BASIN IMPLEMENTATION GROUP (BIG) Thursday, May 21, :00 p.m. Community Room, Capitola City Hall 420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola, California AGENDA

Transcription

1 BASIN IMPLEMENTATION GROUP (BIG) Thursday, May 21, :00 p.m. Community Room, Capitola City Hall 420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola, California AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of January 29, Minutes of March 25, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (items not on the Agenda) 5. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 5.1 Accept Soquel-Aptos Area Groundwater Management Annual Review and Report (ARR) for Water Year Basin Groundwater Model Update 5.3 Review and Approve Revised Third Amendment to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA) Amendment #3 5.4 Approve Revised Soquel-Aptos Area Groundwater Management Annual Budget FY Update from Subcommittee on Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) Formation 5.6 Update on Soquel-Aptos Area Community Engagement Pertaining to GSA Formation 5.7 Selection of Private Well Committee Representatives 6. INFORMATION ITEMS 7. MANAGER S REPORTS 7.1 Central Water District oral 7.2 City of Santa Cruz oral 7.3 County of Santa Cruz oral 7.4 Soquel Creek Water District - oral 8. ADJOURNMENT

2 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

3 DRAFT SOQUEL/APTOS GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN BASIN IMPLEMENTATION GROUP (BIG) MEETING MINUTES January 29, CALL TO ORDER Bruce Jaffe called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Committee Members Present: Bruce Jaffe, Soquel Creek Water District Tom LaHue, Soquel Creek Water District John Benich, Central Water District Bob Postle, Central Water District Bill Wigginton, Seascape Greens Homeowners Association Amy Newell, Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency Zach Friend, County of Santa Cruz Cynthia Matthews, City of Santa Cruz Micah Posner, City of Santa Cruz Committee Members Absent: None Others Present: Kim Adamson, General Manager, Soquel Creek Water District Ralph Bracamonte, General Manager, Central Water District John Ricker, Santa Cruz County Water Resources Division Director Martin Mills, PureSource Water (Private Well Representative) Rosemary Menard, City of Santa Cruz Mary Bannister, Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency Melanie Schumacher, Soquel Creek Water District Ron Duncan, Soquel Creek Water District Karen Reese, Executive Assistant/Board Clerk, Soquel Creek Water District Others Present: Derrik Williams, HydroMetrics, WRI Cameron Tana, HydroMetrics, WRI participated via conference call Jon Kennedy Marci DuPraw Robert Schultz Doug Deitch Bruce Daniels, attending as a member of the public Carla Christensen, attending as a member of the public 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3.1 Minutes of 9/23/14 MOTION: John Benich; Second; Bill Wigginton: To approve the minutes with one minor change. Motion passed unanimously.

4 DRAFT Soquel/Aptos Groundwater Management Plan Basin Implementation Group (BIG) January 29, 2015 Page 2 of 3 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Doug Deitch distributed material on sustainable groundwater use, the county well ordinance and the local coastal plan. He would like to come back and make a formal presentation. Director Jaffe asked that Mr. Deitch contact Ms. Adamson or Mr. Bracamonte to schedule time at an upcoming meeting of the BIG. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 5.1 Welcome New Members At the beginning of the meeting everyone present introduced themselves. The new members were welcomed. 5.2 Discussion of Draft Third Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement Discussion was held. This agreement could act as the bridge to get to the point of a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA). Ms. Adamson reviewed the Draft Third Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement. A new name for the group was discussed as well as what part the BIG would play in forming the GSA and what the makeup of the new group. Discussion also was held on who would be a voting member versus a non-voting member and what the percentage of financial split would be. Suggested changes to the Draft Third Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement were given. Staff will bring the updated amendment to the next meeting for approval. Once approved at the BIG, it will then need to go to each individual agency for approval before it becomes effective. 5.3 Groundwater Model Update Derrick Williams, HydroMetrics, WRI gave a presentation (Attached as Exhibit A) and answered questions. Cameron Tana with HydroMetrics was also available via teleconference. 5.4 Scope of Work for Cross Sectional Model Modifications Ms. Adamson reviewed the proposed scope of work included in the BIG packet. Lengthy discussion was held. Mr. Williams gave a presentation (Attached as Exhibit B) and Mr. Tana was available via conference call to answer questions. MOTION: Director Jaffe; Second; Director LaHue: To approve proposal of the Scope of Work for Modifying the Cross Sectional Model at the cost share agreed upon for the Third Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement and recommend approval to the member agency Boards. Motion passed unanimously. 5.5 Update on Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) Implementation Oral Presentation

5 DRAFT Soquel/Aptos Groundwater Management Plan Basin Implementation Group (BIG) January 29, 2015 Page 3 of 3 Ms. Adamson presented an overview of the process for creating a GSA. The BIG is functioning as an interim group while the process of forming a GSA is undertaken. The next step will include a stakeholder process, bringing the various groups together and will include public outreach, open meetings for stakeholders, public input and interaction. This process will include discussion of what roles the agencies and the public would play. 5.6 Groundwater Stakeholder Meetings Update Ms. Schumacher briefly reviewed the information included in the BIG packet. The public stakeholder meeting series has concluded. There was good participation from the public with attending the stakeholder meetings. The interaction was very good. Staff has extended the survey seeking more private well input. The results are showing that survey respondents want the community be involved in a more collaborate process with facilitation by an unbiased 3 rd party. An online survey is available on the District s website. Ms. Schumacher encouraged everyone to complete the survey. Director Jaffe asked that Ms. Schumacher distribute a summary of this oral report with survey results to the BIG members. (Attached as Exhibit C) 6. INFORMATION ITEMS Staff Reports Oral No reports were given. 7. ADJOURNMENT Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Karen Reese, Board Clerk Soquel Creek Water District Ron Duncan, Interim General Manager Soquel Creek Water District

6 Soquel-Aptos Basin Groundwater Model Update and Work Plan Soquel-Aptos Basin Implementation Group January 29, 2015

7 Model Use Priorities Consensus developed in scoping meetings SqCWD, CWD, City of Santa Cruz, County, PVWMA, USGS, HydroMetrics WRI Model to be used to evaluate future condition of groundwater basin Prioritize model inputs to change Prioritize model outputs to evaluate

8 Priorities for Future Model Inputs Pumping Overall quantities Locations Non-agency estimates Supplemental Supplies Recharge or Injection Hydrologic Conditions Climate Change

9 Priorities for Evaluating Model Outputs Comparing groundwater levels to protective elevations to prevent seawater intrusion Time for basin recovery Effects on stream flow Movement of seawater interface Seaside Model Example

10 Model Capabilities GSFLOW USGS code integrating watershed and groundwater PRMS for watershed surface flows MODFLOW for groundwater flows Streamflow Routing (SFR2) Sharp Seawater Interface (SWI2) Multi-Node Well (MNW2) Production wells screened across multiple units

11 Existing PRMS Task 2 Work Plan Process Grid-Based PRMS Task 4 Task 5 Surface Sub-Surface GSFLOW Simulations Task 3 MODFLOW CWD Model

12 Model Boundaries

13 Team Partner Roles Huntington Hydrologic USGS Task 2 Grid-Based PRMS Task 3 Task 4 GSFLOW Task 5 Guidance SWI2 Code Climate Bakker et al., 2013 MODFLOW Simulations Flint and Flint, 2012

14 Milestones Interim draft tech memos for review by staff and Technical Review Committee Task 2 Grid-Based PRMS Task 4 GSFLOW Task 6 Final Report June Nov Feb June July Task 3 Task 5 May MODFLOW Simulations

15 Questions

16

17 Protective Groundwater Elevations for Seawater Intrusion Modifications to Cross-Sectional Models Soquel-Aptos Basin Implementation Group January 29, 2015

18 Coastal Wells and Cross-Sections Monitoring Well Cluster Purisima Aquifer Unit Protected Protective Groundwater Elevation (ft msl) SC-1 A 4 SC-3 A 10 SC-5 A 13 SC-9 BC 10 SC-8 DEF 10

19 Peer Review Todd Groundwater: Approach is more sophisticated and more accurate for layered systems than the more common approaches However, models do not simulate possible path of seawater interface from offshore outcrop

20 Modified Model for SC-9 (BC Unit)

21 Modified Model for City Wells (A Unit)

22 Use Sharp Interface Package (SWI2) SEAWAT 2000 Need to subdivide layers Dispersion not needed for protective elevations SWI2 Less computation Sharp interface appropriate for protective elevations Bakker et al., 2013

23 Uncertainty Analysis 70 th percentile used for proposed Basin Management Objective

24 Proposed Schedule Revision Task Number Task Timeframe 1 Purisima Unit Elevations February Test Sharp Interface Package on SC-9 March Develop Cross-sectional Models March Uncertainty Analysis April Report May 2015

25 Groundwater Stakeholder Group Survey SurveyMonkey Q1 I receive my water: (check all that apply) Answered: 433 Skipped: 4 from my private well from a private well that is... from a mutual well (or sma... from the City of Santa Cruz from Soquel Creek Water... from Central Water District None of the above 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices from my private well from a private well that is shared amongst a few neighbors from a mutual well (or small water system) that is shared by a neighborhood from the City of Santa Cruz from Soquel Creek Water District from Central Water District None of the above Responses 5.08% % % % % % % 1 Total Respondents: / 10

26 Groundwater Stakeholder Group Survey SurveyMonkey Q2 If you have a private well, how would you classify the primary use: Answered: 292 Skipped: 145 Residential Small agricultural Large Agricultural Institutional (school/gove... Recreational (park, golf... Not applicable (receive wat... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Residential Small agricultural Large Agricultural Institutional (school/government) Recreational (park, golf course) Not applicable (receive water from a municipal source) Responses 16.10% % % % % % 233 Total / 10

27 Groundwater Stakeholder Group Survey SurveyMonkey Q3 Please rank these key issues that affect our water supply in the order you feel are most important for our mid-county community to address. (1 would be the most important and 8 would be the least important. This list will dynamically order them as you rank). Answered: 420 Skipped: 17 Unsustainable growth and... Adapt to impacts of... Increase water conservation... Restore groundwater... Protect our drinking wat... Provide adequate wat... Provide adequate wat... Increase water conservation Total Score Unsustainable growth and development 8.11% % % % % % % % Adapt to impacts of climate change (reduced recharge potential, sea level rise, etc.) 5.00% % % % % % % % Increase water conservation requirements for residences and businesses 3.33% % % % % % % % Restore groundwater levels to support streamflow, replenish our groundwater basins, and meet other environmental needs 10.98% % % % % % % % Protect our drinking water system from saltwater contamination 24.52% % % % % % % % / 10

28 Groundwater Stakeholder Group Survey SurveyMonkey Provide adequate water supplies for future needs 10.24% % % % % % % % Provide adequate water supplies for current users 30.00% % % % % % % % Increase water conservation and reduce use to sustainable levels 7.86% % % % % % % % / 10

29 Groundwater Stakeholder Group Survey SurveyMonkey Q4 Did you attend any of the Groundwater Stakeholder Meetings that were sponsored in 2014 by the local water agencies? Answered: 425 Skipped: 12 Yes, I attended one... Yes, I attended... Yes, I attended all... No, I didn't attend any o... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Yes, I attended one meeting Yes, I attended between two and four meetings Yes, I attended all of the meetings (there were five) No, I didn't attend any of the meetings Responses 11.06% % % % 343 Total / 10

30 Groundwater Stakeholder Group Survey SurveyMonkey Q5 Prior to taking this questionnaire, were you aware that California passed new legislation in 2014 called the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act that mandates local agencies to create a plan to achieve groundwater sustainability in the next years? Answered: 421 Skipped: 16 Yes, I was aware and kn... Yes, I was aware of it... No, I was not aware of thi... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Yes, I was aware and know about this new law. Yes, I was aware of it but don't know too much about it. No, I was not aware of this new law. Responses 37.53% % % 101 Total / 10

31 Groundwater Stakeholder Group Survey SurveyMonkey Q6 How would you prefer the community be engaged in developing the Groundwater Sustainability Agency? Answered: 382 Skipped: 55 A formal citizens... A formal working grou... Either would be fine. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices A formal citizens advisory committee be formed (comprised only of selected private well owners and special interest groups) to develop and propose recommendations for private well owner involvement in the GSA. These recommendations may be used by the local agencies who will be creating the proposed governance, goals, and geographical boundary of the GSA jurisdiction. A formal working group committee be formed (comprised of selected private well owners and special interest groups as well as representatives from the local agencies) to collaboratively develop stakeholder involvement (for private and municipal well owners) and collaboratively create the proposed governance, goals, and geographical boundary of the GSA jurisdiction. Either would be fine. Responses 8.38% % % 112 Total / 10

32 Groundwater Stakeholder Group Survey SurveyMonkey Q7 Facilitation may be used to aid in effective, efficient, and productive meetings, to serve as the liaison on behalf of the citizen committee with water agency staff members and technical experts, and to work on issues and concerns that may need mediation should disputes arise. Which would be your preference for meeting facilitation: Answered: 395 Skipped: 42 A staff member from a local... A third-party facilitator... A third-party facilitator... none of the above 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices A staff member from a local agency A third-party facilitator (outside of the area) who is not affiliated with a local water agency A third-party facilitator (resides in the local area) who is not affiliated with a local water agency none of the above Responses 15.44% % % % 15 Total / 10

33 Groundwater Stakeholder Group Survey SurveyMonkey Q8 The local water agencies want to ensure that the mid-county community is kept informed about the groundwater management activities moving forward and will be providing status updates, seeking input, and holding community meetings. Please rank the following methods that you would like to see be used in getting information out to you and the community: Answered: 384 Skipped: 53 Mail Newspapers (Santa Cruz... Radio TV Community Meetings Posted Flyers (local... Social Media (Facebook) Website Word of Mouth (Friends, Total Score % % % % % % % % % % Mail 10.68% % % % % % % % % % / 10

34 Groundwater Stakeholder Group Survey SurveyMonkey Newspapers (Santa Cruz Sentinel and local weekly papers) 14.10% % % % % % % % % % Radio 1.31% % % % % % % % % % TV 3.92% % % % % % % % % % Community Meetings 4.44% % % % % % % % % % Posted Flyers (local libraries, coffee shops, etc.) 0.00% % % % % % % % % % Social Media (Facebook) 2.09% % % % % % % % % % Website 8.59% % % % % % % % % % Word of Mouth (Friends, coworkers, neighbors, etc.) 1.04% % % % % % % % % % / 10

35 DRAFT SOQUEL/APTOS GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN BASIN IMPLEMENTATION GROUP (BIG) MEETING MINUTES March 25, CALL TO ORDER Tom LaHue called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Committee Members Present: Tom LaHue, Soquel Creek Water District Bruce Daniels, Soquel Creek Water District John Benich, Central Water District Bob Postle, Central Water District Bill Wigginton, Seascape Greens Homeowners Association John Leopold, County of Santa Cruz Cynthia Mathews, City of Santa Cruz Micah Posner, City of Santa Cruz Committee Members Absent: None Others Present: Kim Adamson, General Manager, Soquel Creek Water District Ralph Bracamonte, Manager, Central Water District John Ricker, Santa Cruz County Water Resources Division Director Melanie Schumacher, Soquel Creek Water District Ron Duncan, Soquel Creek Water District Jon Kennedy, Private Well Owner Heidi Luckenbach, City of Santa Cruz Lindsay Kammeier, The Covello Group Cameron Tana, HydroMetrics, WRI (via conference call at 7:15 p.m.) Karen Reese, Executive Assistant/Board Clerk, Soquel Creek Water District 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Bruce Daniels commented on the regulations for the GSA not having a planning horizon in terms of sustainability. How long does sustainability need to be maintained for? Climate changes will change the way the plan is formulated. John Leopold commented that he has spoken with state legislative staff. They are looking at what agencies are going to be working on before they start describing what it is they expect to see. He noted that the Basin Implementation Group (BIG) is ahead of the curve in this process. Bruce Daniels noted that one of the reports that came out of this month s talks stated there is about an 80% chance of a 35-year drought that will be twice as extreme as has been seen in the last century.

36 DRAFT Soquel/Aptos Groundwater Management Plan Basin Implementation Group (BIG) March 25, 2015 Page 2 of 5 5. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 5.1 Set 2015 Meeting Schedule Discussion was held to set the meeting schedule for the rest of MOTION: Bruce Daniels; Second; Tom LaHue: To direct staff to set the BIG meeting for the 3 rd Thursday of every other month at 7:00 p.m. beginning on May 21 st. Motion passed unanimously. 5.2 Review and Approve Third Amendment to Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA) Ms. Adamson reviewed the draft amendments to the JPA agreement included in the BIG packet (page 5 of 135). It should be noted that PVWMA will not be a part of the JPA, but will continue participating in an advisory role. Discussion ensued. Changes include: The name of the group will be the Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Management Committee (S-AGMC) The Committee shall be composed of 11 members: Two members from each of the partner agencies, each of whom shall be appointed by their respective boards. Three public members who shall each be a person or representative of an entity served by, owning, or managing a non-municipal well. The public committee members shall be selected by the partner agency committee members and shall be appointed to serve a two year term. The membership of the S-AGMC will be voted on by the partner agencies. MOTION: John Leopold; Second; Bruce Daniels: To approve the Draft Third Amendment of the JPA and recommend approval to respective member agencies. Motion passed unanimously. 5.3 Soquel-Aptos Area Groundwater Management Annual Budget FY 2015/16 Ms. Schumacher reviewed the proposed budget which is included in the BIG packet (page 27 of 135). Lengthy discussion was held. Changes included removing the hydrology Annual Review and Report (ARR) from the budget until the groundwater model is completed and reducing the amount for facilitation services to $50,000. Discussion included monitoring funds that are available from other sources, i.e. DWR, IRWM, Prop 1 drought funds, and USGS. MOTION: Tom LaHue; Second; Bruce Daniels: To recommend approval of the Budget FY 2015/16 budget estimate for groundwater management activities in the Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Management Area Basin minus the cost of the ARR and lower the budget for facilitation services to $50,000.. Motion passed unanimously.

37 DRAFT Soquel/Aptos Groundwater Management Plan Basin Implementation Group (BIG) March 25, 2015 Page 3 of 5 Cameron Tana joined the meeting via conference call 5.4 Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Model Work Plan Ms. Schumacher reviewed the background of the groundwater model proposal. Two scoping meetings were held and an updated work plan was submitted and is attached to the BIG packet (page 31 of 135). Changes include the USGS model code GSFLOW would be used as the watershed groundwater model. The new PRMS model would also be used. Climate change scenarios will be included. The revised overall cost estimate for the Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Model scope of work is $591,000. The cost estimate for fiscal year , including USGS costs, is $397,850. Mr. Tana gave a comprehensive report and answered questions. MOTION: Bruce Daniels; Second; Tom LaHue: To approve the revised scope of work and budget for the Soquel-Aptos Area Groundwater Model Work Plan. Motion passed unanimously. 5.5 Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) Formation Ms. Schumacher reviewed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) that was signed into law in 2014, and effective as of January 1, 2015, lays out a stepwise process and timeline for local authorities to achieve sustainable management of groundwater basins. It also provides tools, authorities and deadlines to take the necessary steps to achieve the goal. Step one: Local agencies must form local groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) by June 30, 2017 Step two: Agencies in basins deemed high- or medium-priority must adopt groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) by 2020 or 2022, depending on whether a basin is in critical overdraft. Step three: Once plans are in place, local agencies have 20 years to fully implement them and achieve the sustainability goal (by 2040 or 2042). Ms. Schumacher reviewed the survey results about formation of the GSA and community participation. After discussion it was agreed by the committee that a new task force/group does not need to be formed. Those involved in the process are already part of the S-AGMC and sitting at the table tonight, so it was suggested that a subcommittee be formed to include additional private well representatives. Russ McGlothlin will work with the subcommittee to come up with the framework to bring back to the S-AGMC. MOTION: John Benich; Second; Tom LaHue: That each entity appoints one person to the S-AGMC GSA Formation sub-committee and to include Jon Kennedy and Bill Wigginton and for the sub-committee to come back with specific issues that require stakeholder input. Motion passed unanimously.

38 DRAFT Soquel/Aptos Groundwater Management Plan Basin Implementation Group (BIG) March 25, 2015 Page 4 of 5 Additional discussion was held regarding the budget for the subcommittee. MOTION: Tom LaHue; Second; Bruce Daniels: To budget up to $50,000* for facilitation and public outreach. Motion passed unanimously. *Note: This was also included in the motion of item 5.3. The approved total budgeted amount is for up to $50,000 for facilitation and outreach and should not be considered as two separate, additive items. 6. INFORMATION ITEMS 6.1 Quarterly Monitoring Reports Discussion was held and Mr. Tana answered questions regarding the Quarterly reports of basin activity by HydroMetrics (attached to the BIG packet on page 64 of 135). Both SqCWD and Central Water District reported that, overall, pumping is down for their customers. 6.2 Meeting with Department Of Water Resources to Discuss Local Issues Pertaining to Implementing the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Ms. Adamson reported that S-AGMC most likely won t be used as a pilot project since they are not using a process that can be used and applied elsewhere in the State. 6.3 Department of Water Resources Groundwater - Sustainability Program Draft Strategic Plan The Department of Water Resources has released a draft strategic plan for its Groundwater Sustainability Program describing DWR s responsibilities and outlining key actions it will take to support local agencies with implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Ms. Adamson reported that the comment period is now open. 7. MANAGER S REPORTS 7.1 Central Water District oral Mr. Bracamonte reported the following: He s proud of the cutback in water usage throughout Central Water District. Customers continue to cut back monthly. 7.2 City of Santa Cruz oral Ms. Luckenbach reported the following: The City is going to ask for Stage 3 cutbacks similar to last year. The reservoirs are not up that much; the stream flows have dropped below the levels of the drought. The Water Supply Advisory Committee (WSAC) has had 11 meetings. The process is committed to being wrapped up in October. The community has been involved in the process. Ms. Luckenbach noted two upcoming enrichment programs; 4/8 regarding climate change and 4/22 regarding water exchange.

39 DRAFT Soquel/Aptos Groundwater Management Plan Basin Implementation Group (BIG) March 25, 2015 Page 5 of County of Santa Cruz oral Mr. Ricker reported the following: He is completing his water exchange report. The County has finished the groundwater model for the Santa Margarita formation. The County oversees small water systems (i.e. those less than 200 connections). Quarterly meetings will be held to discuss how the GSA will affect them. County ordinances will be amended requiring metering and reporting to conform with the Act. 7.4 Soquel Creek Water District oral Ms. Adamson reported the following: SqCWD is amending their UWMP. Notification was sent to all agencies within the legal timelines. The four year total for rainfall is 74. Less than 80 can trigger a Stage 4 emergency if the Board chooses to elect that stage. Conservation levels are good. SqCWD received a grant for recycled water recharge feasibly study and SqCWD is in the process of selecting a consultant. Legislative issues regarding the GSA A large number of bills are out there to amend the GSA language. De minimis pumping definition is being considered to change from 2 afy to 10 afy. Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) is not favoring this bill. SqCWD voted to oppose the bill. 7.5 PVWMA oral No representatives from PVWMA were present. 8. ADJOURNMENT Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:52 p.m. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Karen Reese, Board Clerk Ron Duncan, Interim General Manager Soquel Creek Water District

40 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

41 May 21, 2015 MEMO TO THE BASIN IMPLEMENTATION GROUP Subject: Agenda Item No. 5.1 Accept the Soquel-Aptos Area Groundwater Management Annual Review and Report for Water Year 2014 Background The AB3030 Groundwater Management Plan for the Soquel-Aptos Area calls for an Annual Review and Report (ARR) on the state of the basin prepared by the consulting hydrologist with assistance from Soquel Creek and Central Water District staff AR Report The administrative draft 2014 ARR was first presented to the Basin Advisory Group (BAG) for review and comment. The BAG provides technical expertise necessary to guide and implement the groundwater management activities as well as provide interagency coordination. The BAG is comprised of staff representatives from Soquel Creek Water District, Central Water District, City of Santa Cruz Water Department, Santa Cruz County Water Resources Division and the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency. This group reviewed the administrative draft of the 2014 ARR and met on April 24, 2015to discuss the report. Revisions were made based on the BAG s comments. The Draft 2014 ARR is available on the District s website at: Derrik Williams with HydroMetrics WRI will be at the meeting to make a presentation about the report and respond to questions. POSSIBLE ACTION 1. By MOTION, accept the Soquel-Aptos Area Groundwater Management Annual Review and Report for Water Year By MOTION, accept the Soquel-Aptos Area Groundwater Management Annual Review and Report for Water Year 2014 with modifications. 3. No action.

42 Basin Implementation Group May 21, 2015 Page 2 of 2 By Ron Duncan, Interim General Manager Soquel Creek Water District By Melanie Mow Schumacher, Special Projects/Community Dialogue Manager Soquel Creek Water District

43 May 21, 2015 MEMO TO THE BASIN IMPLEMENTATION GROUP Subject: Agenda Item No. 5.2 Basin Groundwater Model Update Background HydroMetrics WRI was hired to prepare a groundwater model for the Soquel-Aptos groundwater management area. The scope of work was presented to the BIG on September 23, 2014 and was subsequently approved. Following two scoping meetings on October 28 and December 1, 2014, a technical work plan for the groundwater model work was prepared and presented to the BIG at its January 29, 2015 meeting. Based on the work plan, HydroMetrics next deliverables are two memos on PRMS inputs and MODFLOW inputs will be submitted in June/July Update Derrik Williams from HydroMetrics WRI will be in attendance to provide a status update on the model s progress and the technical review committee (TRC) and answer questions. POSSIBLE ACTIONS 1. By MOTION, provide direction to staff. 2. Informational only. No action. By Ron Duncan, Interim General Manager Soquel Creek Water District By Melanie Mow Schumacher, Special Projects/Community Dialogue Manager Soquel Creek Water District

44 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

45 May 21, 2015 MEMO TO THE BASIN IMPLEMENTATION GROUP Subject: Agenda Item No. 5.3 Review and Approve Revised Third Amendment to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA) Attachments: 1. Revisions to the third amendment by County of Santa Cruz shown as strikeouts and additions 2. Revisions to the third amendment by the County of Santa Cruz (clean version) Background At the March 25, 2015 Basin Implementation Group (BIG) meeting, the draft third amendment of the JPA was approved and recommended for approval by the respective member agencies. Subsequently, the third amendment of the JPA was approved by Soquel Creek Water District on April 7, 2015, Central Water District on April 21, 2015 and the City of Santa Cruz on April 14, Upon approval by the County Board of Supervisors, the County Counsel and Administrative Officer made new changes to the third amendment. New Revisions to Third Amendment of the JPA The County Board of Supervisors at their May 21, 2015 meeting were presented an item including, but not limited to, an overview of the state s sustainable groundwater management act, authorization of the third amendment to the JPA, and selection of County representatives to serve on the Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Management Committee (also known as BIG). The primary changes that the County of Santa Cruz made to the third amendment that was previously approved at the March 25 BIG meting are: Elaborated on the process for selecting the three public members for the committee Elaborated on the process for voting on fiscal impacts by member agencies Modified the approval of a final budget Added a section on limitation on imposition of taxes or assessments Added a section on limitation of debt A revised draft third amendment with the changes/edits by the County are attached (Attachment 1). John Ricker, County Water Resources Division Director will be in

46 Basin Implementation Group May 21, 2015 Page 2 of 2 attendance at the meeting and report out on the Board of Supervisor s action and approval at their May 19 meeting. In order for the BIG to effectively and formally operate with all member agencies, the revised third amendment (Attachment 2) will need to be approved by the BIG and recommended to be presented to the member agencies Boards and Council for final approval. POSSIBLE ACTION 1. By MOTION, approve the revised Third Amendment of the JPA and recommend approval to respective member agencies. 2. No action. By Ron Duncan, Interim General Manager Soquel Creek Water District By Melanie Mow Schumacher, Special Projects/Community Dialogue Manager Soquel Creek Water District

47 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.3 THIRD AMENDMENT Field Cod TO JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT The parties to this Third Amendment to Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement are CENTRAL WATER DISTRICT, (hereinafter referred to as CENTRAL) and the SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT, (hereinafter referred to as SOQUEL), City of Santa Cruz (hereinafter referred to as CITY), and the County of Santa Cruz (hereinafter referred to as COUNTY), all of which represent partner agencies (hereinafter referred to as PARTNER AGENCIES) with interests in groundwater management within the area known regionally as the Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Basin, hereby join together for a common and specific purpose. RECITALS A. Soquel Creek Water District and the Central Water District entered into a Joint Powers Agreement ( JPA ) pursuant to Sections 6500 et seq. of the Government Code on March 30, 1995 (first amended on August 18, 2009 and second amended on November 19, 2013) for the purpose of developing and implementing a groundwater management plan under Sections et seq. of the Water Code (commonly referred to as an AB 3030 plan ) for the Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Basin ( Basin ) within Santa Cruz County. B. Soquel and Central jointly produced and implemented an AB 3030 Plan for the Basin under the JPA (the Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Management Plan) in 1996 and 2007; and have prepared an Annual Review and Report (ARR) each year since C. Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act ( Act ) (codified at Sections et seq. of the California Water Code) on September 16, D. The Act requires that a local agency or combination of local agencies form (or elect to be) a Groundwater Sustainability Agency and to develop a Groundwater Sustainability Plan for all basins ranked as a medium or high priority basin by the Department of Water Resources under the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program ( CASGEM ).

48 Third Amendment To Joint Exercise Of Powers Agreement Page 2 of 6 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.3 E. The Act requires that Groundwater Sustainability Plan include elements that are additive to the elements of an AB 3030 Plan, and that a Groundwater Sustainability Plan be developed to replace an existing AB 3030 Plan for medium and high priority basins. F. The Basin s boundaries may be modified consistent with the Act. G. Subbasins comprising the Basin are ranked as medium and high priority basins under CASGEM, and therefore a Groundwater Sustainability Agency must be formed and a Groundwater Sustainability Plan must be developed for the Basin within the deadlines prescribed in the Act. H. The JPA as modified pursuant to this resolution, together with potential future appropriate modifications, is well suited to be, or be part of, a Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the Basin as required by the Act. I. For the purpose of serving in the role of the Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the Basin, or as a member thereof, it is appropriate to join other local public agencies that are affected by the future management of the Basin Agency as members of the JPA. J. The other local public agencies that should be joined as members of the JPA are the County of Santa Cruz, and the City of Santa Cruz. Now Therefore, upon the adoption of resolutions by the Board of Directors of Central Water District, Soquel Creek Water District, the Santa Cruz City Council and the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, it is hereby agreed: 1. The Committee. The Ground Water Management Committee, established under the original JPA is hereby made a permanent committee known as the Soquel Aptos Groundwater Management Committee (SAGMC). The duties of the SAGMC shall include, but not be limited to: a) assure that the goals and objectives identified in the current Groundwater Management Plan are pursued in a reasonable and timely manner; b) review data and coordinate groundwater pumping to the extent possible to meet both meet demand and avoid exacerbating undesirable coastal groundwater conditions; c) undertake ongoing and comprehensive efforts to collect, maintain, and share groundwater data with respect to water levels and quality;

49 Third Amendment To Joint Exercise Of Powers Agreement Page 3 of 6 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.3 d) undertake cooperative research and resource management initiatives that are regional in scope and disseminate information resulting from these activities; e) recommend joint efforts to the respective governing bodies which are of regional benefit, e.g. general seawater intrusion monitoring, recharge within shared portions of the basin, etc.; f) jointly pursue groundwater management grants or studies, such as planning or project grants available from the State under Proposition 1, and hydrological modeling and studies undertaken by United States Geological Survey; g) coordinate Urban Water Management Plans and Groundwater Emergency Plans; h) facilitate discussions regarding formation of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (or Agencies) required by the Act for development and implementation of the required Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the basin; Said Committee shall be composed of 11 members: Two members from each of the partner agencies, each of whom shall be appointed by their respective boards. Three public members who shall each be a person or representative of an entity served by, owning, or managing a non-municipal well. The public committee members shall be selected nominated and approved by a majority vote of the partner agency committee members and shall be appointed to serve a two year term. The Committee shall select a chair from among its partner agency members with the chair rotating alternating every two years between agencies. All votes of the committee shall be decided by a majority vote of the committee except for fiscal decisions (those decisions that involve the incurring of debt or expenditure of funds) which shall be decided only by the members of the Committee who are elected representatives of Central, Soquel, the City and the County. Those fiscal decisions shall also be decided by a majority vote of those persons eligible to vote on those matters and by the entities involved in the projects. All votes with a fiscal impact on the member agencies, including the annual budget and the proportional allocation of costs shall also be subject to the approval of approved by the Board or Council of each agency. 2. Staff. The water agency managers of partner agencies shall serve as staff to the committee with clerical duties provided by Soquel. 3. Compensation. Each board member attending meetings of the committee shall be compensated by his or her respective board as each board so decides. No

50 Third Amendment To Joint Exercise Of Powers Agreement Page 4 of 6 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.3 compensation shall be paid by the committee. The staff shall be paid by their respective entities as they so agree. 4. Funding. The Committee is authorized to hire consultants to assist in the management and implementation of goals of the SAGMC. The costs of work done under this agreement and other management and implementation expenses agreed upon by the SAGMC shall be shared on a proportional basis of the total annual groundwater use as measured by each agency for the preceding water year. Based on use for 2013, the percentage cost to each agency for fiscal year would be as follows: Soquel Creek Water District 70% Central Water District 10% City of Santa Cruz 10% Santa Cruz County 10% The cost allocation for each year shall be determined as a part of the JPA budget for the upcoming fiscal year. In the event that additional members are added to the JPA, all of the members shall agree on a new cost sharing formula to fund the costs of the JPA. 5. Approval of Final Budget. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the unanimous approval of the Member Agenciespartner agencies, acting by and through each of their respective legislative bodiesboard or Council, shall be required to approve and adopt the Final JPA Budget annual budget for the upcoming fiscal year. If the Member Agencies partner agencies have not reached agreement by July 1 of the new fiscal year, the previous year s budget will remain in effect until a new budget is approved. If revenues decline, budget cuts will be proportionate based on Board adopted service levels. 6. Limitation on Imposition of Taxes or Assessments. The JPA shall have no power to impose taxes or assessments within any Party s partner agency s jurisdiction unless the Party s partner agency s legislative body first passes a resolution consenting to the tax or assessment. 7. Limitation on Issuance of Debt. The JPA shall have no power to issue debt unless the legislative body of each Party partner agency first passes a resolution consenting to the issuance of the debt. 85. Withdrawal. Any party may withdraw as a participant in the JPA, with the understanding that the remaining party or parties may continue to fund and implement the GMP for the benefit of the ground water basin. Notice of withdrawal shall be by a resolution of the respective board of directors and provide thirty (30) day written notice of intent to withdraw. Any funds due or obligations to pay incurred as of the date of withdrawal shall be due and payable irrespective of the withdrawal.

51 Third Amendment To Joint Exercise Of Powers Agreement Page 5 of 6 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM Additional Members. On the approval of the Boards of all parties to this agreement, and that of any subsequent party added to this agreement, additional parties may be added to this JPA Additional Goals. An additional goal of the Committee shall be to identify and develop groundwater projects which are mutually beneficial to all members Functions of the Committee. In addition to the functions previously described in this agreement, the Committee shall have the ability to recommend to their respective Boards, policies and programs which will enhance the basin. The Committee shall meet at least once quarterly, or more as needed, and minutes of their meetings shall be maintained and furnished to the Boards of the members Subcommittees. The committee may establish such advisory committees as it deems appropriate to advise committee activities Non-Restrictive of Independent Activities. This agreement does not preclude any agency from pursuing programs and projects related to groundwater management either independently or in cooperation with other agencies that may or may not be a party to the Soquel-Aptos Area Groundwater Management Joint Powers Agreement Severability. Should any portion, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or in conflict with any law, or otherwise rendered unenforceable or ineffectual, the validity of the remaining portions, terms, conditions, or provisions shall not be affected thereby Amendment. This Agreement may be amended by resolution of the Boards and Councils of all members of the JPA. Dated: 2015 CENTRAL WATER DISTRICT Authorized Officer SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT

52 Third Amendment To Joint Exercise Of Powers Agreement Page 6 of 6 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.3 Authorized Officer CITY OF SANTA CRUZ Authorized Officer SANTA CRUZ COUNTY Authorized Officer

53 ATTACHMENT 2 - ITEM 5.3 THIRD AMENDMENT TO JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT The parties to this Third Amendment to Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement are CENTRAL WATER DISTRICT, (hereinafter referred to as CENTRAL) and the SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT, (hereinafter referred to as SOQUEL), City of Santa Cruz (hereinafter referred to as CITY), and the County of Santa Cruz (hereinafter referred to as COUNTY), all of which represent partner agencies (hereinafter referred to as PARTNER AGENCIES) with interests in groundwater management within the area known regionally as the Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Basin, hereby join together for a common and specific purpose. RECITALS A. Soquel Creek Water District and the Central Water District entered into a Joint Powers Agreement ( JPA ) pursuant to Sections 6500 et seq. of the Government Code on March 30, 1995 (first amended on August 18, 2009 and second amended on November 19, 2013) for the purpose of developing and implementing a groundwater management plan under Sections et seq. of the Water Code (commonly referred to as an AB 3030 plan ) for the Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Basin ( Basin ) within Santa Cruz County. B. Soquel and Central jointly produced and implemented an AB 3030 Plan for the Basin under the JPA (the Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Management Plan) in 1996 and 2007; and have prepared an Annual Review and Report (ARR) each year since C. Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act ( Act ) (codified at Sections et seq. of the California Water Code) on September 16, D. The Act requires that a local agency or combination of local agencies form (or elect to be) a Groundwater Sustainability Agency and to develop a Groundwater Sustainability Plan for all basins ranked as a medium or high priority basin by the Department of Water Resources under the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program ( CASGEM ). E. The Act requires that Groundwater Sustainability Plan include elements that are additive to the elements of an AB 3030 Plan, and

54 Third Amendment To Joint Exercise Of Powers Agreement Page 2 of 5 ATTACHMENT 2 - ITEM 5.3 that a Groundwater Sustainability Plan be developed to replace an existing AB 3030 Plan for medium and high priority basins. F. The Basin s boundaries may be modified consistent with the Act. G. Subbasins comprising the Basin are ranked as medium and high priority basins under CASGEM, and therefore a Groundwater Sustainability Agency must be formed and a Groundwater Sustainability Plan must be developed for the Basin within the deadlines prescribed in the Act. H. The JPA as modified pursuant to this resolution, together with potential future appropriate modifications, is well suited to be, or be part of, a Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the Basin as required by the Act. I. For the purpose of serving in the role of the Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the Basin, or as a member thereof, it is appropriate to join other local public agencies that are affected by the future management of the Basin Agency as members of the JPA. J. The other local public agencies that should be joined as members of the JPA are the County of Santa Cruz, and the City of Santa Cruz. Now Therefore, upon the adoption of resolutions by the Board of Directors of Central Water District, Soquel Creek Water District, the Santa Cruz City Council and the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, it is hereby agreed: 1. The Committee. The Ground Water Management Committee, established under the original JPA is hereby made a permanent committee known as the Soquel Aptos Groundwater Management Committee (SAGMC). The duties of the SAGMC shall include, but not be limited to: a) assure that the goals and objectives identified in the current Groundwater Management Plan are pursued in a reasonable and timely manner; b) review data and coordinate groundwater pumping to the extent possible to both meet demand and avoid exacerbating undesirable coastal groundwater conditions; c) undertake ongoing and comprehensive efforts to collect, maintain, and share groundwater data with respect to water levels and quality; d) undertake cooperative research and resource management initiatives that are regional in scope and disseminate information resulting from these activities;

55 Third Amendment To Joint Exercise Of Powers Agreement Page 3 of 5 ATTACHMENT 2 - ITEM 5.3 e) recommend joint efforts to the respective governing bodies which are of regional benefit, e.g. general seawater intrusion monitoring, recharge within shared portions of the basin, etc.; f) jointly pursue groundwater management grants or studies, such as planning or project grants available from the State under Proposition 1, and hydrological modeling and studies undertaken by United States Geological Survey; g) coordinate Urban Water Management Plans and Groundwater Emergency Plans; h) facilitate discussions regarding formation of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (or Agencies) required by the Act for development and implementation of the required Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the basin; Said Committee shall be composed of 11 members: Two members from each of the partner agencies, each of whom shall be appointed by their respective boards. Three public members who shall each be a person or representative of an entity served by, owning, or managing a non-municipal well. The public committee members shall be nominated and approved by a majority vote of the partner agency committee members and shall be appointed to serve a two year term. The Committee shall select a chair from among its partner agency members with the chair rotating every two years between agencies. All votes of the committee shall be decided by a majority vote of the committee except for fiscal decisions (those decisions that involve the incurring of debt or expenditure of funds) which shall be decided only by the members of the Committee who are elected representatives of Central, Soquel, the City and the County. Those fiscal decisions shall also be decided by a majority vote of those persons eligible to vote on those matters and by the entities involved in the projects. All votes with a fiscal impact on the member agencies, including the annual budget and the proportional allocation of costs shall also be subject to the approval of the Board or Council of each agency. 2. Staff. The water agency managers of partner agencies shall serve as staff to the committee with clerical duties provided by Soquel. 3. Compensation. Each board member attending meetings of the committee shall be compensated by his or her respective board as each board so decides. No compensation shall be paid by the committee. The staff shall be paid by their respective entities as they so agree.

56 Third Amendment To Joint Exercise Of Powers Agreement Page 4 of 5 ATTACHMENT 2 - ITEM Funding. The Committee is authorized to hire consultants to assist in the management and implementation of goals of the SAGMC. The costs of work done under this agreement and other management and implementation expenses agreed upon by the SAGMC shall be shared on a proportional basis of the total annual groundwater use as measured by each agency for the preceding water year. Based on use for 2013, the percentage cost to each agency for fiscal year would be as follows: Soquel Creek Water District 70% Central Water District 10% City of Santa Cruz 10% Santa Cruz County 10% The cost allocation for each year shall be determined as a part of the JPA budget for the upcoming fiscal year. In the event that additional members are added to the JPA, all of the members shall agree on a new cost sharing formula to fund the costs of the JPA. 5. Approval of Final Budget. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the unanimous approval of the partner agencies, acting by and through their respective Board or Council, shall be required to approve and adopt the annual budget for the upcoming fiscal year. If the partner agencies have not reached agreement by July 1 of the new fiscal year, the previous year s budget will remain in effect until a new budget is approved. If revenues decline, budget cuts will be proportionate based on Board adopted service levels. 6. Limitation on Imposition of Taxes or Assessments. The JPA shall have no power to impose taxes or assessments within any partner agency s jurisdiction unless the partner agency s legislative body first passes a resolution consenting to the tax or assessment. 7. Limitation on Issuance of Debt. The JPA shall have no power to issue debt unless the legislative body of each partner agency first passes a resolution consenting to the issuance of the debt. 8. Withdrawal. Any party may withdraw as a participant in the JPA, with the understanding that the remaining party or parties may continue to fund and implement the GMP for the benefit of the ground water basin. Notice of withdrawal shall be by a resolution of the respective board of directors and provide thirty (30) day written notice of intent to withdraw. Any funds due or obligations to pay incurred as of the date of withdrawal shall be due and payable irrespective of the withdrawal. 9. Additional Members. On the approval of the Boards of all parties to this agreement, and that of any subsequent party added to this agreement, additional parties may be added to this JPA.

57 Third Amendment To Joint Exercise Of Powers Agreement Page 5 of 5 ATTACHMENT 2 - ITEM Additional Goals. An additional goal of the Committee shall be to identify and develop groundwater projects which are mutually beneficial to all members. 11. Functions of the Committee. In addition to the functions previously described in this agreement, the Committee shall have the ability to recommend to their respective Boards, policies and programs which will enhance the basin. The Committee shall meet at least once quarterly, or more as needed, and minutes of their meetings shall be maintained and furnished to the Boards of the members. 12. Subcommittees. The committee may establish such advisory committees as it deems appropriate to advise committee activities. 13. Non-Restrictive of Independent Activities. This agreement does not preclude any agency from pursuing programs and projects related to groundwater management either independently or in cooperation with other agencies that may or may not be a party to the Soquel-Aptos Area Groundwater Management Joint Powers Agreement. 14. Severability. Should any portion, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or in conflict with any law, or otherwise rendered unenforceable or ineffectual, the validity of the remaining portions, terms, conditions, or provisions shall not be affected thereby. 15. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended by resolution of the Boards and Councils of all members of the JPA. Dated: 2015 CENTRAL WATER DISTRICT Authorized Officer SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT Authorized Officer CITY OF SANTA CRUZ Authorized Officer SANTA CRUZ COUNTY Authorized Officer

58 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

59 May 21, 2015 MEMO TO THE BASIN IMPLEMENTATION GROUP Subject: Agenda Item No. 5.4 Approve Revised Soquel-Aptos Area Groundwater Management Annual Budget FY 2015/16 Background At the March 25, 2015 Basin Implementation Group (BIG) meeting, the proposed budget for FY 2015/16 related to groundwater management and implementation activities within the Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Management Area basin. Per that meeting, the budget was recommended for approval with modifications related to removing the preparation and production of an Annual Review and Report for Water Year 2015 and a reduction in facilitation services for community engagement in forming a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA). The BIG members asked that the budget come back at a subsequent meeting to illustrate the cost share for each partner agency. Soquel-Aptos Area Groundwater Management Annual Budget FY 2015/16 For FY 2015/16, the following activities have been identified for groundwater management and implementation within the Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Management Area basin: Item Budget Amount Prepare Quarterly HydroMetrics WRI $8,000 Reports Assistance with filing HydroMetrics WRI $30,000 basin boundary changes to DWR Assist with data/technical HydroMetrics WRI $10,000 information to support GSA formation Shallow well evaluation HydroMetrics WRI $20,000 Groundwater Model (cont.) HydroMetrics WRI (includes work supported $397,850 Legal assistance and services for GSA formation Facilitation Services for GSA Formation by USGS) Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck Center for Collaborative Policy (CCP) or other $50,000* $50,000 General Administration $12,000 Total $577,850

60 Basin Implementation Group May 21, 2015 Page 2 of 2 *Note: Since the March 25, 2015 BIG meeting, staff has discussed including additional funds to retain Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck for FY 2015/16; this was previously not provided at 3/25 meeting. The BIG is currently conducting groundwater management and implementation activities that were funded in FY 2014/15. Any work that is still underway and any unspent funds will be rolled over to FY2015/16. Cost Share Between Partner Agencies The percentage cost to each partner agency shall be shared and follow the formula as outlined in the JPA, Amendment #3 which is pending adoption: 70% Soquel Creek Water District, 10% Central Water District, 10% City of Santa Cruz, and 10% County of Santa Cruz. Additionally, Central Water District has already funded and completed a model within their jurisdictional area that will be included in this larger Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Model effort. As outlined in the August 14, 2014 BIG memo regarding the groundwater model project, Central Water District has a credit of $54,812 to carryover towards future join basin work. Soquel Creek Water District: $577,850 x 70% = $404,495 City of Santa Cruz: $577,850 x 10% = $57,785 County of Santa Cruz: $577,850 x 10% = $57,785 Central Water District: $577,850 x 10%= $57,785 - $54,812 = $2,973 Staff recommends that the BIG approve this revised FY 2015/16 budget since it includes additional funds for legal assistance on GSA formation that was not previously approved when presented at the March 25, 2015 meeting. POSSIBLE ACTION 1. By MOTION, approve the revised Soquel-Aptos Area Groundwater Management Annual Budget FY 2015/16 By Ron Duncan, Interim General Manager Soquel Creek Water District By Melanie Mow Schumacher, Special Projects/Community Dialogue Manager Soquel Creek Water District

61 May 21, 2015 MEMO TO THE BASIN IMPLEMENTATION GROUP Subject: Agenda Item No. 5.5 Update from Subcommittee on Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) Formation Attachments: 1. Meeting Summary from April 30, 2015 meeting 2. Report by Subcommittee on April 30 and May 8 meetings Background At the March 25 Basin Implementation Group (BIG) Meeting, a subcommittee was established to assist in reviewing various governance models for potential Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) structures and work with our legal advisor, community facilitator, and staff on analyzing the most appropriate model for our mid-county area. Per the statutory requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, the deadline to establish a GSA is June 30, The subcommittee is comprised of six members: one member from each partner agency of the BIG and two members who represent private wells: Soquel Creek Water District: Bruce Jaffe City of Santa Cruz: Micah Posner Central Water District: Bob Postle or John Benich County of Santa Cruz: John Ricker Private Well Representatives: Bill Wigginton and Jon Kennedy (Chair) The subcommittee has met on April 30 and May 8. attached. Meeting summaries are The purpose of this memo is to provide a forum for a report out of the meetings and allow Committee discussion and direction. Jon Kennedy, subcommittee chair, will be at the meeting to report on the subcommittee s actions and seek input from the committee. POSSIBLE ACTION 1. By MOTION, provide direction to subcommittee and staff. 2. No action. Informational only.

62 Basin Implementation Group May 21, 2015 Page 2 of 2 By Ron Duncan, Interim General Manager Soquel Creek Water District By Melanie Mow Schumacher, Special Projects/Community Dialogue Manager Soquel Creek Water District

63 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 SUMMARY Meeting of the Groundwater Sustainability Agency Formation Subcommittee Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Management Committee April 30, 2015, Capitola, CA Background and Action Items The Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Management Committee (S-AGMC), previously referred to as the Basin Implementation Group (BIG), was formed under a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) among the Soquel Creek Water District (SqCWD), the Central Water District (CWD), the City of Santa Cruz, and Santa Cruz County (County). S-AGMC consists of private well-owners and elected officials from SqCWD, CWD, the City of Santa Cruz, and the County. Following passage of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), which requires formation of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) and Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP), the S- AGMC established a GSA Formation Subcommittee (Subcommittee). The Subcommittee is tasked with exploring GSA formation options, identifying areas of consensus and potential bottlenecks, incorporating stakeholder input and basin boundary modification efforts, and developing a framework and bylaws for the GSA. The S-AGMC also tasked the Subcommittee to work with a legal advisor, a community facilitator, and SqCWD staff liaisons to analyze and recommend the most appropriate governance model. This was the first meeting for the Subcommittee. A list of meeting participants is provided in Appendix A. The objectives for this meeting were: Review the roles and responsibilities of the S-AGMC, the Subcommittee, the legal advisor, and the community facilitator. Appoint a Subcommittee Chair. Review the SGMA requirements and GSA formation timeline. Review various existing Joint Powers Agreements (JPA)/watermaster models. Identify information to present to the S-AGMC at its May 21 meeting. # Major Action Items Lead Estimated Timing 1. City of Santa Cruz staff will send SqCWD its JPA model Santa May 8 spreadsheet to circulate among the GSA Subcommittee. Cruz 2. Chairman will resend consolidated list of questions the GSA Chair May 1 Subcommittee should consider. 3. GSA Subcommittee will convene again before the May 21 All May 8 meeting. The consultants do not need to attend, but the Subcommittee may ask for consultants input after the meeting. 4. CCP will finalize the stakeholder interview questions in CCP May 1 consultation with Chairman and SqCWD staff. 5. CCP will conduct stakeholder interviews and share themes at the May 21 S-AGMC meeting. CCP May

64 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM Welcome and Introductions Melanie Schumacher, SqCWD Special Projects Director, welcomed participants and provided context for the Subcommittee s charge and the meeting s objectives. She noted that one of the items of business for this meeting would be identifying a chairperson for the Subcommittee, who would perform this role in the future. 2. Administrative Business 2.1 Roles and Responsibilities Ms. Schumacher reviewed the roles and responsibilities for the S-AGMC, the Subcommittee, the community facilitator, and the legal advisor: S-AGMC. The major distinction between the S-AGMC and a GSA is the governance structure S-AGMC has thus far been operating voluntarily through Assembly Bill 3030 (AB 3030). The GSA will generally have the same responsibilities as the S-AGMC, but the governance structure may differ based upon the selected governance model (e.g., voting process, membership, etc.) Once the GSA is established, S-AGMC will no longer develop updates for their voluntary AB 3030 groundwater management plan, because the GSA will file annual reports to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) as part of its GSP requirements. GSA Subcommittee. As stated earlier, the Subcommittee will primarily analyze the different groundwater management models to determine the most appropriate governance model and framework. Community facilitator. The State Water Regional Control Board (Water Board or SWRCB) contracted with the California State University s Center for Collaborative Policy (CCP) to conduct a pilot community engagement assistance process with S-AGMC s initial SGMA efforts. CCP will conduct stakeholder interviews and work with the Subcommittee to draft a community engagement plan and facilitate a community meeting in June. CCP will also prepare a lessons learned memo for the Water Board on this pilot effort. Legal advisor. The initial scope of work for the legal counsel from Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLC (BHFS) primarily includes guidance for complying with SGMA, exploring different GSA governance models, considering management options and issues (e.g., water rights, funding, etc.), and possibly developing the framework and bylaws to formalize the GSA formation. Dr. Marci DuPraw, CCP Managing Senior Mediator, introduced Gita Kapahi, Director of the Water Board s Office of Public Participation, which has provided funding for CCP s assistance to the S-AGMC and the GSA Formation Subcommittee for developing a community engagement plan. Ms. Kapahi noted that the Water Board hopes to learning from the pilot S-AGMC 2

65 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 community engagement process to enable the Water Board to better provide local assistance for developing other GSAs across the state. Dr. DuPraw provided an overview of CCP s mission and proposed approach for developing the community engagement plan. CCP provides impartial facilitation and mediation and helps build stakeholders capacity to address policy challenges. Dr. DuPraw explained that the Water Board funding will enable CCP to: a) interview approximately 20 stakeholders (including Subcommittee members); b) to analyze this input and formulate a proposed community engagement plan based on it in consultation with the S-AGMC and the Subcommittee; c) to present the assessment findings at a public meeting and elicit attendees feedback regarding proposed community engagement methods to support SGMA implementation; and d) to finalize the plan. Dr. DuPraw noted that the S-AGMC (in its earlier life as the Basin Implementation Group) has engaged in significant community engagement activities in the past, and CCP s recommendations will seek to build on these past efforts. Dr. DuPraw then oriented Subcommittee members to an information packet about CCP. She sought Subcommittee feedback on two items in the packet 1) the draft stakeholder interview topics for use in CCP s focused stakeholder assessment; and 2) factors to consider in selecting interviewees. Discussion Roles and Responsibilities The Subcommittee discussed what additional questions should be part of the interviews. Subcommittee members suggested several issues: basin boundary revisions, relation to regional water management efforts such as the Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) program, and how the public can affect the GSP. Subcommittee members also suggested potential interviewees. The Subcommittee provided questions and comments on the following major topics: June Public Meeting. The Subcommittee considered the rationale for hosting a public meeting in June rather than waiting until fall when the S-AGMC has more details to discuss with attendees, and recommendations for GSA formation. Gita Kapahi, Water Board, said the public meeting was originally scheduled based on considerations related to the Water Board-CCP contract timeline, but the contract can be amended if desired. The Water Board primarily wants to provide the support that S-AGMC needs to develop a successful GSA. Participants discussed the June public meeting topic throughout the meeting; ultimately, the Subcommittee supported a public meeting in June because the last public meeting was in January, and Subcommittee members saw merit in regularly engaging the public during the GSA formation process. Subcommittee members said the public would likely appreciate being informed about the challenges the S-AGMC is addressing rather than being presented with the S-AGMC s final recommendations. A June public meeting also provided an opportunity to raise public awareness about the drought and water conservation before summer. 3

66 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 Outreach lists. Subcommittee members briefly discussed their outreach efforts. SqCWD staff requested the City of Santa Cruz s list to add to S-AGMC s notification list. Interviewee selection. Who will CCP interview, and who selects the interviewees? How many interviews? o CCP Response: CCP will conduct approximately 20 interviews, averaging about 1.5 hours per person. The facilitator selects the interviewee based on agreed upon criteria and input from S-AGMC member staff and the Subcommittee. The selection criteria thus far include: 1) interviewees are stakeholders with respect to GSA / GSP formation in this basin; 2) they collectively represent a broad range of sectors and perspectives; 3) they are widely respected opinion leaders, and/or could help ensure or block GSA / GSP effectiveness; 4) they collectively represent broad geographic diversity within this basin; and 5) they include major decision-makers with respect to GSA / GSP formation. o Ultimately, the objective is to gather a diverse spectrum of perspectives from different sectors, geographic locations, etc. Past under-engaged stakeholders. It will be important to interview representatives of key sectors that have not been actively involved with S-AGMC discussions, such as the agriculture sector. Managing expectations. Make sure to manage expectations during the interviews to focus participants on topics that are actually negotiable (e.g., how stakeholders can inform the GSP). For example, it is the S-AGMC and GSA Formation Subcommittee s responsibility to formulate the appropriate GSA governance structure. Water Board involvement. The Water Board is providing community engagement assistance to what other groups? o Water Board Response: I can provide that information following the meeting. o SqCWD Staff Comment: S-AGMC will likely be a good pilot example due to factors such as having multiple parties involved, having conducted early public outreach efforts, having seawater intrusion issues, and planning to apply for basin boundary revisions. 2.2 Appoint Subcommittee Chair The Subcommittee members nominated and approved Jon Kennedy, Subcommittee member and private well-owner representative, as the Subcommittee Chairman. 2.3 Primer on Water Rights, SGMA, etc. Russ McGlothlin and Jena Shoaf, BHFS, provided an overview of SGMA requirements, the basin boundary revision request phase, and SGMA-related legal considerations. Discussion SGMA Legal Primer Subcommittee members discussed the scope of GSA authorities, potential legal challenges, the proposed basin boundary revisions, and options for coordinating with Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency (PVWMA), which shares the Aromas aquifer with SqCWD and CWD. 4

67 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 The Subcommittee provided questions and comments on the following major topics: GSA authorities and limitations. What authorities does SGMA grant to the GSA, and what are the legal limitations or challenges associated with those authorities? Can a GSA enforce pumping restrictions on a party claiming water rights? o BHFS Response: Generally SGMA grants GSAs robust powers in management such as monitoring and requiring reports, setting allocations (e.g., pumping limits), and assessments (e.g., pumping fees). SGMA does not address water rights. SGMA supports compromise, but does not outline steps if parties cannot compromise over water rights. In practice, I encourage you to engage the property owner early in the process and try to use collaboration first, then mediation or arbitration if necessary; litigation should be the final option. Assessment options. Can a GSA charge or assess a private well-owner differently if the well is close to the coastline and risks seawater intrusion? o BHFS Response: That may trigger Prop 218 and a water rights conflict if the coastal well-owner argues the inland well-owner is causing seawater intrusion by reducing replenishment. If the GSA can demonstrably present the higher costs to provide service to the coastal well-owner over the inland well-owner, then Prop 218 would allow the GSA to use the funds to mitigate the potential effects of the coastal well-owner s pumping. It does not resolve the water rights issue though. o Subcommittee Comment: PVWMA charges well-owners in their coastal distribution system more than inland well-owners. PVWMA was able to demonstrate through the Prop 218 process the additional service provided by being near their coastal distribution system. Even if a well-owner does not use the delivered water, coastal well-owners pay more for their groundwater because they benefit from being in the presence of the delivered water system. Prop 218. The challenge with Prop 218 is that fee adjustments are subject to majority protest and not proportional protest. Each well-owner has a vote; therefore the number of private well-owner votes dwarfs the municipal votes. Is there a way to increase fees to account for increasing service costs or future groundwater projects? o BHFS Response: The fact that each well-owner has a vote in a majority protest and the vote is not weighted by actual production is a common complaint. Given the recent divided opinions on Prop 218 applicability to pump assessments, the State Supreme Court will likely have to address that issue in coming years. o City of Santa Cruz Staff Response: Structurally, a water district could carry out the assessment via a property tax rather than pumping rates. Water rights and litigation. What would be the likely outcome if a GSA went to court over water rights? Who would pay the legal fees? o BHFS Response: It is uncertain. Water rights are convoluted, which can be a benefit or a drawback. The disputing parties may want to avoid litigation because it is very difficult to project which side the judge will decide upon. A party pays; the legal cost is not shared (i.e., the public is not entitled to be reimbursed by the private well-owner). A water right in California can be seen as a hybrid between a public interest and a protected private property interest and the line that separates those interests is defined by the public or private 5

68 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 parties reasonable expectation. For example, it may be unreasonable for a private party to pump water uncontrollably without considering the effect on other users, the environment, and other public interests. Basin Boundary Revisions. The Subcommittee discussed the anticipated proposal to revise basin boundaries to align more with certain jurisdictional boundaries as well as more accurate hydrogeological connections. The City of Santa Cruz, SqCWD, and CWD primarily get their groundwater from the Purisima and Aromas aquifers; however, PVWMA receives water from the Aromas aquifer as well. Therefore S-AGMC would need to develop a coordination agreement with PVWMA for management in the Aromas basin. o BHFS Comment: A future discussion can focus on options for submitting the basin boundary modification request. DWR is currently modifying its boundary regulations and generally wants broad support for the revision requests and compelling justification for the revisions. Based on the draft documents that have been prepared, it appears that DWR s opinion is that if the GSAs manage the water sustainably on either side of the boundary, then the boundary designation does not matter very much to DWR. Coordination agreements. What does coordinate entail in the coordination agreements? o BHFS Response: DWR is working on those details, which most likely will involve both GSAs using best management practices (BMPs). One challenge is that BMPs usually entail using the same data; and parties will often vehemently dispute the data. DWR does not want to be the arbitrator in this situation; if GSAs cannot create a satisfactory coordination agreement, DWR may not approve the GSP, in which case the Water Board will intervene and create the GSPs for the disputing parties, or the parties can pursue adjudication. High prioritization and critical overdraft. DWR identified our basins as high priority and potentially subject to conditions of critical overdraft. Does the data suggest we are in a state of critical overdraft? o Subcommittee Response: That designation stems from the part of the Pajaro basin that B-118 included as part of our basin boundary. If DWR accepts our boundary revision request, it will have to reevaluate the basin prioritization and whether we are subject to critical overdraft. If DWR determines we are subject to conditions of critical overdraft, we have to submit a GSP by January 31, 2020; if not, we have until January 31, We are moving forward at a good pace to provide the GSP by 2020 if necessary. o The Subcommittee discussed the possibility that if DWR uses seawater intrusion as an indicator of overdraft, it could automatically identify a basin as critically overdrafted. However, DWR has not identified seawater intrusion as a major issue in the Purisima and Aromas basins. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Are GSAs subject to CEQA? o BHFS Response: Creation of the GSP is exempted from the CEQA process, but SGMA does not specifically address GSAs in relation to CEQA. GSA formation may 6

69 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 benefit from a CEQA exemption; however, projects conducted under the GSP may require a CEQA evaluation. Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Will LAFCO be involved? o BHFS Response: It is unlikely for your particular situation since your proposed GSA falls within your jurisdiction boundaries. A GSA might have to engage a LAFCO if it needed to expand its district/city boundaries beyond the jurisdiction boundaries (e.g., if a water district was the GSA and needed to expand its boundary to qualify as an appropriate GSA). SGMA is not entirely clear on this situation, but it will be addressed. 2.4 Review of Various Existing JPA/Watermaster Models to Consider Governance Mr. McGlothlin provided an overview of the general governance options that may apply to the S-AGMC s situation: Public/private hybrid representation. Mr. McGlothlin said from his perspective, the presence of both private and public representatives on the S-AGMC is a good indicator of S-AGMC s commitment to engaging different perspectives in sustainable groundwater management discussions. Joint Powers Authority (JPA). He said the GSA for S-AGMC seems like it will most likely be a multiparty GSA; therefore, he suggested modifying the joint powers agreement accordingly. The Subcommittee can work with BHFS in the future to determine the specific arrangements to include in the modified JPA, such as payment options and voting. For example, if the JPA will be funding capital projects it is important to have an agreement that includes customary language for municipal financing. The current JPA agreement does not include this required language. The JPA may also need to rely on GSA members contributions until establishing pump assessments (under Prop 218 pumping rates trigger majority protest and parcel taxes require a vote). Mr. McGlothlin recommended that payment and JPA member voting should be proportional. Friendly adjudication. Mr. McGlothlin reviewed the option of a friendly adjudication. He said if the members of a multiparty GSA are able to agree on a GSP to the point that no major controversial issue remains, then those parties may want to consider collectively asking a judge to make the GSP more permanent via adjudication. Adjudication offers long-term legal certainty associated with the GSP, allocations, payment mechanisms, etc. Adjudicated plans are also not subject to Prop 218, and water rights conflicts are resolved more quickly because of continuing judicial oversight. The GSA would likely evolve into the designated watermaster and could update the GSP as needed by presenting the rationale to the overseeing judge. Mr. McGlothlin acknowledged the risks and negative perceptions of adjudication. However, he said the most challenged and important groundwater supplies have been adjudicated and are often now the most efficient because management is adaptive and comprehensive. He said the Subcommittee does not need to decide whether to pursue this option now, and 7

70 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 he suggested the S-AGMC should actually wait for possible pending legislation that would make adjudication easier and less expensive. Discussion Governance The Subcommittee provided questions and comments on the following major topics: Mid-process litigation. Can a party litigate the GSA/GSP during the process of adjudication? o BHFS Response: Yes, and the judge would decide the next steps. Domestic well inclusion. Does adjudication encompass domestic wells? o BHFS Response: Historically, an agency had to personally serve each landowner for inclusion in the adjudication. The pending reform legislation would include every landowner through new efficient service procedures. Dismissal options. How far can the GSA explore the adjudication option and still rescind the adjudication request? o BHFS Response: Technically you can dismiss without prejudice; in reality, if the GSA faces opposition after requesting adjudication, you will likely be committed to the entire adjudication process. Surface water-groundwater adjudication linkages. Are there examples in California of linkages between surface water adjudication and groundwater adjudication? o BHFS Response: None between surface water and groundwater adjudications. Groundwater-to-groundwater adjudications exist however, which may be analogous to stream-to-groundwater adjudication. Adjudication drawbacks. What are the potential ramifications for adjudication? o BHFS Response: If the GSA achieved robust compromise and solidarity on the GSP, then memorializing it through adjudication provides immense stability from a legal perspective. If the GSA still worries of future conflicts, then that collaborative solidarity may not be that robust. o Subcommittee Comment: A potential drawback could be that the courts may resolve conflicts differently than the GSA would want. JPA/Watermaster governance model examples Mr. McGlothlin presented several examples of multiparty JPAs, watermasters, and special act district governance models in California: Sacramento Groundwater Authority (SGA). The SGA consists of a 16-member board of both public and private representatives and uses weighted voting. The SGA represents a creative method for including private stakeholders (i.e., private board members are appointed by public entities). The SGA does not use pumping allocations, but controls pumping by making pumping assessments. Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA). Mr. McGlothlin pointed out this is not a groundwater management entity, but this JPA s voting and payment mechanisms may interest the Subcommittee. The MPRWA also has weighted voting and uses the customer base to allocate payment responsibility. 8

71 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 Watermasters. The watermaster can consist of one member (e.g., San Fernando Basin and the Mojave Basin) or multiparty watermasters (e.g., Seaside Basin, Chino Basin, Main San Gabriel Basin, and the Central/West Basin). Mr. McGlothlin said if a GSA pursues adjudication, the GSA may naturally evolve into the designated watermaster, but the judge may decide to add or reduce the number of parties involved as watermasters. The watermaster typically uses pump assessments for funding, but other funding sources exist as well. Special Act Districts. Mr. McGlothlin said there are approximately 12 to 15 special act districts that have groundwater management authority and operate under an appendix in the California Water Code. These can be a mix of private and public board members and are mostly funded based on groundwater extraction fees. To date, none have exercised allocation limits. He said other models and tools may be more appropriate for S-AGMC s situation. Discussion Governance Model Examples The Subcommittee provided questions and comments on the following major topics: Private representation. How did SGA include private representatives on the SGA Board if the Water Code stipulates only public agencies can implement groundwater management? o BHFS Response: Mr. McGlothlin explained that the public agencies appoint the private representatives to the SGA Board and this process is provided for in the Joint Powers Agreement. o SqCWD Staff Response: Each SGA member public agency funds its own projects, which reduces the liability risk related to that type of governance model. Substantive Plan Components Mr. McGlothlin reviewed the major components that the Subcommittee may want to consider in developing the GSP. Examples included: tools or projects that the GSA will need to use to address its groundwater management problems; funding mechanisms; who benefits and is entitled to groundwater supply; and adaptive management. He listed several strategies for groundwater management: Funding Yield enhancement projects sponsored for all vs. discrete payer/benefit. Everyone pays for the project and the yield that results is shared among all, or discrete entities pay for and are entitled to the enhanced yield produced from the project. If the GSA does not use allocations, then it is more difficult to assign payment responsibility and beneficiary entitlement. Operational vs. Safe Yield. The GSA can choose whether to manage supply based upon the operational yield (determined based on management decisions) rather than the safe yield (maximum amount allowable naturally without augmentation before causing undesirable effects). Offset overproduction. Water users can pay the GSA to implement projects to remedy excess demands (e.g., Central/West Basin), and the GSA spreads the costs across everyone. The GSA could also allocate the native safe yield, then each individual pumper 9

72 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 pays the full freight to replace the individual s groundwater overproduction (e.g., Mojave Basin); the GSA uses those funds to fund replenishment. Allocations vs. no allocations. Allocation may trigger water rights disputes and litigation. The GSA can choose whether to provide exceptions for de minimus pumpers (those that extract less than 2 acre feet of water annually for domestic uses). Transferability. Incorporating a cap and trade mechanism into the plan may offer financial incentives to conserve groundwater. Pumping Location. Consider requiring groundwater users to get GSA/watermaster approval before pumping in a certain area (e.g., near the coast). Pumping variability. The GSA can decide whether to allocate pumping based upon a running average or allow for carry over from one year to the next. Mr. McGlothlin recommended carry over pumping (as opposed to running average) with a technically supportable time-limit on carryover credits. Storage/conjunctive use. The GSA may wish to decide who gets to store water in the basin. Adaptive management. The GSA will need to integrate and implement adaptive management components (e.g., monitoring, mitigation, and reporting). Drought emergency. Consider including special permissions into the GSP for situations such as a declared drought emergency wherein the GSA would allow for increased production that needs to be replenished after a certain amount of time. Open Discussion The Subcommittee provided questions and comments on the following major topics: Transfer agreements and water rights. Does the GSA still need to address water rights if the various parties agree on transfer agreements? o City of Santa Cruz Staff Response: Yes if surface water is involved. o BHFS Response: The Water Board has jurisdiction over surface water. For groundwater transfers to be effective, there will likely need to be discrete allocations (i.e., cap and trade), which may involve water rights issues. Transferability for seasonal variation. The group discussed how the GSP could support surface water-groundwater transferability for seasonal variation (e.g., use surface water in the winter, then switch to groundwater in the summer). Adjudication options. If the GSA works well for a long time period, will it become more difficult for adjudication to be brought by an objecting party at a later date? o BHRS Response: Possibly. People s water use may change, which may change water rights over time. If the GSA develops a well-supported GSP, SGMA allows the GSA to file a validation action, which is effectively a quiet title action from a government agency that basically states anyone who disagrees with the action needs to intervene in the action and object. It is not as comprehensive as adjudication, but it provides greater immunity from legal assailment in the future. Multiparty GSA vs. single party. What is the rationale for creating a multi-party GSA rather than a single party GSA with multiple GSAs and GSPs in the basin? Is it possible 10

73 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 for GSA members with more resources to commandeer the GSA s actions in a multiparty situation? o BHRS Response: Collaboration/compromise will be required either way, but a single party GSA will be less efficient the single party GSA would have to develop its own GSP as well as coordination agreements with neighboring GSAs in the same groundwater basin. However, those questions regarding an equitable and fair GSA governance structure are legitimate issues to address. CCP could help you address those issues. o Subcommittee Comment: SGMA requires that all GSAs in a basin work together either as one GSA or through coordination agreements. The GSA Subcommittee s charge is to determine the most efficient and effective option. Many Subcommittee members prefer the multi-party GSA, because S-AGMC governance under the AB 3030 plan is similar and appears to be fairly effective. Monitoring private wells. What authority does a GSA have to monitor private wells (i.e., require meters)? o BHFS Response: The GSA can require a private well-owner to purchase and install a meter as part of the GSP. The GSA cannot require meters before the GSP is adopted or require meters on certain de minimus users. The GSA can regulate de minimus users if they are assessed, but the GSA would need to develop the assessment charges based on assumptions of pre-existing use data and not meters. 2.5 Long-Range Planning Timeline of GSA Formation and Groundwater Sustainability Plan Development Mr. McGlothlin and Ms. Shoaf reviewed the major milestones for GSA formation and GSP development and referred participants to the BHFS memo Roadmap for becoming a GSA. 2.6 Tasks of the GSA Subcommittee and Issues to Consider During general discussion, the Subcommittee members identified several tasks and issues to consider for GSA formation and GSP development. Mr. McGlothlin suggested the Subcommittee work closely with CCP to address many public engagement and strategic planning questions. Major tasks and issues to consider included: How to engage and develop partnerships with private well-owners; Whether adjudication is a worthwhile option to memorialize the GSP; How to organize GSA members voting and payment responsibilities; How to organize and review all the GSA formation options (the City of Santa Cruz staff created a spreadsheet of JPA-like organizations -- not limited to groundwater management or California -- which it can circulate among the Subcommittee); 11

74 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 How to address the iterative challenge of designing GSA governance without knowing the GSA s specific tasks or conversely, designing projects without knowing the GSA governance structure; How to involve the public early on in the SGMA process despite major uncertainties; How to ensure the GSA and GSP supports fair governance among the GSA member parties; How to get the most benefit from the public engagement and legal consultants given the funding constraints (Mr. McGlothlin suggested the Subcommittee utilize Ms. Shoaf s services for the majority of the GSA legal consultation, with Mr. McGlothlin adopting more of an advisory role); and How to address potential challenges associated with different governance models. 2.7 Information to Provide to May 21 S-AGMC Meeting Subcommittee members discussed modifying and augmenting the City of Santa Cruz s JPA model spreadsheet format to provide a brief overview of the governance models to the S-AGMC. The overview could include governance structure examples and the associated scope of projects and costs. The Subcommittee agreed it should use scenario planning (i.e., evaluate different governance models, levels of authority, projects, etc.) to provide the S-AGMC a suite of governance options and potential outcomes. 2.8 Next Steps Next steps are outlined on page Adjournment The next GSA Subcommittee meeting is scheduled for Friday, May 8, 11am 2pm, with exact location to be determined. 4. Appendices A Participation List for the GSA Subcommittee 4/30/15 Meeting B GSA Subcommittee PowerPoint presentation slides C CCP: Anticipated Stakeholder Interview Topics D CCP: Proposed Considerations In Selecting Interviewees 12

75 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 Appendix A Participation List for the GSA Subcommittee 4/30/15 Meeting GSA Subcommittee Members: Name Organization 1. Bruce Jaffe SqCWD 2. John Ricker Santa Cruz County 3. Micah Posner City of Santa Cruz 4. John Benich CWD 5. Bill Wigginton Private 6. Jon Kennedy Private Staff and Consultants: Name Organization 1. Ralph Bracamonte CWD 2. Laura Brown HydroMetrics/ Member of the public 3. Ron Duncan SqCWD 4. Marci DuPraw CCP 5. Stephanie Horii CCP 6. Gita Kapahi SWRCB 7. Russ McGlothlin BHFS 8. Rosemary Menard City of Santa Cruz 9. Melanie Mow Schumacher SqCWD 10. Matt Orbach SqCWD 11. Jena Shoaf BHFS Summary prepared by: Stephanie Horii, CCP 13

76 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 GSA Formation Subcommittee April 30, 2015

77 Agenda 9AM-Noon ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM Roles and Responsibilities 2. Appoint Subcommittee Chair 3. Primer on key provisions of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (Russ) Review of various existing JPA/Watermaster models to consider (Russ) 4. Planning Timeline of GSA Formation and Groundwater Sustainability Plan Development (Russ) 5. Tasks of the GSA Subcommittee and Issues to Consider 6. Information to provide to May 21 S-AGMC meeting 7. Next Steps

78 Agenda 9AM-Noon ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM Roles and Responsibilities A. Introductions (5 min) Subcommittee members Staff assisting subcommittee efforts Consultants and regulator(s) supporting GSA Formation Russ McGlothlin and Jena Shoaf, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck Marci DuPraw and Stephanie Horii, Center for Collaborative Policy, CSU Sacramento Representatives from State Water Resources Control Board B. Roles and Responsibilities Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Management Committee Subcommittee members Consultants Overview of the SWRCB Pilot Community Engagement Assistance Process (Marci, see slides) Overview of the legal assistance and advisement (Russ, see slides)

79 Soquel-Groundwater Management Past, Present, Future ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 JPA/ Basin Implementation Group (BIG) (Originally created in 1995) JPA/ Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Management Committee (S-AGMC) (Expanded with Amendment #3 2015) Groundwater Sustainability Agency/Authority To meet new SGMA Requirements (to be formed by June 2017) S-AGMC JPA/BIG GSA What are the differences between the S-AGMC and the to-be-formed GSA? Is the GSA a successor agency of S-AGMC? What are the powers and functions of a GSA? What are some different models for forming a GSA? What is the date that we re shooting for to file to DWR our Notice of Intent to become a GSA? What are some bottleneck issues that may impact GSA formation?

80 Role and Responsibilities: Duties of the Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Management Committee (S-AGMC) Taken from JPA Amendment #3 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 Assure that the goals and objectives identified in the current Groundwater Management Plan are pursued in a reasonable and timely manner. Review data and coordinate groundwater pumping to the extent possible to meet demand and avoid exacerbating undesirable coastal groundwater conditions. Undertake ongoing and comprehensive efforts to collect, maintain, and share groundwater data with respect to water levels and quality. Undertake cooperative research and resource management initiatives that are regional in scope and disseminate information resulting from these activities. Recommend joint efforts to the respective governing bodies which are of regional benefit, e.g. general seawater intrusion monitoring, recharge within shared portions of the basin, etc. Jointly pursue groundwater management grants or studies, such as planning or project grants available from the State under Proposition 1, and hydrological modeling and studies undertaken by United States Geological Survey. Coordinate Urban Water Management Plans and Groundwater Emergency Plans. Facilitate formation of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (or Agencies) required by the Act for development and implementation of the required Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the basin. Subcommittee formed (after March 25 th S-AGMC meeting)

81 Role and Responsibilities GSA Subcommittee ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM To review various governance models for potential GSA structures 2. To work with legal advisor, community facilitator, and staff on analyzing most-appropriate model 3. Identify areas of consensus and areas needing further discussion/information 4. Incorporate input from the public, S-AGMC, Regulators 5. Incorporate efforts on basin-boundary modifications 6. Develop framework and bylaws for the new Groundwater Sustainability Agency This is a starting point for the tasks/duties of the subcommittee. Today, with the presentations by Marci from CCP, Russ/Jena from BHFS, and conversations amongst the subcommittee members, Let s evaluate if these and see if there are others to add.

82 Scope of Work for SWRCB Pilot Community Engagement Assistance Process 1. Meet with the S-AGMC Subcommittee 2. Conduct stakeholder interviews 3. Prepare a draft community engagement plan ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM Present themes from stakeholder interviews and draft community engagement plan to S-AGMC for feedback 5. Facilitate a community meeting 6. Incorporate feedback and input into final community plan. 7. Prepare a lessons learned memo for SWRCB on this pilot effort.

83 SWRCB Pilot Community Engagement Assistance Process May 1-20 Conduct Key Stakeholder Interviews Mid-June Community Meeting ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 July 16 Soquel-Aptos GW Mgmt. Committee Mtg. April 30 Subcommittee Meeting Meet subcommittee members Introduce Center for Collaborative Policy team members Introduce SWRCB representatives Present SWRCB Community Engagement Assistance Project Produce meeting notes May 21 Soquel-Aptos GW Mgmt. Committee Mtg. Meet S-AGMC members Present summary of common themes and issues from stakeholder interviews Present a draft of the community engagement plan (CE Plan) Receive input from S- AGMC members and revise draft CE Plan Late May-Early June Subcommittee Meeting Plan and facilitate community meeting Provide an overview of the drought state mandates and local response plans Provide an overview of the current GSA Formation activities by S-AGMC and subcommittee Receive feedback on the draft Community Engagement Plan Prepare and submit report to SWRCB on this Pilot Community Engagement Process April May June July 2015

84 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 Scope of Work for Legal Assistance and Advisement for GSA Formation Provide guidance on the SGMA groundwater legislation. Provide examples of strategies employed elsewhere in the state and discuss local needs and opportunities for the Basin. Provide analysis of available options and implications, including an evaluation of groundwater rights, financing options and related legal considerations, and potentially viable management strategies. Draft joint powers agreement and bylaws to formalize the formation of a GSA.

85 Agenda 9AM-Noon ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM Appoint Subcommittee Chair 4. Primer on key provisions of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (Russ) 5. Review of various existing JPA/Watermaster models to consider (Russ) 6. Planning Timeline of GSA Formation and Groundwater Sustainability Plan Development (Jena) 7. Tasks of the GSA Subcommittee and Issues to Consider (Russ) 8. Information to provide to May 21 S-AGMC meeting 9. Next Steps

86 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 SGMA State Deadlines (for our area) Form Local Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) Adopt Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Basin must achieve sustainability

87 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 Statutory Steps to form GSA Deadline to Establish GSA is by June 30, day process February 16, Latest date for newly formed local agency to publish a notice of its intent to become a GSA. See memo from Russ and Jena: Roadmap for becoming a GSA The sooner that we form a GSA, the sooner we can begin developing the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). The GSPs is where many of the issues/topics of interest will be.

88 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 Outline of Meetings April 2015 January 2016 Key Stakeholder Interviews Community Meeting Community Engagement (TBD) April 30 May 21 Soquel-Aptos GW Mgmt. Committee Mtg. July 16 Sept. 17 Nov. 19 Soquel-Aptos GW Mgmt. Committee Mtg. Soquel-Aptos GW Mgmt. Committee Mtg. Soquel-Aptos GW Mgmt. Committee Mtg. Subcommittee Meeting #1 Subcommittee Meeting #2 Subcommittee Meeting #3 Subcommittee Meeting #4 Is there a date that we re shooting for to file to DWR our Notice of Intent to become a GSA? April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Subcommittee Meeting #1 Convene Discuss roles/responsibilities Overview of SGMA, JPA models, legal issues Overview of SWRCB Pilot Community Engagement Process Discuss timelines, tasks, next steps 2015

89 Other concurrent issue to GSA formation is Basin Boundary adjustments ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5

90 Back up ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5

91 Role and Responsibilities GSA Subcommittee ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM To review various governance models for potential GSA Structures 2. To work with legal advisor, community facilitator, and staff on analyzing most-appropriate model 3. To identify areas of consensus and areas needing further discussion/information. 4. Incorporate input from the public, S-AGMC, Regulators 5. Incorporate efforts on basin-boundary modifications 6. To develop a model framework for the new Groundwater Sustainability Agency, the successor agency/authority of the Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Management Committee. Membership Powers Term Board of Directors Officers Voting Staff Bylaws and/or rules and regulations Advisory committee Budget/accounting Liability Withdrawals of members Amendments to JPA Assignment Binding on successors

92 Initial questions from Subcommittee Members ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5

93 Bottlenecks initially identified by subcommittee members ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5

94 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 Community Input/Engagement GSA Formation Subcommittee JPA Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Management Committee City of Santa Cruz Soquel Creek Water District County of Santa Cruz Central Water District Develop and Recommend Approval Accept and Recommend Approval Consider Approval

95 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 GSA Formation Subcommittee April 30, 2015

96 Agenda 9AM-Noon ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM Roles and Responsibilities 2. Appoint Subcommittee Chair 3. Primer on key provisions of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (Russ) Review of various existing JPA/Watermaster models to consider (Russ) 4. Planning Timeline of GSA Formation and Groundwater Sustainability Plan Development (Russ) 5. Tasks of the GSA Subcommittee and Issues to Consider 6. Information to provide to May 21 S-AGMC meeting 7. Next Steps

97 Agenda 9AM-Noon ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM Roles and Responsibilities A. Introductions (5 min) Subcommittee members Staff assisting subcommittee efforts Consultants and regulator(s) supporting GSA Formation Russ McGlothlin and Jena Shoaf, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck Marci DuPraw and Stephanie Horii, Center for Collaborative Policy, CSU Sacramento Representatives from State Water Resources Control Board B. Roles and Responsibilities Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Management Committee Subcommittee members Consultants Overview of the SWRCB Pilot Community Engagement Assistance Process (Marci, see slides) Overview of the legal assistance and advisement (Russ, see slides)

98 Soquel-Groundwater Management Past, Present, Future ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 JPA/ Basin Implementation Group (BIG) (Originally created in 1995) JPA/ Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Management Committee (S-AGMC) (Expanded with Amendment #3 2015) Groundwater Sustainability Agency/Authority To meet new SGMA Requirements (to be formed by June 2017) S-AGMC JPA/BIG GSA What are the differences between the S-AGMC and the to-be-formed GSA? Is the GSA a successor agency of S-AGMC? What are the powers and functions of a GSA? What are some different models for forming a GSA? What is the date that we re shooting for to file to DWR our Notice of Intent to become a GSA? What are some bottleneck issues that may impact GSA formation?

99 Role and Responsibilities: Duties of the Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Management Committee (S-AGMC) Taken from JPA Amendment #3 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 Assure that the goals and objectives identified in the current Groundwater Management Plan are pursued in a reasonable and timely manner. Review data and coordinate groundwater pumping to the extent possible to meet demand and avoid exacerbating undesirable coastal groundwater conditions. Undertake ongoing and comprehensive efforts to collect, maintain, and share groundwater data with respect to water levels and quality. Undertake cooperative research and resource management initiatives that are regional in scope and disseminate information resulting from these activities. Recommend joint efforts to the respective governing bodies which are of regional benefit, e.g. general seawater intrusion monitoring, recharge within shared portions of the basin, etc. Jointly pursue groundwater management grants or studies, such as planning or project grants available from the State under Proposition 1, and hydrological modeling and studies undertaken by United States Geological Survey. Coordinate Urban Water Management Plans and Groundwater Emergency Plans. Facilitate formation of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (or Agencies) required by the Act for development and implementation of the required Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the basin. Subcommittee formed (after March 25 th S-AGMC meeting)

100 Role and Responsibilities GSA Subcommittee ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM To review various governance models for potential GSA structures 2. To work with legal advisor, community facilitator, and staff on analyzing most-appropriate model 3. Identify areas of consensus and areas needing further discussion/information 4. Incorporate input from the public, S-AGMC, Regulators 5. Incorporate efforts on basin-boundary modifications 6. Develop framework and bylaws for the new Groundwater Sustainability Agency This is a starting point for the tasks/duties of the subcommittee. Today, with the presentations by Marci from CCP, Russ/Jena from BHFS, and conversations amongst the subcommittee members, Let s evaluate if these and see if there are others to add.

101 Scope of Work for SWRCB Pilot Community Engagement Assistance Process 1. Meet with the S-AGMC Subcommittee 2. Conduct stakeholder interviews 3. Prepare a draft community engagement plan ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM Present themes from stakeholder interviews and draft community engagement plan to S-AGMC for feedback 5. Facilitate a community meeting 6. Incorporate feedback and input into final community plan. 7. Prepare a lessons learned memo for SWRCB on this pilot effort.

102 SWRCB Pilot Community Engagement Assistance Process May 1-20 Conduct Key Stakeholder Interviews Mid-June Community Meeting ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 July 16 Soquel-Aptos GW Mgmt. Committee Mtg. April 30 Subcommittee Meeting Meet subcommittee members Introduce Center for Collaborative Policy team members Introduce SWRCB representatives Present SWRCB Community Engagement Assistance Project Produce meeting notes May 21 Soquel-Aptos GW Mgmt. Committee Mtg. Meet S-AGMC members Present summary of common themes and issues from stakeholder interviews Present a draft of the community engagement plan (CE Plan) Receive input from S- AGMC members and revise draft CE Plan Late May-Early June Subcommittee Meeting Plan and facilitate community meeting Provide an overview of the drought state mandates and local response plans Provide an overview of the current GSA Formation activities by S-AGMC and subcommittee Receive feedback on the draft Community Engagement Plan Prepare and submit report to SWRCB on this Pilot Community Engagement Process April May June July 2015

103 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 Scope of Work for Legal Assistance and Advisement for GSA Formation Provide guidance on the SGMA groundwater legislation. Provide examples of strategies employed elsewhere in the state and discuss local needs and opportunities for the Basin. Provide analysis of available options and implications, including an evaluation of groundwater rights, financing options and related legal considerations, and potentially viable management strategies. Draft joint powers agreement and bylaws to formalize the formation of a GSA.

104 Agenda 9AM-Noon ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM Appoint Subcommittee Chair 4. Primer on key provisions of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (Russ) 5. Review of various existing JPA/Watermaster models to consider (Russ) 6. Planning Timeline of GSA Formation and Groundwater Sustainability Plan Development (Jena) 7. Tasks of the GSA Subcommittee and Issues to Consider (Russ) 8. Information to provide to May 21 S-AGMC meeting 9. Next Steps

105 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 SGMA State Deadlines (for our area) Form Local Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) Adopt Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Basin must achieve sustainability

106 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 Statutory Steps to form GSA Deadline to Establish GSA is by June 30, day process February 16, Latest date for newly formed local agency to publish a notice of its intent to become a GSA. See memo from Russ and Jena: Roadmap for becoming a GSA The sooner that we form a GSA, the sooner we can begin developing the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). The GSPs is where many of the issues/topics of interest will be.

107 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 Outline of Meetings April 2015 January 2016 Key Stakeholder Interviews Community Meeting Community Engagement (TBD) April 30 May 21 Soquel-Aptos GW Mgmt. Committee Mtg. July 16 Sept. 17 Nov. 19 Soquel-Aptos GW Mgmt. Committee Mtg. Soquel-Aptos GW Mgmt. Committee Mtg. Soquel-Aptos GW Mgmt. Committee Mtg. Subcommittee Meeting #1 Subcommittee Meeting #2 Subcommittee Meeting #3 Subcommittee Meeting #4 Is there a date that we re shooting for to file to DWR our Notice of Intent to become a GSA? April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Subcommittee Meeting #1 Convene Discuss roles/responsibilities Overview of SGMA, JPA models, legal issues Overview of SWRCB Pilot Community Engagement Process Discuss timelines, tasks, next steps 2015

108 Other concurrent issue to GSA formation is Basin Boundary adjustments ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5

109 Back up ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5

110 Role and Responsibilities GSA Subcommittee ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM To review various governance models for potential GSA Structures 2. To work with legal advisor, community facilitator, and staff on analyzing most-appropriate model 3. To identify areas of consensus and areas needing further discussion/information. 4. Incorporate input from the public, S-AGMC, Regulators 5. Incorporate efforts on basin-boundary modifications 6. To develop a model framework for the new Groundwater Sustainability Agency, the successor agency/authority of the Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Management Committee. Membership Powers Term Board of Directors Officers Voting Staff Bylaws and/or rules and regulations Advisory committee Budget/accounting Liability Withdrawals of members Amendments to JPA Assignment Binding on successors

111 Initial questions from Subcommittee Members ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5

112 Bottlenecks initially identified by subcommittee members ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5

113 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 Community Input/Engagement GSA Formation Subcommittee JPA Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Management Committee City of Santa Cruz Soquel Creek Water District County of Santa Cruz Central Water District Develop and Recommend Approval Accept and Recommend Approval Consider Approval

114 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 Forming a Groundwater Sustainability Agency Under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Anticipated Stakeholder Interview Topics I. Ideal attributes of Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) - e.g.: a. What should the GSA aspire to do; b. What programs and projects might support those aspirations; c. How should we measure success? II. III. IV. Parties who need to be involved in forming GSA, and their relevant authorities, roles, responsibilities, and interests with respect to the GSA: a. Those with decision-making or other governance roles regarding groundwater in this basin and might want to be included in your GSA; b. Other stakeholders who need to be involved in order to form a GSA that enjoys broad community support (those who are most strongly affected; those that could ensure or block GSA effectiveness); How best to elicit the interests of stakeholders and the community-at-large in the development and operation of the GSA and the development of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP); Suggested focus of agency efforts to maximize success in meeting SGMA requirements V. Specific GSA design questions, e.g.: a. Whether this basin needs: A single or GSP ) covering entire basin developed and implemented by one GSA; A single GSP covering the entire basin developed and implemented by multiple GSAs; or Multiple GSPs implemented by multiple GSAs and coordinated pursuant a single coordinating agreement that covers the entire basin; b. Any specific governance models to consider for GSA structure; c. Whether the GSA should have authority over operational or policy matters (or both); d. The who and how of GSA decision-making, appeals of same, and ensuring GSA personnel s accountability; e. Governance and decision-making structures that should be put in place to ensure that all interests are considered; VI. Past and current groundwater governance initiatives, and lessons learned from them (what worked / what might be done differently in the future).

115 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.5 CONSIDERATIONS IN SELECTING INTERVIEWEES 1. Interviewees are stakeholders with respect to GSA / GSP formation in this basin. 2. They collectively represent a broad range of sectors and perspectives. 3. They are widely respected opinion leaders, and/or could help ensure or block GSA / GSP effectiveness. 4. They collectively represent broad geographic diversity within this basin. 5. They include major decision-makers with respect to GSA / GSP formation. Center for Collaborative Policy, California State University, Sacramento Contact: Marci DuPraw, Managing Senior Mediator & Facilitator, , mdupraw@ccp.csus.edu

116 ATTACHMENT 2 - ITEM 5.5 First Report from the S-AGMC Subcommittee on GSA Formation To be presented at May 21, 2015 S-AGMC Meeting On March 25, the Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Management Committee (S-AGMC) designated a subcommittee to look into the issues associated with forming a Groundwater Sustainability Agency. Its tasks were to identify the steps necessary to form the agency, gather key legal information from our legal consultant, lay out a framework of options for the structure of the GSA, identify any key bottlenecks, and come up with a suggested timeline and actions to reach the goal of establishing our GSA. The committee is made up of six representatives: one from each member agency plus two private representatives. The subcommittee met on April 30 and May 8 and herewith presents its initial report. Summary: Based on our discussions during the two subcommittee meetings, we believe our best course is to form an agency made up of representatives from each of the bodies currently on the S-AGMC (county, city, Soquel Creek Water, Central Water and some representation from private stakeholders). We believe we should establish a single GSA for the basin, and we lean toward a mid to high-mid level of agency involvement in coordination, funding and decision making. We look forward to the stakeholder interview report from the Center for Collaborative Policy to incorporate into our process. We think that the timeline for this formation could be completed by February We believe that we should continue to encourage stakeholder community involvement in education and discussion around the issues of our groundwater, its regulation, sustainability options, and the need for coordinated community action. Summary from 1 st Sub-committee meeting: April 30, 2015 Members Present: John Benich Bruce Jaffe Micah Posner John Ricker Bill Wigginton Jon Kennedy Staff Present: Ralph Bracamonte Rosemary Menard Ron Duncan Melanie Schumacher Matt Orbach Ross McGlothlin, BHFS Jena Shoaf, BHFS Marci DuPraw, CCP Stephanie Horii, CCP Gita Kapahi, SWRCB Laura Brown, HydroMetrics/Local Citizen

117 ATTACHMENT 2 - ITEM 5.5 We elected a Chair: Jon Kennedy. We heard a presentation on the Groundwater Sustainability Act from legal advisors Russ McGlothlin and Jena Shoaf. Summary of points include: 1. We are required to file notice with DWR by February 2017 of our intent to form a GSA. 2. Our GSA could follow one of several models (one GSA, or several separate GSAs who file an integrated GSPlan for the basin.) 3. The attorneys reviewed various other models and arrangements across the State (see our scenario summaries from our 2 nd meeting.) 4. There are cases in which other entities have appointed private members to be representatives on their Boards (Sacramento.) We heard a preliminary presentation from Marci DuPraw on her plan for stakeholder meetings, and for interviewing about 20 persons on their views pertaining to the formation of a GSA. She will start by interviewing the members of the sub-committee, and expanding from there. She hopes to present her initial findings at the May 21 SAGMC meeting. We received assurance from the Gita Kapahi, SWRCB, official that their in-kind support to us for stakeholder meeting facilitation could continue to the end of the year, and later if needed. After the presentations, we discussed how we might clarify our various options for Soquel-Aptos basin, and considered that depicting these models as various scenarios would help in evaluating the various options for agency design and level of action. We set a second meeting to organize our information and our options. Notes have also been taken by CCP (Center for Collaborative Policy) and will be provided to the committee and subcommittee for their reference. Summary from 2 nd Sub-committee meeting: May 8, 2015 Members Present: Bob Postle/ John Benich Bruce Jaffe Micah Posner John Ricker Bill Wigginton Jon Kennedy Staff Present: Ralph Bracamonte Rosemary Menard Ron Duncan Melanie Schumacher 1. We laid out what we thought Success would look like for the GSA itself. Establish clear boundaries for our basin

118 ATTACHMENT 2 - ITEM 5.5 Protect the groundwater (make it sustainable) Water access available to all users Optimize water resources GSA accepted (by public and other agencies); be a fair agency No duplication of effort by other agencies Coordinate between agencies within GSA and with other GSAs Have our Sustainability Plan be implementable, and have buy-in from all stakeholders 2. We established the key roles we believe the GSA needs to take: Assessment Specify the role of additional supply Monitor the pumping, quality, levels, and health of our groundwater Negotiate/balance water use (existing use and for increased demand) Education re: conservation for private wells, and education generally Analyze and manage outcomes (from data) Regulate water extraction; both private and municipal 3. After a great deal of discussion about issues, options and possible types of organization for the GSA, we developed three scenarios to illustrate the range of possibilities for our current area GSA. It is the general consensus of the subcommittee that our best course may be to operate within the Soquel-Aptos basin as one GSA (rather than as several separate ones.) We want to build into our formation (JPA, design, bylaws, etc) the flexibility if we might in future want to expand the agency to include further areas. (There was a discussion about the efficacy of forming a larger, county-wide GSA. One major issue with this is that PVWMA would very likely not be willing to be part of this. For now, San Lorenzo/Scotts Valley have been queried on this by John Ricker and they state that they prefer to form their own GSA.) The three scenarios shown here can be considered possibility worlds, which our group attempted to describe with brief aspects. Two of the subcommittee members will make an effort to describe these worlds more fully as stories, in order to deepen the SAGMC s understanding of the differentiation between our possibilities, and to assist in eventual education of other stakeholders. You might view these worlds as created by different, increasing levels of two uncertainty vectors: the X axis representing a continuum of increasing level of Involvement by the GSA; the Y axis could be thought of as increasing level of Need for Action on Salt Water Intrusion.

119 ATTACHMENT 2 - ITEM 5.5 Scenario 1: (Low Involvement) The BIG Forever GSA would function similarly to existing S-AGMC/BIG GSA provides recommendations: each must be ratified by member Boards/Councils GSA role is to get member agencies to agree to ideas, or to the plan Individual agency Plans submitted to GSA Other agencies must do the work No taxation/fee assessment Easier buy in Little engagement in community Scenario 2: (Medium Involvement) Goldilocks No Water Supply projects undertaken by agency itself GSA facilitates agency actions Agencies approve annual budget and work plan Report to member agencies re: accountability Limited staff probably a Treasurer Taxation/Fee assessment Some independence (Cap and trade exchange) Could adjudicate to concretize (friendly) (High Involvement) The Full Monty Water Supply Projects undertaken by GSA High level of authority Independent decisions (rather than check back to member boards) Have its own staff Regional sway? Impact on larger geography Taxation/Fee assessment- more comprehensive Achieve sustainability the fastest Could adjudicate to concretize (friendly) Our sub-committee is leaning toward the middle of these options, but wants to present these to the full committee for discussion. A number of us would like to consider leaning upward, perhaps to a GSA model between the Medium and High models we describe here. As you will see in our scenario stories, it may be useful to consider the differences in these worlds by thinking of a specific story line, such as the need to build out a particular Supplemental Supply, such as desalination, surface water, recycled water options and also conservation, and see how that would be handled in the Mid model, versus the High model. 4. A probable timeline for GSA formation would include several community stakeholder

120 ATTACHMENT 2 - ITEM 5.5 meetings (ca. June and October), involve the drafting of agency goals and objectives, some work on the JPA elements, and the beginnings of some by-laws. The subcommittee aims to be ready-for-boards-approval by the SAGMC meeting in January of Draft Subcommittee schedule: Jan 2016: 3rd public meeting (if we were to outline some probabilities for Sustainability Goal options) Dec: sub-committee work on bylaws, communication, JPA agreement Nov: draft bylaws, draft goals, draft JPA Oct: 2nd public meeting (input on membership, scope and Advisory Committee for the GSA) Sept: scope document; work on options for goals and objectives; input from agencies on membership; review with SAGMC at late Sept mtg July-Aug: work on stakeholder alignment; finalize GSA model; basics of the JPA (allowing for vacations in these months) June: receive stakeholder interview input, identify possible membership options (size, makeup); outline scope and goals options; develop stakeholder questions (Public meeting for initial feedback) May: address legal issues w Russ; answer key questions; set out milestones and ID bottlenecks; develop 3 scenario models, get feedback from S-AGMC mtg - Completed

121 May 21, 2015 MEMO TO THE BASIN IMPLEMENTATION GROUP Subject: Agenda Item No. 5.6 Update on Soquel-Aptos Area Community Engagement Pertaining to GSA Formation Attachments: 1. State Water Resources Control Board Service request with Center for Collaborative Policy, CSU Sacramento for initial GSA/GSP Development Support for Soquel- Aptos Groundwater Management 2. Information on Center for Collaborative Policy, SCU Sacramento: Groundwater Services and Experience Background The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), in late March 2015, was seeking local water agencies that had begun the formative steps of meeting the requirements of the new Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) to form a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (SGA) because it was interested in offering facilitation and planning support services for assistance. Gordon Burns, Undersecretary for Environmental Protection and Erik Ekdahl, Groundwater Management Program Manager, SWRCB had learned that the local agencies in the Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Basin had been working together, both on an elected officials-level as well as the community-at-large with informational meetings. Mr. Burns reached out to Soquel Creek Water District staff to offer assistance that could further the GSA formation process. The managers of the partner agencies within the Basin Implementation Group (BIG) agreed that this would be a positive and proactive way of increasing community input/engagement and a partnership with SWRCB was developed in mid-april. Community Engagement Support by SWRCB for Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Management Basin Area As part of this community engagement effort, the SWRCB is providing initial GSA and Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) support for the Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Management Basin Area to meet the following goals: 1. Assess stakeholder perspectives and priorities about the most effective approach for involving the community in the development of a GSA and GSP in the context of the SGMA and the current extended drought. 2. Facilitate a community meeting in late June/early July to inform attendees of current drought management strategies and SGMA compliance

122 Basin Implementation Group May 21, 2015 Page 2 of 2 responsibilities, and to invite community input on related activities and engagement methods 3. Prepare a community a community engagement plan that reflects input received as well as guidance from the BIG committee and the GSA Formation Subcommittee. 4. Develop a memo summarizing accomplishments and lessons learned from this undertaking to inform SWRCB and others of this pilot effort on community engagement for GSA formation. As part of the support from the SWRCB, over 220 man hours of complimentary services will be provided by the Center for Collaborative Policy (CCP), California State University Sacramento to conduct assessments, facilitate a meeting, prepare a community engagement plan, and a lessons learned memo ( See Attachment 1). Information related to the CCP and Dr. DuPraw are included in Attachment 2. Dr. Marci DuPraw and Ms. Stephanie Horii from CCP have already begun their supportive efforts by attending the GSA Formation subcommittee kick-off meeting on April 30 and conducting numerous stakeholder interviews. Dr. DuPraw will be at the meeting to make a presentation about the community engagement efforts underway, respond to questions, and seek feedback and input from the committee and subcommittee members. POSSIBLE ACTION 1. By MOTION, provide direction and input on the community engagement efforts. 2. No action. Informational only. By Ron Duncan, Interim General Manager Soquel Creek Water District By Melanie Mow Schumacher, Special Projects/Community Dialogue Manager Soquel Creek Water District

123 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.6

124 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.6

125 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.6

126 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.6

127 ATTACHMENT 1 - ITEM 5.6

128 ATTACHMENT 2 - ITEM 5.6

129 ATTACHMENT 2 - ITEM 5.6

130 ATTACHMENT 2 - ITEM 5.6

131 ATTACHMENT 2 - ITEM 5.6

132 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

133 May 21, 2015 MEMO TO THE BASIN IMPLEMENTATION GROUP Subject: Agenda Item No. 5.7 Selection of Private Well Committee Representatives Attachment: Application Form Background The Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA), originally signed on March 30, 1995, formalized a groundwater management plan committee that was comprised of two board members from Soquel Creek Water District, two board members from Central Water District, and one member from a mutual water company to serve as a public member and give voice to the concerns of those water extractors who are not part of the joint exercise of powers authority. In 2015, with the inclusion of the City and County of Santa Cruz, the committee was also reshaped to have 11 committee members: two from each public agency and three members who represent private wells within the Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Management Area basin (own, operate, or manage a private well). The three openings for private well representatives have been promoted since May 5 th and the application form was located on the Soquel Creek Water District website. Promotion of the openings occurred in the Santa Cruz Sentinel (Coastlines), the Capitola-Soquel Times, the Aptos Times, Soquel Creek Water District s website and social media, and s (such as the Stakeholder meeting attendees list, County s private well list, Soquel Creek Water District s list). The deadline to submit an application was on May 20, Selection of Private Well Committee Representative With the increasing interest in groundwater based on local and statewide issues, the application process to fulfill the openings for private well representatives has garnered several applications to consider. Since the closure for accepting application occurs after this memo was prepared, staff will provide an oral report as to how many were submitted. A selection process has not been formally established in the existing Joint Powers of Exercise Agreement (JPA) or its subsequent amendments except for the proposed language that was added by the County of Santa Cruz s revisions (see item 5.3):

134 Basin Implementation Group May 21, 2015 Page 2 of 2 The public committee members shall be nominated and approved by a majority vote of the partner agency committee members and shall be appointed to serve a two year term. As such, the BIG should discuss and develop a plan for selecting the private well representatives. Based on the number of applications received, the BIG members may consider appointing three or four members to serve as the selection subcommittee to shortlist a select number of potential candidates to interview and nominate as the private well representatives. Alternately, the BIG members may want to consider having staff assist with the selection process or set a special meeting and interview all candidates that have applied. POSSIBLE ACTION 1. By MOTION, provide direction on selection process for the three private well representatives. 2. No action. By Ron Duncan, Interim General Manager Soquel Creek Water District By Melanie Mow Schumacher, Special Projects/Community Dialogue Manager Soquel Creek Water District

135 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 5.7 Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Management Committee Application Form Thank you for your interest in serving on the Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Management Committee (Committee). The current duties of the Committee include: 1. Facilitate formation of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (or Agencies) required by the Act for development and implementation of the required Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the basin. 2. Assure that the goals and objectives identified in the current Groundwater Management Plan are pursued in a reasonable and timely manner. 3. Review data and coordinate groundwater pumping to the extent possible to meet demand and avoid exacerbating undesirable coastal groundwater conditions. 4. Undertake ongoing and comprehensive efforts to collect, maintain, and share groundwater data with respect to water levels and quality. 5. Undertake cooperative research and resource management initiatives that are regional in scope and disseminate information resulting from these activities. 6. Recommend joint efforts to the respective governing bodies which are of regional benefit, e.g. general seawater intrusion monitoring, recharge within shared portions of the basin, etc. 7. Jointly pursue groundwater management grants or studies, such as planning or project grants available from the State under Proposition 1, and hydrological modeling and studies undertaken by United States Geological Survey. 8. Coordinate Urban Water Management Plans and Groundwater Emergency Plans. The committee is composed of 11 members: Two members from each of the partner agencies (Central Water District, City of Santa Cruz, County of Santa Cruz, and Soquel Creek Water District), each of whom are appointed by their respective elective bodies. Three public members. Each shall be a person or representative of an entity served by, owning, or managing a non-municipal well. The public committee members shall be selected by the partner agency committee members and shall be appointed to serve a two year term. The committee is seeking to fill the three public member openings. (Currently, there is a public member on the committee; however, due to the 2-year term limit, the committee is soliciting applications for all three public member openings at this time). Applications are due by 4PM on Wednesday, May 20, 2015 Please submit applications to Karen Reese, Soquel Creek Water District Executive Assistant by karenr@soquelcreekwater.org or mail to Soquel Creek Water District, PO Box 1550, Capitola, CA Questions related to the Committee or this application process can be directed to: John Ricker, Water Resources Division Director, SC County or john.ricker@santacruzcounty.us 1