SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Transcription

1 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS Wednesday, June 8, 2016; 9:00 am Goethe Road Sacramento, CA (SRCSD/SASD Office Building South Conference Room No Valley Oak) ******************************************************* Meeting facilities are accessible to persons with disabilities. Requests for interpreting services, assistive listening devices or other considerations should be through Ramon Roybal by calling (916) (voice) and CA Relay Services 711 (for the hearing impaired), no later than five working days prior to the meeting. ****************************************************** The Board will discuss all items on this agenda, and may take action on any of those items, including information items and continued items. The Board may also discuss other items that do not appear on this agenda, but will not act on those items unless action is urgent, and a resolution is passed by a two-thirds (2/3) vote declaring that the need for action arose after posting of this agenda. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 9:00 a.m. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT: Members of the audience may comment on any item of interest to the public within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Groundwater Authority. Each person will be allowed three minutes, or less if a large number of requests are received on a particular subject. No action may be taken on nonagendized items raised under Public Comment until the matter has been specifically included on an agenda as an action item. If a member of the public wants a response to a specific question, they are encouraged to contact any member of the Board or the Executive Director at any time. Members of the audience wishing to address a specific agendized item are encouraged to offer their public comment during consideration of that item. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR Approve minutes of the April 20, 2016 Board meeting, minutes of the April 20, 2016 Budget Subcommittee meeting, minutes of the April 21, 2016 SGMA Subcommittee meeting, minutes of the April 28, 2016 Budget Subcommittee meeting, minutes of the May 11, 2016 Board meeting, and minutes of the May 16, 2016 SGMA Subcommittee meeting. Recommended Action: Approve Consent Calendar items. 4. PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2016/2017 BUDGET AND ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION ADJUSTMENT Presentation on changes to SCGA s current finance methodology due to increased costs and increasing SGMA development and implementation responsibilities. Recommended Actions: 1. Adopt the proposed Resolution to approve and fund the Authority s administrative budget for fiscal year 2016/2017 and adjust member annual contributions. SCGA Agenda

2 2. Task the Budget Subcommittee to begin work on the 2017/2018 fiscal year budget. 5. AMEND SECTION 5.22 OF THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES TO REFLECT ADJUSTMENT TO MEMBER ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS An amendment to the Authority s Policies and Procedures is necessary relative to the new funding methodology. Recommended Action: Adopt the proposed Resolution for changes to Section 5.22 of the Authority s Policies and Procedures deleting paragraphs (e) and (f). 6. SGMA SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT AND JPA AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATION SGMA Subcommittee recommendation to support amendment of SCGA s existing Joint Powers Authority regarding Eligibility for Governing Board Appointment. Recommended Action: Adopt the proposed Resolution recommending the governing bodies of the JPA signatories approve and execute a First Amended and Restated Joint Powers Agreement to broaden the eligibility for SCGA Board appointment for certain members. 7. ALTERNATIVE SUBMITTAL Presentation on the Alternative Plan Submittal process pursuant to the April 20, 2016 Board Resolution Recommended Action: Informational presentation 8. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER SCGA BECOMING A GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY IN AREAS OF THE SOUTH AMERICAN SUBBASIN (PORTIONS OF BULLETIN BASIN ) (Continued from May 11, 2016) Pursuant to the April 20, 2016 SCGA Board Resolution , this item contemplates three resolutions corresponding to the three areas for SCGA GSA formation within the South American subbasin: Area 1 is currently uncontested by any other groundwater management entity; Area 2 is within OHWD s jurisdiction and would be contested if OHWD files to become a GSA within the South American jurisdiction; Area 3 is within SRCD s jurisdiction and would be contested if SRCD files to become a GSA within the South American subbasin. Recommended Action: Continue this item to the July 13, 2016 Board meeting. SCGA Agenda

3 9. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR S REPORT Basin Boundary Modification OHWD and SRCD Florin Resource Conservation District Special Board Meeting June 8, DIRECTOR S COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT Upcoming meetings Next SCGA Board of Directors Meeting Wednesday, July 13, 2016, 9:00 am; Goethe Road, SRCSD/SASD Office Building South Conference Room No (Valley Oak). SCGA Agenda

4 AGENDA ITEM 3: CONSENT CALENDER BACKGROUND: The Board package includes draft minutes of the April 20, 2016 Board meeting, minutes of the April 20, 2016 Budget Subcommittee meeting, minutes of the April 21, 2016 SGMA Subcommittee meeting, minutes of the April 28, 2016 Budget Subcommittee meeting, minutes of the May 11, 2016 Board meeting, and minutes of the May 16, 2016 SGMA Subcommittee meeting. Draft meeting minutes are provided for Board approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Action: Approve Consent Calendar items. SCGA Agenda

5 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) Governing Board Meeting Draft Minutes April 20, 2016 LOCATION: Goethe Road, Room 1205 Sacramento, CA :00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. MINUTES: 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Brett Ewart called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Ewart announced that Darrell Eck could not attend the meeting due to an emergency and that Ramon Roybal would serve in his place for the meeting. The following meeting participants were in attendance: Board Members (Primary Rep): Tom Nelson, Florin Resource Conservation District/Elk Grove Water District Tom Mahon, Agricultural Interests Todd Eising, City of Folsom Rick Bettis, Conservation Landowners Christine Thompson, Public Agencies Self-Supplied Dave Ocenosak, Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District Paul Schubert, Golden State Water Company Carl Werder, Agricultural-Residential Ron Lowry, Omochumne-Hartnell Water District Board Members (Alternate Rep): Brett Ewart, City of Sacramento Forrest Williams, Sacramento County Amittoj Thandi, City of Elk Grove José Ramirez, Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District Allen Quynn, City of Rancho Cordova Staff Members: Sarah Britton, Legal Counsel Ping Chen Ramon Roybal Vicki Brennan, Clerk of the Board

6 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) Governing Board Meeting Draft Minutes Page 2 April 20, 2016 Others in Attendance: Jonathan Goetz, GEI Mark Madison, Florin Resource Conservation District/Elk Grove Water District Bruce Kamilos, Florin Resource Conservation District/Elk Grove Water District Jesse Roseman, The Nature Conservancy Rodney Fricke, Public Darlene Gillum, Rancho Murieta CSD Hong Lin, State DWR Mike Wackman, Omochumne-Hartnell Water District Leland Schneider, Omochumne-Hartnell Water District Mike Eaton, Cosumnes Coalition Melinda Frost-Hurzel, Cosumnes Coalition Jay Schneider, Sloughhouse RCD Herb Garms, Sloughhouse RCD Hanspeter Walter, Sloughhouse RCD Mike Koza, Sacramento County Department of Waste Management Joe Turner, Kleinfelder Jim Blanke, RMC Water and Environment Lisa Dills, Southgate Recreation and Park District Suzanne Pecci, Domestic Well Owner Elk Grove Ron Pecci, Domestic Well Owner Elk Grove Scott Goulart, Aerojet Rockdyne Kerry Schmitz, Sacramento County Water Agency Fred Hegge, Cosumnes CPAC Madeleine Morton, Sacramento County Water Agency Bill Konigsmark, Sacramento County Water Agency Member Agencies Absent Rancho Murieta CSD Commercial/Industrial Self-Supplied California-American Water Company 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR The draft meeting minutes for the March 9, 2016 Board meeting, minutes of the March 10, 2016 SGMA Subcommittee meeting, minutes of the March 30, 2016 Budget Subcommittee, and minutes of the April 7, 2016 SGMA Subcommittee meeting were reviewed for final approval.

7 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) Governing Board Meeting Draft Minutes Page 3 April 20, 2016 Motion/Second/Carried Mr. Schubert moved, seconded by Mr. Bettis, the motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes. 4. SCGA UPDATE ON DRAFT GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN (GSP) EMERGENCY REGULATIONS Jon Goetz with GEI provided a review of the draft GSP regulations addressing their purpose, importance, and current status relative to their June 1, 2016 adoption (Note: Mr. Goetz s review can be viewed on the Authority s website for the 4/20/2106 meeting date). Mr. Goetz reported SCGA s concurrence with the Association of California Water Agencies proposed General Principles regarding comments relative to the draft regulations and presented SCGA staff s four focus areas of comments which were, honoring existing programs, ensuring integration of Alternative Submittal, external agency coordination, and the State s technical and financial assistance. Mr. Goetz then stated that staff would continue to monitor development of the regulations and mentioned that individual SCGA member organizations were also monitoring the regulations. Mr. Bettis asked how DWR would be responding to the comments that were received. Hong Lin, with State DWR, replied that SGMA did not require that DWR provide a written response to comments received but that the comments would be considered in the further development of the draft regulations. Ms. Lin stated that the DWR was making a presentation to the State Water Commission that morning to review the nature of the comments. Ms. Lin reported that a total of 153 comments were received by DWR from various interests. Ms. Lin stated that DWR planned to present the regulations to the Water Commission on May 18, 2016 for final adoption. 5. SGMA SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT BACK AND RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. Schubert, chair of the SGMA Subcommittee, provided a report of the subcommittee s activities. Mr. Schubert stated that the subcommittee had met twice since the last board meeting and had mainly discussed the various impacts of Omochumne-Hartnell Water District (OHWD) and Sloughhouse RCD s GSA applications and proposed basin boundary modification, specifically its impact on SCGA s current management program, impact on the Alternative Plan submittal process, and financial impact. Mr. Schubert stated that had reviewed the basin boundary modification application as submitted by OHWD and Sloughhouse RCD to DWR and remained in opposition to the modification for both jurisdictional and scientific reasons. Mr. Schubert reported that JPA issues had also been discussed and that the proposed JPA brought forth by FRCD would be discussed at the next SGMA Subcommittee meeting. Mr. Mahon commented as a member of the SGMA Subcommittee that consideration should be given relative to San Joaquin s proposed boundary modification as it was almost a mirror image of OHWD and Sloughhouse RCD s proposed modification. Mr. Mahon stated that thought should be given towards allowing for the agricultural areas of the South American Subbasin to join with like interests in the Cosumnes Subbasin.

8 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) Governing Board Meeting Draft Minutes Page 4 April 20, 2016 Mr. Ewart commented that he respected the idea of local control and had no interest in interfering with the actions of another agency but that his opinion and that of the City of Sacramento was to support the concept of a collaborative process and that to go it alone introduced the risk of prolonged conflict. Mr. Ewart referred to the SCGA model that each member entity of its board had an equal vote and stated that it should be remembered. Mr. Ewart said that the OHWD and Sloughhouse RCD basin boundary modification application was posted on the DWR website for review. Mr. Ewart stated that the City of Sacramento remained in opposition of the modification. Mr. Williams stated that the County of Sacramento recognized and supported SCGA as an existing groundwater management agency and as the most appropriate structure to move forward towards SGMA implementation for the subbasin. 6. INITIATE ALTERNATIVE PLAN SUBMITTAL PROCESS AND DELEGATE PREPARTORY ACTIONS TO STAFF Mr. Roybal reminded the board that the idea of an alternative plan submittal was first introduced at the January 13, 2015 board meeting and was again discussed at the March 9, 2015 board meeting at which time staff announced the need for the submittal to cover the entire groundwater basin over which the submitting agency was applying. Mr. Roybal then reported that the draft GSP regulations clarified that an alternative submittal may include agreements with local public agencies in areas not covered by the submitting agency s jurisdiction which in the case of SCGA included that area of the South American Subbasin west of Interstate 5. Mr. Roybal stated that initially, the alternative submittal would include the existing SCGA service area as depicted in the Water Forum Agreement and the SCGA GMP. There were two reasons for keeping SCGA whole through the alternative submittal process; the first was to ensure the relationship between the regional groundwater management goals of the Water Forum Agreement in the management area titled, South Sacramento Groundwater Zone. The second was to show SCGA service area portions to be included in existing or proposed GSA governance structures at the time of submittal. Mr. Roybal reported that an alternative plan must be submitted by January 1, 2017 and given that the GSP regulations would not be adopted until June 1, 2016, staff would have six months to complete the application. Mr. Roybal stated that proposed resolution delegated authority to staff to begin the effort by initiating outreach to other local agencies and stakeholders outside of SCGA s jurisdiction to discuss an alternative plan submittal, to seek potentially necessary agreements, and upon State DWR s adoption of the GSP Regulations, to modify and supplement the GMP and other SCGA resources as may be required to develop a successful submittal. Mr. Goetz then gave a presentation on the technical reasoning for SCGA s existing boundary and how the alternative submittal process could proceed (Note: Mr. Goetz s review can be viewed on the Authority s website for the 4/20/2106 meeting date). Mr. Goetz also compared the GSP process with the alternative plan submittal process and provided some pros and cons for an alternative submittal.

9 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) Governing Board Meeting Draft Minutes Page 5 April 20, 2016 Mr. Nelson asked if the alternative submittal process would interfere with OHWD s GSA formation process. Ms. Britton responded that the regulations were still vague but that an alternative plan could be developed for an entire basin but that the governance of the plan via GSA s overlying that basin would have to come to some kind of agreement relative to how it governance and implementation of the plan would function. Ms. Britton presumed that DWR would consider an alternative plan only if there was reconciliation between the plan itself and governance of the plan but that development of an alternative plan did not necessarily preclude the development of any GSAs within a subbasin. Mr. Werder expressed a concern regarding the second item of the Resolution which directed staff to modify and supplement the GMP and other SCGA resources as may be required by adopted GSP regulations to develop an alternative plan submittal. Mr. Werder stated that he was concerned that it may give staff the ability to over spend or otherwise make modifications in excess of what was necessary. Ms. Britton advised that before an alternative plan was submitted to the State that it be brought back to the SCGA board for its review and a resolution approving its final submittal. Ms. Britton stated that the language delegated a lot of responsibility to staff but did not delegate a blank check. Ms. Britton also stated that the language of the resolution had to consider the tight timeframes under SGMA and to allow staff and the board flexibility to operate within the time constraints. Mr. Schubert stated that staff would also be subject to operating within the parameters of the approved SCGA budget and that any additional funding would have to come to the board for approval. Mr. Nelson asked if the alternative plan submittal process would conflict with FRCD s proposed changes to the JPA. Ms. Britton responded that the alternative submittal process would be put at risk if there was no management structure identified to implement the plan. If the existing JPA was nullified without agreements in place that would address those management issues it could be a problem. Ms. Britton stated that an amendment to the existing JPA that did not interfere with the management of the basin might not be an issue. Ms. Lin stated that an alternative plan had to cover the entirety of a subbasin and that if there was an exclusive GSA with its own GSP for a portion of that subbasin, an alternative plan would have to have a coordination agreement with the exclusive GSA to reconcile the two plans. Mr. Ocenosak stated his contention that where the groundwater flowed should determine who should be included in the management of that resource. Mr. Ocenosak stated that Mr. Goetz had done a good job during previous presentations to the board to explain how the groundwater flowed in the South American Subbasin and that in his opinion, the information presented as a part of OHWD and Sloughhouse RCD s basin modification application supported what Mr. Goetz had explained. Mr. Ocenosak stated his support of the alternative plan submittal process. Jay Schneider, Vice Chairman Sloughhouse RCD, commented as a member of the public. Mr. Schneider stated that the scientific studies conducted as a part of OHWD and Sloughhouse RCD s basin boundary modification application demonstrated conclusively that there was no subsurface connection between the American River and Cosumnes River and that the two basins where similar adjacent swimming pools. Mr. Schneider requested that SCGA support OHWD and Sloughhouse RCD s jurisdictional boundary change that would

10 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) Governing Board Meeting Draft Minutes Page 6 April 20, 2016 follow the watershed boundary. Mr. Schneider then requested that SCGA support Sloughhouse RCD s GSA application and to not obstruct its right to form a GSA. Mr. Schneider stated that until SCGA recognized interests in the south basin no negotiations could take place. Mike Wackman, General Manager, OHWD, asked Mr. Goetz if the alternative plan would include those portions of OHWD and the current SCGA boundary that extended south of the Cosumnes River. Mr. Goetz replied that the alternative plan would have to include those areas as those areas supported the ten plus years of data collection, modeling, and groundwater management that would be considered for the alternative plan. Mr. Wackman replied that OHWD did not object to the SCGA s alternative plan proposal but that it did have concerns that an alternative plan could interfere with its plans for management as a GSA. Mr. Wackman stated that the process could work if the GSP regulations allowed for agreements and coordination to be developed that would enable an alternative plan that did not conflict with OHWD s GSA management and any plan that it sought to implement. Mr. Wackman further stated support of the SCGA s GMP, data collection, and technical studies and that he agreed that those efforts should be utilized going forward and that OHWD had used some of those resources in developing its basin boundary modification application. Ms. Britton stated that she envisioned that the GSP regulations would ultimately allow for OHWD to develop its own GSP as an exclusive GSA and that any areas that overlapped with SCGA s alternative plan, they would be reconciled via a coordination agreement. Ms. Britton stated that the process would also not preclude SCGA staff from outreaching to OHWD regarding OHWD s management of an alternative plan as developed by SCGA. Jesse Roseman, Project Manager for The Nature Conservancy and the Cosumnes River Preserve, stated that no matter the outcome of the management arrangement for the region encompassing the Cosumnes River, there needed to be coordination such that the river was managed as a whole with equal consideration of upstream and downstream impacts and benefits. Mark Madison, General Manager of Florin Resource Conservation District, stated that his agency was in support of the concept of an alternative plan submittal but that it was concerned that the process might preclude the consideration and adoption of the structural changes that it had proposed to the existing JPA Agreement. Leland Schneider, alternate to Ron Lowry as representative for OHWD, commented that OHWD was formed in the 1950 s by the residents of the Cosumnes River area form management of the groundwater and river. Mr. Schneider stated that significant resources and money had been invested by the residents of OHWD. He then stated that management of Cosumnes River actually dated back to 1913 with the installation of the first dam diversion to spread water along the sides of the river and in the 1940 s with the development of local farm bureaus. Mr. Schneider mentioned that OHWD had started a JPA in Mr. Schneider stated that SCGA had formed over the top of OHWD and its JPA and now wanted to form a GSA over the top of an OHWD GSA and asked that SCGA reconsider doing so.

11 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) Governing Board Meeting Draft Minutes Page 7 April 20, 2016 Motion/Second/Carried Ms. Thompson moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, the motion carried to adopt the proposed resolution. Mr. Lowry, Mr. Mahon, and Mr. Nelson opposed the motion. 7. INITIATE THE PROCESS TO BECOME A GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY WITHIN IDENTIFIED AREAS OF SCGA S JURISDICTION IN THE SOUTH AMERICAN SUBBASIN Mr. Roybal explained that the proposed resolution was another outcome of discussion and recommendation from the SGMA Subcommittee. Mr. Roybal reported that a principle concern that motivated recommendation of the resolution were the actions by OHWD and Sloughhouse RCD to move forward with notice of GSA formation of area within the South American Subbasin and SCGA s existing management area. Mr. Roybal reported that the recommendation for SCGA to proceed with its own notice of GSA formation was not done as a means to compete over management area but as a method to halt the GSA process to allow time for necessary coordination to occur or potentially for a formal mediation process that would allow SCGA the opportunity to preserve its past management efforts. Mr. Goetz then provided a review of past SCGA board actions relative to GSA formation, a review of OHWD and Sloughhouse RCD s actions, and reiterated that SCGA s initiating to become a GSA would be done in order to preserve its ability to file an alternative plan submittal. Mr. Goetz then reviewed the proposed SCGA GSA areas described in the resolution (Note: Mr. Goetz s review can be viewed on the Authority s website for the 4/20/2106 meeting date). Mr. Nelson asked if it was necessary to begin the GSA formation process at the current time. Ms. Britton explained that both the OHWD and Sloughhouse RCD boards had taken formal actions to notice GSA formation in areas within the South American Subbasin and although neither of the notices had been posted to DWR it could be reasonably assumed that they would do so thus beginning a 90 day period after which they would become the exclusive GSA s for those areas. Ms. Lin stated that Sloughhouse RCD s GSA notification had been posted to DWR s website and that the ninety day period for a competing GSA to be filed had begun. Ms. Britton asked for clarification as to whether the ninety day period would continue to run if Sloughhouse RCD had subsequently notified for GSA formation in the area within the South American Subbasin as its board had voted to do under its amended GSA board action. Ms. Lin replied that she would have to check with someone else from DWR. Mr. Ewart asked for clarification with respect to breaking up the SCGA GSA notification into three subareas. Mr. Ewart wanted to clarify that it was done to allow for the flexibility to move forward in uncontested areas while the contested areas were worked out. Ms. Britton replied that it provided a tool for SCGA to use while it continued to negotiate with other entities within the subbasin and with State DWR as the deadline for GSA formation approached. Ms. Britton stated that the proposed resolution was intended to be a formal written clarification of prior SCGA board actions accounting for nuanced changes that had

12 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) Governing Board Meeting Draft Minutes Page 8 April 20, 2016 occurred since those actions. Ms. Britton reminded that a formal process as prescribed by the SGMA legislation would still have to be followed for GSA formation. Jay Schneider stated that Sloughhouse RCD requested that SCGA limit its GSA notification to Area 1 and to abandon Areas 2 and 3. Mr. Schneider stated that if SCGA did as requested the process would be much smoother and less adversarial. Mr. Nelson asked if the clock had started or not with respect to OHWD and Sloughhouse RCD s GSA notices and if not why start the process for SCGA. Mr. Schubert pointed out that the boards for those entities had taken actions to proceed with the notices and that it would take a separate action for them to do something different. Mr. Schubert concluded that absent any indication otherwise that those processes were proceeding. Ms. Britton pointed out the SCGA board had taken previous action directing staff to proceed with a notice of GSA formation in response to Sloughhouse RCD noticing of GSA formation within the South American Subbasin and thus obligating staff to do so. Ms. Britton stated that another previous action by the board provided similar direction if any entity filed for GSA formation within SCGA s jurisdictional boundaries. Ms. Britton stated the decision before the board was whether or not OHWD s action to notice a GSA formation should result in directing staff to proceed with GSA formation in Area 2. Mr. Ewart stated that there was an interest for SCGA to extend the 90 day period to allow for further negotiation through the services offered through the Water Forum. Mr. Williams stated that he felt that there had not been sufficient outreach and negotiation on the part of OHWD and Sloughhouse RCD to convince SCGA that their proposals should be supported. Mr. Williams said that those entities were the ones who initiated the GSA formation process and that SCGA was now forced to initiate its own GSA formation process in order to defend its program. Mr. Wackman urged the board to remember that it had decided previously to allow OHWD to form a GSA although he understood that other actions since then may have changed people s feelings. Mr. Wackman stated that OHWD was active in groundwater management and in its participation with SCGA and was not seeking to operate in an isolated manner. Mr. Wackman stated that SGMA required substantial coordination regardless of what the final management arrangement would be. Suzanne Pecci commented as a private well owner within the City of Elk grove that she was in support of SCGA becoming a GSA over the entire subbasin and was against the OHWD and Sloughhouse RCD efforts to become exclusive GSA s within the South American subbasin. Ms. Pecci explained that her opposition to OHWD and Sloughhouse RCD mainly stemmed from their lack of public outreach and lack of disclosure and explanation regarding their plans for the future under SGMA. Ms. Pecci then stated that much of the area under discussion was also urban or planned for urban development along with a significant number of existing domestic well users and that it needed to be discussed within that context along with the agricultural interests. Ms. Pecci stated that she agreed with the sentiment of what was the rush for OHWD and Sloughhouse RCD to move forward with the GSA process given the number of issues that still needed to be negotiated. Ms. Pecci then said that she had urged the City of Elk Grove to become more active in the SGMA process particularly with public involvement and that the City had planned for a discussion during an upcoming City

13 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) Governing Board Meeting Draft Minutes Page 9 April 20, 2016 Council meeting at which a member of the County would provide information. Ms. Pecci then urged for more outreach to the public at large. Hanspeter Walter, legal counsel for Sloughhouse RCD, commented that outreach and dialogue should be conducted equally with Sloughhouse RCD and not exclusively with OHWD as had occurred. Mr. Walter added that discussions that SCGA has with DWR should include all parties to avoid the potential for illegal side-lobbying. Mr. Walter stated that the tight timeframe for resolving all of the issues was due to the law itself and that Sloughhouse RCD desired to become a GSA and had decided to move forward. Mr. Walter stated that Sloughhouse RCD did not see it as rushing and that the issues could still be discussed. Mr. Walter stated that he was trying to understand the pertinent issues alluded to in previous SCGA board actions as needing to be resolved. Mr. Walter stated that he had asked for an explanation and was referred to technical documentation on the Authority s website which he felt was not a reasonable direction. Mr. Walter requested that SCGA staff be directed to provide those issues in writing to Sloughhouse RCD. Motion/Second/Carried Ms. Thompson moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, the motion carried to adopt the proposed resolution. Mr. Lowry, Mr. Mahon, and Mr. Nelson opposed the motion. Mr. Eising had departed the meeting and was not present for the vote. 8. COSUMNES COALITION OUTREACH TO SCGA Melinda Frost-Hurzel and Mike Eaton gave a presentation on the Cosumnes Coalition in an effort to establish a stakeholder partnership with SCGA with the goal of working toward effective approaches to support aquifer and river health (Note: Ms. Frost-Hurzel s presentation can be viewed on the Authority s website for the 4/20/2106 meeting date). Mr. Schubert expressed an interest in gaining more understanding of the Coalition and its efforts in the future /2015 AUDIT REPORT Bill Konigsmark distributed and provided a review of the 2014/2015 Audit Report. Mr. Konigsmark reported that the budgetary and fiscal portion of the audit contained no issues or findings. Mr. Konigsmark reported that release of the Audit Report was held up due to a finding related to Internal Controls specifically due to the non-filing of Form 700 by members of the board. The auditors had pointed out the non-filing of Form 700 the previous year with the warning that it would be treated as a finding if it occurred again. Mr. Konigsmark pointed out that the issue was not necessarily with the non-filing of the forms but that there was not a system in place to reconcile the non-filing with the Fair Political Practices Commission. Mr. Konigsmark explained that a corrective action had been developed and recorded in the Audit Report. Mr. Madison asked if the audit report required a board action to be received and filed. Ms. Britton stated that the item was agendized as an informational item and that she was not aware of how it was handled in the past. Mr. Roybal stated that he did not recollect the board

14 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) Governing Board Meeting Draft Minutes Page 10 April 20, 2016 taking formal action in the past to receive the audit report but that the question would be looked into. 10. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR S REPORT Mr. Roybal announced that the City of Rancho Cordova City Council had appointed Albert Stricker as representative and Allen Quynn as alternate on May 21, Mr. Roybal then announced that staff would be sending out a data request to member purveyors and other groundwater users in the basin in preparation for the development of the biannual basin management report. 11. DIRECTORS COMMENTS Mr. Ewart encouraged board members to look at the presentation for the March 30, 2016 Budget Subcommittee that contained a description of significant changes to the funding structure of the Authority that were being considered for recommendation to the board. Mr. Ewart suggested that any comments regarding those proposed changes be directed to staff. ADJOURNMENT Brett Ewart adjourned the meeting at 12:00 p.m. Upcoming Meetings Next SCGA Board of Directors Meeting Wednesday, May 11, 2016, 9 am; Goethe Road, South Conference Room No (Sunset Maple). By: Chairperson Date Date

15 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) Budget Sub-Committee Meeting Draft Minutes April 20, 2016 LOCATION: Goethe Road, Room 1213 Sacramento, CA :00 p.m. to 12:15 p.m. MINUTES: 1. Call to Order and Roll Call Brett Ewart called the meeting to order at 12:00 p.m. The starting of the meeting was delayed due to the SCGA board meeting running an hour longer than scheduled. The following meeting participants were in attendance: Board Members: Paul Schubert, Golden State Water Company Tom Mahon, Agricultural Interests Brett Ewart, City of Sacramento Forrest Williams, County of Sacramento Carl Werder, Agricultural-Residential Staff Members: Ramon Roybal, SCGA Others in Attendance: Bruce Kamilos, FRCD/EGWD Jonathan Goetz, GEI 2. Public Comment None 3. Discussion of the SCGA Fiscal Year Budget to Provide Staff with Further Direction Regarding Edits to the Proposed Model Mr. Goetz reported that he had yet to hear back from the City of Folsom regarding the distribution of water connection accounts north and south of the American River. Mr. Goetz stated that the depending on what the answer was it could have a significant ripple effect on the interim finance model.

16 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) Budget Sub-Committee Meeting Draft Minutes Page 2 April 20, 2016 Mr. Werder asked why there were two plans that were presented, one with the current arrangement and one as a stand-alone agency. Mr. Werder asked if there could be a way to develop a hybrid model where SCGA would switch from its current model to a standalone agency with the completion of certain milestones towards full SGMA compliance. Mr. Goetz replied that the model he developed followed a hybrid methodology but that it was a question of timing. Mr. Werder agreed and stated that it would be premature to become a standalone agency now but that the timeframe may be reasonable. Mr. Werder then asked why the budget projections appeared to be static in future years. Mr. Werder stated that the other interests on the board would likely want to have an idea of what those future costs might reasonably be. Mr. Goetz replied that the model was set to look roughly six months forward but was designed to be a transitionary model that could be recalibrated when an understanding of what might be expected became more clear. The subcommittee discussed the timing of brining a proposed interim budget and finance model to the board by the May board meeting for adoption. Mr. Ewart stated that he had recommended during the director s comments of the just completed board meeting that the other board members look at the previous budget subcommittee meeting materials to get an idea of the significant changes that would be proposed and to provide feedback. The subcommittee then agreed to pick up the discussion at the scheduled April 28, 2016 Budget Subcommittee meeting. 4. Budget Committee Member Comments None. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Ewart adjourned the meeting at 12:10 pm Upcoming meetings Next SCGA Board of Directors Meeting Wednesday, May 11, 2016, 9:00 am; SASD South Conference Room 1212, Sunset Maple.

17 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) Budget Sub-Committee Meeting Draft Minutes Page 3 April 20, 2016 By: Chairperson Date Date

18 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Sub-Committee Meeting Draft Minutes April 21, 2016 LOCATION: Goethe Road, Room 1213 Sacramento, CA :00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. MINUTES: 1. Call to Order and Roll Call Paul Schubert called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. The following meeting participants were in attendance: Board Members: Paul Schubert, Golden State Water Company Tom Nelson, FRCD/EGWD Tom Mahon, Agricultural Interests Brett Ewart, City of Sacramento Forrest Williams, County of Sacramento Staff Members: Darrell Eck, SCGA Sarah Britton, Legal Counsel Ping Chen, SCGA Ramon Roybal, SCGA Others in Attendance: Mark Madison, FRCD/EGWD Bruce Kamilos, FRCD/EGWD David Aladjem, FRCD/EGWD Jonathan Goetz, GEI Kerry Schmitz, Sacramento County Water Agency Rodney Fricke, Consulting Hydrogeologist Jay Schneider, Sloughhouse RCD Amanda Platt, Sloughhouse RCD Joe Turner, Kleinfelder Suzanne Pecci, Domestic Well Owner Elk Grove Ron Pecci, Domestic Well Owner Elk Grove 2. Public Comment None

19 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) SGMA Sub-Committee Meeting Draft Minutes Page 2 April 21, Request by Florin Resource Conservation District for a New Joint Powers Agreement Tom Nelson stated the need for SCGA to accept change in response to SGMA and that the JPA proposed by FRCD included some of the needed changes. Mr. Nelson then introduced Mark Madison to discuss the proposal in more detail. Mr. Madison introduced himself, Mr. Nelson, Bruce Kamilos, and the FRCD attorney, David Aladjem. Mr. Madison stated that governance was the most important issue facing SCGA in order to set the ground rules for how the organization would function under SGMA. Mr. Madison stated that the current JPA had functioned well to date but that there were some problems that they had identified. Mr. Madison said that the underlying theme being promoted with their proposed JPA was equality because the existing JPA did not. The next issue was the termination clause which allowed for any of the signatories to opt out and terminate the agreement. Mr. Madison then mentioned issues with voting particularly as it concerned fiscal items. Mr. stated that the proposed JPA addressed concerns over powers under a different signature arrangement and that Mr. Aladjem had ensured that the proposed JPA would provide full powers for SGMA compliance. Mr. Madison then mentioned that the proposed JPA addressed issues concerning funding of the Authority and accommodation of a new rate structure as had been discussed by the Budget Subcommittee. Mr. Madison then stated that the proposed JPA was intended to be an interim agreement to be effective until SCGA began GSP implementation after which it was envisioned that a new governance structure would take effect hopefully for a standalone agency. Mr. Madison stated that the proposed JPA did not contemplate implementation under an alternative plan. Mr. Madison announced the title of the organization would be changed by the proposed agreement to the Sacramento Central Groundwater Sustainability Authority. Mr. Madison that said that all public agencies would be signatory to the proposed agreement and further discussion could look into possibly having private utilities as signatories. Mr. Madison said that all signatories would be able to appoint their own representatives. Mr. Ewart asked what specifically FRCD was not able to accomplish under the existing JPA. Mr. Madison replied that there was nothing that they had not been able to accomplish and that the existing JPA had worked well to date but that it did not mean that it would not be better to make a change going forward. Mr. Madison stated that the proposed JPA might alleviate feelings of inequality and mistrust and might offer the best opportunity to keep the SCGA board together especially in consideration of OHWD s actions. Mr. Williams stated that the appropriate time for addressing changes to the JPA was during the GSP process and that to do so currently would compromise more pressing issues that needed to be addressed. Mr. Schubert stated that he thought it had been decided to table discussion of changes to the JPA until the GSP process because that would be the time when the elements of governance under SGMA would become

20 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) SGMA Sub-Committee Meeting Draft Minutes Page 3 April 21, 2016 apparent. Mr. Schubert stated that an interim step would not accomplish much other than addressing FRCD s specific issues. Mr. Schubert then asked if a letter amendment could be made to the current JPA to address some of FRCD s more pressing procedural issues. Ms. Britton responded that there was a process for amending the JPA but that it would take additional analysis to determine if certain entities were required to have elected members of those organizations as representatives to the board. Mr. Schubert stated that opening up the JPA would take a substantial amount of time to work through and may extend past the time that the GSP would be completed. Mr. Schubert explained that it was likely that if the JPA was opened up that many if not all potential signatories would take the opportunity to conducted their own legal review and provide comments and that a drawn out negotiation process would follow. Mr. Madison stated that the proposal was not radical in nature. He asked that besides a potential issue of a dilution of power what were the elements of the proposal that would cause a disruption. Mr. Schubert stated that his role on the board was to protect the groundwater basin not his agency s power on the board and that the proposed JPA did not augment the protection of the groundwater basin. Mr. Ewart stated he would not be in favor of opening up the entire JPA but saw the importance of looking into accommodating some of the functional issues that FRCD had in its role with SCGA such as how and who was appointed to represent FRCD. He also stated that the current termination clause was concerning. Mr. Aladjem suggested that he and Ms. Britton could confer and produce a tight set of amendments that would be technical and not disrupt the basic police power of the Authority and would address the appointment process and clarify the termination clause. Mr. Aladjem suggested holding off on the discussion concerning who could be signatory and interpretations on the dilution of powers that may or may not result. Mr. Aladjem asked if there was consensus amongst the committee on what he had proposed. Mr. Madison clarified the three most important issues that FRCD had as 1) becoming a signatory to the JPA, 2) not requiring the approval of another agency for appointment to the board, and 3) the ability to appoint whoever its wished. Mr. Madison suggested that a rate study be conducted as a part of the restructuring of the budget to ensure that contributions were to be collected equitably and legally. Specifically, Mr. Madison expressed a concern over the collection of the Zone 13 fee and its contribution to the SCGA budget and whether or not there was a double collection of fees being contributed to SCGA. Ms. Britton responded that it might be more appropriate for the individual agencies that make contributions to SCGA conduct a rate study if necessary. Mr. Schubert recommended that the first item that would change the signatory structure of the JPA should be brought before the board for consideration but that items two and three should be analyzed by SCGA and FRCD legal counsel to determine if those changes could be codified into an amendment without compromising the powers of the

21 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) SGMA Sub-Committee Meeting Draft Minutes Page 4 April 21, 2016 Authority. If so, that language would then be brought to the SGMA Subcommittee for its consideration and possible recommendation to the full board for adoption. Mr. Mahon supported the recommendation saying that it was important to address those specific issues. Mr. Williams and Mr. Ewart also expressed their support. Suzanne Pecci, domestic well owner in the City of Elk Grove commented that she was in support of SCGA s actions from the previous day s board meeting to move forward with GSA formation and an alternative plan and stated that if FRCD s proposal interfered with those actions then she would not support it. Ms. Pecci then stated that there was a lot of change occurring in the region and in the City of Elk Grove especially as it concerned SGMA and that stability and a measured approach to the change was needed and that the SCGA board represented that. She then commended the members of the subcommittee for their comportment during discussion of FRCD s proposal. Ms. Pecci then mentioned if there was a concern regarding the collection of fees for contribution to SCGA then there should be a concern over the passing of legal fees, on the part of FRCD, onto its customers to develop a fast-tracked interim plan. Jay Schneider with the Sloughhouse RCD commented that SCGA should recognize and allow OHWD to form its own GSA. Mr. Schneider then advocated for the rights of the local residents of the Sloughhouse RCD to self-govern and to form their own GSA without interference from SCGA. 4. Update of Draft Emergency Regulations for Groundwater Sustainability Plans and Alternatives Mr. Goetz provided a review of the California Water Commission hearing from the previous day during which comments regarding the draft emergency GSP regulations were discussed. Mr. Goetz reported that the next Water Commission hearing was set for May 18, 2016 and that the final draft GSP regulations would be considered during that hearing. Amanda Platt with the Sloughhouse RCD commented that her board sought to be supportive of the alternative plan process as they recognized its benefits to SCGA and the South American Subbasin. Ms. Platt stated that Sloughhouse RCD was not involved in the development of the current SCGA GMP but that going forward, Sloughhouse RCD wished to be included in negotiations and development the alternative plan, specifically as it may affect its ability to comply with SGMA. 5. Action Items/Next Steps Assignments The subcommittee agreed to reconvene on May 16, 2016 at 1 pm.

22 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) SGMA Sub-Committee Meeting Draft Minutes Page 5 April 21, 2016 ADJOURNMENT Mr. Schubert adjourned the meeting at 2:57 pm Upcoming meetings Next SCGA Board of Directors Meeting Wednesday, May 11, 2016, 9:00 am; SASD South Conference Room 1212, Sunset Maple. By: Chairperson Date Date

23 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) Budget Sub-Committee Meeting Draft Minutes April 28, 2016 LOCATION: Goethe Road, Room 1213 Sacramento, CA :00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. MINUTES: 1. Call to Order and Roll Call Brett Ewart called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. The following meeting participants were in attendance: Board Members: Paul Schubert, Golden State Water Company Brett Ewart, City of Sacramento Forrest Williams, County of Sacramento Carl Werder, Agricultural-Residential Staff Members: Darrell Eck, SCGA Ping Chen, SCGA Ramon Roybal, SCGA Others in Attendance: Bruce Kamilos, FRCD/EGWD Jonathan Goetz, GEI 2. Public Comment None 3. Discussion of the Fiscal Year Budget for the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority Mr. Eck initiated the discussion by providing a handout detailing the finance methodology and model summary with an emphasis on the planned expenditures going forward into the next fiscal year. Mr. Schubert asked if there was a budget reserve incorporated in the finance model. Mr. Goetz replied in the affirmative.

24 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) Budget Sub-Committee Meeting Draft Minutes Page 2 April 28, 2016 Mr. Kamilos suggested that the estimated legal costs should be higher. Mr. Schubert concurred and suggested that the estimate for 2016/17 should be tripled in consideration of working through the GSA process and other issues. Mr. Schubert then recommended that the budget reserve be codified. Mr. Eck stated that there was language addressing a budget reserve in the Groundwater Authority s Policies and Procedures Manual but could not recall off hand the exact wording. Mr. Eck suggested that the existing language could be modified by the Board to reflect an updated budget reserve if necessary. Mr. Werder suggested having a minimum line-item break down of expenditures such that it would provide adequate detail but not include trivial costs. Mr. Eck agreed and said that part of the budget development process was identifying that balance. Mr. Ewart asked that some of the contingencies built into the model or spread over various expenditure elements should be pulled out and specifically identified or reflected in the reserve. Mr. Werder suggested that the boundary line adjustment item and intra/inter basin item should be increased substantially. Mr. Goetz replied that those items had not been updated from a previous iteration of the budget and did not account for issues involving OHWD and Sloughhouse RCD and needed to be addressed. Mr. Goetz stated that SCGA was expending a significant amount of resources in defending its GSA formation and boundary line. Mr. Eck suggested that staff would confer with legal counsel on the level of effort that might be expected to resolve those issues. Mr. Ewart asked if staffing levels were adequate to accomplish what was necessary and to raise the issue if they were not. Mr. Eck replied that staffing requirements were included in the proposed finance methodology and that those levels were higher than those reflected in the current fiscal year budget. Mr. Kamilos asked for clarification on the JPA update line item and what it accounted for. Mr. Goetz replied that it reflected the committee s discussion in February to table the issue until other processes were resolved. Mr. Kamilos then asked how the committee felt about moving toward a stand-alone agency. Mr. Schubert recalled that previous discussion had resulted in a decision to retain the current staffing arrangement through the GSA formation process and then re-evaluate it at that time. Mr. Ewart concurred. Mr. Kamilos then asked why ag and ag-res were getting a discounted charge for their contributions. Mr. Eck replied that it was a negotiated element of the Groundwater Forum and the current JPA and is in recognition of how water used in ag and ag-res applications and is different than in an urban setting. Mr. Kamilos asked if it was fair going forward. Mr. Eck replied that it would be up to the Board to decide. Mr. Kamilos stated that in FRCD/EGWD s opinion that in terms of governance and funding the outcome needed to be equitable. Mr. Kamilos brought up the necessity of hiring a consultant to conduct a rate study for the budget. The rest of the subcommittee members felt that it wasn t necessary at this time. Mr. Schubert stated that it may be appropriate once SCGA worked through the GSA process and suggested noting it somewhere as a future task. Mr. Williams suggested creating a list of items that would be triggered in the future at the appropriate time such

25 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) Budget Sub-Committee Meeting Draft Minutes Page 3 April 28, 2016 as modifications to the JPA, conducting a rate study, and analyzing a switch to an independent agency structure. Mr. Kamilos restated FRCD/EGWD s opinion that at some point SCGA needed to become a standalone agency. Mr. Kamilos then referred to the notion that SCGA often looked to SGA as a prototype and offered that SGA was run by a completely neutral party, specifically that its executive director was filled by a neutral party. Mr. Kamilos stated that in FRCD s opinion, the County of Sacramento was conflicted in its role of filling the position of executive director for SCGA and that in the future it was the wrong thing to do and that SCGA should plan now for a change. Mr. Schubert stated that he felt that the current staffing arrangement for SCGA has been effective and that to pay for a cost increase of roughly fifty-percent for a switch to a standalone agency might not be fair to his rate payers. Mr. Ewart stated that FRCD/EGWD s concerns had merit but that there was an issue with the timing of addressing them and that now was not the appropriate time. Mr. Werder concurred. Mr. Kamilos responded that FRCD/EGWD s fear was that four or five years may pass and the issues would still not be resolved. Mr. Williams stated that he was the representative for the County and not Mr. Eck and that staff has worked independently to present information for the full sixteen member board to consider and that if the Board concurred on a decision he did not see it as a conflict of interest on the part of the County. Mr. Williams then stated that the subcommittee had acknowledged that the issues raised by FRCD/EGWD were valid and had agreed to address them at the appropriate time and that FRCD/EGWD needed to trust that it would occur. Mr. Kamilos replied that there was no guarantee that the issues would be addressed and that membership on the Board may change and cause the issues to be ignored. Mr. Kamilos stated that the issues needed to be codified. Mr. Eck reiterated that staff would clarify some of the line items on the expenditures table, would confer with legal counsel on estimated effort and cost over the next year, and clarify the presentation of the upcoming fiscal year budget. Mr. Ewart wanted to make sure that staff communicated to the Board that the recommended finance model and budget were recognized as an interim step and subject to change in the future given the fluid nature of everything happening in response to SGMA. 4. Budget Committee Member Comments None. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Ewart adjourned the meeting at 2:35 pm Upcoming meetings

26 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) Budget Sub-Committee Meeting Draft Minutes Page 4 April 28, 2016 Next SCGA Board of Directors Meeting Wednesday, May 11, 2016, 9:00 am; SASD South Conference Room 1212, Sunset Maple. By: Chairperson Date Date

27 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) Governing Board Meeting Draft Minutes May 11, 2016 LOCATION: Goethe Road, Room 1212 Sacramento, CA :00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. MINUTES: 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The following meeting participants were in attendance: Board Members (Primary Rep): Tom Mahon, Agricultural Interests Rick Bettis, Conservation Landowners Christine Thompson, Public Agencies Self-Supplied Dave Ocenosak, Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District Paul Schubert, Golden State Water Company Carl Werder, Agricultural-Residential Board Members (Alternate Rep): Brett Ewart, City of Sacramento Forrest Williams, Sacramento County Brian Fragiao, City of Elk Grove Allen Quynn, City of Rancho Cordova Staff Members: Darrell Eck, Executive Director Sarah Britton, Legal Counsel Ping Chen Ramon Roybal Others in Attendance: Jonathan Goetz, GEI Mark Madison, Florin Resource Conservation District/Elk Grove Water District Bruce Kamilos, Florin Resource Conservation District/Elk Grove Water District Jesse Roseman, The Nature Conservancy Rodney Fricke, GEI Paul Siebensohn, Rancho Murieta CSD Mark Souverville, State DWR North Central Region Mike Wackman, Omochumne-Hartnell Water District

28 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) Governing Board Meeting Draft Minutes Page 2 May 11, 2016 Mike Eaton, Cosumnes Coalition Amanda Platt, Sloughhouse RCD Jay Schneider, Sloughhouse RCD Lisa Dills, Southgate Recreation and Park District Mike Koza, Sacramento County Department of Waste Management Joe Turner, Kleinfelder Jim Blanke, RMC Water and Environment Lisa Dills, Southgate Recreation and Park District Suzanne Pecci, Domestic Well Owner Elk Grove Ron Pecci, Domestic Well Owner Elk Grove Kerry Schmitz, Sacramento County Water Agency Member Agencies Absent Rancho Murieta CSD Commercial/Industrial Self-Supplied California-American Water Company Mr. Ewart announced that there had been a problem with noticing the meeting on the Authority s website and that the required noticing period for the meeting was twentyfour hours short. Mr. Ewart stated that all agenda items would be heard as informational items and that a recommendation to continue each item to the subsequent board meeting could be considered. Mr. Ewart announced that public comments would be accepted and reflected in future minutes and that board member discussion should be limited to basic questions from staff. Mr. Ewart then stated that staff had requested that items four and five be combined. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR Bruce Kamilos, with the Florin Resource Conservation District, requested that the draft minutes for the April 28, 2016 Budget Subcommittee be edited to include additional comments that he had made as a member of the subcommittee during that meeting. Forrest Williams then remarked that he would like to see his response to the comments being referred to by Mr. Kamilos reflected in the minutes. Motion/Second/Carried Mr. Williams moved, seconded by Ms. Thompson, the motion carried unanimously to continue the item to the subsequent board meeting. 4. BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT AND BUDGET REPORT Darrell Eck stated that staff recommended the item be changed to an information presentation and continued for deliberation and action at the June 8, 2016 board meeting. Jon

29 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) Governing Board Meeting Draft Minutes Page 3 May 11, 2016 Goetz, GEI, provided a presentation regarding the SCGA finance update which included an overview of the findings of the SGMA/Finance Subcommittees, overview of an updated contribution methodology, estimated level of effort and costs over the next five years, and the finance model assumptions and results (Note: Mr. Goetz s presentation may be viewed on the Authority s website for the April 20, 2016 meeting date). Ms. Britton reminded that any discussion by the board should be limited to clarifying questions for staff and that no deliberation amongst the board should occur. Mr. Bettis asked for clarification regarding the labeling of source funding for ag, ag-res, and conservation landowner contributions. Mr. Eck reminded that the presentation was for information purposes only and that staff would be meeting with legal counsel to discuss the how those particular contributions would be represented in the future. Mr. Werder asked why the County of Sacramento had no associated contribution amount for pumped groundwater. Mr. Goetz replied that the County was not a groundwater purveyor and that those contributions were associated with the Sacramento County Water Agency. Ms. Britton stated that she would be discussing the presentation of that particular information with staff prior to the June 8 th board meeting. Mr. Werder then asked how the pumping total for ag-res users was determined. Mr. Eck replied that staff had previously completed a project which developed a methodology for estimating ag and ag-res pumping. Mr. Ewart requested that staff follow up with him to discuss updated pumping data for the City of Sacramento within the South American Subbasin. Mr. Quynn asked if the connection fee would be paid by the customers of the purveyors as a part of a utility bill. Ms. Britton responded that it would be up to the individual purveyors to determine the source their respective connection contribution. Mike Eaton spoke as a member of the public stating that he had a concern regarding the proposal to charge conservation organizations ten thousand dollars per year. Mr. Eaton stated that those organizations had aggressive programs for ecosystem restoration that included projects that provided enormous co-benefits for groundwater recharge. Mr. Eaton stated that objectively speaking, those organizations should be sending SCGA a bill and not the other way around. Mr. Eaton stated that SGMA was clear in its encouragement that an organization such as SCGA, engage in a collaborative process with conservation organizations to take the projects that they had developed and replicate them at scale. Mr. Eaton stated that SCGA was choosing to pick a fight rather than collaborate those organizations and that it demonstrated how much of a stretch it was to consider SCGA and its authorities, programs, and funding levels as approvable as an alternative under SGMA. Mr. Eaton finished by stating that he would speak further on the subject and SCGA s next board meeting. Mark Madison, General Manager, Florin Resource Conservation District, stated that FRCD and the Elk Grove Water District generally supported the rate structure being proposed and applauded staff and the consultant for their work in its development. Mr. Madison stated that his organization supported the idea that in order to have a seat at the table you should pay a base charge because there was a cost to having the authority to participate. Mr. Madison then stated that there were three issues that FRCD wanted staff to look into and report back to the board on June 8 th. The first was clarification that the proposed funding structure to be

30 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) Governing Board Meeting Draft Minutes Page 4 May 11, 2016 approved was for a one year period. The second was that FRCD wanted to know how much the urban community was subsidizing ag and ag-res and how the subsidy was justified. Third was confirmation that the current Joint Powers Agreement provided ample authority for the board to adopt the proposed fees. Jesse Roseman, Project Director, Nature Conservancy/Cosumnes River Preserve, stated that fees were not a part of the Water Forum Agreement and that as a non-profit organization and partner for the Conservation Landowner seat on the SCGA Board they were not setup to support them. Mr. Roseman added that the Preserve paid into Zone 13 as a landowner. Mr. Roseman added that the Preserve had less than five groundwater pumps and had added conservation lands that might have otherwise been used for intensive ag. Mr. Roseman asked what the basis for the ten thousand dollar fee was and pointed out that SGMA required environmental interest participation and that it was counterintuitive to have a pay to play arrangement for them. Motion/Second/Carried Mr. Bettis moved, seconded by Ms. Thompson, the motion carried unanimously to continue the item to the subsequent board meeting. 5. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER SCGA BECOMING A GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY IN AREAS OF THE SOUTH AMERICAN SUBBASIN (PORTIONS OF BULLETIN BASIN ) Mr. Ewart opened the public hearing while noting that the action for the item would be amended by staff. Mr. Ewart said that public comments were welcome and would be carried forward to the Juse 8 th meeting in the minutes. Mr. Eck stated that staff recommended that the board continue the item to June 8, 2016 and to accept any public oral or written comment on the item and that the board consider such public comment via meeting minutes if the commenter did not wish to return for the June board meeting. Suzanne Pecci, domestic well owner in the City of Elk Gove, stated that she and about one hundred other well owners along Grantline Road would potentially fall under Ommochumne- Hartnell or Sloughhouse RCD and that she was concerned about it because she felt that the whole SGMA process of collaboration, public meetings, and public comments had been high jacked by those entities. Ms. Pecci said that the rush to local control by those entities had disrupted the process and made it about local control rather than sustainable management of the groundwater. Ms. Pecci then said that the residents did not elect the representatives to the local ag boards although there were provisions in the public resources code to provide for voting. Mr. Pecci stated that they were appointed by the Board of Supervisors and from there they elect themselves. Ms. Pecci said that all of the local support mentioned in a SRCD letter from May 6 th was limited to local support of the board. Ms. Pecci stated that she understood their feelings about wanting local control but that she felt SGMA had a different intent and that local control in rural counties might mean the ag community should manage the resource but that in Sacramento there were other interests to account for such as the all the citizens of the City of Elk Grove. She stated that times had changed and that they were all locals and that the groundwater resource belonged to everyone not just those representing

31 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) Governing Board Meeting Draft Minutes Page 5 May 11, 2016 Ommochumne or SRCD. Ms. Pecci stated that she feared Ommochumne and SRCD s rush to power and that she opposed both of their GSA applications and basin boundary modification proposal. Mike Wackman, General Manager, Omochumne-Hartnell Water District, announced that OHWD had submitted a letter to SCGA regarding SCGA s GSA formation with the request that SCGA not declare as a GSA over its area. Mr. Wackman stated that OHWD had been following all of the public outreach and noticing requirements required by SGMA and reminded that OHWD had been discussing SGMA and GSA formation for months during multiple public meetings. Mr. Wackman then stated that OHWD sought to continue working with SCGA on moving forward with the process of developing of sustainable groundwater management. Mr. Roseman stated that a large portion of the Cosumnes River Preserve currently covered by SCGA would no longer be covered under the proposed GSA and that it was not clear what entity other than the County or the State would assume GSA management of that area. Mr. Roseman said that the Preserve had enjoyed its relationship with SCGA and requested that he be informed if there were other options besides the County or the State for management of the area. Mr. Eck said he would talk to Mr. Roseman about the issue. Ms. Thompson stated that she would like similar consideration for the park agency as the conservation interests with regard to paying a contribution. Ms. Thompson said that the park agency was about to become the conservator of a one hundred acre preserve for the US Army Corps of Engineers and that they do not collect water fees although they use wells for irrigation. Ms. Thompson recommended that SCGA outreach to Ward Winchel to discuss the park agency s contribution arrangement going forward. Ms. Thompson finished by stating that the park agency s participation on the SCGA board was important. Amanda Platt, with the Sloughhouse RCD, announced that they had submitted a letter to SCGA requesting that the public hearing for GSA formation be delayed to allow for additional public outreach. Ms. Platt stated that Sloughhouse RCD sought to continue talking and negotiating with SCGA with respect to Area 3 and the Omomchumne area to try and come to an agreement so that there would not be overlapping GSAs. Ms. Platt stated that the Sloughhouse RCD board was also concerned that its district and the Cosumnes Basin were not represented in the work that would serve as the basis for an Alternative Plan Submittal by SCGA and that they wanted a seat at the table as the Alternative Plan was developed to ensure that all of the constituents of the Cosumnes Basin were accounted for. Ron Pecci, domestic well owner in the City of Elk Gove, stated he had attended a few of OHWD and SRCD s meetings and was concerned that their experience was limited to serving water to themselves and that they did not have the municipal or professional experience to comply with SGMA to the same level that SCGA could. Mr. Pecci then said that he had come to realize that the groundwater was for everyone not just for agriculture or for himself. Mr. Pecci said it was important to be mindful of the professional experience and credentials necessary for making the correct decision with respect to the basin boundaries. Mr. Pecci stated that he did not want to be under the authority of a group whose only experience was serving agricultural water to itself. Mr. Pecci then stated that for the

32 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) Governing Board Meeting Draft Minutes Page 6 May 11, 2016 Sacramento area, local control should mean regional control and that he would prefer to have professionals managing the groundwater and not farmers. Ms. Thompson commented that the letter submitted by Sacramento County Water Agency (SCWA) regarding OHWD and SRCD s basin boundary modification proposal brought up the question of how those agencies would account for future development and made the point that the existing plan for the South American Subbasin would have to be redone. Ms. Thompson stated that those were deciding factors for her decision to support SCGA s position. Ms. Thompson said that she hoped that SCGA, OHWD, and SRCD would work together to come up with a plan to move forward toward basin sustainability while accounting for the concerns raised by SCWA. Ms. Thompson said that OHWD and SRCD should be considered separately as they represented different situations. Jay Schneider with the Sloughhouse RCD stated that SRCD and OHWD were formed by the residents of the area and had been implementing water management projects since the 1950 s in addition to various conservation projects with partners such as The Nature Conservancy and Trouts Unlimited. Mr. Schneider stated that the residents within his district were all responsible for their own water systems and that the district s roll would be facilitating the ongoing resource management and conservation projects. Mr. Schneider stated that the path forward was for SCGA to choose to be the GSA for Area 1 and to support the boundary line change. Mr. Schneider said that the boundary line change would follow the jurisdictional boundary of every governmental agency throughout the region s history and that it has never followed the centerline of the Cosumnes River. Mr. Schneider stated that SRCD had the support of the local residents. Mr. Schneider then reiterated that the only way forward was for SCGA to support SRCD and OHWD, for SCGA to not form a GSA over Areas 2 and 3, and to support the basin boundary modification. Mr. Schneider said that if SCGA followed those recommendations, then cooperation and coordination could begin as early as August. Mr. Schneider then said that if SCGA went ahead and filed as a GSA over Areas 2 and 3 then it was assured there would be a fight all the way to the end. Mr. Schneider stated that SRCD had the experience and expertise to act as the GSA and represent the land owners. Mr. Williams asked if OHWD had a seat on the SCGA Board. Ms. Britton replied in the affirmative. Mr. Williams stated that the mechanism for coordination with them was already in place. Mr. Ewart then closed the public hearing. Motion/Second/Carried Mr. Bettis moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, the motion carried to continue the item to June 8, 2016 and accept any public oral and written comments on the item and that the Board consider said public comments via meeting minutes if the commenter did not wish to attend the June Board meeting. 6. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR S REPORT

33 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) Governing Board Meeting Draft Minutes Page 7 May 11, 2016 Mr. Eck announced that on May 18, 2016 the California Water Commission would hold a hearing to consider the Draft Emergency GSP regulations. Mr. Eck said that the issue would be agendized for the May 16, 2016 SGMA Subcommittee. Mr. Eck then announced that Elk Grove Dry Well Project 2016 Report had been attached to the agenda package and that he planned to meet with Barbara Washburn to go over the report. Mr. Eck announced that the SGM Subcommittee would meet on May 16, 2016 at 1 pm. Mr. Eck then provided a review of regional activities as follows: a. April 26, 2016 Ag Water Authority meeting i. Reported that the Notice of Formation was filed with DWR on April 25 for SRCD and OHWD ii. Discussed basin boundary modification effort iii. Discussed CASGEM monitoring efforts b. April 27, 2016 SCGA presentation at the Elk Grove City Council. c. May 13, 2016 SGMA Work Group for Sacramento, Placer, and Sutter counties will be meeting at RWA office at 9 am. d. May 16, 2016 SCGA/OHWD pre-meeting at the Water Forum. Next step in the mediation process. e. June 2, 2016 Solano County GSA Workshop Mr. Werder asked Mr. Eck if there was a way to post the various dates in place where people could easily access it. Mr. Eck replied that it was something that staff could work on. 7. DIRECTORS COMMENTS Mr. Ewart disclosed that the City of Sacramento had submitted a comment regarding OHWD s basin boundary request. ADJOURNMENT Brett Ewart adjourned the meeting at 11:30 a.m. Upcoming Meetings Next SCGA Board of Directors Meeting Wednesday, June 8, 2016, 9 am; Goethe Road, South Conference Room No (Valley Oak). By:

34 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) Governing Board Meeting Draft Minutes Page 8 May 11, 2016 Chairperson Date Date

35 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Sub-Committee Meeting Draft Minutes May 16, 2016 LOCATION: Goethe Road, Room 1213 Sacramento, CA :00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. MINUTES: 1. Call to Order and Roll Call Paul Schubert called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. The following meeting participants were in attendance: Board Members: Paul Schubert, Golden State Water Company Tom Nelson, FRCD/EGWD Rick Bettis, Conservation Landowners Brett Ewart, City of Sacramento Forrest Williams, County of Sacramento Staff Members: Darrell Eck, SCGA Sarah Britton, Legal Counsel Ping Chen, SCGA Ramon Roybal, SCGA Others in Attendance: Mark Madison, FRCD/EGWD Bruce Kamilos, FRCD/EGWD Jonathan Goetz, GEI Rodney Fricke, GEI Jay Schneider, Sloughhouse RCD 2. Public Comment None 3. Status Report On Issues Related To The Request By Florin Resource Conservation District/Elk Grove Water District For A New Joint Powers Agreement Ms. Britton reported that she had coordinated with FRCD/EGWD s legal counsel, David Aladjem, in addition to conducting her own research, and that she and Mr. Aladjem had

36 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) SGMA Sub-Committee Meeting Draft Minutes Page 2 May 16, 2016 determined an acceptable edit to the wording of the JPA that would address FRCD/EGWD s need to broaden who they could designate as their representative on the SCGA Board. Ms. Britton then reported that the edit would add the words or designated employee to the JPA. Ms. Britton stated that Mr. Aladjem had consulted with his client (FRCD/EGWD) and they were agreeable to the edit. Ms. Britton said that the edited language would also apply to Omochumne-Hartnell Water District and Rancho Murieta CSD. Ms. Britton reported that she would be working on a full first amendment to the JPA and that she would have it ready to go to the full Board in June. Mr. Kamilos asked why the proposed language did not simply state a designee of the organization. Ms. Britton replied that she had mirrored the language as it related to the signatories and had consulted Mr. Aladjem about it. Mr. Madison stated that if the proposed language matched the language that applied to the JPA signatories, then it would be acceptable to FRCD/EGWD as it sought only to be treated equally. Mr. Nelson stated that he recognized that all of the subcommittee members had a commitment to their respective agencies to represent their agencies the best way possible. Mr. Nelson then said he had some concerns about the long term management of the GSP. He said that the GSP would have a different function for SCGA that it would have to be carried out for twenty years while representing every agency, and that he wanted to have the employees of SCGA to have their loyalties to that agency and not to an agency that is a member of the board. Mr. Nelson went on to state that the Executive Director, legal counsel, and staff needed to have their loyalties with SCGA and not the Sacramento County Water Agency or the County of Sacramento. Ms. Britton warned Mr. Nelson that his comments were going beyond the scope of the agenda item and that she wanted to avoid any violation of the Brown Act. If there was a need to continue this discussion then the item would need to be agendized in order to provide an opportunity for members of the public to comment. Mr. Nelson then requested that the subject be agendized for the June 8 th SCGA Board meeting. Mr. Madison responded that it would be too late to hear the item at that time adding that FRCD/EGWD had already proposed a new JPA for SCGA of which only one small part would be carried forward. Mr. Madison then reported that on the evening of June 8 th he would be making a recommendation to the FRCD/EGWD board to consider the notion of filing to become a GSA for the entire FRCD/EGWD jurisdictional area. Mr. Madison then stated that FRCD/EGWD would like a recommendation by the subcommittee to the SCGA Board for a firm commitment that either at the time of GSP adoption or Alternative Plan submittal that the SCGA Board would negotiate with them in earnest over the terms of a new JPA. Mr. Madison went on to state that one of FRCD/EGWD s key concerns was a conflict of interest between SCGA and Sacramento County. Mr. Schubert responded that the issue of a new JPA and an independent stand-alone agency had already been brought before the subcommittee several times and that the subcommittee had declined to endorse it. Mr. Schubert continued by stating that FRCD/EGWD was the only member of the SCGA Board making the request and had just attempted what amounted to blackmail to get the SCGA Board to give it what it wanted. Ms. Britton asked Mr. Madison for a clarification of his statements as she had spoken that same morning with Mr. Aladjem who had communicated that the biggest issue to tackle was who FRCD/EGWD could chose to

37 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) SGMA Sub-Committee Meeting Draft Minutes Page 3 May 16, 2016 represent it on the SCGA Board. Ms. Britton apologized if there was any misunderstanding between her and Mr. Aladjem over the context of the request and that a discussion of the activities to which Mr. Madison had just described never came up. Mr. Williams stated that the subcommittee had agreed that looking into an independent stand-alone agency and a revision of the JPA were valid points but that the time to do so was not now. Mr. Williams said that the Budget Subcommittee had agreed to create a reminder to look at those issues at the appropriate time in the future and that at the previous SGMA Subcommittee a compromise had been agreed to between the subcommittee and FRCD/EGWD relative to the JPA and that he was under the impression that the issues had been resolved for the time being. Mr. Williams then stated that SCGA was made up of sixteen independent board members who considered all the information brought before them and vote as a board on whether to approve or deny proposals. Mr. Ewart concurred and recalled that SGMA Subcommittee had agreed to address FRCD s issue with representation on the Board but that it had decided to not endorse a wholesale revision of the JPA until the appropriate time. Mr. Ewart further explained that previous discussions had contemplated the adoption of a GSP as potentially an appropriate time revisit the JPA but that there was never a flat denial that it should occur, rather that there was a reasonable order of activities necessary for SGMA compliance. Mr. Kamilos stated that he wanted a codified commitment for their requests and not just a tickler file. Mr. Nelson added that there was a long process ahead and that work needed to start now and suggested a governance committee might be established to begin the work. Mr. Schubert made the point that meaningful discussions concerning governance could not occur until you know what you were trying to govern and who would be involved. Mr. Schubert said that SCGA was in the process of working towards that point but was not there yet. In terms of an independent SCGA structure, Mr. Schubert said that it was likely to be necessary at some point but that for the time being he could not justify the additional cost onto his rate payers. Mr. Madison asked the subcommittee how it felt about and the idea of SCGA as an independent agency once it became a GSA and adopted a GSP. Ms. Britton stated that she understood Mr. Madison s assertion but wanted to clarify that technically SCGA was already a legally independent agency with a staffing agreement with the County of Sacramento. Ms. Britton then stated that the Sacramento County Water Agency was not a member of the SCGA Board and said that under the Joint Powers Agreement Act that all members of the Authority had separate legal and fiduciary obligations to SCGA. Mr. Madison replied that it all sounded good in theory but that in his opinion it was not how it was in actuality. Mr. Kamilos stated that he would like to see an action item at the next Board meeting with discussion on changing the governance structure and opening up the JPA. Mr. Williams responded that he was unwilling to commit to a date certain for having the

38 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) SGMA Sub-Committee Meeting Draft Minutes Page 4 May 16, 2016 discussion because it was tied to the outcome of a process that was currently being worked through. Mr. Williams recalled that the Budget Subcommittee had identified increased future legal fees in anticipation of working through the governance issue and had also made note of it in the event that the makeup of the board changed and new board members would be informed of its importance. Mr. Schubert asked if a recommendation for a Governance Subcommittee to track along with the GSA/GSP process could be made under the current discussion item. Ms. Britton replied in the negative but offered that it could be agendized by the SCGA Chair for a future Board meeting. Mr. Ewart suggested letting the legal counsels for SCGA and FRCD/EGWD work out solutions to issues previously identified and when those were complete they could then be packaged into a comprehensive suite of recommendations for the Board s consideration including the formation of a Governance Subcommittee. Mr. Madison stated that FRCD/EGWD wanted a recommendation to be made at the June 8 th Board meeting that would commit SCGA to a specific date or milestone to trigger negotiations with them for a new governance structure. Mr. Williams responded that he was not comfortable taking such an action given that the item was not agendized and that he felt like the subcommittee was being pressured to alter its previous decisions without due consideration. Mr. Schubert added that the subcommittee could not make the requested recommendation because it was not agendized and that he was unclear on what the appropriate trigger would be without further research. Mr. Ewart suggested that staff could look into it. Ms. Britton stated that she could finalize the proposed amendment as previously discussed and agendized, in addition to consulting with Mr. Aladjem on additional legal issues regarding governance, and then bring the results back for an agendized discussion at a future SGMA Subcommittee meeting. Mr. Schubert suggested separating out the items such that Ms. Britton would prepare the discussed amendment for a subcommittee recommendation to the Board for consideration at its June 8 th meeting and to agendize further discussion of governance at a future SGMA Subcommittee meeting. Ms. Britton clarified that the proposed modification would not change the appointment process of the City of Elk Grove or any other appointing authority. Mr. Madison stated that it was not a problem. Mr. Williams asked if he would have to notify or acquire approval of the County of Sacramento for the modification. Ms. Britton replied that approval of each of the JPA signatories would be required. Motion/Second/Carried - Mr. Ewart moved, seconded by Mr. Nelson, the motion carried unanimously to direct staff to prepare the language that would modify the Joint Powers Agreement, as determined by legal counsel, to state or designated employee, and to recommend that the SCGA Board adopt the modification of the Joint Powers Agreement at the June 8, 2016 Board meeting. 4. Update On Proposed Groundwater Sustainability Plan Emergency Regulations

39 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) SGMA Sub-Committee Meeting Draft Minutes Page 5 May 16, 2016 Mr. Goetz announced that the proposed GSP regulations would be going before the California Water Commission on May 18 th and were planned for adoption on June 1 st. Mr. Goetz stated that he had reviewed the updated regulations to compare how the comments SCGA had submitted were incorporated. Mr. Goetz said that overall DWR had done a very good job of listening to the comments that were provided and may have slightly biased their response to those submitted on behalf of counties. Mr. Goetz reported that a major criticism of the regulations was that they were too prescriptive and essentially created new laws that went beyond the legislation and that DWR had done a good job to scale back in those areas. Mr. Goetz then reported that staff had submitted an additional comment letter to the California Water Commission which addressed Alternative Plan requirements. Specifically, the letter proposed to remove a requirement that an Alternative Plan be equivalent to articles five and seven of the SGMA legislation and left the requirement that an Alternative Plan demonstrate the ability to achieve the objectives of SGMA. Mr. Goetz stated that if incorporated the suggested change would significantly reduce the level of specificity required for development of an Alternative Plan. Mr. Eck stated that the Sacramento Groundwater Authority planned to submit a similar comment and that John Woodling was planning on appearing before the Water Commission to provide oral comments. Mr. Kamilos asked if there had been any discussion of extending the deadline for Alternative Plan submittal. Mr. Goetz replied that there had not been any discussion that he was aware of. 5. Approach To Alternative Submittal Mr. Goetz introduced Rodney Fricke who spoke on the approach to an alternative submittal. Mr. Fricke presented a table which compared all of the elements identified in articles five and seven of the SGMA legislation with the elements of the current SCGA GMP. Mr. Fricke s table identified those elements that were or were not included in the current GMP and if an element was not included, what the estimated level of effort might be to satisfy the requirement. The general consensus of the subcommittee was that if the law required equivalency with articles five and seven, there would be a significant amount of effort required to meet the requirement. Mr. Kamilos asked what would happen if SCGA submitted the plan and it was rejected by DWR. Mr. Eck replied that the expectation was that staff would work closely with DWR through each step of the process so that such an outcome would be minimized. Mr. Madison asked if pursuing an alternative submittal was still the correct approach if the level of effort was the same as the GSP process but without the benefit of an additional four years for compliance. Mr. Eck replied that what had been presented was the most conservative approach and that it was still expected that an alternative submittal process would require less effort than putting together a GSP from the beginning.

40 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) SGMA Sub-Committee Meeting Draft Minutes Page 6 May 16, 2016 Mr. Ewart asked if staff had the ability to complete the list of requirements identified. Mr. Goetz replied that although it appeared to be a daunting task that much of the data and information that was required already existed but needed to be compiled and communicated to DWR. Mr. Madison asked when the Alternative Plan would be become effective if it were approved. Mr. Fricke replied that it would be effective immediately upon approval. Mr. Madison then asked if the accelerated timeframe of an Alternative Plan would place the constituents who would be covered under the plan under an accelerated schedule for enforcement actions such as metering of wells. Mr. Eck replied that it was not expected that enforcement actions such as metering wells would occur. Mr. Kamilos remarked that the Alternative Plan process might present a more streamlined approach rather than waiting for five years to develop a GSP. Mr. Schubert asked if a detailed schedule had been developed accounting for all of the necessary steps that needed to occur prior to the Alternative Plan being adopted. Mr. Goetz replied that such a plan had not yet been developed but that staff planned to present that information when appropriate. Jay Schneider with the Sloughhouse RCD commented that the alternative plan process being considered would be made easier if SCGA agreed to the boundary line adjustment proposed by OHWD. Mr. Schneider suggested that SCGA engineers could work with Sloughhouse RCD engineers to better understand reasons for moving the boundary line to the watershed boundary and to begin coordination on a plan that would account for Sloughhouse RCD and the Cosumnes Subbasin. Mr. Schneider stated that Sloughhouse RCD did not have an option for an alternative plan but that SCGA did have an option which included working with a Sloughhouse RCD and accepting the boundary line modification. Mr. Schneider said that during the SGMA process personalities may have gotten in the way including his and that respective positions were hardened but that Sloughhouse RCD was willing to cooperate and sought SCGA s engagement. Motion/Second/Carried - Mr. Williams moved, seconded by Mr. Ewart, the motion carried unanimously to recommend to the SCGA Board to take the necessary action to initiate, complete, and set for adoption in a timely manner, an alternative plan. 6. Action Items/Next Steps Assignments Mr. Madison wanted to clarify that his comments regarding an inescapable conflict of interest between SCGA and the County should not be interpreted as an accusation or criticism that Mr. Eck, Ms. Britton, or staff were not doing a fine job and were not loyal to the cause of SCGA. The subcommittee agreed to reconvene on June 22, 2016 at 1 pm.

41 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY (SCGA) SGMA Sub-Committee Meeting Draft Minutes Page 7 May 16, 2016 ADJOURNMENT Mr. Schubert adjourned the meeting at 3:30 pm Upcoming meetings Next SCGA Board of Directors Meeting Wednesday, June 8, 2016, 9:00 am; SASD South Conference Room 1205, Valley Oak. By: Chairperson Date Date

42 AGENDA ITEM 4: PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2016/2017 BUDGET AND ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION ADJUSTMENT BACKGROUND: At the May 13, 2015 Board meeting the Budget Subcommittee reported that in the coming fiscal year (FY 2016/2017) the Authority would need to review the level of annual contributions to cover expenses. The committee also reported that revised annual contributions may be required by the next fiscal year in order to sustainably fund the Authority. Comments by Board members at that time indicated a need to identify the appropriate level of resources, inclusive of staffing and budget, necessary to implement the current GMP program as well as comply with SGMA requirements. At the September 9, 2015 Board meeting the SGMA Subcommittee was directed to evaluate required actions by SCGA to achieve financial stability in its member contributions now and in the coming years. As was reported at the January 13, 2016 Board meeting the SGMA Subcommittee used a hybrid of Sacramento Groundwater Authority s (SGA) financial model to demonstrate how SCGA s financial model could be updated in a way that was more responsive to various financial needs going forward. The Budget Subcommittee convened on April 28, 2016 complete their work on the budget and finalize the following items in the SCGA Interim Financial Model: contribution methodology, unit contribution amounts, cost allocation amongst participating members, naming conventions, long range level of effort, and confirmation of revenue and expenditures represented in the proposed 2016/2017 fiscal year budget. The annual contribution methodology will be updated as SCGA refines its understanding of the level of State financial and in-kind support, and the added responsibilities and authorities of becoming a SGMA-compliant Groundwater Sustainability Agency. Given the changes to the contribution methodology in this interim model the Sacramento County Water Agency (SCWA) has agreed to provide funding for agricultural interests, ag-res interests, commercial industrial self-supplied, public agency self-supplied, and conservation land owners for the 2016/2017 fiscal year. Three elements are included in the updated contribution methodology. The Base contribution element recognizes a minimum annual contribution level for each SCGA member with a fixed $10,000 cost for non-signatory members and $20,000 for signatory members. Similar to SGA, the Connection -based contribution element is a set unit cost of $0.67 per water service connection for each water purveyor with retail water service connections greater than 6,000. A minimum connection fee of $8,000 is used for smaller water purveyors with retail connections less than or equal to 6,000 connections. The Usage contribution element is treated as per the SCGA JPA with a unit pumping amount of $3.11/AF. In total, fiscal year 2016/17 contributions are expected to be $573,057. The total fiscal year budget is estimated to be $718,723. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the resolution approving and funding the Authority s budget for fiscal year 2016/2017 and revising annual contributions and methodology. Staff also recommends that the Budget Subcommittee be tasked with SCGA Agenda

43 beginning work on the 2017/2018 fiscal year budget to address anticipated reductions in future SCWA funding. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Actions: 1. Adopt the proposed Resolution to approve and fund the Authority s administrative budget for fiscal year 2016/2017 and adjust member annual contributions. 2. Task the Budget Subcommittee to begin work on the 2017/2018 fiscal year budget. SCGA Agenda

44 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND ASSIGNING COSTS TO FUND ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROGRAM BUDGETS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016/2017 AND ADJUST ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS WHEREAS, on August 29, 2006 the Joint Powers Agreement Between the City of Elk Grove, the City of Folsom, the City of Rancho Cordova, the City of Sacramento and the County of Sacramento Creating the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority ( JPA ) established a separate public entity identified as the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority ( AUTHORITY ) with its own Board of Directors; and WHEREAS, the AUTHORITY was created to maintain the long-term sustainable yield of the Central Basin in accordance with the Central Sacramento County Groundwater Management Plan; and WHEREAS, the JPA identifies member annual contributions to fund the purposes of the AUTHORITY; WHEREAS, the AUTHORITY has decided to adjust is annual contribution methodology to better align with other local management authorities and to reduce the potential risk of underfunding groundwater management programs in the future; WHEREAS, Section 8(e) of the JPA provides for the AUTHORITY s adjustment of funding contributions subject to compliance with Section 8 (c) which requires an affirmative vote of eleven of the sixteen members of the governing board that includes affirmative votes by all of the representatives of the Cities of Elk Grove, Folsom, Rancho Cordova and Sacramento, and the County of Sacramento; WHEREAS, the AUTHORITY s administrative budget for fiscal year 2016/2017 is specified in Attachment A. The budget includes projections of revenues, staff expenses, consultant expenses, office expenses and Groundwater Management Plan related expenses. The administrative budget is required to finance the administrative activities necessary to manage the Central Sacramento County groundwater management area. SCGA Agenda

45 NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the SCGA Board of Directors: 1. The above recitals are correct and the SCGA Board of Directors so finds and determines. 2. The SCGA Board of Directors finds and determines that: a. The SCGA administrative budget for fiscal year 2016/2017 as specified in Attachment A is hereby adopted; and b. The annual contributions to fund the SCGA administrative budget for fiscal year 2016/2017 are revised from the initial funding contributions identified in the JPA Section 8(d), and annual contributions will be calculated pursuant to Attachment B; and c. Billing for the fiscal year 2016/2017 annual contributions shall be mailed not later than thirty (30) days following the adoption of this resolution with payment to be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of billing. ON A MOTION by Director, and seconded by Director, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Board of Directors of SCGA this 8th day of June, 2016, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: Directors, Directors, RECUSAL: Directors, (PER POLITICAL REFORM ACT ( ) ABSENT: Directors, ABSTAIN: Directors, Chair of the Board of Directors of the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority, a duly formed Joint Powers Authority (SEAL) ATTEST: SCGA Agenda

46 Clerk of the Board of Directors of the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority SCGA Agenda

47 FUND: Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority (096B) ACTIVITY: Groundwater Supply Operations ( ) FISCAL YEAR: ATTACHMENT A - Fiscal Year Authority's Budget (Page 1 of 3) Actual Actual Actual Actual Estimate Requested MEANS OF FINANCING Reserves: Prior Year Fund Balance $ 631,157 $ 714,927 $ 139,454 $ 116,451 $ 357,143 $ 224,531 Revenues: Contributions from other Agencies $ 264,047 $ 254,492 $ 244,222 $ 236,962 $ 210,423 $ 573,057 Interfund Charges (Transfer In / Out) reimbursement from SCGA WPP fund $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Reserve Release $ - $ - $ 278,934 $ 37,139 $ - Interest Income $ 2,862 $ 5,332 $ 2,000 $ - $ (2,905) $ - AB303 Grant Reimbursement $ 200,000 $ 199,823 $ 108,229 $ - Encumbrance Rollover from Prior Year $ 2,900 $ (1,370) $ - $ - Total Means of Financing $ 900,966 $ 973,381 $ 585,676 $ 832,170 $ 710,029 $ 797,588 FINANCING USES Provision for Reserves $ - $ 707,430 $ 31,626 $ - $ - $ 78,865 Interfund Charges (Transfer In / Out) reimbursement from SCGA WPP fund Salaries / Benefits $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Services & Supplies $ 186,039 $ 126,497 $ 554,050 $ 832,170 $ 485,498 $ 718,723 Other Charges $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Financing Uses $ 186,039 $ 833,927 $ 585,676 $ 832,170 $ 485,498 $ 797,588 ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 714,927 $ 139,454 $ - $ - $ 224,531 $ - See Attachment D for Budget Detail need reserve of 20% of expenditures. 143,745

48 ATTACHMENT A - Fiscal Year Authority's 2-Year Budget Breakdown (Page 2 of 3) MEANS OF FINANCING Proposed FY15/16 Budget Proposed FY16/17 Budget Reserve Account Reserve Account Balance 7/1/15 $ 461,230 $ 424,091 Reserve Account Contributions/Releases (37,139) - Remaining Reserve Balance $ 424,091 $ 424,091 Operating Account Beginning Operating Fund Balance $ 357,143 $ 145,666 Revenues: Contributions from Member Agencies $ 210,423 $ 573,057 $ 718,723 Reserve Release 37,139 - AB 303 Grant (Prop. 84) 29,000 Interest Income (2,905) - Total Means of Financing $ 630,800 $ 718,723 FINANCING USES Salaries/Benefits $ - $ - Services & Supplies: Staff Expenses 291, ,532 Consultant Expenses 333, ,891 Office Expenses 6,300 6,300 GMP Related Expenses - - Reporting Expenses - - Provision for Reserve - - Total Financing Uses $ 630,800 $ 718,723

49 ATTACHMENT A - Authority's Operating Expenses ( ) (Page 3 of 3) Operating Expenses ($ Dollar) Notes 1. Staff Expenses "Staff Expenses" were not covered in the cost breakdown provided in the GMP. Executive Director $ 56,576 Executive 8 hours/week: ($136/hr)(8hr/wk)(52wk/yr) (G/L ) Administration Support $ 253,490 Board Clerk, Water Resources Admin. Staff, etc. (G/L ) Legal Counsel $ 149,070 Sarah Britton - County Counsel (G/L ) Financial $ 48,895 County Water Resource Finance/Accounting Staff (G/L ; Remie and Bill) AFS Contract Services $ 2,000 Contract payment and writing allocation costs. (G/L ) Travel/Conference $ 1,500 G/L Consultant Expenses Total Staff Expenses $ 511,532 Audit Report $ 9,000 VTD & Co. Audit Expense (G/L ) Technical Services $ 191,891 Total Consultant Expenses $ 200, Office Expenses 1. $100k - Develop and Support Alternative Submittal; 2. $66k - Assist SCGA staff transitioning to a GSA, including grant application, data management, public outreach, and website update etc.; 3. $10k - Ag/Res Water Conservation; 4. $25k - GAP Study General Liability Insurance $ 6,000 Annual premium paid to Sacramento County Risk Management Office Supplies/Postage $ 150 G/L Dues & Subscriptions $ 150 Membership dues (G/L ) Total Office Expenses $ 6, GMP Related Expenses Ongoing activities to implement the GMP A. Stakeholder Involvement B. GW Resource Protection C.Monitoring Program D. Planning Integration E. Plan Implementation Costs GMP Section Total GMP Expenses $ - G/L Well Protection Program Ordinance Development $ - Includes on-going coordination with Land Use Agencies, development of cooperating agreements and adoption of ordinance and agreements. Registration $ - Includes developing parcel map, generating mailing list, update of data base and field verifications. Reimbursed by WPP trust fund later. Replacement Fund Total WPP Expenses $ - 6. Reporting Expenses State of the Basin Report Total Reporting Expenses $ - GRAND TOTAL $ 718,723

50 ATTACHMENT B (Page 1 of 2) Authority's Members Contribution (FY ) Base Contribution Connection Contribution Groundwater Usage Contribution Total Annual Contribution Board Members City of Folsom $ 20,000 $ 17,001 $ - $ 37,001 City of Rancho Cordova $ 20,000 $ - $ - $ 20,000 City of Sacramento $ 20,000 $ 42,205 $ 3,110 $ 65,315 City of Elk Grove $ 20,000 $ - $ - $ 20,000 County of Sacramento/ SCWA $ 20,000 $ 37,341 $ 65,965 $ 123,306 FRCD/Elk Grove Water District $ 10,000 $ 12,127 $ 13,176 $ 35,303 Rancho Murieta CSD $ 10,000 $ 8,000 $ - $ 18,000 Cal-Am Water Company $ 10,000 $ 24,985 $ 53,396 $ 88,381 Golden State Water Company $ 10,000 $ 13,922 $ 17,396 $ 41,319 Omochumne-Hartnell Water District $ 10,000 $ - $ - $ 10,000 SRCSD $ 10,000 $ - $ - $ 10,000 Ag Interests $ 10,000 $ - $ 46,855 $ 56,856 Ag-Res Interests $ 10,000 $ - $ 7,576 $ 17,576 Comm/Industrial Self Supplied $ 10,000 $ - $ - $ 10,000 Public Agency Self Supplied $ 10,000 $ - $ - $ 10,000 Conservation Land Owners $ 10,000 $ - $ - $ 10,000 Total $ 210,000 $ 155,579 $ 207,475 $ 573,057 Base Contribution Component - Annual Base Contribution is $10000 for non-signatory members and $10000 for signatory members - Annual Base Contribution of $10000 for Agriculture and Agriculture/Residential is paid out of SCWA Zone 13 funds Connection Contribution Component - Annual Connection Contribution is $8,000 plus $0.67 per connection for number of water service connections over the 6,000 connection minimum. - An annual minimum Connection Contribution of $8,000 is assessed for water districts with less than the 6,000 connection minimum Groundwater Usage Component - Annual Groundwater Usage Contribution is $3.11/acre-foot of groundwater pumped from the basin averaged over previous three calendar years - Annual Groundwater Usage Contribution by Agriculture is 25-percent of the estimated annual pumping (as determined by SCWA) at the rate of $3.11 /acre-foot and paid out of SCWA Zone 13 funds - Annual Groundwater Usage Contribution by Agriculture/Residential is 25-percent of the estimated annual pumping (as determined by SCWA) at the rate of $3.11/acre-foot and paid out of SCWA Zone 13 funds

51 ATTACHMENT B (Page 2 of 2) Groundwater Usage Component 2016 Pumping Data Water Purveyors Pumping Amount Exclusion Net Pumping Rate Contribution (acre-contributiont) (acre-contributiont) (acre-contributiont) ($/acre-foot) Commercial/Industrial Self Supplied $ 3.11 $ - Public Agencies/Self Supplied $ 3.11 $ - FRCD/Elk Grove Water District 4, ,237 $ 3.11 $ 13,176 Omochumne-Hartnell Water District $ 3.11 $ - Rancho Murieta CSD $ 3.11 $ - California-American Water Co. 17, ,169 $ 3.11 $ 53,396 Golden State Water Company 5, ,594 $ 3.11 $ 17,396 County of Sacramento/ SCWA 21, ,211 $ 3.11 $ 65,965 City of Sacramento 1, ,000 $ 3.11 $ 3,110 Ag and Conservation Land Owners 12% of estimated pumping (See Note 1) Agricultural Interests 125,550 12% 15,066 $ 3.11 $ 46,855 Conservation Land Owners 0 12% 0 $ 3.11 $ - Agriculture-Residential 12% of estimated pumping (See Note 1) Agriculture-Residential 20,300 12% 2,436 $ 3.11 $ 7,576 Note 1. A 12% % reduction is applied to Ag and Ag-Res pumping to account the average crop evapotranspiration and runoff losses Total $ 207,475 Water Service Connection Component 2016 Water Service Connection Data Water Purveyors Number of Connections Minimum Number of Number of Connections Rate Contribution Connections Exceeding Minimum ($/connection) Commercial/Industrial Self Supplied - 6,000 - $ 0.67 $ - Public Agencies/Self Supplied - 6,000 - $ 0.67 $ - City of Folsom 19,434 6,000 13,434 $ 0.67 $ 17,001 City of Sacramento 57,052 6,000 51,052 $ 0.67 $ 42,205 FRCD/Elk Grove Water District 12,159 6,000 6,159 $ 0.67 $ 12,127 Omochumne-Hartnell Water District - 6,000 - $ 0.67 $ - Rancho Murieta CSD 1,800 6,000 - $ 0.67 $ 8,000 California-American Water Co. 31,350 6,000 25,350 $ 0.67 $ 24,985 Golden State Water Company 14,839 6,000 8,839 $ 0.67 $ 13,922 County of Sacramento/ SCWA 49,792 6,000 43,792 $ 0.67 $ 37,341 Total $ 155,579

52 6/2/2016 SCGA 2016/17 Finance Update SCGA Update of Financial Methodology June 8, /8/2016 June 2016 Board Hearing Presentation Overview Findings of SGMA/Finance Subcommittee Contribution Methodology Estimated Level of Effort and Costs Finance Model Assumptions and Results 26/8/2016 1

53 6/2/2016 SGMA/Finance Subcommittee Findings Current finance methodology results in funding shortage SCGA s JPA provides a means to adjust contributions Conversion to a SGA like methodology is appropriate model A base contribution is needed to stabilize funding resources County Staffing Agreement should continue for FY 2016/17 36/8/2016 Contribution Methodology 46/8/2016 2

54 6/2/2016 Contribution Categories Base or Minimum Annual Contribution $$ Basis: Membership Benefit: Stabilizes funding Connection Basis: Number of Water Service Accounts Benefit: Assures access to alternative sources of water Usage Basis: Amount of Groundwater Pumped Benefit: Groundwater is maintained as a sustainable water supply 56/8/2016 Updated Methodology Base JPA Appointed Members contribute $10,000 Signatory Members contribute 2 times Appointed Members or $20,000 Connection (applies only to member water purveyors) Contribution based on number of retail service connections Minimum connection contribution = $8,000, if total connections < 6,000 Set unit cost per water service connection = $0.67/conn Calculated contribution (>Min) = $8,000 + (total connections 6,000 connections) X $0.67/conn Usage Average groundwater usage = average pumping over last 3 years Ag/Ag Res usage adjustment set to not exceed 25% of total estimated pumping Set unit cost per acre foot = $3.11/AF Calculated contribution = $3.11/AF X average adjusted groundwater usage 66/8/2016 3

55 6/2/2016 Inflationary Adjustments No inflationary adjustments included in updated methodology Any future adjustment may be based on a modified cost index (e.g., ENR CCI + CPI) 76/8/2016 Forecast Estimated Level of Effort and Costs Estimated Level of Effort and Costs 86/8/2016 4

56 6/2/2016 Task Scheduling and Level of Effort 96/8/2016 Summary of Estimated Costs Annual Estimated Costs 2015/16(Por.) 2016/ / / / / /22 1.General Business Administrative, Staff Meetings (internal business duties) $ 63,333 $ 95,000 $ 94,974 $ 94,969 $ 94,969 $ 94,969 $ 94,969 Accounting (Financials, Audits, etc.) Included in Administrative Costs $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Legal Counsel (non project related) $ 25,463 $ 38,195 $ 38,195 $ 38,195 $ 38,195 $ 38,195 $ 38,195 Consultant Contract Management $ 6,154 $ 9,231 $ 9,176 $ 9,165 $ 9,165 $ 9,165 $ 9,165 Subtotal $ 94,951 $ 142,426 $ 142,346 $ 142,330 $ 142,330 $ 142,330 $ 142,330 2.Recurring Tasks $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Board/Committee Meetings and Preparation $ 178,954 $ 206,807 $ 206,807 $ 206,807 $ 206,807 $ 206,807 $ 206,807 Biennial State of the Basin $ $ 46,317 $ $ $ $ $ Groundwater Model Update $ $ 48,833 $ $ 48,833 $ $ $ CASGEM Monitoring $ 15,380 $ 30,760 $ 30,760 $ 30,760 $ 30,760 $ 30,760 $ 15,380 Management of Special GW Projects Management $ 266 $ 3,196 $ 3,196 $ 3,196 $ 3,196 $ 3,196 $ 3,196 Subtotal $ 194,600 $ 335,913 $ 240,763 $ 289,597 $ 240,763 $ 240,763 $ 225,383 3.Planned Efforts $ $ $ $ $ $ $ JPA Finance Model Analysis $ 9,340 $ 16,120 $ $ $ $ $ Review of Draft GSP Regulations $ 22,427 $ $ $ $ $ $ Assess GSP Level of Effort (for Budgeting) $ 38,220 $ $ $ $ $ $ Basin Boundary Line Adjustment Actions (Protest, Submittal) $ 24,508 $ 4,431 $ $ $ $ $ GSA Formation (i.e., participation in stakeholder activities, on going meetings) $ 12,154 $ 33,643 $ 1,764 $ $ $ $ Intra and Inter Basin GSA Coordination Agreements $ $ 6,268 $ 26,476 $ 3,177 $ $ $ JPA Updates $ 8,633 $ 14,800 $ 2,467 $ $ $ $ Federal and State Grant Proposals $ 1,327 $ 3,982 $ 3,982 $ 3,982 $ 664 $ $ Alternative Development and Stakeholder Processes $ $ 152,340 $ 59,550 $ 52,448 $ $ $ Alt to GSP Development, 5 Year Updates $ $ 8,800 $ 34,720 $ 47,077 $ 184,308 $ 180,259 $ 32,533 GSA Facilities Planning, Coordination, CEQA, CIP $ $ $ $ $ 16,856 $ 76,878 $ 85,486 GSP Monitoring, Data Management, Annual Reporting ( $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Subtotal $ 116,608 $ 240,384 $ 128,958 $ 106,684 $ 201,827 $ 257,137 $ 118,019 Totals $ 406,159 $ 718,723 $ 512,067 $ 538,610 $ 584,920 $ 640,230 $ 485,732 6/8/

57 6/2/2016 Estimated Costs (2015 Dollars) $70,000 $60,000 Estimated Costs ($/month) $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $ Alternative Plan Staffing Planned Efforts Recurring Tasks General Business Stakeholder Process/Data Gaps/SGMA Monitoring Reporting 6/8/ /1/2015 2/1/2016 6/1/ /1/2016 2/1/2017 6/1/ /1/2017 2/1/2018 6/1/ /1/2018 2/1/2019 6/1/ /1/2019 2/1/2020 6/1/ /1/2020 2/1/2021 6/1/ /1/2021 2/1/2022 6/1/ /1/ All Costs in 2015 Dollars Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) Example = 1 FTE Fixed: Accounting/IT/Finance Support at half Position 2015/ / /20 Exec Director 6/8/2016 Senior Engr (Contract) Hydrogeologist (Contract) Assoc/Asst Civil/Tech Counsel 12 Total FTEs

58 6/2/2016 Forecast Estimated Level of Effort and Costs Establish Finance Model Assumptions Finance Model Assumptions 6/8/ Minimum Operating Expenses ($MOEs) $MOEs are independent of groundwater usage SGMA compliance, now the law, increases $MOEs Keeping SCGA s Doors Open $MOEs = General Business + Recurring Tasks Total Contributions Connection + Base $MOEs Usage Base 6/8/2016 $MOEs Recurring Tasks General Business Connection $MOEs 14 7

59 6/2/2016 Updated Model Assumptions All Members contribute some base minimum annual amount Member water purveyors provide a retail water connection contribution Ag and Ag Res groundwater usage reduction accounts for only the amount of water removed from basin Only JPA Members are asked to contribute Rates maintained to be proportional to SGA Finance Model No Inflationary Increases 6/8/ Model Assumptions, Continued Minimum fund balance = 6 months of expense, or 20% of operating expenses, whichever is greater Contributions occur during July Sept of each year Overall contributions remain constant over model period 6/8/

60 6/2/2016 Forecast Estimated Level of Effort and Costs Establish Finance Model Assumptions Determine Contribution Requirements Determine Contribution Requirements 6/8/ Calibration and Constraints Reserve Balance 6/8/

61 6/2/2016 Member Contributions Agency Base (Minimum Annual Contribution) Retail Water Connections (Provided by Member Agencies) SCGA Member Contributions Connection ($MCC or Calculated Connection) Calculated Average Adjusted Groundwater Usage Amount (Acre Feet) Usage Proposed FY Total Estimated Contributions City of Folsom $ 20,000 19,434 $ 17,001 $ $ 37,001 City of Rancho Cordova $ 20,000 $ $ 20,000 City of Sacramento $ 20,000 57,052 $ 42,205 1,000 $ 3,110 $ 65,315 City of Elk Grove $ 20,000 $ $ 20,000 County of Sacramento/ SCWA $ 20,000 49,792 $ 37,341 21,211 $ 65,965 $ 123,306 FRCD/Elk Grove Water District $ 10,000 12,159 $ 12,127 4,237 $ 13,176 $ 35,303 Rancho Murieta CSD $ 10,000 1,800 $ 8,000 $ $ 18,000 Cal Am Water Company $ 10,000 31,350 $ 24,985 17,169 $ 53,396 $ 88,381 Golden State Water Company $ 10,000 14,839 $ 13,922 5,594 $ 17,396 $ 41,319 Omochumne Hartnell Water District $ 10,000 0 $ $ $ 10,000 SRCSD $ 10,000 $ $ $ 10,000 Ag Interests $ 10,000 $ 15,066 $ 46,855 $ 56,856 Ag Res Interests $ 10,000 $ 2,436 $ 7,576 $ 17,576 Comm/Industrial Self Supplied $ 10,000 $ $ $ 10,000 Public Agency Self Supplied $ 10,000 $ $ $ 10,000 Conservation Land Owners $ 10,000 $ $ $ 10, TOTALS $ 210, ,426 $ 155,580 66,713 $ 207,475 $ 573,057 Percent of Total Annual 37% 27% 36% 6/8/2016 Test for Minimum Operating Expenses ($MOEs) Check for 5 Year Avg $MOEs vs. Contributions General Business + Recurring Costs = 66% Base + Connection = 64% Usage 36% Base 37% 6/8/2016 Connection 27% 20 10

62 6/2/2016 Summary Packet 6/8/ /8/

63 6/2/2016 6/8/ /8/

64 6/2/2016 6/8/ /8/

65 6/2/2016 End of Presentation 6/8/

66 AGENDA ITEM 5: AMEND SECTION 5.22 OF THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES TO REFLECT ADJUSTMENT TO MEMBER ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS BACKGROUND: Section 5.22 of the Authority s Policies and Procedures details, in part, the initial funding methodology for the Authority. With the adoption of the new funding methodology for the Authority paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section are no longer required. Staff recommends that paragraphs (e) and (f) of Section 5.22 of the Authority s Policies and Procedures be deleted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the proposed Resolution for changes to Section 5.22 of the Authority s Policies and Procedures deleting paragraphs (e) and (f). SCGA Agenda

67 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION AMENDING SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL RULES OF PROCEDURE POLICY NUMBER CHAPTER 5, ARTICLE 2, SECTION 5.22 WHEREAS, the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority Policies and Procedures Manual Rules of Procedure Policy Number Chapter 1, Article 2, Section 1.25 identifies that changes to the Rules of Procedure shall be by resolution; WHEREAS, changes to annual contribution amounts of Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority members necessitate amendment to Chapter 5, Article 2, Section 5.22 of the Rules of Procedure in the manner identified in Exhibit A, attached hereto; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the SCGA Board of Directors: 1. Amends the Chapter 5, Article 2, Section 5.22 of the Rules of Procedure in the manner identified in Exhibit A, attached hereto. ON A MOTION by Director, and seconded by Director, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Board of Directors of SCGA this 8th day of June, 2016, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: Directors, Directors, RECUSAL: Directors, (PER POLITICAL REFORM ACT ( ) ABSENT: Directors, ABSTAIN: Directors, Chair of the Board of Directors of the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority, a duly formed Joint Powers Authority (SEAL) ATTEST: Clerk of the Board of Directors of the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority

68 Policies and Procedures 5.22 Strikethrough Version

69 CHAPTER 5. FINANCE ARTICLE 1. BUDGET 5.01 Establishment of Budget (a) Prior to the commencement of each fiscal year, the Board shall adopt a budget for the Authority for the ensuing fiscal year. (b) The Executive Director shall present to the Board a proposed budget no later than the last regularly scheduled meeting before the commencement of the ensuing fiscal year. (c) The Board shall direct that a copy of the budget be filed with the Controller within a reasonable time after adoption. (d) The Executive Director shall recommend modifications of the budget to the Board if the approved budget is inadequate due to events occurring subsequent to the approval of the budget. The Board shall consider the recommended modifications and shall vote to adopt the amended budget as it deems appropriate. The amended budget shall be filed with the Controller within a reasonable time after adoption. (e) The Executive Director shall implement the budgets and amended budgets approved by the Board. Expenditures of the Authority shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article 3 of this Chapter. (f) The fiscal year for the Authority is July 1 through June 30. (g) The Board shall maintain a reserve for operation expenses at a minimum of twenty (20) percent of the projected annual expenditures. Said reserve will be taken from the prior year fund balance and shall be used to meet Authority operating expenses until contributions as set forth in Article 2 of this Chapter have been received. ARTICLE 2. ASSESSMENTS, FEES, AND CHARGES 5.21 General Assessments, fees and charges shall be approved, levied, collected and spent consistent with these Rules and all applicable laws and constitutional limitations Adoption of Assessments, Fees and Charges (a) The Board shall establish assessments, fees, and/or charges sufficient to recover the costs of services provided by the Authority. Assessments, fees, and charges shall not exceed the reasonable cost of the services provided. 18

70 (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) The Board shall conduct at least one public meeting and one public hearing prior to adopting or increasing an assessment, fee, or charge. Notice of the meeting and hearing shall be provided as specified in these Rules of Procedure and as required by law. Prior to adopting or increasing an assessment, fee, or charge, the Board shall make a finding that the proposed assessment, fee, or charge is reasonable in relation to the services provided and the costs of those services. The finding shall be adopted by resolution of the Board. The Board shall review its assessments, fees, or charges annually, and shall modify such assessments, fees and charges consistent with the findings made in the Board's annual review. The Authority shall be initially funded as follows: (1) An annual contribution by the Cities of Elk Grove, Folsom, Rancho Cordova and Sacramento and the County of Sacramento in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) each. (These entities shall not be required to pay any additional fee or assessment, such as that described in subsection (e)(2) below.) (2) An annual contribution by each of those water purveyors represented on the Board, other than those listed in subsection (e)(1) above, that purvey surface water in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000.00). (3) An annual contribution by each of those water purveyors represented on the Board, other than those entities listed in subsection (e)(1) above, that utilize groundwater, calculated at the rate of two dollars and seven cents ($2.07) per acre foot of groundwater pumped from the basin, averaged over the three (3) previous years and excluding the first five thousand (5000) acre feet pumped in each of those years. (4) An annual contribution by agriculture computed at twenty five percent (25 %) of the estimated annual pumping (as determined by the Sacramento County Water Agency) at the rate of two dollars and seven cents ($2.07) per acre foot and paid out of Sacramento County Water Agency (SCWA) Zone 13 funds. (5) An annual contribution by agricultural/residential groundwater users computed at twenty five percent (25%) of the estimated annual pumping (as determined by SCWA) at the rate of two dollars and seven cents ($2.07) per acre foot and paid out of SCWA Zone 13 funds. (6) All annual funds shall be paid by July 1 of each year, commencing on July 1, The annual fee for the first year after the effective date of the JPA shall be prorated from the last signatory approval establishing the Authority. The Board of the Authority may, at its discretion, adjust the funding contributions set forth in subsection (e) above, subject to compliance with the voting requirements prescribed in section 3.13 subsection (d) above Adoption of Assessments, Fees and Charges for Water Costs (a) The Board shall establish, approve, levy, and collect assessments, fees and/or charges for Water Costs incurred by the Authority. Consistent with applicable 19

71 Policies and Procedures 5.22 Clean Version

72 EXHIBIT A CHAPTER 5. FINANCE ARTICLE 1. BUDGET 5.01 Establishment of Budget (a) Prior to the commencement of each fiscal year, the Board shall adopt a budget for the Authority for the ensuing fiscal year. (b) The Executive Director shall present to the Board a proposed budget no later than the last regularly scheduled meeting before the commencement of the ensuing fiscal year. (c) The Board shall direct that a copy of the budget be filed with the Controller within a reasonable time after adoption. (d) The Executive Director shall recommend modifications of the budget to the Board if the approved budget is inadequate due to events occurring subsequent to the approval of the budget. The Board shall consider the recommended modifications and shall vote to adopt the amended budget as it deems appropriate. The amended budget shall be filed with the Controller within a reasonable time after adoption. (e) The Executive Director shall implement the budgets and amended budgets approved by the Board. Expenditures of the Authority shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article 3 of this Chapter. (f) The fiscal year for the Authority is July 1 through June 30. (g) The Board shall maintain a reserve for operation expenses at a minimum of twenty (20) percent of the projected annual expenditures. Said reserve will be taken from the prior year fund balance and shall be used to meet Authority operating expenses until contributions as set forth in Article 2 of this Chapter have been received. ARTICLE 2. ASSESSMENTS, FEES, AND CHARGES 5.21 General Assessments, fees and charges shall be approved, levied, collected and spent consistent with these Rules and all applicable laws and constitutional limitations Adoption of Assessments, Fees and Charges (a) The Board shall establish assessments, fees, and/or charges sufficient to recover the costs of services provided by the Authority. Assessments, fees, and charges shall not exceed the reasonable cost of the services provided. 18

73 (b) (c) (d) The Board shall conduct at least one public meeting and one public hearing prior to adopting or increasing an assessment, fee, or charge. Notice of the meeting and hearing shall be provided as specified in these Rules of Procedure and as required by law. Prior to adopting or increasing an assessment, fee, or charge, the Board shall make a finding that the proposed assessment, fee, or charge is reasonable in relation to the services provided and the costs of those services. The finding shall be adopted by resolution of the Board. The Board shall review its assessments, fees, or charges annually, and shall modify such assessments, fees and charges consistent with the findings made in the Board's annual review Adoption of Assessments, Fees and Charges for Water Costs (a) (b) The Board shall establish, approve, levy, and collect assessments, fees and/or charges for Water Costs incurred by the Authority. Consistent with applicable law and constitutional limitations, the Board may establish, as it deems appropriate, specific formulas, categories and/or rates applicable to such assessments, fees or charges. Consistent with applicable law, constitutional limitations, and the Joint Powers Agreement, the Board may establish specific formulas, categories and/or rates for setting assessments, fees or charges necessary to create incentives and disincentives for the use or non-use of the groundwater resources within the boundaries of the Authority Variances from Assessments, Fees and Charges by the Authority In its discretion, and consistent with applicable law and constitutional limitations, the Board may establish procedures and criteria for issuing variances from assessments, fees and charges levied by the Authority Challenges to Assessments, Fees and Charges by the Authority In its discretion, and consistent with applicable law and constitutional limitations, the Board may establish procedures and administrative remedies governing challenges to assessments, fees and charges imposed and levied by the Authority Deposits ARTICLE 3. PURCHASING AND EXPENDITURES (a) The Authority shall establish one or more deposit accounts with State or national banks or savings associations upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon. The Chair and Treasurer shall establish or cause to be established such accounts in the name of the Authority for general fund expenditures. 19

74 AGENDA ITEM 6: SGMA SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT AND JPA AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATION BACKGROUND: At the April 21, 2016 SCGA Subcommittee meeting there was significant discussion regarding Florin Resource Conservation District/Elk Grove Water District s (FRCD/EGWD) proposal for a new Joint Powers Agreement. At that time FRCD/EGWD identified their three most important issues. These included 1) becoming a signatory to the JPA, 2) not requiring the approval of another agency for appointment to the Board, and 3) the ability for a designated employee to be appointed as a Board member. The subcommittee recognized that addressing item 1 was a significant undertaking that should be addressed by the Board at some point in the future. The subcommittee then tasked counsel for SCGA and FRCD/EGWD to analyze items 2 and 3 to determine if those changes could be codified into an amendment of the current JPA without compromising the powers of SCGA. Counsel reported back on their findings to the SGMA Subcommittee on May 16, After discussion, the SGMA Subcommittee recommends this Board consider the proposed JPA revision to allow a designated employee of the FRCD/EGWD, Omochumne-Hartnell Water District, and Rancho Murieta Community Services District to be appointed as a SCGA Board member. Minor additional revisions are included to correct verb tense for programs and projects that have already occurred. To be effective, the proposed Amended and Restated JPA will need to be approved and adopted by each of the five signatory governing bodies, and then filed with the Secretary of State and State Controller. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Action: Adopt the proposed Resolution recommending the governing bodies of the JPA signatories approve and execute a First Amended and Restated Joint Powers Agreement to broaden the eligibility for SCGA Board appointment for certain members. SCGA Agenda

75 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ELK GROVE, THE CITY OF FOLSOM, THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO AND THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO CREATING THE SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY WHEREAS, the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority ( SCGA ) was established on August 29, 2006 pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act (Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the California Government Code) by agreement of the County of Sacramento and the cities of Elk Grove, Folsom, Rancho Cordova, and Sacramento ( Parties ) to regulate groundwater by a collaborative process composed of stakeholders in the Central Sacramento County Groundwater Basin ( Central Basin ) and to develop and implement a groundwater management plan ( GMP ) to promote the use of groundwater resources within the Central Basin for agricultural and municipal and industrial uses in the public interest and for the common benefit of all water users within the County of Sacramento ( Agreement ); and WHEREAS, the Agreement identifies SCGA s governing body as a Board of Directors of sixteen (16) members representing various public agencies and interests; and, WHEREAS, SCGA desires to amend and restate the Agreement to modify its governing board membership eligibility; and, WHEREAS, any amendment of the Agreement requires the affirmative vote of all governing bodies of the Parties; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the SCGA Board of Directors: 1. Recommends that the governing bodies of the Parties consider and approve the First Amended and Restated Joint Powers Agreement Between the City of Elk Grove, the City of Folsom, the City of Rancho Cordova, the City of Sacramento, and the County of Sacramento Creating the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority ( First Amended and Restated Agreement ), in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 1; and 2. Directs the Executive Director of SCGA, if requested, to assist in presentation of the First Amended and Restated Agreement to the governing bodies of the Parties.

76 Page 2 ON A MOTION by Director, and seconded by Director, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Board of Directors of SCGA this 8th day of June, 2016, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: Directors, Directors, RECUSAL: Directors, (PER POLITICAL REFORM ACT ( ) ABSENT: Directors, ABSTAIN: Directors, Chair of the Board of Directors of the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority, a duly formed Joint Powers Authority (SEAL) ATTEST: Clerk of the Board of Directors of the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority

77 STRIKETHROUGH VERSION FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ELK GROVE, THE CITY OF FOLSOM, THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO AND THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO CREATING THE SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY This First Amended and Restated Joint Powers Agreement ( First Amended and Restated Agreement ) by and between the City of Elk Grove, a municipal corporation, the City of Folsom, a municipal corporation, the City of Rancho Cordova, a municipal corporation, the City of Sacramento, a municipal corporation, and the County of Sacramento, a political subdivision of the State of California (collectively the Parties ) is made and entered into this day of, 2016, and supersedes the original Joint Powers Agreement dated August 29, RECITALS WHEREAS, each of the Parties to this First Amended and Restated Agreement is a local government entity functioning within the County of Sacramento; and WHEREAS, the Parties entered into a Joint Powers Agreement dated August 29, 2006 ( Agreement ) pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act (Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the California Government Code) to establish the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority ( Authority ) and jointly exercise any power held in common by the agencies entering into such an Agreement; and WHEREAS, each of the Parties hereto has under its police power the authority to regulate groundwater; and WHEREAS, the Parties are cognizant of the process commonly referred to as the Sacramento Area Water Forum ( Water Forum ) and of the Water Forum Agreement ( WFA ); and WHEREAS, the WFA provided for the creation of a collaborative process composed of stakeholders in the Central Sacramento County Groundwater Basin (then known as the South

78 Basin) to develop a groundwater management plan ( GMP ) for the basin and make recommendations on how and by whom the basin should be managed and the GMP implemented; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of the WFA, the Sacramento Area Water Forum Successor Effort convened such a collaborative process, known as the Central Sacramento County Groundwater Forum ( CSCGF ); and WHEREAS, the CSCGF has completed its work on the GMP and recommended the establishment of a joint powers authority to manage the basin and implement the plan; and WHEREAS, the Parties hereto find that it is to their mutual advantage and benefit, and in the public interest, to establish such an authority pursuant to this Agreement in order to implement the GMP developed by the CSCGF; and WHEREAS, the Parties hereto find and declare that the conservation of groundwater resources within the Central Basin for agricultural and municipal and industrial uses is in the public interest and for the common benefit of all water users within the County of Sacramento; and WHEREAS, one of the primary purposes of the joint powers authority established pursuant to the Agreement is to maintain the sustainable yield of the Central Basin as set forth in the GMP; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Parties hereto to use the groundwater management powers which they have in common that are necessary and appropriate to further the purposes for which the joint powers authority is established; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire amend and restate the Agreement to incorporate changes to the Authority s governing board membership eligibility; 2

79 WHEREAS, the amendment of the Agreement requires the affirmative vote of all governing bodies of the Parties; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, terms, conditions, and covenants contained herein, the City of Elk Grove, the City of Folsom, the City of Rancho Cordova, and the City of Sacramento and the County of Sacramento hereby agree as follows: 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. Definitions. As used in this First Amended and Restated Agreement, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings set forth below unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. (a) Authority shall mean the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority that is established pursuant to the Joint Powers Act, the Agreement, and this First Amended and Restated Agreement. (b) Conjunctive use shall mean the planned management and use of both groundwater and surface water in order to maintain the sustainable yield of the Central Basin. (c) Central Basin shall mean the groundwater basin underlying the area within the boundaries of the Authority. (d) Sustainable yield shall mean the amount of groundwater which can be safely extracted from the Central Basin on an estimated average annual basis while maintaining groundwater elevations and groundwater quality at acceptable levels as set forth in the Groundwater Management Plan. Sustainable yield requires a balance between extraction and basin recharge and is expressed as the number of acre feet of groundwater per year 3

80 which can be extracted from the Central Basin on an average annual basis as set forth in the GMP. (e) Conservation land owner shall mean a non-profit land trust holding a fee or easement interest in two thousand five hundred (2500) acres or more of land located within the boundaries of the Authority, as defined in Section 4 below. (f) Annual pumping for purposes of determining assessments, fees or charges for management and operations of the Authority shall mean the total amount of groundwater produced within the boundaries of the Authority by each retail provider, by agricultural interests, by agricultural-residential groundwater users, by commercial/industrial selfsupplied groundwater users and by public agency self-supplied groundwater users, for use within the boundaries of the Authority and other areas approved by the Authority s Board of Directors excluding the first five thousand (5000) acre-feet of groundwater pumping by each such user. (g) GMP means the Central Sacramento Groundwater Management Plan produced by the Central Sacramento County Groundwater Forum and dated February Purpose. This First Amended and Restated Agreement is being entered into in order to establish a joint powers authority for the following purposes: (a) (b) to maintain the long-term sustainable yield of the Central Basin; to ensure implementation of the Basin Management Objectives that are prescribed by the GMP; (c) to oversee the operation of any Well Protection Program that may be prescribed by the GMP; (d) to manage the use of groundwater in the Central Basin and facilitate implementation of an appropriate conjunctive use program by water purveyors; 4

81 (e) to coordinate efforts among those entities represented on the governing body of the joint powers authority to devise and implement strategies to safeguard groundwater quality; and (f) to work collaboratively with other entities, including the Sacramento Groundwater Authority, the Southeast Sacramento County Agriculture Water Authority and other groundwater management authorities that may be formed in the County of Sacramento and adjacent political jurisdictions, in order to promote coordination of policies and activities throughout the region. 4. Establishment Of The Authority. There is hereby established pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act a joint powers authority which shall be a public entity separate from the parties to this First Amended and Restated Agreement. The name of such entity shall be the Central Sacramento Basin Groundwater Authority. The boundaries of the Authority shall be as follows: on the north, the boundary shall be the American River; bounded on the south by the southern boundary of the Omochumne-Hartnell Water District; on the west by the Sacramento River and Interstate 5 and on the east by the Sacramento El Dorado County line, as further and more precisely depicted in the boundary map, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. 5. Membership Of The Governing Board. The governing body of the Authority shall be a Board of Directors of sixteen (16) members consisting of the following representatives who shall be appointed in the manner set forth in Section 7 of this First Amended and Restated Agreement: (a) An elected member of the governing board or designated employee of each of the following public agencies: the City of Elk Grove, the City of Folsom, the City of Rancho 5

82 Cordova, the City of Sacramento, the County of Sacramento and the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District. (b) An elected member of the governing board or designated employee of each of the following public agencies: the Florin Resource Conservation District/Elk Grove Water Service, the Omochumne-Hartnell Water District, and the Rancho Murieta Community Services District. (c) A member of the board of directors, or designee thereof, of each of the following private water purveyors or investor owned utilities the California-American Water Company, and the Golden State Water Company. (d) (e) One representative of agricultural interests within the boundaries of the Authority. One representative of agriculture-residential groundwater users within the boundaries of the Authority. (f) One representative of commercial/industrial self-supplied groundwater users within the boundaries of the Authority. (g) (h) One representative of conservation landowners within the boundaries of the Authority. One representative of public agencies that are self-supplied groundwater users within the boundaries of the Authority. 6. Adjustment To Composition Of Governing Board. Should circumstances change in the future, any person or entity may petition the parties hereto to amend this First Amended and Restated Agreement so as to add or delete representatives to the governing board to accurately reflect groundwater production within the boundaries of the Authority. 7. Appointment Of Members Of Governing Board. (a) The members of the governing board of the Authority shall be appointed as follows: 6

83 (i) The City of Elk Grove representative shall be appointed by the Elk Grove City Council. (ii) The City of Folsom representative shall be appointed by the Folsom City Council. (iii) The City of Rancho Cordova representative shall be appointed by the Rancho Cordova City Council. (iv) The City of Sacramento representative shall be appointed by the Sacramento City Council. (v) The County of Sacramento representative shall be appointed by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors ( Board ). (vi) The Florin Resource Conservation District/Elk Grove Water Service representative shall be appointed by the Elk Grove City Council. (vii) The Golden State Water Company representative shall be appointed by the Rancho Cordova City Council. (viii) The California-American Water Company representative shall be appointed by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors. (ix) In addition to the representative of the County of Sacramento provided for in Section 7 (a)(v), the following representatives shall be appointed by the Board: 1. Agricultural interests. After considering the nomination by the Sacramento County Farm Bureau, as required by sub-section (b) of this Section, the Board shall appoint the representative of agricultural interests. 7

84 2. Agriculture-residential groundwater users. After considering the nomination by the Vineyard Community Advisory Council in consultation with adjacent Councils within the Central Basin, as required by sub-section (b) of this Section, the Board shall appoint the representative of agricultural/ residential groundwater users. 3. Commercial/industrial self-supplied groundwater users. After considering the joint nomination by the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and the Building Industry Association in consultation with commercial/industrial self-supplied groundwater users and business organizations that are signatories to the Water Forum Agreement, as required by sub-section (b) of this Section, the Board shall appoint the representative of commercial/industrial self-supplied groundwater users. 4. Conservation landowners. After considering the nomination by conservation landowners holding a fee or easement interest in two thousand five hundred (2500) acres or more within the Central Basin in consultation with environmental and community organizations that are signatories to the Water Forum Agreement, as required by sub-section (b) of this Section, the Board shall appoint the representative of conservation land owners. 5. Omochumne-Hartnell Water District. After considering the nomination by the Omochmne-Hartnell Board of Directors, as required by sub-section (b) of this Section, the Board shall appoint the representative of the Omochumne-Hartnell Water District. 8

85 6. Public agencies that are self-supplied groundwater users. After considering the nomination by the Southgate Recreation and Park District in consultation with other public agencies which are selfsupplied groundwater users, as required by sub-section (b) of this Section, the Board shall appoint the representative of public agencies that are self-supplied groundwater users. 7. Rancho Murieta Community Services District. After considering the nomination by the Rancho Murieta Community Services District, as required by sub-section (b) of this Section 7, the Board shall appoint the representative of the Rancho Murieta Community Services District. 8. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District. After considering the nomination by the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District, as required by sub-section (b) of this Section, the Board shall appoint the representative of the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District. (b) Prior to the appointment of the representatives of the entities described in subsections (a)(vi) through (a)(ix) above, those entities shall submit a recommended appointment for their respective representatives to the appointing authority identified in subsections (a)(vi) through (a)(ix) of this Section 7. The appointing authority shall give consideration to such recommendations, but shall retain the absolute discretion to appoint any person satisfying the criteria for appointment set forth in Section 5 of this Agreement. 8. Governing Board Voting Requirements. 9

86 (a) Each member of the governing board of the Authority shall have one vote. With the exception of fiscal items as set forth in subsections (b) and (c) below, an affirmative vote by a majority of all members of the governing board is required to approve any item related to implementation of the Groundwater Management Plan. (b) Fiscal items, including, but not limited to, approval of the annual budget of the Authority and any expenditures, shall require an affirmative vote by a majority of all the members of the governing board that includes affirmative votes by all of the representatives of the Cities of Elk Grove, Folsom, Rancho Cordova and Sacramento and the County of Sacramento. (c) Any change in annual contributions necessary to support the work of the Authority as set forth in subsection (d) below, shall require an affirmative vote of eleven of the sixteen members of the governing board that includes affirmative votes by all of the representatives of the Cities of Elk Grove, Folsom, Rancho Cordova and Sacramento and the County of Sacramento. (d) The Authority shall was initially be funded as follows: (i) An annual contribution by the Cities of Elk Grove, Folsom, Rancho Cordova and Sacramento and the County of Sacramento in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) each. (These entities shall not be required to pay any additional fee or assessment, such as that described in subsection (d)(ii) below.) (ii) An annual contribution by each of those water purveyors represented on the Governing Board, other than the entities listed in subsection (d)(i) above, that purvey surface water in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000.00). 10

87 (iii) An annual contribution by each of those water purveyors represented on the Governing Board, other than the entities listed in subsection (d)(i) above, that utilize groundwater, calculated at the rate of two dollars and seven cents ($2.07) per acre foot of groundwater pumped from the basin, averaged over the three previous years and excluding the first five thousand (5000) acre feet pumped in each of those years. (iv) An annual contribution by agriculture computed at twenty five percent (25%) of the estimated annual pumping (as determined by the Sacramento County Water Agency) at the rate of two dollars and seven cents ($2.07) per acre foot and paid out of SCWA Zone 13 funds. (v) An annual contribution by agriculture/residential groundwater users computed at twenty five percent (25%) of the estimated annual pumping (as determined by the Sacramento County Water Agency) at the rate of two dollars and seven cents ($2.07) per acre foot and paid out of SCWA Zone 13 funds. (vi) All annual funds shall be paid by July 1 of each year, commencing on July 1, The annual fee for the first year after the effective date of the Agreement shall be prorated from the date of the last signatory approval establishing the Authority. (e) The governing board of the Authority may, at its discretion, adjust the funding contributions set forth in sub-section (d) above, subject to compliance with the voting requirements prescribed in sub-section (c) above. 11

88 9. Quorum. A majority of the members of the governing board shall constitute a quorum for purposes of transacting business, except less than a quorum may vote to adjourn a meeting. 10. Terms Of Office. With the exception of the initial term of the representatives appointed by the County of Sacramento as described in Section 7 (a)(ix), the term of office of each member of the governing board the Authority shall be for a period of four (4) years. For the purpose of providing staggered terms of office, the term of the initial representatives appointed by the County of Sacramento as described in Section 7 (a)(ix) shall be for a period of two (2) years. Thereafter, the term of office of each representative appointed by the County of Sacramento as described in Section 7 (a)(ix) shall be for a period of four (4) years. Each member of the governing board shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing body and may be removed as a member of the governing board by the appointing body at any time. If at any time a vacancy occurs on the governing board, a replacement shall be appointed to fill the unexpired term of the previous representative pursuant to the provisions of Section 7 of this First Amended and Restated Agreement within ninety (90) days of the date that such position becomes vacant. 11. Alternates. The City of Elk Grove, the City of Folsom, the City of Rancho Cordova, the City of Sacramento and the County of Sacramento, in addition to their regular appointments, shall appoint one or more persons with the required qualifications to serve as alternate members of the governing board of the Authority. The other entities described in Section 7 (a) (vi) through (a) (ix), which may nominate their respective representatives, may also nominate one or more persons with the required qualifications to serve as alternate members of the governing board of the Authority and such alternates shall be appointed pursuant to the procedure for regular appointments set forth in Section 7(b) of this First Amended and Restated Agreement. Any such alternates who are appointed as alternates by the appointing authorities 12

89 specified in Section 7(a)(vi) through (a)(ix) shall be empowered to cast votes in the absence of the regular members or, in the event of a conflict of interest preventing the regular member from voting, to vote because of such a conflict of interest. 12. Organization Of The Authority. The governing board of the Authority shall elect a chair, a vice chair and such other officers as the governing board shall find appropriate. Such officers shall serve for a term of one (1) year unless sooner terminated at the pleasure of the governing board. 13. Treasurer, Controller, Clerk and Legal Counsel. (a) The County of Sacramento Director of Finance shall act as treasurer and controller for the Authority. The controller of the Authority shall cause an independent annual audit of the Authority s finances to be made by a certified public accountant in compliance with Government Code Section The treasurer of the Authority shall be the depositor and shall have custody of all money of the Authority from whatever source. The controller of the Authority shall draw warrants to pay demands against the Authority when the demands have been approved by the Authority or by its authorized representative pursuant to any delegation of authority adopted by the Authority. The treasurer and controller shall comply strictly with the provisions of statutes relating to their duties found in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code. (b) The governing board of the Authority shall appoint a clerk and legal counsel as it deems appropriate. 14. Executive Director. The governing board of the Authority, with the concurrence of the Sacramento County Water Agency, shall appoint an Executive Director who shall be responsible to the governing board for the proper and efficient administration of the Authority as directed by the governing board pursuant to the provisions of this First Amended and Restated 13

90 Agreement or of any ordinance, resolution or order of the governing board. In addition to any other duties which may be assigned, the Executive Director shall have the following authority: (a) under the policy direction of the governing board, to plan, organize and direct all Authority activities; (b) to authorize expenditures within the designations and limitations of the budget approved by the governing board; (c) to make recommendations to and requests of the governing board concerning any matter which is to be performed, done or carried out by the governing board; (d) to have the authority to appoint, discipline, assign and otherwise supervise and control the activities of any employees or contractors which may be hired or retained by the Authority; and (e) to have charge of, handle and have access to any property of the Authority. 15. Meetings. The Authority shall provide for regular and special meetings in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code) or with any successor provision. 16. Minutes. The clerk appointed by the governing body of the Authority shall cause to be kept minutes of all meetings of the governing board, and shall cause a copy of such minutes to be forwarded to each member of the governing board and to the chief administrative officer of each of the signatory agencies. 17. Powers and Functions. (a) The Authority shall have no power to regulate land use or to engage in the retail sale of water. (b) Subject to the limitations set forth in subsection (a), the Authority shall have any and all powers commonly held by the parties hereto necessary or appropriate to regulate 14

91 groundwater within the boundaries of the Authority including, but not limited to, the following powers: (i) Collect and monitor data on the extraction of groundwater from, and the quality of groundwater in, the Central Basin; (ii) Facilitate any Conjunctive Use program the purpose of which is to maintain the Sustainable yields in the Central Basin consistent with the GMP; (iii) Distribute water in exchange for ceasing or reducing groundwater extractions; (iv) (v) Spread, sink and inject water into the Central Basin; Store, transport, recapture, recycle, purify, treat or otherwise manage and control water for the beneficial use of persons and property within the Authority; (vi) Study and plan ways and means to implement any or all of the foregoing powers. (c) For purposes of exercising the authority set forth in subsection (b), and subject to the limitations set forth in subsection (a), the Authority shall have the following corporate and political powers: (i) To sue and be sued in all actions and proceedings in all courts and tribunals. (ii) (iii) To adopt a seal and alter it at its discretion. For the common benefit of the Authority, to store water in underground water basins or reservoirs within and outside the Authority, to appropriate water and acquire water rights within or outside the Authority, to import water into the Authority, and to conserve, or cause the conservation of, water within or outside the Authority. 15

92 (iv) To act jointly, or cooperate, with the Federal government or any agency thereof, the state, or any county or agency thereof, or any political subdivision or district therein, including flood control districts, private and public corporations, and any person, so that the powers of the Authority may be fully and economically exercised. (v) To cause taxes, assessments, fees or charges to be levied in accordance with applicable State law, and in a manner consistent with the GMP to accomplish the purposes of the Authority. (vi) To require the permitting of groundwater extraction facilities within the boundaries of the Authority, to maintain a record of extraction with respect to any such facilities, and to require the installation of meters on groundwater extraction facilities for the purpose of determining the amount of groundwater being extracted from the Central Basin. (vii) To make contracts, employ labor and to do all acts necessary for the full exercise of the Authority s powers. (viii) To carry on technical and other investigations of all kinds necessary to further the purposes of the Authority. (ix) To fix rates at which water acquired by the Authority shall be sold for replenishment purposes, and to establish different rates for different classes of service or conditions of service, provided that the rates shall be uniform for like classes and conditions of service. (x) To participate in any contract under which producers may voluntarily agree to use surface water in lieu of groundwater, and to that end the Authority may become a party to the contract and pay from Authority funds that portion of 16

93 the cost of the surface water as will encourage the purchase and use of that water in lieu of pumping so long as persons or property within the boundaries of the Authority are directly or indirectly benefitted by the resulting replenishment of the Central Basin. (xi) To apply for, accept and receive state, federal or local licenses, permits, grants, loans or other aid from any agency of the United States, the State of California, or other public or private entity necessary or appropriate for the Authority s full exercise of its powers. 18. Budgets. Within ninety (90) days after the first meeting of the governing board of the Authority, and thereafter prior to the commencement of each fiscal year (defined as July 1 through June 30), the governing board shall adopt a budget for the Authority for the ensuing fiscal year. 19. Adoption of the Central Sacramento County Groundwater Management Plan. Within sixty (60) days after the first meeting of the governing board of the Authority, the governing board shall considered for adoption the Central Sacramento County Groundwater Management Plan (CSCGMP) negotiated by the Central Sacramento County Groundwater Forum and dated February, The governing board of the Authority may revise the CSCGMP subsequent to its adoption as it deems appropriate. 20. Implementation of the Well Protection Program. In order to facilitate the implementation of the Well Protection Program described in the Central Sacramento County Groundwater Management Plan, within sixty (60) days after the first meeting of the governing board of the Authority, the governing board shall submitted to each of the entities who are signatories to the Agreement, and who have land use authority for areas within the boundaries of 17

94 the Authority where new development will or may be served by groundwater, a draft Well Protection Plan ordinance to consider for adoption. 21. Termination. This First Amended and Restated Agreement shall remain in effect until terminated by one of the parties hereto pursuant to this section. This First Amended and Restated Agreement may be terminated by any of the parties hereto at any time and for any reason by providing ninety (90) days written notice of termination to the other parties. 22. Disposition Of Authority Assets Upon Termination. (a) In the event of the termination of the Authority where there will be a successor public entity which will carry on the functions of the Authority and assume its assets, the assets of the Authority shall be transferred to the successor public entity. (b) If there is no successor public entity which will carry on the functions of the Authority and assume its assets, the assets shall be returned to the parties hereto in proportion to the contribution of each party during the term of this First Amended and Restated Agreement. (c) If there is a successor public entity which will carry on some of the functions of the Authority and assume some of its assets, the assets of the Authority shall be allocated by the governing board of the Authority between the successor public entity and the parties hereto. 23. Liabilities. The debts, liabilities and obligations of the Authority shall be the debts, liabilities and obligations of the Authority alone, and not of the parties to this First Amended and Restated Agreement. 24. Rules. The governing board of the Authority may adopt from time to time such rules and regulations for the conduct of its affairs as it deems necessary and appropriate. 18

95 25. Effective Date. This First Amended and Restated Agreement shall become effective when the governing bodies of all of the parties shall have authorized its execution. 26. Amendments. This First Amended and Restated Agreement may only be amended by the affirmative vote of the governing bodies of all of the parties hereto. 28. Liberal Construction. The provisions of this First Amended and Restated Agreement shall be liberally construed as necessary or reasonably convenient to achieve the purposes of the Authority. 29. Liability of Board, Officers and Employees. (a) The members of the Board, officers, and employees of the Authority shall use ordinary care and reasonable diligence in the exercise of their powers, and in the performance of their duties pursuant to this First Amended and Restated Agreement. They shall not be liable to the parties to this First Amended and Restated Agreement for of any mistake of judgment or other action made, taken, or omitted by them in good faith, nor for any action made, taken, or omitted by any agent, employee, or independent contractor selected with reasonable care, nor for loss incurred through the investment of the Authority s funds, or failure to invest the same. (b) To the extent authorized by California law, no member of the Board, officer, or employee of the Authority shall be responsible for any action made, taken, or omitted, by any other member of the Board, officer, or employee. No member of the Board, officer, or employee of the Authority shall be required to give a bond or other security to guarantee the faithful performance of his or her duties pursuant to this First Amended and Restated Agreement. (c) The funds of the Authority shall be used to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Authority and any member of the Board, officer, or employee of the Authority for 19

96 actions taken in good faith and within the scope of his or her authority. Nothing herein shall limit the right of the Authority to purchase insurance or to create a self-insurance mechanism to provide coverage for the foregoing indemnity. 30. Notices. Any notices to the parties required by this First Amended and Restated Agreement shall be delivered or mailed, United States Mail first class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: CITY OF ELK GROVE CITY OF FOLSOM 8380 Laguna Palms Way 50 Natoma Street Elk Grove, CA Folsom, CA Attn: City Engineer Attn: Director of Utilities CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA CITY OF SACRAMENTO 2729 Prospect Park Drive th Ave Rancho Cordova, CA Sacramento, CA Attn: Public Works Director Attn: Director, Department of Utilities COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO th Street, Rm 301 Sacramento, CA Attn: Director, Department of Water Resources Notices given under this First Amended and Restated Agreement shall be deemed to have been received at the earlier of actual receipt, or the second business day following deposit in the United States mail, as required above. Any party may amend its address for notice by notifying the other parties pursuant to this Section. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto execute this First Amended and Restated Agreement on the date first written above. 20

97 CITY OF ELK GROVE Dated: Attest: City Clerk By Mayor Approved As To Form: City Attorney CITY OF FOLSOM Dated: Attest: City Clerk By Mayor Approved As To Form: City Attorney CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA Dated: Attest: City Clerk By Mayor Approved As To Form: City Attorney CITY OF SACRAMENTO Dated: Attest: City Clerk By Mayor Approved As To Form: City Attorney 21

98 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO Dated: Attest: Clerk of the Board By Chairperson, Board of Supervisors Approved As To Form: County Counsel 22

99 Exhibit A

100 EXHIBIT 1 FINAL VERSION FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ELK GROVE, THE CITY OF FOLSOM, THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO AND THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO CREATING THE SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY This First Amended and Restated Joint Powers Agreement ( First Amended and Restated Agreement ) by and between the City of Elk Grove, a municipal corporation, the City of Folsom, a municipal corporation, the City of Rancho Cordova, a municipal corporation, the City of Sacramento, a municipal corporation, and the County of Sacramento, a political subdivision of the State of California (collectively the Parties ) is made and entered into this day of, 2016, and supersedes the original Joint Powers Agreement dated August 29, RECITALS WHEREAS, each of the Parties to this First Amended and Restated Agreement is a local government entity functioning within the County of Sacramento; and WHEREAS, the Parties entered into a Joint Powers Agreement dated August 29, 2006 ( Agreement ) pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act (Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the California Government Code) to establish the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority ( Authority ) and jointly exercise any power held in common by the agencies entering into such an Agreement; and WHEREAS, each of the Parties hereto has under its police power the authority to regulate groundwater; and WHEREAS, the Parties are cognizant of the process commonly referred to as the Sacramento Area Water Forum ( Water Forum ) and of the Water Forum Agreement ( WFA ); and WHEREAS, the WFA provided for the creation of a collaborative process composed of stakeholders in the Central Sacramento County Groundwater Basin (then known as the South

101 Basin) to develop a groundwater management plan ( GMP ) for the basin and make recommendations on how and by whom the basin should be managed and the GMP implemented; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of the WFA, the Sacramento Area Water Forum Successor Effort convened such a collaborative process, known as the Central Sacramento County Groundwater Forum ( CSCGF ); and WHEREAS, the CSCGF has completed its work on the GMP and recommended the establishment of a joint powers authority to manage the basin and implement the plan; and WHEREAS, the Parties hereto find that it is to their mutual advantage and benefit, and in the public interest, to establish such an authority pursuant to this Agreement in order to implement the GMP developed by the CSCGF; and WHEREAS, the Parties hereto find and declare that the conservation of groundwater resources within the Central Basin for agricultural and municipal and industrial uses is in the public interest and for the common benefit of all water users within the County of Sacramento; and WHEREAS, one of the primary purposes of the joint powers authority established pursuant to the Agreement is to maintain the sustainable yield of the Central Basin as set forth in the GMP; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Parties hereto to use the groundwater management powers which they have in common that are necessary and appropriate to further the purposes for which the joint powers authority is established; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire amend and restate the Agreement to incorporate changes to the Authority s governing board membership eligibility; 2

102 WHEREAS, the amendment of the Agreement requires the affirmative vote of all governing bodies of the Parties; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, terms, conditions, and covenants contained herein, the City of Elk Grove, the City of Folsom, the City of Rancho Cordova, and the City of Sacramento and the County of Sacramento hereby agree as follows: 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. Definitions. As used in this First Amended and Restated Agreement, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings set forth below unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. (a) Authority shall mean the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority that is established pursuant to the Joint Powers Act, the Agreement, and this First Amended and Restated Agreement. (b) Conjunctive use shall mean the planned management and use of both groundwater and surface water in order to maintain the sustainable yield of the Central Basin. (c) Central Basin shall mean the groundwater basin underlying the area within the boundaries of the Authority. (d) Sustainable yield shall mean the amount of groundwater which can be safely extracted from the Central Basin on an estimated average annual basis while maintaining groundwater elevations and groundwater quality at acceptable levels as set forth in the Groundwater Management Plan. Sustainable yield requires a balance between extraction and basin recharge and is expressed as the number of acre feet of groundwater per year 3

103 which can be extracted from the Central Basin on an average annual basis as set forth in the GMP. (e) Conservation land owner shall mean a non-profit land trust holding a fee or easement interest in two thousand five hundred (2500) acres or more of land located within the boundaries of the Authority, as defined in Section 4 below. (f) Annual pumping for purposes of determining assessments, fees or charges for management and operations of the Authority shall mean the total amount of groundwater produced within the boundaries of the Authority by each retail provider, by agricultural interests, by agricultural-residential groundwater users, by commercial/industrial selfsupplied groundwater users and by public agency self-supplied groundwater users, for use within the boundaries of the Authority and other areas approved by the Authority s Board of Directors excluding the first five thousand (5000) acre-feet of groundwater pumping by each such user. (g) GMP means the Central Sacramento Groundwater Management Plan produced by the Central Sacramento County Groundwater Forum and dated February Purpose. This First Amended and Restated Agreement is being entered into in order to establish a joint powers authority for the following purposes: (a) (b) to maintain the long-term sustainable yield of the Central Basin; to ensure implementation of the Basin Management Objectives that are prescribed by the GMP; (c) to oversee the operation of any Well Protection Program that may be prescribed by the GMP; (d) to manage the use of groundwater in the Central Basin and facilitate implementation of an appropriate conjunctive use program by water purveyors; 4

104 (e) to coordinate efforts among those entities represented on the governing body of the joint powers authority to devise and implement strategies to safeguard groundwater quality; and (f) to work collaboratively with other entities, including the Sacramento Groundwater Authority, the Southeast Sacramento County Agriculture Water Authority and other groundwater management authorities that may be formed in the County of Sacramento and adjacent political jurisdictions, in order to promote coordination of policies and activities throughout the region. 4. Establishment Of The Authority. There is hereby established pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act a joint powers authority which shall be a public entity separate from the parties to this First Amended and Restated Agreement. The name of such entity shall be the Central Sacramento Basin Groundwater Authority. The boundaries of the Authority shall be as follows: on the north, the boundary shall be the American River; bounded on the south by the southern boundary of the Omochumne-Hartnell Water District; on the west by the Sacramento River and Interstate 5 and on the east by the Sacramento El Dorado County line, as further and more precisely depicted in the boundary map, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. 5. Membership Of The Governing Board. The governing body of the Authority shall be a Board of Directors of sixteen (16) members consisting of the following representatives who shall be appointed in the manner set forth in Section 7 of this First Amended and Restated Agreement: (a) An elected member of the governing board or designated employee of each of the following public agencies: the City of Elk Grove, the City of Folsom, the City of Rancho 5

105 Cordova, the City of Sacramento, the County of Sacramento and the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District. (b) An elected member of the governing board or designated employee of each of the following public agencies: the Florin Resource Conservation District/Elk Grove Water Service, the Omochumne-Hartnell Water District, and the Rancho Murieta Community Services District. (c) A member of the board of directors, or designee thereof, of each of the following private water purveyors or investor owned utilities the California-American Water Company, and the Golden State Water Company. (d) (e) One representative of agricultural interests within the boundaries of the Authority. One representative of agriculture-residential groundwater users within the boundaries of the Authority. (f) One representative of commercial/industrial self-supplied groundwater users within the boundaries of the Authority. (g) (h) One representative of conservation landowners within the boundaries of the Authority. One representative of public agencies that are self-supplied groundwater users within the boundaries of the Authority. 6. Adjustment To Composition Of Governing Board. Should circumstances change in the future, any person or entity may petition the parties hereto to amend this First Amended and Restated Agreement so as to add or delete representatives to the governing board to accurately reflect groundwater production within the boundaries of the Authority. 7. Appointment Of Members Of Governing Board. (a) The members of the governing board of the Authority shall be appointed as follows: 6

106 (i) The City of Elk Grove representative shall be appointed by the Elk Grove City Council. (ii) The City of Folsom representative shall be appointed by the Folsom City Council. (iii) The City of Rancho Cordova representative shall be appointed by the Rancho Cordova City Council. (iv) The City of Sacramento representative shall be appointed by the Sacramento City Council. (v) The County of Sacramento representative shall be appointed by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors ( Board ). (vi) The Florin Resource Conservation District/Elk Grove Water Service representative shall be appointed by the Elk Grove City Council. (vii) The Golden State Water Company representative shall be appointed by the Rancho Cordova City Council. (viii) The California-American Water Company representative shall be appointed by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors. (ix) In addition to the representative of the County of Sacramento provided for in Section 7 (a)(v), the following representatives shall be appointed by the Board: 1. Agricultural interests. After considering the nomination by the Sacramento County Farm Bureau, as required by sub-section (b) of this Section, the Board shall appoint the representative of agricultural interests. 7

107 2. Agriculture-residential groundwater users. After considering the nomination by the Vineyard Community Advisory Council in consultation with adjacent Councils within the Central Basin, as required by sub-section (b) of this Section, the Board shall appoint the representative of agricultural/ residential groundwater users. 3. Commercial/industrial self-supplied groundwater users. After considering the joint nomination by the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and the Building Industry Association in consultation with commercial/industrial self-supplied groundwater users and business organizations that are signatories to the Water Forum Agreement, as required by sub-section (b) of this Section, the Board shall appoint the representative of commercial/industrial self-supplied groundwater users. 4. Conservation landowners. After considering the nomination by conservation landowners holding a fee or easement interest in two thousand five hundred (2500) acres or more within the Central Basin in consultation with environmental and community organizations that are signatories to the Water Forum Agreement, as required by sub-section (b) of this Section, the Board shall appoint the representative of conservation land owners. 5. Omochumne-Hartnell Water District. After considering the nomination by the Omochmne-Hartnell Board of Directors, as required by sub-section (b) of this Section, the Board shall appoint the representative of the Omochumne-Hartnell Water District. 8

108 6. Public agencies that are self-supplied groundwater users. After considering the nomination by the Southgate Recreation and Park District in consultation with other public agencies which are selfsupplied groundwater users, as required by sub-section (b) of this Section, the Board shall appoint the representative of public agencies that are self-supplied groundwater users. 7. Rancho Murieta Community Services District. After considering the nomination by the Rancho Murieta Community Services District, as required by sub-section (b) of this Section 7, the Board shall appoint the representative of the Rancho Murieta Community Services District. 8. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District. After considering the nomination by the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District, as required by sub-section (b) of this Section, the Board shall appoint the representative of the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District. (b) Prior to the appointment of the representatives of the entities described in subsections (a)(vi) through (a)(ix) above, those entities shall submit a recommended appointment for their respective representatives to the appointing authority identified in subsections (a)(vi) through (a)(ix) of this Section 7. The appointing authority shall give consideration to such recommendations, but shall retain the absolute discretion to appoint any person satisfying the criteria for appointment set forth in Section 5 of this Agreement. 8. Governing Board Voting Requirements. 9

109 (a) Each member of the governing board of the Authority shall have one vote. With the exception of fiscal items as set forth in subsections (b) and (c) below, an affirmative vote by a majority of all members of the governing board is required to approve any item related to implementation of the Groundwater Management Plan. (b) Fiscal items, including, but not limited to, approval of the annual budget of the Authority and any expenditures, shall require an affirmative vote by a majority of all the members of the governing board that includes affirmative votes by all of the representatives of the Cities of Elk Grove, Folsom, Rancho Cordova and Sacramento and the County of Sacramento. (c) Any change in annual contributions necessary to support the work of the Authority as set forth in subsection (d) below, shall require an affirmative vote of eleven of the sixteen members of the governing board that includes affirmative votes by all of the representatives of the Cities of Elk Grove, Folsom, Rancho Cordova and Sacramento and the County of Sacramento. (d) The Authority was initially funded as follows: (i) An annual contribution by the Cities of Elk Grove, Folsom, Rancho Cordova and Sacramento and the County of Sacramento in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) each. (These entities shall not be required to pay any additional fee or assessment, such as that described in subsection (d)(ii) below.) (ii) An annual contribution by each of those water purveyors represented on the Governing Board, other than the entities listed in subsection (d)(i) above, that purvey surface water in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000.00). 10

110 (iii) An annual contribution by each of those water purveyors represented on the Governing Board, other than the entities listed in subsection (d)(i) above, that utilize groundwater, calculated at the rate of two dollars and seven cents ($2.07) per acre foot of groundwater pumped from the basin, averaged over the three previous years and excluding the first five thousand (5000) acre feet pumped in each of those years. (iv) An annual contribution by agriculture computed at twenty five percent (25%) of the estimated annual pumping (as determined by the Sacramento County Water Agency) at the rate of two dollars and seven cents ($2.07) per acre foot and paid out of SCWA Zone 13 funds. (v) An annual contribution by agriculture/residential groundwater users computed at twenty five percent (25%) of the estimated annual pumping (as determined by the Sacramento County Water Agency) at the rate of two dollars and seven cents ($2.07) per acre foot and paid out of SCWA Zone 13 funds. (vi) All annual funds shall be paid by July 1 of each year, commencing on July 1, The annual fee for the first year after the effective date of the Agreement shall be prorated from the date of the last signatory approval establishing the Authority. (e) The governing board of the Authority may, at its discretion, adjust the funding contributions set forth in sub-section (d) above, subject to compliance with the voting requirements prescribed in sub-section (c) above. 11

111 9. Quorum. A majority of the members of the governing board shall constitute a quorum for purposes of transacting business, except less than a quorum may vote to adjourn a meeting. 10. Terms Of Office. With the exception of the initial term of the representatives appointed by the County of Sacramento as described in Section 7 (a)(ix), the term of office of each member of the governing board the Authority shall be for a period of four (4) years. For the purpose of providing staggered terms of office, the term of the initial representatives appointed by the County of Sacramento as described in Section 7 (a)(ix) shall be for a period of two (2) years. Thereafter, the term of office of each representative appointed by the County of Sacramento as described in Section 7 (a)(ix) shall be for a period of four (4) years. Each member of the governing board shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing body and may be removed as a member of the governing board by the appointing body at any time. If at any time a vacancy occurs on the governing board, a replacement shall be appointed to fill the unexpired term of the previous representative pursuant to the provisions of Section 7 of this First Amended and Restated Agreement within ninety (90) days of the date that such position becomes vacant. 11. Alternates. The City of Elk Grove, the City of Folsom, the City of Rancho Cordova, the City of Sacramento and the County of Sacramento, in addition to their regular appointments, shall appoint one or more persons with the required qualifications to serve as alternate members of the governing board of the Authority. The other entities described in Section 7 (a) (vi) through (a) (ix), which may nominate their respective representatives, may also nominate one or more persons with the required qualifications to serve as alternate members of the governing board of the Authority and such alternates shall be appointed pursuant to the procedure for regular appointments set forth in Section 7(b) of this First Amended and Restated Agreement. Any such alternates who are appointed as alternates by the appointing authorities 12

112 specified in Section 7(a)(vi) through (a)(ix) shall be empowered to cast votes in the absence of the regular members or, in the event of a conflict of interest preventing the regular member from voting, to vote because of such a conflict of interest. 12. Organization Of The Authority. The governing board of the Authority shall elect a chair, a vice chair and such other officers as the governing board shall find appropriate. Such officers shall serve for a term of one (1) year unless sooner terminated at the pleasure of the governing board. 13. Treasurer, Controller, Clerk and Legal Counsel. (a) The County of Sacramento Director of Finance shall act as treasurer and controller for the Authority. The controller of the Authority shall cause an independent annual audit of the Authority s finances to be made by a certified public accountant in compliance with Government Code Section The treasurer of the Authority shall be the depositor and shall have custody of all money of the Authority from whatever source. The controller of the Authority shall draw warrants to pay demands against the Authority when the demands have been approved by the Authority or by its authorized representative pursuant to any delegation of authority adopted by the Authority. The treasurer and controller shall comply strictly with the provisions of statutes relating to their duties found in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code. (b) The governing board of the Authority shall appoint a clerk and legal counsel as it deems appropriate. 14. Executive Director. The governing board of the Authority, with the concurrence of the Sacramento County Water Agency, shall appoint an Executive Director who shall be responsible to the governing board for the proper and efficient administration of the Authority as directed by the governing board pursuant to the provisions of this First Amended and Restated 13

113 Agreement or of any ordinance, resolution or order of the governing board. In addition to any other duties which may be assigned, the Executive Director shall have the following authority: (a) under the policy direction of the governing board, to plan, organize and direct all Authority activities; (b) to authorize expenditures within the designations and limitations of the budget approved by the governing board; (c) to make recommendations to and requests of the governing board concerning any matter which is to be performed, done or carried out by the governing board; (d) to have the authority to appoint, discipline, assign and otherwise supervise and control the activities of any employees or contractors which may be hired or retained by the Authority; and (e) to have charge of, handle and have access to any property of the Authority. 15. Meetings. The Authority shall provide for regular and special meetings in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code) or with any successor provision. 16. Minutes. The clerk appointed by the governing body of the Authority shall cause to be kept minutes of all meetings of the governing board, and shall cause a copy of such minutes to be forwarded to each member of the governing board and to the chief administrative officer of each of the signatory agencies. 17. Powers and Functions. (a) The Authority shall have no power to regulate land use or to engage in the retail sale of water. (b) Subject to the limitations set forth in subsection (a), the Authority shall have any and all powers commonly held by the parties hereto necessary or appropriate to regulate 14

114 groundwater within the boundaries of the Authority including, but not limited to, the following powers: (i) Collect and monitor data on the extraction of groundwater from, and the quality of groundwater in, the Central Basin; (ii) Facilitate any Conjunctive Use program the purpose of which is to maintain the Sustainable yields in the Central Basin consistent with the GMP; (iii) Distribute water in exchange for ceasing or reducing groundwater extractions; (iv) (v) Spread, sink and inject water into the Central Basin; Store, transport, recapture, recycle, purify, treat or otherwise manage and control water for the beneficial use of persons and property within the Authority; (vi) Study and plan ways and means to implement any or all of the foregoing powers. (c) For purposes of exercising the authority set forth in subsection (b), and subject to the limitations set forth in subsection (a), the Authority shall have the following corporate and political powers: (i) To sue and be sued in all actions and proceedings in all courts and tribunals. (ii) (iii) To adopt a seal and alter it at its discretion. For the common benefit of the Authority, to store water in underground water basins or reservoirs within and outside the Authority, to appropriate water and acquire water rights within or outside the Authority, to import water into the Authority, and to conserve, or cause the conservation of, water within or outside the Authority. 15

115 (iv) To act jointly, or cooperate, with the Federal government or any agency thereof, the state, or any county or agency thereof, or any political subdivision or district therein, including flood control districts, private and public corporations, and any person, so that the powers of the Authority may be fully and economically exercised. (v) To cause taxes, assessments, fees or charges to be levied in accordance with applicable State law, and in a manner consistent with the GMP to accomplish the purposes of the Authority. (vi) To require the permitting of groundwater extraction facilities within the boundaries of the Authority, to maintain a record of extraction with respect to any such facilities, and to require the installation of meters on groundwater extraction facilities for the purpose of determining the amount of groundwater being extracted from the Central Basin. (vii) To make contracts, employ labor and to do all acts necessary for the full exercise of the Authority s powers. (viii) To carry on technical and other investigations of all kinds necessary to further the purposes of the Authority. (ix) To fix rates at which water acquired by the Authority shall be sold for replenishment purposes, and to establish different rates for different classes of service or conditions of service, provided that the rates shall be uniform for like classes and conditions of service. (x) To participate in any contract under which producers may voluntarily agree to use surface water in lieu of groundwater, and to that end the Authority may become a party to the contract and pay from Authority funds that portion of 16

116 the cost of the surface water as will encourage the purchase and use of that water in lieu of pumping so long as persons or property within the boundaries of the Authority are directly or indirectly benefitted by the resulting replenishment of the Central Basin. (xi) To apply for, accept and receive state, federal or local licenses, permits, grants, loans or other aid from any agency of the United States, the State of California, or other public or private entity necessary or appropriate for the Authority s full exercise of its powers. 18. Budgets. Within ninety (90) days after the first meeting of the governing board of the Authority, and thereafter prior to the commencement of each fiscal year (defined as July 1 through June 30), the governing board shall adopt a budget for the Authority for the ensuing fiscal year. 19. Adoption of the Central Sacramento County Groundwater Management Plan. Within sixty (60) days after the first meeting of the governing board of the Authority, the governing board considered for adoption the Central Sacramento County Groundwater Management Plan (CSCGMP) negotiated by the Central Sacramento County Groundwater Forum and dated February, The governing board of the Authority may revise the CSCGMP subsequent to its adoption as it deems appropriate. 20. Implementation of the Well Protection Program. In order to facilitate the implementation of the Well Protection Program described in the Central Sacramento County Groundwater Management Plan, within sixty (60) days after the first meeting of the governing board of the Authority, the governing board submitted to each of the entities who are signatories to the Agreement, and who have land use authority for areas within the boundaries of the 17

117 Authority where new development will or may be served by groundwater, a draft Well Protection Plan ordinance to consider for adoption. 21. Termination. This First Amended and Restated Agreement shall remain in effect until terminated by one of the parties hereto pursuant to this section. This First Amended and Restated Agreement may be terminated by any of the parties hereto at any time and for any reason by providing ninety (90) days written notice of termination to the other parties. 22. Disposition Of Authority Assets Upon Termination. (a) In the event of the termination of the Authority where there will be a successor public entity which will carry on the functions of the Authority and assume its assets, the assets of the Authority shall be transferred to the successor public entity. (b) If there is no successor public entity which will carry on the functions of the Authority and assume its assets, the assets shall be returned to the parties hereto in proportion to the contribution of each party during the term of this First Amended and Restated Agreement. (c) If there is a successor public entity which will carry on some of the functions of the Authority and assume some of its assets, the assets of the Authority shall be allocated by the governing board of the Authority between the successor public entity and the parties hereto. 23. Liabilities. The debts, liabilities and obligations of the Authority shall be the debts, liabilities and obligations of the Authority alone, and not of the parties to this First Amended and Restated Agreement. 24. Rules. The governing board of the Authority may adopt from time to time such rules and regulations for the conduct of its affairs as it deems necessary and appropriate. 18

118 25. Effective Date. This First Amended and Restated Agreement shall become effective when the governing bodies of all of the parties shall have authorized its execution. 26. Amendments. This First Amended and Restated Agreement may only be amended by the affirmative vote of the governing bodies of all of the parties hereto. 28. Liberal Construction. The provisions of this First Amended and Restated Agreement shall be liberally construed as necessary or reasonably convenient to achieve the purposes of the Authority. 29. Liability of Board, Officers and Employees. (a) The members of the Board, officers, and employees of the Authority shall use ordinary care and reasonable diligence in the exercise of their powers, and in the performance of their duties pursuant to this First Amended and Restated Agreement. They shall not be liable to the parties to this First Amended and Restated Agreement for of any mistake of judgment or other action made, taken, or omitted by them in good faith, nor for any action made, taken, or omitted by any agent, employee, or independent contractor selected with reasonable care, nor for loss incurred through the investment of the Authority s funds, or failure to invest the same. (b) To the extent authorized by California law, no member of the Board, officer, or employee of the Authority shall be responsible for any action made, taken, or omitted, by any other member of the Board, officer, or employee. No member of the Board, officer, or employee of the Authority shall be required to give a bond or other security to guarantee the faithful performance of his or her duties pursuant to this First Amended and Restated Agreement. (c) The funds of the Authority shall be used to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Authority and any member of the Board, officer, or employee of the Authority for 19

119 actions taken in good faith and within the scope of his or her authority. Nothing herein shall limit the right of the Authority to purchase insurance or to create a self-insurance mechanism to provide coverage for the foregoing indemnity. 30. Notices. Any notices to the parties required by this First Amended and Restated Agreement shall be delivered or mailed, United States Mail first class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: CITY OF ELK GROVE CITY OF FOLSOM 8380 Laguna Palms Way 50 Natoma Street Elk Grove, CA Folsom, CA Attn: City Engineer Attn: Director of Utilities CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA CITY OF SACRAMENTO 2729 Prospect Park Drive th Ave Rancho Cordova, CA Sacramento, CA Attn: Public Works Director Attn: Director, Department of Utilities COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO th Street, Rm 301 Sacramento, CA Attn: Director, Department of Water Resources Notices given under this First Amended and Restated Agreement shall be deemed to have been received at the earlier of actual receipt, or the second business day following deposit in the United States mail, as required above. Any party may amend its address for notice by notifying the other parties pursuant to this Section. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto execute this First Amended and Restated Agreement on the date first written above. 20

120 CITY OF ELK GROVE Dated: Attest: City Clerk By Mayor Approved As To Form: City Attorney CITY OF FOLSOM Dated: Attest: City Clerk By Mayor Approved As To Form: City Attorney CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA Dated: Attest: City Clerk By Mayor Approved As To Form: City Attorney CITY OF SACRAMENTO Dated: Attest: City Clerk By Mayor Approved As To Form: City Attorney 21

121 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO Dated: Attest: Clerk of the Board By Chairperson, Board of Supervisors Approved As To Form: County Counsel 22

122 Exhibit A

123 AGENDA ITEM 7: ALTERNATIVE SUBMITTAL BACKGROUND: Staff is providing an informational presentation on the Alternative Plan Submittal process pursuant to the April 20, 2016 Board Resolution STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Action: Information presentation. SCGA Agenda

124 AGENDA ITEM 8: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER SCGA BECOMING A GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY IN AREAS OF THE SOUTH AMERICAN SUBBASIN (PORTIONS OF BULLETIN BASIN ) (Continued from May 11, 2016) BACKGROUND: Pursuant to SCGA Resolution , SCGA resolved to hold a public hearing to consider becoming a groundwater sustainability agency in areas of the South American groundwater subbasin. This public hearing was originally scheduled for May 11, Because of noticing issues the Board continued the public hearing to their regularly scheduled June 8, 2016 Board meeting. However, the Board did receive both written and oral testimony that is relevant to this item. Written comments received by SCGA staff prior to June 3, 2016 are attached (see attachments A, B, and C). Oral comments received at the May 11, 2016 SCGA Board meeting are memorialized in that meeting s minutes, available in Item 3 of this agenda package. Pursuant to this public hearing three resolutions are being considered corresponding to the three GSA formation areas within the South American subbasin identified in Resolution These three areas are shown on Exhibit A of each of the attached resolutions and include: Area 1, currently uncontested by any other groundwater management entity; Area 2, located within OHWD s jurisdiction and would be contested if OHWD files to become a GSA within the South American jurisdiction; and, Area 3, located within SRCD s jurisdiction and would be contested if SRCD files to become a GSA within the South American subbasin. SCGA s member agency, Omochumne-Hartnell Water District, along with the Sloughhouse Resource Conservation District, have submitted a joint basin boundary modification to state DWR requesting to remove Area 2 and Area 3 from the South American Subbasin, creating uncertainty in SCGA s continued governance over these two areas. Since the state s basin boundary modification process may not be completed until December 2016, the two areas are being treated separately as part of SCGA s moving forward to become a GSA within the South American Subbasin portions of its jurisdictional boundaries. If no overlapping GSA is filed within the ninety (90) day period, starting at the time DWR posts SCGA s Notice of Formation as a GSA, SCGA will be recognized as the exclusive SGMA groundwater management authority for the noticed areas, unless another local agency submits a Notice of Formation identifying overlapping area of intended management (California Water Code (c) and (d)). Due to issues in publishing proper notification of the June 8, 2016 public hearing staff is requesting that the Board continue this item to their July 13, 2016 Board meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommended Action: SCGA Agenda

125 Continue this item to the July 13, 2016 Board meeting. SCGA Agenda

126 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION FORMING A GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY FOR AREA 1 OF THE SOUTH AMERICAN SUBBASIN WHEREAS, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA) authorizes a local agency overlying a groundwater basin to become a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) in satisfaction of SGMA objectives (California Water Code 10723(a)); and WHEREAS, the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority (SCGA) was duly formed under the Joint Exercise of Powers Act (Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the California Government Code) pursuant to a Joint Powers Agreement by and among the County of Sacramento and Cities of Sacramento, Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, and Folsom dated August 29, 2006 (JPA), after outreach to fifty (50) regional stakeholders, representing agricultural, urban, self-supplied, environmental, and other groundwater interests; and WHEREAS, SCGA was created for the primary purpose of maintaining the sustainable yield within the SCGA Groundwater Management Plan (GMP), and thereby qualifies as a local agency as defined in SGMA; and WHEREAS, SCGA s jurisdiction overlies a portion of the South American subbasin, as defined in California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin , identified as classified as high priority; and WHEREAS, SGMA requires a GSA be formed for high and medium priority groundwater subbasins in California by June 30, 2017; and WHEREAS, Before deciding to become a GSA, SCGA must specially publish and hold a public hearing to consider GSA formation within its jurisdictional area, and adopt a resolution forming the GSA within identified service area boundaries; and WHEREAS, SCGA published notice of public hearing to accept public comment on whether it should form a GSA for areas within its jurisdiction of the South American SCGA Agenda

127 in accordance with California Government Code 6066 and California Water Code 10723; and WHEREAS, SCGA held a public hearing and accepted public comment on whether it should form a GSA for areas within its jurisdiction of the South American; and WHEREAS, SCGA has identified and engaged with other local agencies within the South American subbasin that have expressed interest in SGMA groundwater management, and encouraged a collaborative process to basin-wide groundwater governance; and WHEREAS, SCGA has ongoing coordination and communication with other groundwater management entities in the North American, South American, and Cosumnes subbasins; and WHEREAS, SCGA will continue communication and collaboration with other local agencies interested in SGMA groundwater management in the North American, South American, and Cosumnes subbasins to achieve basin-wide governance and interbasin coordination in an efficient and effective manner; and WHEREAS, SCGA has developed a list of parties for whom SCGA shall consider interests as beneficial uses and users of groundwater, as well as those responsible for implementing groundwater sustainability plans, and an explanation of how such interests will be considered by SCGA s GSA and its development and implementation of a sustainability plan, in accordance with California Water Code WHEREAS, SCGA has determined that its election to become a GSA is not a project and is thus not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Title 14 Cal. Code of Regs (b)(13)); and WHEREAS, SCGA has significant interest and investment in using its GMP and management authority for the sustainable management of groundwater within the South American subbasin. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the SCGA Board of Directors: 1. Incorporates and adopts the above recitals as if they were fully set forth herein; and, SCGA Agenda

128 2. Elects to be the GSA for a portion of the groundwater subbasin overlying the County of Sacramento within the South American subbasin as defined by Bulletin , and identified as SCGA GSA1, graphically depicted in Exhibit A to this resolution, incorporated by reference herein; and 3. Will continue to provide opportunity for public involvement in the ongoing management of groundwater under SGMA; and 4. Supports resolving any overlapping GSA formations within SCGA s jurisdiction with expeditious intent, use of mediation services available in the region, and though continued coordination, communication, and collaboration with groundwater management interests in the region; and 5. Will cause DWR to be notified of its intent to be SCGA GSA1 as depicted herein pursuant to California Water Code ON A MOTION by Director, and seconded by Director, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Board of Directors of SCGA this 13th day of July, 2016, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: Directors, Directors, RECUSAL: Directors, (PER POLITICAL REFORM ACT ( ) ABSENT: Directors, ABSTAIN: Directors, Chair of the Board of Directors of the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority, a duly formed Joint Powers Authority (SEAL) ATTEST: Clerk of the Board of Directors of the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority SCGA Agenda

129 SCGA Agenda

130 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION FORMING A GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY FOR AREA 2 OF THE SOUTH AMERICAN SUBBASIN WHEREAS, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA) authorizes a local agency overlying a groundwater basin to become a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) in satisfaction of SGMA objectives (California Water Code 10723(a)); and WHEREAS, the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority (SCGA) was duly formed under the Joint Exercise of Powers Act (Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the California Government Code) pursuant to a Joint Powers Agreement by and among the County of Sacramento and Cities of Sacramento, Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, and Folsom dated August 29, 2006 (JPA), after outreach to fifty (50) regional stakeholders, representing agricultural, urban, self-supplied, environmental, and other groundwater interests; and WHEREAS, SCGA was created for the primary purpose of maintaining the sustainable yield within the SCGA Groundwater Management Plan (GMP), and thereby qualifies as a local agency as defined in SGMA; and WHEREAS, SCGA s jurisdiction overlies a portion of the South American subbasin, as defined in California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin , identified as classified as high priority; and WHEREAS, SGMA requires a GSA be formed for high and medium priority groundwater subbasins in California by June 30, 2017; and WHEREAS, Before deciding to become a GSA, SCGA must specially publish and hold a public hearing to consider GSA formation within its jurisdictional area, and adopt a resolution forming the GSA within identified service area boundaries; and WHEREAS, SCGA published notice of public hearing to accept public comment on whether it should form a GSA for areas within its jurisdiction of the South American in accordance with California Government Code 6066 and California Water Code 10723; and SCGA Agenda

131 WHEREAS, SCGA held a public hearing and accepted public comment on whether it should form a GSA for areas within its jurisdiction of the South American; and WHEREAS, SCGA has identified and engaged with other local agencies within the South American subbasin that have expressed interest in SGMA groundwater management, and encouraged a collaborative process to basin-wide groundwater governance; and WHEREAS, SCGA has ongoing coordination and communication with other groundwater management entities in the North American, South American, and Cosumnes subbasins; and WHEREAS, SCGA will continue communication and collaboration with other local agencies interested in SGMA groundwater management in the North American, South American, and Cosumnes subbasins to achieve basin-wide governance and interbasin coordination in an efficient and effective manner; and WHEREAS, SCGA has developed a list of parties for whom SCGA shall consider interests as beneficial uses and users of groundwater, as well as those responsible for implementing groundwater sustainability plans, and an explanation of how such interests will be considered by SCGA s GSA and its development and implementation of a sustainability plan, in accordance with California Water Code WHEREAS, SCGA has determined that its election to become a GSA is not a project and is thus not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Title 14 Cal. Code of Regs (b)(13)); and WHEREAS, SCGA has significant interest and investment in using its GMP and management authority for the sustainable management of groundwater within the South American subbasin. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the SCGA Board of Directors: 1. Incorporates and adopts the above recitals as if they were fully set forth herein; and, 2. Elects to be the GSA for a portion of the groundwater subbasin overlying the County of Sacramento within the South American subbasin as defined by SCGA Agenda

132 Bulletin , and identified as SCGA GSA2, graphically depicted in Exhibit A to this resolution, incorporated by reference herein; and 3. Will continue to provide opportunity for public involvement in the ongoing management of groundwater under SGMA; and 4. Supports resolving any overlapping GSA formations within SCGA s jurisdiction with expeditious intent, use of mediation services available in the region, and though continued coordination, communication, and collaboration with groundwater management interests in the region; and 5. Will cause DWR to be notified of its intent to be SCGA GSA2 as depicted herein pursuant to California Water Code ON A MOTION by Director, and seconded by Director, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Board of Directors of SCGA this 13th day of July, 2016, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: Directors, Directors, RECUSAL: Directors, (PER POLITICAL REFORM ACT ( ) ABSENT: Directors, ABSTAIN: Directors, Chair of the Board of Directors of the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority, a duly formed Joint Powers Authority (SEAL) ATTEST: Clerk of the Board of Directors of the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority SCGA Agenda

133 SCGA Agenda

134 SACRAMENTO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION FORMING A GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY FOR AREA 3 OF THE SOUTH AMERICAN SUBBASIN WHEREAS, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA) authorizes a local agency overlying a groundwater basin to become a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) in satisfaction of SGMA objectives (California Water Code 10723(a)); and WHEREAS, the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority (SCGA) was duly formed under the Joint Exercise of Powers Act (Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the California Government Code) pursuant to a Joint Powers Agreement by and among the County of Sacramento and Cities of Sacramento, Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, and Folsom dated August 29, 2006 (JPA), after outreach to fifty (50) regional stakeholders, representing agricultural, urban, self-supplied, environmental, and other groundwater interests; and WHEREAS, SCGA was created for the primary purpose of maintaining the sustainable yield within the SCGA Groundwater Management Plan (GMP), and thereby qualifies as a local agency as defined in SGMA; and WHEREAS, SCGA s jurisdiction overlies a portion of the South American subbasin, as defined in California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin , identified as classified as high priority; and WHEREAS, SGMA requires a GSA be formed for high and medium priority groundwater subbasins in California by June 30, 2017; and WHEREAS, Before deciding to become a GSA, SCGA must specially publish and hold a public hearing to consider GSA formation within its jurisdictional area, and adopt a resolution forming the GSA within identified service area boundaries; and WHEREAS, SCGA published notice of public hearing to accept public comment on whether it should form a GSA for areas within its jurisdiction of the South American in accordance with California Government Code 6066 and California Water Code 10723; and SCGA Agenda

135 WHEREAS, SCGA held a public hearing and accepted public comment on whether it should form a GSA for areas within its jurisdiction of the South American; and WHEREAS, SCGA has identified and engaged with other local agencies within the South American subbasin that have expressed interest in SGMA groundwater management, and encouraged a collaborative process to basin-wide groundwater governance; and WHEREAS, SCGA has ongoing coordination and communication with other groundwater management entities in the North American, South American, and Cosumnes subbasins; and WHEREAS, SCGA will continue communication and collaboration with other local agencies interested in SGMA groundwater management in the North American, South American, and Cosumnes subbasins to achieve basin-wide governance and interbasin coordination in an efficient and effective manner; and WHEREAS, SCGA has developed a list of parties for whom SCGA shall consider interests as beneficial uses and users of groundwater, as well as those responsible for implementing groundwater sustainability plans, and an explanation of how such interests will be considered by SCGA s GSA and its development and implementation of a sustainability plan, in accordance with California Water Code WHEREAS, SCGA has determined that its election to become a GSA is not a project and is thus not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Title 14 Cal. Code of Regs (b)(13)); and WHEREAS, SCGA has significant interest and investment in using its GMP and management authority for the sustainable management of groundwater within the South American subbasin. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the SCGA Board of Directors: 1. Incorporates and adopts the above recitals as if they were fully set forth herein; and, 2. Elects to be the GSA for a portion of the groundwater subbasin overlying the County of Sacramento within the South American subbasin as defined by SCGA Agenda

136 Bulletin , and identified as SCGA GSA3, graphically depicted in Exhibit A to this resolution, incorporated by reference herein; and 3. Will continue to provide opportunity for public involvement in the ongoing management of groundwater under SGMA; and 4. Supports resolving any overlapping GSA formations within SCGA s jurisdiction with expeditious intent, use of mediation services available in the region, and though continued coordination, communication, and collaboration with groundwater management interests in the region; and 5. Will cause DWR to be notified of its intent to be SCGA GSA3 as depicted herein pursuant to California Water Code ON A MOTION by Director, and seconded by Director, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Board of Directors of SCGA this 13th day of July, 2016, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: Directors, Directors, RECUSAL: Directors, (PER POLITICAL REFORM ACT ( ) ABSENT: Directors, ABSTAIN: Directors, Chair of the Board of Directors of the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority, a duly formed Joint Powers Authority (SEAL) ATTEST: Clerk of the Board of Directors of the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority SCGA Agenda

137 SCGA Agenda

138 Attachment A to Agenda Item #8 May 5, 2016 Omochumne Hartnell Water District Kurt A Kautz CHAIRMAN O H W D Leland Schneider VICE CHAIRMAN Ronald R. Lowry TREASURER Robert L. Mahon DIRECTOR Thomas Young, Jr. DIRECTOR Michael Wackman GENERAL MANAGER Cynthia Luellen BOARD SECRETARY Darrell Eck Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority 827 7th Street, Suite 301, Sacramento, CA RE: Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority Resolution to become a Groundwater Sustainability Agency Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Resolution Commencing the Groundwater Sustainability Agency Formation Process for Areas of the South American Subbasin (the GSA Resolution ) adopted by the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority on April 20, As reflected in the GSA Resolution, Area 2 of SCGA s proposed groundwater Sustainability agency (GSA) will overlap with the GSA area covered by the notice submitted by Omochumne Hartnell Water District (OHWD) and posted by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) on May 4, We look forward to working collaboratively with you to resolve this overlap expeditiously. At the outset, it is important to note that on September 9, 2015, SCGA passed a motion to start the process to become a GSA for the South American Subbasin exclusive of the OHWD boundary. Since then SCGA has not taken action to rescind that motion. However, the GSA Resolution directs formation of a GSA for the area of the basin including OHWD s service area. This is in direct conflict to SCGA s position in 2015 and unnecessarily creates overlapping GSA boundaries that must be resolved. OHWD has consistently worked with SCGA to coordinate GSA formation processes and attain sustainable groundwater management in the South American Subbasin. For example, upon SCGA s request, OHWD delayed its decision to become a GSA in order to allow Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority and the County to fully explore the submission of an alternative plan for the SCGA area under SGMA. Only when Sloughhouse Resource Conservation District took action to become a GSA in a portion of the South American Subbasin did OWHD opt to move forward in the GSA formation process. However, OHWD continued to invite the collaboration and continued discussion with SCGA on SGMA efforts. That invitation remains open today. Phone: Street Address: 7513 Sloughhouse Road, Elk Grove, CA Mailing Address: P.O. Box 211, Wilton, CA info@ohwd.org

139 Attachment A to Agenda Item #8 OHWD has been a long-time participant in groundwater management efforts Countywide, and has collaborated with stakeholders from across these basins, including the County and Sacramento County Water Authority, to sustainably manage its area. It is, in particular, a key player in groundwater management in the Cosumnes Subbasin, and a founding member of the Southeast Sacramento Agricultural Water Authority ( SSCWA ). The 2014 adoption and implementation of SGMA re-focused local agencies groundwater management efforts on specific basins, and required each basin to be managed under its own GSP within the statutory deadlines. OHWD intends to continue its vigorous participation in groundwater management efforts within its boundaries. Because that boundary currently overlies both the South American and Cosumnes sub-basins, OHWD has submitted a request to modify the basin boundaries in order to duplication of efforts and decreased efficiency in managing groundwater. It is the position of the OHWD Board that a basin boundary line that bisects the District would hinder, rather than promote, the continued sustainable management of both subbasins. Accordingly, OHWD submitted a basin boundary modification request that would shift the basin boundary northward, bringing the entirety of the District into the Cosumnes Subbasin. The proposed change would allow OHWD to remain intact and not divided, thus saving resources and allowing the management of the District as a single unit, coordinated with other like land uses and districts in the Cosumnes Subbasin. The intent of the Department s Basin Boundary Regulations is to ensure that basin boundary modifications are consistent with the State s interest in the sustainable management of groundwater basins as expressed in [SGMA]. OHWD remains committed to engaging with SCGA and other area stakeholders as to the best way to sustainably manage this area, both in the formation of GSAs and in the consideration of changes to the existing basin boundaries. Ultimately, OHWD believes the boundary adjustment and the GSA formation will be beneficial to the Cosumnes Subbasin and to the County as a whole, by allowing OHWD to concentrate its resources on developing the Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the south area. I encourage the SCGA Board to not include any portion of OHWD in any GSA it forms and support the basin boundary modification. Potential stakeholders need to work closely with OHWD, Sloughhouse Resource Conservation District, and any other local agency pursuing SGMA compliance to achieve sustainable management of the basins underlying the County. The Board of OHWD looks forward to working with the SCGA, County of Sacramento, Sacramento County Water Agency, and its neighbors to achieve long-term sustainable management within this region. Thank you, Kurt Kautz Chairman Phone: Street Address: 7513 Sloughhouse Road, Elk Grove, CA Mailing Address: P.O. Box 211, Wilton, CA info@ohwd.org

140 Attachment B to Agenda Item #8 Sloughhouse Resource Conservation District 8698 Elk Grove Blvd. Suite 1-207, Elk Grove, CA Phone: (916) Fax: (916) SloughhouseRCD@gmail.com Don Nottoli, Representative Sacramento County Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority (SCGA) th Street Room 301 Sacramento, CA May 9 th, 2016 RE: SCGA GSA Formation Dear Supervisor Nottoli The Sloughhouse Resource Conservation District ( District ) provides the following comments on the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority s ( SCGA ) notice of intent to elect to serve as a Groundwater Sustainability Agency ( GSA ) under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act ( SGMA ) for portions of the South American groundwater subbasin as currently delineated in Bulletin 118. Firstly: SCGA has scheduled a hearing on Wed. May 11, 2016 where it proposes to consider declaring to be a GSA for portions of the Cosumnes Watershed where OHWD and SRCD have already declared. This greatly affects your supervisorial district. You have worked with both OHWD and SRCD for years and years, and have an understanding of the rural agricultural community and the importance of local governance. We request you personally attend the hearing. By doing so you may better understand just how divisive to the community it is for a group of cities to assert jurisdiction or even want jurisdiction over the Cosumnes Watershed which lies outside each of the cities jurisdictions. So far, SCGA has had a deaf-ear to the fact that two long established and respected agencies, OHWD and SRCD, whose constituents are the residents of the Cosumnes Watershed, have elected to implement SGMA in this local area. You are the only elected member of the signatories (4 cities and County) to SCGA. The decision is not about the work, however good or bad, or how much was expended to resolve the differences amongst municipalities within the American River Basin. It is about who will represent the landowners within the Cosumnes Watershed for the future generations regarding establishing and implementing a Groundwater Sustainability Plan for their basin. We feel you should personally attend and vote against SCGA declaring to be a GSA within the Cosumnes Watershed. Conversely, the District does not oppose SCGA s desire to be a GSA within the American River Watershed. SCGA Should Refrain From Electing To Be A GSA In The Cosumnes River Watershed To Allow The District And Other More Representative Local Agencies To Serve As GSAs SCGA apparently intends to elect to become a GSA within portions of the current South American subbasin that are within the Omochumne Hartnell Water District ( OHWD ) and the District, and over which OHWD and the District have already declared an intent to become GSAs. SCGA s action would therefore create overlap in these GSA elections.

141 Attachment B to Agenda Item #8 To avoid this overlap, the District requests that SCGA not apply to be a GSA within the Cosumnes River watershed (Figure 1) or within the District s boundaries within the Cosumnes Watershed. The District has already elected to be a GSA for the areas within the District s boundary that fall within the Cosumnes River watershed (Figure 2). The District believes it is the local entity that is in the best position to represent local landowners in the Cosumnes River watershed now and in the future. In previous meetings, the SCGA Board has voted to not interfere with OHWD s desire to be a GSA within OHWD s territorial boundaries. OHWD has a long history of management and on-the-ground work related to groundwater and conjunctive use. The District urges the SCGA Board to adhere to its previous position of non-interference with OHWD s intention to be the GSA within OHWD s territorial jurisdiction. SCGA Should Postpone This Hearing And Conduct More Stakeholder Outreach Before Electing To Become A GSA SGMA urges, indeed mandates, public participation and outreach. However, the District believes that SCGA s efforts to publicize and involve the public and affected stakeholders in its intent to become a GSA in the South American subbasin is grossly inadequate considering the dense and diverse population within the South American subbasin and the many potentially affected entities. SCGA s notice and agenda materials hardly provide any information or context for the public to understand and participate in this weighty governance decision. Ironically, SCGA recently submitted comments opposing the District s application to modify the basin boundary between the South American and Cosumnes subbasins, which included baseless criticisms that the District s outreach and coordination efforts regarding SGMA have been inadequate. As a point of comparison, however, when the District embarked on its efforts to explore becoming a GSA, the District first held an informational public workshop and then later a public hearing. The workshop and hearing included materials and presentations to educate the public about SGMA so that they could effectively understand the issues and participate in the process. The District also held numerous publically noticed board of directors meetings over the course of several months prior to and after the workshop and hearing. The District also corresponded with nearby local agencies in the Cosumnes subbasin such as the Omochumne Hartnell Water District, Clay Water District, Galt Irrigation District, the Southeast Sacramento County Agricultural Water Authority, and Amador County. District representatives also met with officials from SCGA and members of its board of directors, sent letters, and encouraged and implored more information sharing and dialogue between our agencies regarding GSA formation and the basin boundary issue. It appears that after being so critical of the District, SCGA itself is employing a procedure that does not meet the standards of public outreach and coordination it purports to embrace one that is less inclusive than the efforts the District undertook when considering actions that affect a much less populous part of the county. Accordingly, the District requests that SCGA postpone this hearing and engage in more diverse coordination and stakeholder outreach, including additional meetings with the District to attempt to resolve apparent disagreements regarding those portions of the current South American subbasin that are within the District and its previous GSA election. The District Looks Forward To Coordinating With SCGA And Other Local Agencies On Preparation And Implementation Of Respective Groundwater Sustainability Plans For The South American and Cosumnes Groundwater Subbasins The District fully appreciates the time and effort previously spent by SCGA and its predecessors on groundwater planning and management, and it does not oppose SCGA s efforts to be efficient by using existing data, modeling, and monitoring, provided that doing so is appropriate to comply with SGMA. However, as you know, the previous efforts of the Water Forum and SCGA s creation were essentially to resolve disputes regarding water management and land use decisions among the county and municipalities within the American River Watershed. The District does not have an objection to SCGA and other local agencies electing to become GSAs in areas of the South American watershed.

142 Attachment B to Agenda Item #8 At present, the District is a co-applicant with OHWD on a basin boundary change that it expects will be granted by DWR. The change will conform the Cosumnes groundwater subbasin with the Cosumnes River s watershed and match many other traditional, institutional, jurisdictional, and land use delineations. Regardless of whether the basin boundary application is granted, however, the District looks forward to coordinating with SCGA on preparing adjacent coordinated GSPs for the South American and Cosumnes subbasin. In sum, as the District constantly notes in meetings and correspondence, the District intends to actively engage in the future groundwater management of the Cosumnes River watershed and one or both subbasins (as determined by DWR) when necessary or appropriate. Please consider the District an interested party in all future correspondence related to GSA formation, GSP development, and the possibility of the SCGA developing an alternative plan (if such a plan is still being contemplated despite SCGA s election to become a GSA). The District looks forward to working with SCGA in these matters. Sincerely, Jay Schneider Vice-Chairman Sloughhouse Resource Conservation District CC: Darrel Eck, SCGA Executive Director Eckd@saccounty.net Ramon Roybol, SCGA Staff RoybalR@saccounty.net

143 Attachment B to Agenda Item #8 Attachments: Figure 1: Cosumnes River Watershed Figure 2: Potential SRCD/SCGA GSA Application Overlap Area

144 Attachment C to Agenda Item #8

145 Attachment C to Agenda Item #8

146 Attachment C to Agenda Item #8

147 AGENDA ITEM 9: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR S REPORT BACKGROUND: Basin Boundary Modification OHWD and SRCD Florin Resource Conservation District Special Board Meeting June 8, 2016 SCGA Agenda

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE FLORIN RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS Wednesday, June 8, 2016 NOTE: The Board will enter Closed Session at 5:00PM; and Open Session will begin at 6:00pm 9257 Elk Grove Blvd. Elk Grove, CA Public Comment Please complete a Request to Speak Form if you wish to address the Board. Members of the audience may comment on matters that are not included on the agenda. Each person will be allowed three (3) minutes, or less if a large number of requests are received on a particular subject. No action may be taken on a matter raised under "Public Comment" until the matter has been specifically included on an agenda as an action item. Items listed on the agenda will be opened for public comment as they are considered by the Board of Directors. 1. Closed Session a. Conference with Legal Counsel Anticipated Litigation Significant Exposure to Litigation Gov t Code Section (d)(2) (1 case). b. Conference with Legal Counsel Anticipated Litigation Initiation of Litigation Gov t Code Section (d)(4) (1 Case). 2. Florin Resource Conservation District Groundwater Sustainability Agency Filing (Mark J. Madison, General Manager) Associate Director Comment Public Comment Recommended Action: Provide direction to staff on whether, or not, the FRCD should begin the process to file to become a groundwater sustainability agency for the FRCD service area. Adjourn: to be determined. 1

157 June 8, 2016 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Chairman and Directors of the Florin Resource Conservation District Mark J. Madison, General Manager FLORIN RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY FILING RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Board of Directors of the Florin Resource Conservation District (FRCD) provide direction to staff on whether, or not, the FRCD should begin the process to file to become a groundwater sustainability agency for the FRCD service area. Summary This item is provided to the Florin Resource Conservation District Board of Directors for the purpose of determining if the Florin Resource Conservation District (FRCD) should begin the process to file to become a groundwater sustainability agency for the FRCD service area. With this action, staff is seeking direction from the Board on this matter. If directed to file, staff would initiate the filing process which would require noticing and a public hearing at a later date. The Board is not requested to approve any filing at this time. DISCUSSION Background The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) authorizes any local public agency that has water supply, water management, or land use responsibilities in a groundwater basin to become a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA). The Department of Water Resources (DWR) has determined that Resource Conservation Districts meet this criteria and can become GSAs. The responsibility of the GSA is to sustainably manage the groundwater basin through the development and implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP). The Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority (SCGA) presently oversees groundwater management of the basin FRCD overlies. The Florin Resource Conservation District has served on SCGA as one of sixteen board members since SCGA s inception. SCGA plans to file to become the GSA for the groundwater basin it overlies, which includes the FRCD service area. The question of whether the FRCD should file to be the GSA for its jurisdictional area, or remain as a part of the SCGA/GSA, is complicated and significant. AGENDA ITEM No. 2

158 June 8, 2016 FLORIN RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY FILING Page 2 The following information is relevant to the matter of FRCD filing to become a GSA: FRCD has been a board member of the SCGA since SCGA s inception. SCGA is a joint powers authority (JPA) formed by a joint powers agreement (Agreement) signed in There are sixteen (16) board members of the JPA, and FRCD is one of the sixteen board members. Each board member has one vote. Five (5) of the sixteen (16) board members are signatories of the Agreement. All signatories possess police powers. Police powers are the common powers of the Agreement. SCGA s purpose is to manage and maintain the long-term sustainable yield of groundwater in the Central Basin. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) authorizes any local public agency that has water supply, water management, or land use responsibilities in a groundwater basin to become a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA). Resource Conservation Districts meet this criteria and are eligible to become GSAs as determined by DWR. The responsibility of the GSA is to sustainably manage the groundwater basin through the development and implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP). SGMA empowers GSAs to regulate groundwater, if necessary, for sustainable management. SCGA plans to file to become the GSA for the groundwater basin it overlies, defined as the South American Subbasin (Basin No ) by DWR Bulletin 118. Omochumne Hartnell Water District (OHWD) on 5/4/16 filed with DWR to become a GSA for the portion of basin it overlies. Sloughhouse Resource Conservation District (SRCD) on 5/4/16 filed with DWR to become a GSA for the portion of basin it overlies. DWR will not allow an agency to become a GSA for a service area when there is service area overlap from other GSA filings. The OHWD and SRCD GSA filings represent overlaps with SCGA s filing. DWR will require agencies with overlapping GSAs to negotiate solutions so that no overlaps exist. AGENDA ITEM No. 2

159 June 8, 2016 FLORIN RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY FILING Page 3 Present Situation The following events explain the chronology of the SCGA and FRCD relative to filing to become GSAs: On 5/13/15, SCGA passed a motion that directed SCGA staff to proceed with a process that would lead to the designation of the SCGA as the GSA for sub-basin On 7/8/15, SCGA formed a SGMA Subcommittee to assist in the process of establishing SCGA as the GSA for sub-basin FRCD representatives Tom Nelson, Mark Madison, and Bruce Kamilos actively participate in the subcommittee. On 10/16/15, the SGMA Subcommittee discussed the governance structure that should be used to form a GSA. The subcommittee agreed that a JPA is the best governance structure to use for a GSA. However, instead of amending the existing JPA currently in place for SCGA, the subcommittee agreed to review in detail changes that would make the JPA more applicable to a GSA as dictated by SGMA. On 12/16/15, the SGMA Subcommittee discussed the pros and cons of revising the JPA for SCGA. FRCD suggested that the JPA be revised to include agencies other than cities and the county as signatories to the JPA. Presently, the signatories of the JPA are the City of Sacramento, City of Rancho Cordova, City of Folsom, City of Elk Grove and County of Sacramento, all which share in common police powers. FRCD proposed revising the JPA on the basis of common powers defined in SGMA. On 12/22/15, the SGMA Subcommittee discussed revisions to the funding structure for agencies serving on the SCGA board. In general, it was proposed that the funding amounts would go up to support more activities required by SGMA. On 2/10/16, the SCGA board directed SCGA staff to conduct public outreach, noticing, and hearings required to file a Notice of GSA Formation for the SCGA service area within the South American Subbasin, if Sloughhouse RCD includes any portion of the South American Subbasin as part of their GSA filing. On 3/9/16, the SCGA board deferred discussion of FRCD s proposed new JPA to the SGMA Subcommittee. On 3/10/16, FRCD representative Bruce Kamilos presented the proposed new JPA to the SGMA Subcommittee. Several members asked what ultimately FRCD sought to achieve with the new JPA. On 4/7/16, the SGMA Subcommittee approved a motion recommending to the SCGA Board to adopt a resolution commencing the SGMA GSA formation for basin FRCD opposed the motion. On 4/20/16, the SCGA board passed a resolution for SCGA staff to set a public hearing and provide the required notice and publications for SCGA to form a GSA in the South American Subbasin (subbasin ). The resolution passed on an AGENDA ITEM No. 2

160 June 8, 2016 FLORIN RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY FILING Page vote. The three (3) board members that opposed the resolution were FRCD, OHWD, and Agricultural Interests. At the same meeting, the SCGA board passed a resolution for SCGA staff to move forward with an alternative plan submittal in place of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). The resolution passed on a vote. The three (3) board members that opposed the resolution were FRCD, OHWD, and Agricultural Interests. (At the time, it was thought that developing an Alternative Plan might require less work to become a GSA than a GSP. The latest information from DWR seems to indicate that this isn t the case. The primary difference is an Alternative Plan is due by January 1, 2017 whereas a GSP is not due until January 2022.) At the 5/11/16 SCGA board meeting, SCGA staff had scheduled on the agenda an item to hold a public hearing on SCGA becoming a GSA for Subbasin , however, the item was carried over due to improper advanced noticing per the Brown Act. It is staff s opinion that the sixteen-member governing body of SCGA has the potential to be the appropriate structure to manage groundwater as required by SGMA. However, it is also staff s opinion that the SCGA, as currently structured, is not equitable to all board members and there is an inherent conflict of interest for the Sacramento County Water Agency. For this reason, the FRCD has expressed concerns about the existing SCGA governance structure and has proposed numerous changes for SCGA to properly become the GSA for basin These changes are as follows: The FRCD proposed a new joint powers agreement for SCGA that is equitable to all board members. The problems with the current Agreement include: o The Agreement allows any one of the signatories at any time and for any reason to terminate the Agreement. This gives the five signatories ultimate power over whether or not SCGA shall continue to exist. o To approve fiscal items including the annual budget, the Agreement requires affirmative votes of eleven of the sixteen board members, but in addition, requires affirmative votes by all the signatories, ultimately giving each signatory veto power over the majority of others. o For changes in annual contributions necessary to support the work of the JPA, the current Agreement requires affirmative votes of eleven of the sixteen board members, but in addition, requires affirmative votes by all the signatories, giving each signatory veto power over the majority. o The existing Agreement requires that SCGA board members from FRCD, Rancho Murieta Community Services District and OHWD be an elected member of the governing boards of those agencies. The public agencies AGENDA ITEM No. 2

161 June 8, 2016 FLORIN RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY FILING Page 5 who are signatories of the Agreement are able to designate an employee of their agency to serve on the SCGA board. o The existing Agreement requires non-signatory public agencies and PUCregulated agencies to be appointed by governing bodies other than their own. FRCD believes all public agencies on the SCGA board should be able to appoint directly to the SCGA board. o The existing Agreement prescribes that Sacramento County Water Agency (SCWA) Zone 13 funds pay for the annual contributions of agricultural and agriculture-residential interests on the SCGA board. However, residents not represented by agricultural and agriculture-residential interests also pay into SCWA Zone 13 funds causing a double-dipping for those residents. FRCD proposed that all public agencies serving on the SCGA board should be signatories of the Agreement and that the appropriate common powers for the Agreement are the powers granted under SGMA, not police powers. FRCD proposed that the SCGA consider a long-term structure where the SCGA staff and legal counsel are independent from any party participating as a governing board member on the SCGA. Currently, the Sacramento County Water Agency (SCWA), per the governance structure of the existing JPA, provides administration and legal counsel to SCGA. The executive director, staff and legal counsel are employees of SCWA, although they take direction from the SCGA board while performing SCGA-related functions. FRCD believes that SCWA, as the largest groundwater pumper in basin , has a conflict of interest in this role for SCGA. o In contrast, the Sacramento Groundwater Authority (SGA) which has successfully filed to become the exclusive GSA for a portion of basin north of the American River, is administrated by staff from the Regional Water Authority (RWA). RWA is a neutral governing body whose mission is to serve and represent all members of RWA. Reasons for the FRCD to File to Become a GSA Provides FRCD independence from the current governance structure of SCGA. Because FRCD s filing to become a GSA for its service area would overlap the basin service area SCGA, DWR would require FRCD and SCGA to negotiate a solution. This would give FRCD a stronger position to negotiate with SCGA on changes to the governance structure it feels are required. FRCD, as a resource conservation district dating back to 1953, has a history of representing farming and environmental interests. With the purchase of Elk Grove Water Works in 1999, FRCD became an urban water supplier. This blend of farming, environmental, and urban representation would be a good fit as a GSA for the FRCD service area. AGENDA ITEM No. 2

162 June 8, 2016 FLORIN RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY FILING Page 6 FRCD may be able to provide the services required by SGMA at a lower cost to rate payers than SCGA can. Reasons for the FRCD to Not to File to Become a GSA FRCD prefers to work collaboratively and productively with the other regional water interests in basin By filing to be a GSA, FRCD isolates itself from the regional collaborative efforts. This could be viewed negatively by a public that increasingly expects its government representatives to work collaboratively with each other to solve problems. The costs of becoming a GSA will be significant and could put the FRCD at risk. Although SGMA provides for the assessment of taxes to support the functions of GSAs, FRCD would incur initial costs before assessments could be levied. Initial costs would be on the order of $90,000 ($50,000 for a protest vote, and $40,000 for a rate study). Becoming a GSA will require a significant amount of staff time and resources. The time and resources to become a GSA and do the work of a GSA will take away from the other duties for which staff is currently responsible. Ultimately, the GSA would have to have its own staff dedicated to the functions of the GSA. It will be more difficult to control costs and impossible to spread risk by becoming an independent GSA. The financial structure of SCGA allows costs and associated risks to be spread among 16 stakeholders. Schedule The schedule for becoming a GSA requires the following minimum activities to occur. (Attachment 1 lists specific dates to achieve the requirements.) Publicly notice in accordance with Government Code 6066 a public hearing on the matter of FRCD deciding to become a GSA for the FRCD service area. Hold the public hearing to announce FRCD s intention of becoming a GSA and to hear the public s input on the matter. o DWR strongly recommends GSAs engage a broad range of stakeholders prior to making a decision to become a GSA to help build trust and promote public acceptance and support. o Staff recommends that FRCD reach out to stakeholders prior to holding a public hearing to determine the level of support for FRCD becoming a GSA. Submit to DWR a Notice of GSA Formation to become a GSA within 30 days after holding the public hearing and deciding to become a GSA. A 90-day waiting period begins after submitting the GSA Formation Notice to be a GSA. If no other agencies file to become a GSA for the same basin service area, FRCD would become the exclusive GSA for the FRCD service area. If there are AGENDA ITEM No. 2

163 June 8, 2016 FLORIN RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY FILING Page 7 Costs other agencies that have filed to be a GSA for the same basin service area, then DWR will require the agencies to negotiate so that there is no overlap in service areas. Attachment 2 lists the costs associated with becoming a GSA. STRATEGIC PLAN CONFORMITY The FRCD Mission Statement states, in part, that the FRCD manages resource conservation programs in the FRCD service area. If the FRCD were to become the GSA for its jurisdictional area, this activity would directly conform to the FRCD s stated mission. The FRCD/EGWD Strategic Plan also identifies the preservation of groundwater resources as a Priority Issue for the FRCD. FINANCIAL SUMMARY There is no financial impact associated with this item at this time. Respectfully Submitted, MARK J. MADISON GENERAL MANAGER Attachment MJM/bk AGENDA ITEM No. 2