MEETING NOTICE SGMA WORK GROUP

Transcription

1 EASTERN SAN JOAQUIN REGION SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT WORK GROUP MEETING NOTICE SGMA WORK GROUP Wednesday, July 13, :00 a.m. 12:00 p.m. San Joaquin County Robert J. Cabral Agricultural Center 2101 Earhart Avenue Assembly Room #1, Stockton, California Approval of Minutes for the Meeting of June 8, 2016 SCHEDULED ITEMS I. Discussion: a. GBA Board Recap b. Roundtable on GSA status: Can you share with the group any feedback from your Board/Council/internal discussions on your agency s potential role as a GSA (e.g., Data Collection, Financial, Regulations, etc.)? All SGMA Work Group Members c. SGMA Activities and Roadmap Discussion d. Introduction of George Hartmann as Ombudsman to SGMA WG e. Progress on Attorney Drafting Committee Kevin O Brien f. Update on Ad Hoc Technical Review Committee Discussion Public Comment: Action may be taken on any item Next Regular Meeting August 10, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. San Joaquin County Robert J. Cabral Agricultural Center 2101 E. Earhart Ave., Assembly Rm. #1, Stockton, California Agendas and Minutes may also be found at Note: If you need disability related modification or accommodation in order to participate in this meeting, please contact San Joaquin County Public Works Water Resource Staff at (209) at least 48 hours prior to the start of the meeting.

2 EASTERN SAN JOAQUIN REGION SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT WORK GROUP MINUTES SGMA WORK GROUP Wednesday, June 8, 2016 Follow up items: Update Roadmap monthly SGMA WG members to engage Boards and Commissions on centralized GSA JPA concept Present at the SGMA WG meeting of June 8, 2016 were the following SGMA WG Members: MEMBER AGENCY MEMBERS 1. Calaveras County Not Represented 2. Calaveras County Water District (CCWD) Peter Martin 3. California Water Service Company (Cal Water) Greg Milleman 4. Central Delta Water Agency (CDWA) Dante Nomellini 5. Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District (CSJWCD) Reid Roberts 6. City of Escalon Tammy Alcantor 7. City of Lathrop Tim McCoy 8. City of Lodi Lance Roberts 9. City of Manteca Not Represented 10. City of Ripon Kevin Werner 11. City of Stockton Regina Rubier 12. Linden County Water District (LCWD) Paul Brennan 13. Local Agencies of the North Delta (LAND) Erik Ringelberg 14. Lockeford Community Services District (LCSD) Mike Henry 15. North San Joaquin Water Conservation District (NSJWCD) Thomas Flinn 16. Oakdale Irrigation District (OID) Emily Sheldon 17. San Joaquin County Chuck Winn 18. San Joaquin Farm Bureau Federation (Associate Member) Julianne Phillips 19. South Delta Water Agency (SDWA) John Herrick 20. South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID) Peter Rietkerk 21. Stanislaus County Walter Ward 22. Stockton East Water District (SEWD) Mel Panizza 23. Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) Doug Heberle 1 P age

3 MOTION: A motion to approve the minutes for the meeting of May 11, 2016 was made by Mr. Herrick and seconded by Mr. McCoy. Motion passed unanimously. SCHEDULED ITEMS Ms. Carolyn Lott, SGMA WG facilitator, welcomed the SGMA WG and invited each member to introduce themselves. I. Discussion: a. GBA Board Updates: SGMA requires deadlines are met for GSA formation and GSP development to prevent state intervention. To that end, both the GBA and SGMA WG have been engaged in monthly activities and are committed to meeting established milestones and deadlines. To support open and timely communication between the entities, updates were requested to be formally added as a standing agenda item for both the GBA Board and SGMA WG. The GBA Board will receive SGMA WG meeting updates and the SGMA WG will receive GBA Board updates. Mr. Nakagawa provided an update capturing activities between the May and June regularly scheduled meetings. The SGMA roadmap and activities update was shared first to highlight the accomplishments achieved to date and goals set for upcoming milestones. To resolve GSA formation, GSA eligible entities have been meeting to discuss boundary overlaps, governance, and coordination. There have also been progressive discussions regarding the development of both a possible Joint Powers Authority (JPA) and a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). Recent GBA actions include: 1) Approval of the GBA Budget for Fiscal year , which includes limited funding for SGMA efforts; 2) Approval of a letter of support for the North San Joaquin Water Conservation District (NSJWCD) basin boundary modification request. This action was contingent upon revising the support letter removing any reference to NSJWCD s Resolution No ; and 3) Approval of hosting a Groundwater 101 Workshop and Luncheon. This workshop will include a modest lunch, and follows the SGMA WG meeting on July 13, The scheduled speaker will be Bill Brewster, Senior Engineering Geologist, California Department of Water Resources (DWR). b. SGMA Activities and Roadmap Discussion: Mr. Nakagawa reiterated the SGMA Activities and Roadmap discussion he presented at the GBA Board meeting (i.e., GSA formation, jurisdiction overlaps, and future programs). He noted that the final DWR GSP regulations were approved by the California Water Commission (CWC). The final regulations include additional actions, duties, roles, responsibilities, and monitoring. Over the next few months, the SGMA WG will be challenged to evaluate the goals and activities established thus far, determine whether any will require revision to ensure steady progress towards SGMA compliance. This could be a discussion point for the next Ad Hoc Technical Review Committee meeting, which may discuss a scope of work from an on call consultant to assist with this evaluation. 2 P age

4 c. Roundtable Discussion: Update on GSA Status: Ms. Carolyn Lott began the discussion encouraging members to be accountable to one another as GSA formation progresses. She stated there has been SGMA WG consensus in favor of one GSP and the details are being discussed. Ms. Lott requested that all members indicate where each represented agency intends to: 1) join with others to form a GSA; or 2) form an independent GSA. She also requested each share whether the September 30, 2016 deadline to resolve boundary overlaps and GSA status is anticipated to be met and which issues remain, if any. Stanislaus County: Mr. Walter Ward stated that he will provide the update on Stanislaus County during his presentation scheduled later in this meeting. Oakdale Irrigation District (OID): Ms. Emily Sheldon reported that OID is updating its Board members of progress. They are progressing with GSA formation discussions and support one GSP. OID s main concern is local control within its district. Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District (CSJWCD): Mr. Reid Roberts reported that CSJWCD supports one GSP. GSA status will be contingent upon the outcome of the JPA Attorney Group discussions. One major concern for CSJWCD is monetary where it comes from and how is it assessed. Other concerns will include the monitoring of wells and meeting goals. South Delta Water Agency (SDWA): Mr. John Herrick stated there is no change and SDWA seeks to be a part of a coordinated GSA in the County. There are no boundary disputes in their area. South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID): Mr. Peter Rietkerk stated that SSJID is committed to moving forward and forming a GSA. They will continue to work at the County level through the GBA to coordinate the formation of one GSP. In addition, SSJID continues to participate in the Ad Hoc Technical Review Committee, as well as the Attorney s Group. They are looking at governance within SSJID s boundaries and discussion with the Cities of Ripon, Escalon, and Manteca continue. A draft MOA has been circulated amongst these cities and upcoming meetings will be scheduled to hear comments and/or feedback. SSJID is also working through a draft scope of work on revisions to its agricultural water plan on water balance and groundwater so as to gain a better understanding of local groundwater conditions inclusive of the 3 cities area. There have been positive discussions regarding overlap issues with OID, Stanislaus County, and Mr. Herrick for SDWA. The outcome of these meetings has been no negative findings of boundary issues. SSJID has also met with the County on overlap and jurisdictional concerns within the basin. They are progressing to meet the September 30 th deadline. North San Joaquin Water Conservation District (NSJWCD): Mr. Tom Flinn reported that the Board is in support of a unified, county wide plan, though no formal action has been taken as yet. There are overlap issues to be resolved in the near future. He is educating the NSJWCD Board on the updates and progress of the SGMA to ensure information is available to make well informed decisions. He expressed concern about upcoming challenges NSJWCD faces, including educating the public, economic breakdown in the area, and securing a funding source to support the effort. Calaveras County Water District (CCWD): Mr. Peter Martin has conveyed SGMA WG discussions to the CCWD Board regarding SGMA requirements. Feedback thus far is that CCWD is not interested in 3 P age

5 playing an enforcement role, including pumping fees in Calaveras County. The goal is to work in partnership with Calaveras County Environmental Health on any ordinances or other necessities. With regards to a long term implementation plan, CCWD continues discussions with its regional partners in Calaveras County. Mr. Martin was apologetic at the lack of participation of these partners in the SGMA WG and he has been briefing staff on SGMA developments. In addition, CCWD is considering partnerships outside of Calaveras County and additional information will be provided during the presentation from Stanislaus County scheduled later in this meeting. Stockton East Water District (SEWD): Mr. Mel Panizza reported that the SEWD Board continues with its commitment to form its own GSA. SEWD staff has had productive discussions with the City of Stockton regarding boundary issues and are moving towards resolution of those issues. Linden County Water District (LCWD): Mr. Paul Brennan stated that LCWD is continuing to monitor water usage and is in discussion of forming a GSA within WID boundaries. San Joaquin County: Mr. Chuck Winn reported that County staff have been in negotiations and discussions on the evolution of the boundaries with other entities throughout the County and are working to resolve standing issues by the September 30 th deadline. California Water Service Company (Cal Water): Mr. Greg Milleman stated that Cal Water is forming a GSA with the City of Stockton and then invited Ms. Regina Rubier, City of Stockton to add further details. City of Stockton: Ms. Regina Rubier reported that the City of Stockton and Cal Water have reached agreement regarding the overlaps with SEWD. They are working on shape files which will be used to develop a map detailing boundaries of a joint GSA with Cal Water. Both City of Stockton and WID have filed as GSAs and the overlap issues will be resolved. Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID): Mr. Anders Christensen stated there is nothing new to report. There are no overlap issues. WID has submitted a draft coordinating agreement to the County for its consideration. This agreement is still in discussions and WID hopes to work closely with the County on administrative and enforcement issues. City of Lodi: Mr. Lance Roberts reported the City s status remains the same. Lodi is working with the County and NSJWCD and believes the September 30 th deadline will be met. The JPA is important to the City and he is interested in viewing the rough draft, particularly the role of the City of Lodi. City of Ripon: Mr. Kevin Werner reported they have been working with SSJID to be part of its GSA. The City will be meeting with SSJID later this month to work out governance issues. City of Lathrop: Mr. Tim McCoy reported that the City of Lathrop has taken a step sideways to analyze all the requirements related to the formation of a GSA. And once formed, the question remains as to the ongoing requirements, as well as concerns specifically related to their voice amongst voices, and funding. They are in the process of identifying all responsibilities of a GSA, and the costs associated with those responsibilities. Mr. McCoy recommended articles written by 4 P age

6 Michael Kiparsky, Director of the Wheeler Institute for Water Law & Policy, regarding ground rules and questions to consider when forming a GSA. City of Escalon: Ms. Tammy Alcantor reported that they are in discussions with SSJID, Ripon, and the City of Manteca and will meet later this month to iron out governance issues. Local Agencies of the North Delta (LAND): Mr. Erik Ringelberg stated that the three LAND member districts within the subbasin are having an MOU reviewed by Downey Brand, LLP, with a response expected soon. It is anticipated that this effort will result in a final agreement among the three districts to form a GSA. As LAND does not have a formal decision making process, Mr. Ringelberg would recommend the participation in the one GSP under the form of Special Management Area (SMA). There is a potential boundary overlap issue with WID. He said this issue will be resolved once the attorney s agreement is completed regarding structure. Securing funding to support the effort is an ongoing concern. Central Delta Water Agency (CDWA): Mr. Dante Nomellini reported that CDWA s position remains the same. CDWA wants to be part of a GSA with the County. He is confident that working through the attorney s group will result in a satisfactory mechanism that will unite all with one management plan for the basin, whether as a GSA with the County or as a separate GSA along with the County. Lockeford Community Services District (LCSD): Mr. Mike Henry reported there is no change from last month. LCSD is engaged in ongoing discussions regarding GSA formation and expects to meet the September 30 th deadline. They are coordinating with NSJWCD on overlap issues. Ms. Lott concluded the roundtable discussion by reviewing what is due by the September 30 th deadline. The following issues should be resolved by the self imposed September 30 th deadline: 1) No overlap issues; and 2) GSAs are identified encompassing cities, districts, etc. Once these issues are resolved, each GSA can move forward with revising its paperwork to DWR, and establishing internal governance. Mr. Nakagawa emphasized the importance of mapping. Recent findings are showing the County s GIS maps, district maps, and city maps need a good clean up to reflect updated information. Staff has printed maps at the parcel level and will begin scheduling meetings with GSAs to ensure all information is correct, represents each GSA s understanding, and that the boundaries are identified at the parcel level. d. Update on Governance Activities: Ms. Meredith Nikkel, Downey Brand Attorney, spoke on behalf of Kevin O Brien. Ms. Nikkel reported that she and Mr. O Brien have been reviewing the hard work the SGMA WG has done thus far and are preparing for the meeting of attorneys to discuss the JPA. Mr. O Brien is coordinating a meeting amongst attorneys to draft initial JPA legal language, which will be brought back to the SGMA WG for discussion. Ms. Nikkel expressed how valuable it has been to attend the SGMA WG providing her with the opportunity to hear each member s perspective on SGMA implementation. She and Mr. O Brien have begun a general outline for the working draft of the JPA. The language was circulated to the attorneys earlier in the week. The focus has been to on three specific areas: 1) Mission Statement The purpose of the JPA 5 P age

7 2) Key Governing Principles Basic governance questions such as funding mechanisms, voting rules, governing, members, and Board members 3) Outline Duties and Responsibilities of the JPA, as well as of the individual members Specifics of what each entity will do and how it plays out in the process The date for the initial attorney meeting is still pending due to scheduling conflicts. Participating attorneys and any interested agency counsel may contact Mr. O Brien with schedule availability. Ms. Nikkel concluded her update and discussion was opened. Mr. Flinn requested clarification regarding whether the JPA is for a county wide entity. Ms. Nikkel answered that yes, it is basin wide, as well as inclusion of the Cosumnes if the basin boundary modification does not come through. Mr. Flinn asked if attorneys from all agencies are participating. Ms. Nikkel responded that this is the intent. Mr. Milleman asked if the attorneys will be creating a draft document for review by the SGMA WG. Ms. Nikkel replied yes and added that the draft document has blank sections and feedback from the group is requested. Mr. Henry referred to discussion at the last SGMA meeting in May at which specific attorneys were asked to participate in the attorney group. Ms. Lott clarified the invitation is opened to all but participation by each agency s attorney is not required. Once a draft document is completed, the intent is that it will be reviewed by the SGMA WG as well as by each entity s legal counsel. Ms. Nikkel added that the goal is to have a first draft agreement for review next month. e. Upcoming Groundwater 101 Workshop in July: Mr. Nakagawa shared that this Workshop approved by the GBA Board is geared towards policy makers, technical and non technical staff, as well as electeds. A modest lunch will be provided by the GBA Board. Ms. Lott added the lunch and workshop will immediately follow the July SGMA WG meeting and RSVPs are requested. She asked member agencies to invite individuals, at the local level, they believe will benefit from the material covered. Mr. Nakagawa commented that Farmington Water Company is not currently participating in the SGMA WG, but is a local public agency with the authority to be a GSA. That being said, Farmington will be invited to participate the Groundwater 101 Workshop. II. Presentations: Ms. Lott expressed that in keeping with the goal of open communication among adjacent basins in Stanislaus and Calaveras counties, Mr. Walter Ward and Mr. Peter Martin have each agreed to provide presentations of their agency s status. a. Presentation by Stanislaus County Walter Ward: Mr. Walter Ward began his presentation with some personal background history. Mr. Ward studied geology at U.C. Santa Barbara, and attended graduate school at the University of Wyoming focusing on groundwater geology. He has worked as a consultant in the Rocky Mountains, as a hydrogeologist in a groundwater regulatory program for the South Florida Water Management District, in 1996 became the Assistant General Manager of Water Operations at Modesto Irrigation District (MID) for 17 years, and joined Stanislaus County as the Water Resources Manager in Mr. Ward addressed the similarities between Stanislaus and San Joaquin Counties in the topics discussed and issues to be resolved to achieve SGMA compliance, such as governance, public and 6 P age

8 agency awareness of water situations, as well as securing funding for the efforts. He envisions SGMA implementation efforts spanning 50 years. Mr. Ward advised, Don t get lost in the details, to keep it simple and do what needs to be done. He feels creating relationships amongst other entities is beneficial and SGMA is bringing people together. GSPs will change over time and implementing the plan is important. Governance will allow the opportunity to look conjunctively at surface water, groundwater, and a full spectrum of resources in ways we never have before stormwater capture, wastewater reuse, conservation programs to obtain neutral strategies to achieve sustainability. We must rationally work together to resolve the complicated overlap issues. In addition, private landowner representation is critical. There will be governance options to consider when structuring a GSA: MOU, MOA, or JPA. There is also an option to charter a group, or opt for other contractual arrangements. GSAs will need to work through the pros and cons and decide what makes sense for their agency. MOUs are generally more flexible easy to form and easy to disband. JPAs are an entity collectively made up of member agencies it has its own governance, it has its own Board of Directors, it becomes a funding mechanism, it can own land, it can be sued and can sue, and also has a lot more authority in the way of set up with adherence to the Brown Act, quorums, or voting representation. Mr. Ward and Mr. Mark Williamson, Consultant GEI, have had discussions on what the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) role might be. Every county has a LAFCo, which may become involved at some point. He feels things may become more complicated if LAFCo s become involved with the formation of GSAs and overlap issues. Stanislaus County has four groundwater subbasins within its political footprint: 1) the Delta Mendota Basin a long, linear basin that overlaps up in San Joaquin County area down to Fresno; 2) the Turlock Basin which contains the Tuolumne River on the north, the Merced River on the south, the foothills on the east, and San Joaquin on the west; 3) the Modesto Subbasin contains the Stanislaus River, San Joaquin River, and the Tuolumne River with the boundary of the basin at the foothills; and 4) the Northern Subbasin which overlaps with Eastern San Joaquin basin. Mr. Ward gave status reports on the four basins: 1) Delta Mendota Basin: Their approach will be multiple GSAs one GSP. They will be forming a group called the Northern Delta Mendota Subbasin. This northern group is made up of multiple water districts the Del Puerto Water District, Patterson Irrigation District, West Stanislaus Irrigation District, Central California Irrigation District (CCID), City of Patterson, and City of Newman working together to create the Northern Delta Mendota Subbasin. Individual GSAs will be Patterson ID, West Stanislaus ID, and Central California ID. The City of Newman will likely join CCID with an MOU. They are discussing an activity agreement for members of this newly formed group, with a side MOA for non members. This will all be operated under a steering committee recognizing full autonomy for each of the member agencies. Member groups and non member participating agencies will have a vote but their autonomy will remain intact. 7 P age

9 2) Turlock Basin: They are looking at two GSAs one GSP. The two GSAs will be an East Subbasin GSA, and a West Subbasin GSA. The East and West GSAs are working together to create one GSP under two different governance structures. The West Turlock Subbasin is working through an existing JPA template (provided by AQWA) for GSP preparation, implementation, and enforcement. The East Turlock Subbasin is creating a new JPA. 3) Modesto Subbasin: They will have one GSA one GSP. Not as many entities including: the cities of Modesto, Oakdale, Riverbank and Waterford; two irrigation districts including OID and MID; and, Stanislaus County. They are working from a structure that has been in place since 1994 called the Stanislaus and Tuolumne River Groundwater Basin Association and it is anticipated that this group may evolve into a GSA. The process is a 2 step comprising of an MOA for GSP preparation at the staff level, and then morph into a JPA for GSP implementation and enforcement. 4) Northern / Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin: They are looking at multiple GSAs working towards one GSP. This basin includes San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Calaveras Counties. Discussions have been held with Calaveras County on forming a GSA along the Eastern San Joaquin boundary. Entities would include Calaveras and Stanislaus Counties, Calaveras County Water District, Valley Springs Public Utilities District, and Rock Creek Water District. SEWD, OID, and SSJID are part of this basin but may stay within their own GSA. Governance issues to consider would be JPA, MOA, or other. Stanislaus County contains nine cities, and multiple water districts, irrigations districts, and community service districts. The challenge will be working with the governance for these entities in trying to create the GSAs for the implementation of SGMA. There is also area on the east side of the Modesto Basin and the east side of the Turlock Basin that is agriculture land of grape vineyards, and walnut and almond orchards. In addition, Mr. Ward shared that an ordinance was adopted by Stanislaus County on November 25, 2014 in which the term mining was replaced with sustainable groundwater extraction, thus allowing SGMA to define what is sustainable extraction. Their next steps will be the groundwater ordinance implementation and Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) preparation, groundwater data collection, and SGMA compliance. Mr. Milleman requested the ordinance be ed to the SGMA WG. Mr. Ward will forward the ordinance and ordinance application packet to Mr. Nakagawa and these documents will be uploaded onto the GBA website. b. Presentation by Calaveras County Water District Peter Martin: Mr. Peter Martin shared that he has worked for Calaveras County WD for the past year, and was employed by the City of San Diego Public Utilities prior to that. Most of his career has been focused on surface water quality and 8 P age

10 quantity but he is educating himself quickly on groundwater. In his presentation, Mr. Martin talked about groundwater management roles in Calaveras County which are shared responsibilities with the County Environmental Health department. He also highlighted groundwater quality/quantity investigations conducted in Calaveras County as well as shared opportunities for future investigations. Groundwater in Calaveras County is significantly influenced and governed by complex geological formations. Calaveras County holds 70 square miles of the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin, contains many small domestic wells, and appears to have undergone a conversion of grazing land to crop land in the western portion of the County. Many of the domestic wells contain fractured bedrock fissures and are subject to running out of water. CCWD operates an emergency assistance program to haul water to customers whose wells go dry. In addition, there are tertiary channel systems (buried rivers) old prehistoric rivers that have been covered up over time and create a lot of groundwater movement. The tertiary channels have numerous gold mines that intersect these underground rivers. Most of them are not within the actual Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. These channels contain a lot of water movement and old abandoned mines within these shafts fill with water. Some have used this water, but yields are unpredictable. The portion of the subbasin that lies in Calaveras County is located between Highway 12 and Highway 26 corridor. The Valley Springs Public Utility District (700 connections) and CCWD (100 customers) operate within this basin. These boundaries may be subject to change, during the DWR basin boundary modification process lead by DWR, which may include realigning the southern portion of the basin. CCWD works in partnership with Calaveras County Environmental Health (CCEH) on the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin with CCWD in the administrative role and Environmental Health focuses on the water quality and well permitting. CCWD is the designated groundwater management agency and is the designated California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) entity. They adopted an AB 3030 compliant plan which was updated in They have municipal customers within the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin and have conducted multiple investigations into groundwater recharge opportunities. CCEH has taken several steps to adopt ordinances for well construction. They require proof of groundwater before building on a particular parcel. In addition, Environmental Health adopted the local agency groundwater protection program in 2004, the implementation of the groundwater management ordinance, and the GIS program. CCWD has completed multiple technical evaluations including: June 2013 CCWD compiled a technical memo of groundwater characteristics and recharge implications for the area near Lake Comanche and Valley Springs. This portion of the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin was evaluated for opportunities for groundwater recharge. This report was prepared by Pat Dunn of Dunn Environmental Services. CCWD s CASGEM program monitors approximately 15 to 16 wells within the subbasin. These 9 P age

11 wells were put in place with grant assistance from United States Geological Survey (USGS) and DWR. The wells are found to be relatively static showing a long term decline in the groundwater table. The declining water levels and groundwater draft continue to be an ongoing concern in this area of Calaveras County though these declining levels are not of the same magnitude as seen in the portion of the subbasin in San Joaquin County. The studies have found these hardpan geological formations do not generally favor depercolation; however, small scale areas could allow for opportunities for recharge. There could be better alternatives such as water injections but this would prove costly in high yield areas. Results for other areas evaluated for recharge capacity include the Valley Springs Formation, which is not conducive for recharge, and the Ione Formation and Mehrten Formation which are both conducive for recharge. In 2004, CCEH began development of a comprehensive GIS departmental program to track and identify groundwater resources in Calaveras County, the threats to those sources, and public health and safety in regard to arsenic in individual domestic wells. CCEH has logged 1900 wells in isolated communities. There are areas along Highway 4 that obtain surface water from the Mokelumne and Calaveras rivers but most people are on domestic wells. In addition, 4,500 records compiled by DWR show various spatial references, well depth, yields, and static water levels. Results showed deeper wells and more static in the westerly region. Three dimensional views of the wells in Calaveras County reveal wide varying differences of depth and yield in areas of hard rock and hardpan, while the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin area show to be more homogeneous. Future considerations include CCWD Board s interest in the component that DWR has released of water available for replenishment. As part of this legislation, SGMA has directed DWR to prepare and publish a report providing its best estimate of water available for replenishment of groundwater in California by December 31, Mr. Martin stated CCWD has a lot of surface water rights and would be interested in partnering on potential projects long term. Part of this report will require a description of surface water used, as well as availability for use for groundwater recharge. Other future investigations include CCEH expansion to fully evaluate new well owners. Many are non domestic wells within Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin. In addition, CCWD recognizes there are significant data gaps within their CASGEM monitoring well. Mr. Martin and CCEH have discussed distributing literature to new well owners and inviting them to be a part of the CASGEM program. Mr. Martin concluded his presentation and discussion was opened. Mr. Flinn asked if CCWD covers the entire Calaveras County? Mr. Martin answered that CCWD is a special district and, technically, its sphere of influence is the entire County, but there are small water districts throughout. He added they are currently going through a LAFCo process to reevaluate the sphere of influence. Calaveras County contains six water service areas, totaling approximately 10 P age

12 13,000 customers, approximately 5,000 waste water customers, and 13 small waste water facilities. Mr. Flinn inquired on the source of revenue for CCWD. Mr. Martin responded that as a special district, some revenue comes from property taxes, as well as two aqua power projects which generate revenue. At the conclusion of the meeting, Ms. Hong Lin, DWR, announced a public meeting on Basin Boundary Modification on July 15, 2016 in West Sacramento, CA. In addition, DWR has a draft report of the Water Available for Replenishment on their website. DWR welcomes comment on this report and outreach on this project. PUBLIC COMMENT No public comment was offered. MEETING ADJOURNED 11:55 a.m. NEXT REGULAR MEETING Next SGMA WG Meeting: Wednesday, July 13, 2016, 10:00 a.m. 12:00 p.m. at the San Joaquin County Cabral Agricultural Center, Stockton Submitted by: Danielle Barney, San Joaquin County 11 P age

13

14

15

16

17

18