, deadline for Alternative Submittals; or • June 30, 2017, deadline for formation of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA); and • January 31, 2022, deadline for adoption of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). An Alternative Submittal is an option provided in the legislation for basins that are believed to already satisfy the objectives of SGMA. The Alternative Submittal is favorable in terms of avoiding cost to prepare a GSP and does not require the formation of a GSA. In order to be considered, the MVGB must demonstrate a 10- year history of operating within sustainable yield as defined by SGMA. Alternative Plans are to be submitted to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) by January 1, 2017, approximately 5-years sooner than the due date for a GSP. The GSP guidelines, including forming a GSA, are written for worst case basin conditions across the state and considered excessive for many healthy basins that have demonstrated historically stable conditions, such as the MVGB. Estimates for the cost of preparing GSPs have been ~$1,000,000, so there is a strong financial incentive to submit an Alternate Submittal (estimated at ~$30,000) for the MVGB to comply with SGMA. If an Alternative Submittal is approved by DWR, it does require annual reporting and must be resubmitted every 5-years to DWR for approval. Conflicting perspectives exist, despite strong scientific evidence that the Martin Valley has been operating within sustainable yield, on the chances of getting an Alternative Submittal approved by DWR which has compounded this uncertainty by developing guidelines that state that Alternate Submittals must be the "functional equivalent" of GSP's. However, in testimony to the Water Commission and in the regulations, DWR staff also described that GSPs and Alternate Submittals would be reviewed with "substantial compliance" in mind, giving DWR discretion in assessing what requirements are appropriate for the specific basin under review. Based on this information, the MVGB is a good candidate for an Alternative Submittal. The MVGB has a history of sustainable operations, has been well managed including the existing Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan, and the recently enacted Federal Truckee River Operating Agreement (TROA) provides an additional regulatory framework. A recent sustainable yield/water budget study was conducted by a well - respected consulting hydrogeologist (GEI Consultants). Key findings from this study include: • Sustainable yield of the MVGB has been estimated between 22,000 - 25,000 Acre -Feet per Year (AFY) as compared to ~7,000 AFY current production, 13,000 AFY buildout projection, and 18,800 AFY maximum allocation per TROA. All of these water demands are well below sustainable yield estimates; • Groundwater in the MVGB represents less than 2% of the total water budgets and is closer to 1 % when returns to the water system from the regional sewage treatment plant are considered; and • The MVGB did not experience any water supply shortages, declining water levels, nor any long-term adverse effects during the recent drought. The District, Northstar Community Services District (NCSD), and Placer County Water Agency (PCWA), as partners in groundwater management, reached out to the Town of Truckee, Nevada County, and Placer County (land -use agencies) to coordinate a plan for complying with SGMA. All have agreed that an Alternative Submittal, based upon demonstrating at least 10-years of sustainable operating as defined by SGMA, would allow for continued stewardship of the MVGB, compliance with SGMA, and elimination of expensive and unreasonable regulatory burdens. The District has taken the lead in preparing an Alternate Plan to be submitted by the end of this calendar year. Contributions to the written document are being provided by all six partner agencies (Local SGMA Agencies). The District hired the same consulting hydrogeologist (GEI Consultants) to build upon the recent MVGB study to investigate whether the MVGB has operated within its sustainable yield for at least 10- years as defined by SGMA. 3. NEW INFORMATION The GEI Consultants SGMA report demonstrating that the MVGB has operated within sustainable yield for at least 10-years is due out soon and GEI Consultants has indicated that they will certify the MVGB is eligible for an Alternative Submittal. The following are necessary milestones to be completed ahead of submitting to DWR: • Completion of the Alternative Submittal with the accompanying GEI Consultants SGMA report; • Finalization of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the six Local SGMA Agencies to submit and implement the Alternative Submittal; • Local stakeholder and public outreach (November 14th public meeting) on the Alternative Submittal; and • All six Local SGMA Agencies must execute the MOA and adopt a Resolution accepting the Alternative Submittal and directing Staff to submit to DWR. The Alternative Submittal, the MOA, and resolution will be ready for consideration by each Local SGMA Agency governing board starting in mid -November (consideration by the District at the December 7th Board meeting). The collaborative effort amongst the six Local SGMA Agencies to submit an Alternative Submittal is on schedule despite the very tight time line established by SGMA and the challenges of gaining consensus amongst the six Local SGMA Agencies. Some issues that remain open include long-term cost -sharing amongst the six Local SGMA Agencies, the structure and rules for a SGMA Management Committee (should the Alternative Submittal be accepted), the ability of each of the Local SGMA Agencies governing boards/councils to take action before January 1, 2017, and the long-term commitment of each Local SGMA Agency to this compliance option. There are also some uncertainties regarding DWR's review and approval of Alternative Submittals and to what extent DWR will try to require 'functional equivalence' of an Alternative Submittal to a GSP. It is important to note that the law allowed for only a very short 6-months for Alternative Submittals and only required a report prepared by a registered geologist licensed by California and submitted under the geologist's seal demonstrating that the MVGB has operated within its sustainable yield for at least 10-years. However, DWR's regulations require 'functional equivalence' to a GSP which the law allowed for almost 6-years to prepare and submit. Clearly, the legislative intent was not to require an Alternative Submittal to be the same as a GSP and the Local SGMA Agencies, along with others in the State, are willing to challenge DWR on this point relying on the 'substantial compliance' portion of the regulations and, ultimately, the GEI Consultants SGMA sustainability report. It is also possible that DWR could conditionally approve the Alternative Submittal requesting additional information or work. If minor, the Local SGMA Agencies staff would likely recommend that we do the extra work. If DWR conditional approval requires significant additional resources, a decision would need to be made whether to spend the money now or abandon the Alternative Submittal. At this point, the total direct costs of the Alternative Submittal (~$30,000) appears to be a small fraction of the estimated costs of forming a GSA and submitting a GSP (~$1,000,000) to comply with SGMA. To date, there has been strong support of the Alternative Submittal compliance approach but there are a limited number of key stakeholders who are withholding their support pending a review of the GEI Consultants SGMA report. It should be noted that the Local SGMA Agencies do not believe that the MVGB should be subject to SGMA. The MVGB was designed by DWR as amedium-priority basin years ago and there is evidence that DWR erred in this designation. DWR staff have indicated that they will consider reprioritization but not until early to mid-2017 (after the Alternative Submittal deadline). The Local SGMA Agencies will pursue reprioritization and, if successful, the Alternative Submittal would be withdrawn and the MVGB would not be subject to SGMA. 4. FISCAL IMPACT The MOA establishes not -to -exceed financial obligations for each of the six Local SGMA Agencies. The District's portion of the Alternative Submittal costs are expected to be less than $7,500. The MCA establishes a not -to -exceed amount of $5,000 per agency in the event of a DWR conditional approval and an additional $5,000 per agency for first year compliance costs should the Alternative Submittal or a conditional submittal be approved by DWR. Sufficient funds .exist in the approved FY16 and FY17 Water Utility budgets for these expenditures. 5. RECOMMENDATION Receive this report and provide comments. Steven Poncelet Public Information & Conservation Manager Michael D. Holley General Manager