15. CONSIDER
ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE DISTRICT’S INTENT TO PREPARE A
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SEASIDE GROUNDWATER BASIN AND ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Meeting
Date: February 19, 2004 Budgeted: N/A
Program/Line Item No.: N/A
Staff
Contact: Joe
Oliver/ Cost
Estimate: N/A
Darby Fuerst
General
Counsel Approval: N/A
Committee
Recommendation: N/A
CEQA
Compliance: N/A
SUMMARY:
The proposed resolution, Exhibit 15-A,
declares the District’s intent to prepare a groundwater management plan for the
Seaside Groundwater Basin (SGB) and provide for broad public participation in
developing the plan. Exhibit 15-B shows the area overlying the
SGB. The plan is needed to provide a
framework for protection, preservation, and enhancement of the groundwater
resources in the SGB for current and future beneficial uses and prevent
undesirable impacts such as seawater intrusion from occurring. Development of the plan is consistent with
the District’s enabling legislation and with the District’s ongoing
hydrogeologic investigations and groundwater quantity and quality monitoring
programs in the SGB. The plan will be based on guidelines required and
recommended by recent State legislation (SB 1938) and include Basin Management
Objectives; components related to the monitoring and management of groundwater
levels, groundwater quality, groundwater banking, and land surface subsidence;
monitoring protocols to track changes in groundwater levels and quality; a plan
to involve other local agencies, jurisdictions, and purveyors in the SGB in the
development of the plan; a map depicting the area overlying the SGB; and rules
related to the implementation of the plan.
In addition, to assure support and successful implementation, the
District will provide ample opportunity for public involvement in development
of the groundwater management plan, including formation of an Advisory Group of
interested parties and public hearings.
RECOMMENDATION:
Following public comment and Board
discussion, staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed resolution
declaring its intent to prepare a groundwater management plan for the Seaside
Groundwater Basin and adoption of a statement of public participation.
IMPACT
OF STAFF AND RESOURCES:
The full extent of the impact of proceeding with development of a groundwater
management plan for the SGB on staff and resources is uncertain at this time
and will depend on the amount of work performed by District staff versus
consultants and the timeline for completion.
If this item is approved, an updated work plan will be presented as part
of the planning process for the District’s Fiscal Year 2005 Budget.
BACKGROUND:
Chronology. Recent
concerns regarding increased levels of groundwater extractions by
California-American Water Company (Cal-Am) and non Cal-Am pumpers in the SGB
and the effect of this increased pumping on the health of the basin date from
September 1998, when then-Director Ely raised a number of concerns (Exhibit 15-C). In response to Director Ely’s request that this issue be placed
on the Board’s agenda as soon as possible, staff prepared and presented a
status report on production from the SGB to the Board in November 1998 (Exhibit 15-D). In September 2000, in response to continued increased pumping and
the possibility of additional pumping occurring near the coast, the District
Board conducted a workshop on Seaside Basin groundwater management.
In
December 2000, based on information provided at the September 2000 workshop,
the District Board directed staff to retain a consultant to help prepare a SGB
management plan in coordination with major existing and future pumpers in the
basin. The Board indicated that the plan should consolidate known information,
confirm existing estimates of reliable yield, consider yield estimates for
smaller subunits of the basin, assess the condition of the basin or subbasins,
develop management schemes, and assess potential for basin recharge. This effort was postponed as staff time was
needed to facilitate testing of the Santa Margarita Test Injection Well (SMTIW)
and to oversee consultants working on the Phase III hydrogeologic assessment of
the Laguna Seca subarea of the SGB. In
September 2001, at a strategic planning session, the Board identified
development of a management plan for the SGB as one of the District’s top five
priorities.
In
January 2002, at the Board’s strategic planning workshop, staff provided an
update on development of a SGB management plan. This update listed primary plan objectives and presented a work
plan that included key assumptions, decision points, project schedule, project
costs, funding sources, coordinating agencies, and alternative approaches. In February 2002, at a follow-up strategic
planning session, staff provided more specific information regarding the
Board’s authority to manage groundwater use in the SGB, various management
options (i.e., ordinance specific to SGB management versus SGB management
plan), advantages and disadvantages of each of the options, and the cost and
time to pursue the recommended action, i.e., prepare a basin management plan. As an alternative, because development of a
comprehensive management plan would take too much time, the Board directed
staff to prepare an ordinance specific to SGB management. The Board also directed that stakeholders
should be included in the ordinance review process.
In
April 2002, at a Board strategic planning session, staff presented additional
information on the different management options available including development
of a management plan, adoption of groundwater use ordinances, or basin
adjudication. The Board reiterated its
direction to develop an ordinance focused on management of the SGB as an
interim measure to help protect the basin’s resources until a comprehensive
groundwater management plan could be developed, and asked that a work plan and
time line for developing the ordinance be provided at the May 2002 Board
meeting. This information, along with
conceptual ordinances and discussion of CEQA compliance, was prepared for the
May 2002 meeting. However, due to time
constraints, consideration of the item was continued to the June 2002
meeting. At the June 2002 meeting,
staff presented the conceptual ordinances, i.e., one for new or expanded water
distribution systems (No. XXX) and one for existing water distribution systems
(No. YYY) within the SGB. The Board
approved the proposed time line and work plan and, in addition, directed staff
to develop a request for proposals (RFP) for assistance with development of the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) associated with ordinance approval. Eight RFPs were sent out in September 2002.
In
December 2002, the Board authorized a contract with Jones & Stokes for
technical assistance to facilitate public outreach and environmental review of
the interim ordinances regarding SGB management. Work on a legal review of the ordinances and a stakeholders’
meeting were delayed until March 2003 by Board action. In March 2003, staff and representatives
from Jones & Stokes conducted a stakeholders’ meeting regarding the proposed
groundwater use ordinances and associated environmental review. The presentation discussed the need for
basin management, i.e., declining water levels in the coastal subareas of the
basin, reviewed current basin production practices, and summarized the impacts
of these practices on groundwater levels and quality. The presentation also summarized the environmental review needed
for the interim ordinances, reviewed the components of the proposed ordinances,
and discussed the potential impacts of the ordinances. A similar public workshop was held in April
2003. In May 2003, staff provided a
progress report to the Board and Jones & Stokes submitted a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) for an EIR for the proposed interim ordinances to the State
Clearinghouse. In June 2003, Jones
& Stokes held a CEQA scoping workshop on the proposed ordinances and
reviewed the process for the public to provide input.
Both
Cal-Am and the City of Seaside provided written comments on the NOP and
indicated their support for all reasonable efforts to maintain a healthy, viable
SGB. Both Cal-Am and the City of
Seaside raised concerns about proceeding with the interim ordinances. In its comments, the City of Seaside
applauded the District’s interest in protecting the basin and, as an
alternative to the ordinances, encouraged the District to “draft and diligently
pursue the adoption of a Basin management plan that is consistent” with
District law and is broadly supported by interested stakeholders. District staff and counsel met with representatives
from Cal-Am and the City of Seaside to discuss their comments on the NOP in
June 2003.
In
August 2003, Cal-Am filed a complaint against several municipalities and other
users of groundwater within the SGB.
Cal-Am’s complaint sought a basin-wide adjudication including
prioritization and quantification of water rights within the basin, rights to
aquifer storage in the basin, rights to inject water into the basin, a judicial
determination that the basin has been in a condition of overdraft, and the
appointment of a watermaster to manage the water rights and resources of the
basin. In September 2003, the District
filed a motion to intervene in the adjudication. The District’s motion to intervene was granted in November
2003. In January 2004, the City of
Seaside filed a motion to change the venue of the adjudication or appoint a
disinterested judge from a neutral county.
At the same time, the City of Seaside filed a cross-complaint against
the District requesting that the Court declare that the District’s statutory
authority and its rights to groundwater and groundwater storage with the SGB
are subordinate to the rights of Seaside, the rights of the other
municipalities overlying the basin, and any physical solution ordered by the
Court.
In
December 2003, following a change in the Board’s composition due to the
November 2003 election, the Board directed staff to cease work on the interim
groundwater management ordinances and associated environmental review and
proceed with development of groundwater management plan for the SGB. Consequently, in January 2004, staff
notified the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research that the District had
decided to withdraw it proposed project, Seaside Basin Ground Water
Management Ordinance, from the CEQA environmental review process (Exhibit 15-E) and planned to focus on
development of a comprehensive groundwater management plan for the SGB. In addition, staff notified the commenters
on the NOP and members of the stakeholders’ group of the Board’s decision to
withdraw the interim ordinances and proceed with a groundwater management
plan. Work on the EIR for the interim
ordinances was suspended at the administrative draft level.
Groundwater
Management.
Groundwater management is defined as the planned and coordinated
monitoring, operation, and administration of a groundwater basin or portion of
a groundwater basin with the goal of long-term sustainability of the
resource. In California, there is no
statewide groundwater management statute or program and the California
Legislature has repeatedly held that groundwater management should remain a
local responsibility. The State’s role
is to provide technical and financial assistance to local agencies for their
groundwater management efforts. In this
regard, in 2002, the Legislature passed SB 1938 (Stats 2002, ch 603) which
amended Water Code section 10750 et seq to require that groundwater management
plans adopted by local agencies include certain components to be eligible for
public funds administered by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) for
construction of groundwater projects.
In addition to the required components, DWR worked with representatives
from local water agencies to develop a list of additional recommended components
that are common to effective groundwater management. These required and recommended components are listed and
described in Exhibit 15-F, which
is taken from DWR’s Bulletin 118, Update 2003, California’s Groundwater.
All
of the required and recommended components specified by DWR will be included in
the proposed groundwater management plan for the SGB. It should be noted that
any action of the Board to adopt or implement the groundwater management plan
for the SGB will be taken by ordinance and that, before enactment of any
ordinances, the Board will satisfy all CEQA-related requirements.
U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2004\2004boardpacket\20040219\ActionItems\15\item15.doc