_____________________________________________________________________________________

BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETINGAGENDA

DECEMBER 13, 20183:00 PM

CITY HALL ROTUNDA, 200 LINCOLN AVENUE SALINAS, CALIFORNIA 93901

1. Call to Order

2. Roll Call

3. Pledge of Allegiance

4. General Public CommentMembers of the public may comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the agency thatare not on the agenda. Public comments generally are limited to two (2) minutes perspeaker; the Chair may further limit the time for public comments depending on theagenda schedule. Comments on agenda items should be held until the items are reached.To be respectful of all speakers and avoid disruption of the meeting, please refrain fromapplauding or jeering speakers.

5. Special Board Matters

5.a Presentation by Lee Knudtson, WelIntel Technology and Groundwater Data

6. Consent ItemsAll matters listed under the Consent Agenda may be enacted by one motion unless a member of the Board,audience, or staff requests discussion or a separate vote.

6.a Approve October 11, 2018 regular meeting minutes.2018-10-11 Board Meeting Minutes.docx

6.b Approve corrected September 13, 2018 Special Board and Advisory Committee Joint Meeting minutes. Revised 2018-09-13 Joint Board and Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes.docx

6.c Approve September 2018 Financial Report.6.c - Staff Report - Sep 2018 Financial Report.docx 1

6.c.1. Sep 2018 Statement of Revenues & Expenses.pdf6.c.2 Sep 2018 Balance Sheet.pdf6.c.3. Sep 2018 Payment and Disbursement report.pdf

6.d Approve October 2018 Financial Claims Report6.d - Staff Report - Oct 2018 Financial Report.docxOct 2018 Statement of Revenues & Expenses.pdfOct 2018 Balance Sheet.pdfOct 2018 Payment and Disbursement report.pdf

7. Scheduled Items

7.a SVBGSA staff recommends that the Board of Directors review and adopt a resolution to approve forfurther public comment draft chapters 1 - 3 of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the 180-400 FootAquifer for a thirty-day public review period and provide any appropriate comments or direction. 7.a.1. 12-13-18 BOD 7a staff report chapter review 1-3 180-400 final[22518].docx7.a.2 12-13-18 BOD 180-400 chapter Reso final.docx7.a.3. Draft_180_400_Chap_1to3_20181205.docxReview Comments.pdf

7.b Adoption of Resolution to Authorize Execution of a Framework Agreement for the Monterey BasinGroundwater Sustainability Plan by the Marina Coast Water District Groundwater Sustainability Agencyand the Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency 7.b.1 12-13-18 BOD Framework Staff Report final.docx7.b.2. 12-13-18 B OD Framework Reso final.docx7.b. Monterey GSP Framework Agreement.v1KVDPB LJG edits.MCWD.docx

8. General Manager’s Report

9. Directors’ Reports

10. Future Agenda Items

10.a Future Agenda ItemsFuture Board Agenda Items.pdf

11. Closed Session - None

12. Adjournment

Accommodation, Meeting Viewing, Agenda PostingDisability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, may be requested byany person with a disability who requires modification or accommodation in order to participate in themeeting. Requests should be referred to Ann Camel, Clerk of the Board at camela@svbgsa.org or831-471-7519 as soon as possible, but by no later than 5 p.m. two business days prior to the meeting.

2

Hearing impaired or TTY/TDD text telephone users may contact the Agency by dialing 711 for theCalifornia Relay Service (CRS) or by telephoning any other service providers’ CRS telephone number.

VIEWING MEETINGSLive meetings are televised at www.youtube.com/thesalinaschannel . The recorded meeting schedule maybe viewed at http://tinyurl.com/salinas25

AGENDA POSTING The meeting agenda was posted at the Salinas City Clerk’s Office and City HallRotunda, Monterey County Offices at 1441 Schilling Place, Salinas, CA on 12/7/18.

3

Page 1 of 7 10/11/18 SVBGSA Board Minutes

__________________________________________________________________________________UNOFFICIAL MEETING MINUTES

BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING

OCTOBER 11, 2018CITY HALL ROTUNDA, 200 LINCOLN AVENUE

SALINAS, CALIFORNIA 93901

1. Call to OrderChairperson McHatten convened the meeting at 3 p.m..

2. Roll CallPresent: Chairperson Michael McHattenVice Chair Luis AlejoDirector Janet BrennanDirector Lou CalcagnoDirector Brenda GranilloDirector Joe GunterDirector Bill LipeDirector Steve McIntyreDirector Colby PereiraDirector Adam SecondoDirector Ron Stefani

Absent: None

Also Present: Gary Petersen, General Manager; Les Girard, Agency Counsel; Ann Camel Clerk

3. Pledge of Allegiance

4. Special Matters – None

5a. Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Domestic Well Testing ProgramMatt Keeling, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, presented a power point presentation on domestic well nitrate and chemical contamination testing. Residents may sign up for the program at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/salinas_valley It is voluntary and free to well owners, and is funded through settlement funds by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Norm Groot, Monterey County Farm Bureau of Monterey, stated that emphasis must be on finding long-term solutions that affect everyone and beyond providing bottled water.

Horacio Amezquita stated that County assistance is needed to find funding to address water contamination. 4

Page 2 of 7 10/11/18 SVBGSA Board Minutes

6. Consent ItemsTom Virsik requested that his comments regarding the Paso Robles Boundary adjustment, underflow, and, individual agencies' relationship to the JPA be added to the minutes.

BOARD ACTIONThe Board approved the Consent Resolution with the additions to the September 13, 2018 minutes requested by Mr. Virsik, with Chair McHatten abstaining on the minutes approval. AYES: Directors Alejo, Brennan, Calcagno, Granillo, Gunter, Lipe, McIntyre, Pereira, Secondo, Stefani, and Chair McHatten. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. The Consent Resolution contained the following items.6.a Approved September 13, 2018 Joint Board and Advisory Committee Special Meeting Minutes, as

corrected.

6.b Approved September 13, 2018 Board of Directors Special Meeting Minutes.

6.c Approved the August 2018 Financial Report

6.d Ratified renewal of the $2 million Directors and Officers Policy for the period October 13, 2018 through October 13, 2019.

7. Scheduled Items

7a. Provide direction on two items related to the GSA Fee Study: 1) Schedule of reimbursement of SVBGSA Agency Member Contributions, 2) Methodology for GSA funding

Mr. Girard referred to Tom Virsik’s letter dated October 9, 2018 that discusses underflow and how it relates to a regulatory fee. Mr. Girard stated that underflow is not a separate supply of water. He referenced Law Professor Joseph Sax’s 2002 report to the State Water Quality Control Board in context of State permitting authority that basically concludes percolating groundwater, surface water, underflow, and subterranean streams are all interconnected. In contrast to a subterranean stream, underflow has to have a connection to a surface stream. The State Board has permitting authority over subterranean streams and surface water, which includes its underflow. Mr. Girard also referenced the recent Scott River case that noted drawing from a groundwater well in close proximity to surface waterimpacts the level and volume in surface flow, which is protected by the public trust.

Mr. Girard stated that the other thing Mr. Virsik brought out was the relationship of a regulatory fee to drawing underflow. The Agency is considering levying a regulatory groundwater sustainability fee, not a use fee; it is a regulatory fee. SGMA Chapter 8, Financial Authority, clearly expresses the intentthat the GSA has the authority to implement a regulatory fee. Mr. Virsik cited a San Buenaventura case, but there is a more recent California Supreme Court case from May 2018, CA Building IndustryAssociation v. State Water Resources Control Board. Mr. Girard read a quote that focuses on what a regulatory fee is and that it may not exceed the estimated cost of the regulatory activity. In Mr. Girard’s opinion, SGMA is at its core a regulatory program. The fee cannot be used for general revenue, but is limited to the amount needed to implement the regulatory program. The regulatory fee must bear a reasonable relationship to the fee payor’s burden. The regulatory fee may be enacted as long as there is a reasonable basis in the record as to the manner the regulatory fee is allocated among people paying for it.

5

Page 3 of 7 10/11/18 SVBGSA Board Minutes

In response to Directors’ questions, Mr. Girard stated the cited cases have not been overturned and the recent California Supreme Court case validates them. If someone is solely reliant on recycled water, then the argument could ask from where does the recycled water come. Mr. Girard stated you may choose to consider giving credit when setting the fee, but it does not have to be a precise calculation. The cases that have sent back decisions on the setting of fees are quite extreme. He believes it was the San Buenaventura case that was sent back because urban users had to pay three to five time more than ag users when the record did not support that.

Mr. Girard stated that the fee would be levied on a per parcel basis, and not on where the water comes from. In regard to whether water being pulled from Salinas would be taxed twice, Mr. Girard stated that the water is not taxed. People within the Basin, whether ag or municipal users, are not paying twice. You are not paying for water; the GSA is not a water provider. You are paying for regulations to maintain sustainability.

Tom Virsik is not disagreeing with Mr. Girard except there was a State Board proceeding on whether to adopt Professor Saxs’ views, but they did not. So the law did not change based on what he said. In fact, Mr. Virsik’s office thought Professor Sax was right. But the statutes make the distinction between groundwater and surface rights. The way to get ahead of it is to adjudicate it. Those people filing statements of water diversion do not exist from the State Board’s perspective because their water is managed in a different data base, which is a different side of the house. But he agrees with Mr. Girard, broadly speaking, those are the standards and the things to look at.

Nancy Isakson stated she filed statements with the State for several landowners to prove their alluvial rights if a determination should ever be made that they are pumping underflow. They also are reporting to the Water Resources Agency. Everyone, including CSIP, is being regulated, so every project and how users are paying should be looked at. The Salinas Valley Water Coalition took a position as to the fee, administratively, on a regulatory basis.

In response to David Morisoli, Mr. Girard stated that the fees would not be used for projects.

May Nguygen, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, stated the reasonable basis for the regulatory fee, especially for low and disadvantaged communities, would have to be connected to the quality of the groundwater.

Horacio Amezquita stated that funding and an Agency is needed for solutions for polluted water.

Mr. Girard stated that maybe in 2002, the legislation did not change in response to Professor Sax’s report. But the law changed in 2014 in SGMA, and it implements much of what Professor Sax put forth. In response to Ms. Isakson’s question , it is not relevant whether the State Board or the courtsdecide on the levying of the regulatory fee, which is based on the benefit that the user receives from the activity. The characterization of the water flow is not relevant.

General Manager Gary Petersen stated that the Agency budget has been included as $1.2 million for the fee calculation, but may be adjusted.

Catherine Hansford, Hansford Economic Consulting, presented a power point presentation on the fee methodology, which is on file. Four public workshops were held, and attendees totaled 16 in Soledad, 15 in Castroville, 27 in Salinas and 14 in King City, not including staff and consultants. Castroville and King City attendance included good representation of small water systems, and Soledad, Salinas, and King City included good representation of agriculture. There was no real concern about the fee

6

Page 4 of 7 10/11/18 SVBGSA Board Minutes

level, but there was concern as to whether it could escalate or change. There were some comments but no major concern that non ag users would have the same fee per connection regardless of land use. Ms. Hansford stated that the fee amount involved does not justify the delay in adopting fees to address this concern. Small water systems did not support option 3, acreage/parcel fee, because they believe it is inequitable. An extraction fee is not feasible now but should remain an option in the future. There was some concern at the Castroville meeting that de minimus users would not pay a fee. Ms. Hansford stated they do not know how many domestic wells are out there, and SGMA realizes the concern, but they do not propose to impose a fee on de minimis users. Ms. Hansford summarized questions and responses from the community meetings. The direction at the Board’s September 13, 2018 meeting was to return to the Board with additional information on Options 1, irrigated acre fee and connection fee for non ag users, and Option 3, acreage fee for ag and large water system parcels, and a parcel fee for water system parcels less than 2.5 acres, to consider impacts on disadvantaged communities, and to provide greater description of how revenue would be collected.

Ms. Hansford reviewed the options’ benefits and drawbacks, and different fee calculation scenarios The Board can revise the fee as necessary. There would be an annual review during consideration of budget projections.

Ms. Hansford outlined the investment required to calculate return flow. They found the concern regarding fees paid by disadvantaged communities was not an issue at public workshops once the level of the fee was understood and they reached out to Environmental Justice, whose primary concern is water quality. The Agency could adopt a resolution to provide assistance to disadvantaged householdsat a later time, if regulatory fee requirements are met, and the assistance would not need to be tied with the implementation of the fee. Program administration can cost $5 to $6 per application for a fee that is less than $3. If water providers do not put fees on the property tax bill, relief could potentially be provided without SVBGSA action.

Ms. Hansford stated that they recommend basing the fee on the $1.2 milion and waiting until the Groundwater Sustainability Plans are complete to determine member reimbursement. Secondly, they recommend option 1 for the fee methodology, which is a regulatory fee under SGMA, and to document items that should be periodically visited in the fee report. Option 1 provides the greatest equity between groundwater users and is the simplest to calculate and collect. The 90%/10% allocation would be based on an established local data source and can be updated. Imperfections can be corrected during annual reviews. The door would be kept open on items such as working toward an extraction based fee, low income discount and return flow calculations.

In response to Chair McHatten, Ms. Hansford stated Monterey County’s billing fee would range between $10,000 to $20,000 annually and is contained within the $1.2 million budget.

Director Brennan stated that the Budget and Finance Committee concurred with the recommendations.

Director McIntyre stated he would like to review the 90%/10% calculation annually. Eventually, with use of the latest technology, the amount of returned water could be eliminated.

Director Granillo expressed concern regarding the inequity of the Option 1 per connection cost for residential homeowners compared to an apartment complex or commercial industrial users. She asked how development of operations and maintenance costs would be handled as projects are completed in the future. Ms. Hansford stated it would be a separate funding mechanism for a specific project and benefits. 7

Page 5 of 7 10/11/18 SVBGSA Board Minutes

In response to Director Secondo suggested a specified date for a future Board review of the fee, e.g. 2024. , Ms. Hansford stated that the Board’s direction would be memorialized in the written record for future Boards.

In response to Director Lipe, Ms. Hansford stated they would return in December or January with a draft for feedback, including the recommended 90%/10% allocation.

Director Lipe wondered about the urgency on deciding the reimbursement timing given that the initial contributions were from capital funds and not general funds. Mr. Petersen responded the fundingsource varied by Agency, but some were enterprise funds. His understanding is that Monterey County contributed General Funds, but no members have expressed concern regarding the need for immediate repayment.

Director McIntyre stated that agriculture would want to review this, because its portion of the contribution would become significantly larger if contributions are reimbursed. Mr. Petersen stated that there are some proposals going forward to address questions of equity and fairness.

Chair McHatten stated he is concerned about cash flows, and he supports both recommendations with the understanding the items need to be vetted again by the Budget and Executive Committees and the Board.

Mr. Petersen noted that the reference to users will be replaced by the term beneficiaries to be more precise. Abby Taylor Silva notified him that the Grower-Shipper Association and Water Committee agree with Option 1, provided the number of irrigated acres and 90%/10% allocation will be further considered.

Mr. Girard stated that under SGMA, no vote of the electorate or property owners is needed for the regulatory fee, but any extraction fee approved after adoption of the GSPs would require a vote.

Nancy Isakson stated that the written reports should state clearly that this is a regulatory and not user fee. The Coalition agrees with the Option 1 methodology. There was concern regarding how and when contributions were to be repaid.

Norm Groot, Farm Bureau of Monterey, stated they believe Option 1 is the best at this point. Theyconcur the irrigation number needs to be determined and the allocation should be looked at. He isPresident of the Salinas Basin Ag Water Association that consists of five organizations meeting onSGMA implementation, and who believes more consideration is needed on reimbursement of members’ contributions after the GSP process is completed.

David Morisoli, land owner, stated the actual water user would pay the fee if billed with the property tax because much ag land is rented .

BOARD ACTIONDirector Lipe made a motion as recommended by staff to base the fee on $1.2 million and wait until GSPs are complete to commence reimbursement of initial member contributions. The motion was seconded by Director McIntyre and passed unanimously. AYES: Directors Alejo, Brennan, Calcagno, Granillo, Gunter, Lipe, McIntyre, Pereira, Secondo, Stefani, and Chair McHatten. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None.

8

Page 6 of 7 10/11/18 SVBGSA Board Minutes

Director Brennan moved the staff recommendation, Option 1, with the clarification that irrigated acre be defined with respect to the methodology. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. AYES: Directors Alejo, Brennan, Calcagno, Granillo, Gunter, Lipe, McIntyre, Pereira, Secondo, Stefani, and Chair McHatten. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None.

7.b. Consider taking an advisory position supporting the acceptability of employees of Errol L. Montgomery and Associates (ELM) contracting with the County of Monterey to complete water studies in the Salinas Valley Basin

Director Granillo left the meeting at 5:10 p.m. -In response to Director Lipe, Mr. Girard stated that the interlake tunnel is not part of this item. Director Lipe stated this is efficient, but he would like ensure discussions are open and transparentto maintain trust.

Director Gunter left the meeting at 5:15 p.m.

Mr. Virsik amplified Director Lipe’s comments.

In response to Director McIntyre, Mr. Girard stated that the model would be public at some point.

BOARD ACTIONUpon motion by Director Alejo and second by Director Stefani, the Board voted to support the acceptability of employees of Errol L. Montgomery and Associates contracting with the County of Monterey to complete water studies in the Salinas Valley Basin. AYES: Directors Alejo, Brennan, Calcagno, Lipe, McIntyre, Pereira, Secondo, Stefani, and Chair McHatten. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Directors Granillo and Gunter.

7.c. Consider a change in the Committee meeting schedule that would allow for the formation of a Planning Committee and making appointments to the Planning Committee

Mr. Petersen reported that the Budget and Finance Committee recommended changing to a quarterly or special meeting schedule to allow a monthly Planning Committee meeting.

BOARD ACTIONThe Board approved the recommendation. AYES: Directors Alejo, Brennan, Calcagno, Lipe, McIntyre, Pereira, Secondo, Stefani, and Chair McHatten. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Directors Granillo and Gunter.

The Board voted to appoint Directors Brennan, Granillo, McHatten, McIntyre, and Secondo to the Planning Committee. AYES: Directors Alejo, Brennan, Calcagno, Lipe, McIntyre, Pereira, Secondo, Stefani, and Chair McHatten. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Directors Granillo and Gunter

Committee members noted that they are available the first Thursday monthly, but the meeting date will be determined by the Committee.

7.d. Receive a presentation on dates associated with Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) 9

Page 7 of 7 10/11/18 SVBGSA Board Minutes

reviewMr. Petersen presented the proposed schedule, which is tentative. Mr. Groot noted that the draft schedule in the packet included some draft chapter completion dates that are after the Planning Committee meeting review dates.

8. General Manager’s ReportDirector Alejo left the meeting at 5:20 p.m.

Mr. Petersen reported that Emily Gardner, Driscoll, invited him to be the keynote speaker at the Rosenberg International Forum on Water, whose overall focus is on reducing conflict in watermanagement. He spoke to the Castroville Rotary and will be speaking to the King City Rotary in November. He was invited to tour Denmark’s water innovations during the last week of November.

9. Directors’ Reports/Future Agenda Items - None

12. AdjournmentThe meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m.

10

Page 1 of 4 9/13/18 Joint Minutes

_____________________________________________________________________________________

UNOFFICIAL MINUTES with corrections on page 2SVBGSA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee

Special Joint Meeting September 13, 2018

Monterey County Government Center, Cayenne Room1441 Schilling Place, Salinas

1. Call to OrderThe joint meeting was called to order at 2 p.m.

2. Roll CallBoard of Directors present: Directors Adams (alternate), Alejo, Brennan, Calcagno, Granillo, Lipe, McIntyre, Pereira, Secondo, and Stefani. Absent: Director Gunter

Advisory Committee Members present: Members Adcock, Amezquita, Breen, Frus, Gardner, Groot, Harrell, Isakson, Lee, McCullough, Meyers, Stemler, Tran, Tubbs, Ward, Wolgamott

3. Special Matters - None

4. Scheduled Items

4a. Receive Presentation and Provide Direction on Development of Fees for SVBGSA Operations

General Manager Gary Petersen introduced Catherine Hansford, Hansford Economic Consulting. Ms. Hansford stated that fifty percent of the budget has been expended, and the project is on track. Four public workshops are being held in September and October, and the Board and Advisory Committee’s input is being sought. Public hearings would be held by the Board in January and February, followed by approvals in March and April, in order to determine the fee for each payor for the following fiscal year.

Schaelene Rollins reviewed the stakeholders’ briefings, database development, and fee webpage enhancements. Postcards were distributed to more than 6,500 property owners, and display ads have been published in English and Spanish.

Committee member Amezquita, stated companies without clean water should be reached. In response to Brenda Granillo, Ms. Rollins stated that over 800 water systems received the postcard,including small water systems and mutual companies. Vice Chair Alejo suggested that info be forwarded to the Board and Committee members for distribution to other interested parties.

Agency Counsel Les Girard reviewed the legal basics. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) allows regulatory fees both pre and post Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) adoption. SGMA requires a partial majority protest proceeding for extraction based fees after the

11

Page 2 of 4 9/13/18 Joint Minutes

GSP completion.

Mr. Virsik questioned whether the parts of the Valley that do not extract groundwater should pay a fee for the benefit of being left alone. His comments referenced 1) the Paso Robles Boundary adjustment (2) underflow, and (3) the individual agencies' relationship to the JPA. He asked what happens if the Paso Robles boundary is adjusted. The budget probably should be segregated for various plans and then there would be political equity and legally reasonable proportionality.

In response to Mr. Virsik’s comments, Mr. Girard responded that the JPA can exercise the powers held in common. Above that are the powers given by SGMA to the JPA, which is a GSA, and the GSA can exercise that power. With respect to the potential of the boundary adjustment, if the GSA adopts a regulatory fee, he would advise them to look at it every year to ensure they are not exceeding the reasonable cost of the program. Additional land added to the GSA would be looked at to determine if the burdens and benefits are being allocated appropriately.

Ms. Hansford stated that the Agency will move forward under the regulatory and governmental service fee alternative. They are looking for funding mechanisms that would go beyond GSP adoption, and would look at other funding mechanisms as programs are implemented. Options include wellhead, parcel, per acre/per connection, and extraction charges. For each of the four options, consideration was given to simplicity, equity, administrative ease, and enforceability.There is no one perfect, easy way to identify the best most equitable fee for all in the Valley. It is important to know they wanted to relay back information impartially based on what was heard from participants.

She came up with three different approaches that meet Proposition 26 requirements. Approach 1 would allocate the annualized cost by a 90/10 split for ag and municipal users and determine parcel charges for municipal users based on the number of connections, and for ag users based on number of irrigated acres. Approach 2 would be based on pumping, and every well would have the same annual base charge and provide an exclusion for de minimis users. The fees would be applied to theparcel the well is located on, unless served by a water system that provides service connection datafor the tax roll. Approach 3 would be based on acreage regardless of land use, and includes a minimum charge or no fee for de minimis users. She reviewed the benefits and drawbacks of each approach.

Committee member Isakson referenced Mr. Virsik’s comments that different parts of the Valley may have different benefits and should have different plans and fees. Ms. Hansford responded that the GSP is being developed for the common good of the entire area.

Ann Myhre stated there are enormous inequities between well head and parcel charges. It is easy to argue on the ag side that every irrigated acre benefits equally from the administration of the GSA,so the per acre charge would be most equitable.

Directors Lipe and McIntyre commented that an 80%/20% split may be more equitable because of the return flow, and takes into account the environment for which ag and municipal users are equally responsible. Ms. Hansford stated that would require analysis of the return flow, which is

12

Page 3 of 4 9/13/18 Joint Minutes

considerably more complicated.

Director Lipe stated that landowners have been paying all along through assessments, and these would be additional costs to the landowners.

Ms. Hansford compared the fees under the three approaches to the fee the State would impose if it stepped in, which would be a minimum of $110 per acre per year.

Committee member Tran asked if the calculation does not differentiate for multi family or senior residential usage. Ms. Hansford stated she considered that alternative, but concluded the estimated $2 or $3 difference did not justify the complexity.

Mr. Morisoli pointed out that a hotel with 200 occupants would be charged the same as a single family home with a similar lot size.

Mr. Petersen noted that the fees must be in place by July 2019 or the Agency may dissolve. The Agency is not stuck with one fee, but this would be the beginning place.

Mr. Virsik stated that Monterey County would become the default GSA in the interim.

Ms. Hansford reviewed the ranking table that was distributed to the Board and Advisory Committee members to rank each of the alternative approaches.

Jason Smith, Forebay Committee Chair, stated that Valley agriculture wants consensus on a fair approach, and Greenfield and Arroyo Seco are part of their group. They found that option 1, theper acre fee, is the most equitable, with the caveat that they want to look at both the 90/10, 80/20 split and irrigated acres.

Nancy Isakson stated that the Salinas Valley Water Coalition looked at this. She wants to support approach 1, which is a per acre fee based on the ag/municipal split. But the difference between approach 1 and 3 is unclear.

Ms. Hansford stated that approach 1 acknowledges the difference in the amount of water usage, and that is something that many people supported. Option 3 does not do that. It just looks at whether the property is receiving water from a provider or well to irrigated property.

The joint meeting recessed at 4 p.m. and reconvened at 4:10 p.m..

Ms. Hansford thanked Committee member Frus for pointing out that approach 2 for scenario 2 on slide 32 should be $8.31 instead of $5.81 per acre per year.

Norm Groot stated that he did not have the opportunity earlier to announce that the Farm Bureau Board concurred that the per acreage fee, Option 1, appears to be the most reasonable. They also would like to vet the number of irrigated land acres and determine what that number is and how that is defined, and to look at the 90/10 split and determine whether the 80/20 is more equitable.

The joint meeting recessed at 4:15 p.m. to assess the ranking of the alternative approaches, and reconvened at 4:30 p.m.

Ms. Hansford announced that the Board and Committee ranked approach 1 the highest with a score of 104. Approach 3 the second highest with a score of 68, and approach 2 is the lowest with a score

13

Page 4 of 4 9/13/18 Joint Minutes

of 58 points.

Director Granillo would like details of approaches 1 and 3 to be presented to the Board at its October meeting.

Committee member Isakson would like discussion on the hardship clause or waiver, or some accommodation for disadvantaged households.

In response to Committee member Lee, Ms. Hansford stated that domestic well owners that have a larger property would be excluded under option 1, but it would be difficult to say with certainty that option 3 could be reworked to exclude them.

Committee member Adcock stated that a detailed analysis of recycled water coming from the municipal systems will be needed to be equitable and more accurate, if the Board is considering option 1 and a 90/10 or 80/20 split.

Committee member Gardner stated water use should be revisited when there is a more reliable system of tracking and recording water use.

In response to Director Secondo, Ms. Hansford stated she is uncertain if they can account for the percentage of water use attributable to environmental purposes, in addition to the ag and municipal percentage allocations. Mr. Girard stated that he is uncertain whether the basis could be established for allocation to environmental use. Mr. Petersen stated there is anecdotal information, and they would have to find out if there is scientific support. Director Secondo stated he would be interested in whether there is a useable margin.

David Morisoli, Little Bear Water, asked who would be tasked with collecting the fees. Ms. Hansford stated, under approach 1, there would need to be a choice for the water provider, for example, the company provides them with connection data to put the fee on the property tax roll. But if the data is not supplied by a date certain, the GSA would rely on the Department of Environmental Health’s records on the number of connections. They cannot check all of the hundreds of small water systems.

Tom Virsik believes it may be appropriate for the community meetings to emphasis different aspects based on their location in the Valley.

BOARD ACTIONDirector Granillo moved to present details on option 1 and option 3 for the Board’s consideration at its October 11, 2018 meeting. The motion was seconded by Director Lipe and passed. AYES: Directors Adams, Brennan, Calcagno, Granillo, Lipe, McIntyre, Pereira, Secondo, Stefani and Vice Chair Alejo. Absent: Director Gunter.

5. Adjournment of the Special Joint Meeting of the SVBGSA Board and Advisory CommitteeThe joint meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.

14

Salinas ValleyBasinGroundwater SustainabilityAgency

BOARD OF DIRECTORSSTAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: December 13, 2018

AGENDA ITEM: 6.c

SUBJECT: Receive September 2018 Financial Reports

RECOMMENDATION:Staff recommends approval of the September 2018 financial reports.

BACKGROUND:Section 10.2 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement forming the Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (“Agency”) states “The Agency shall maintain strict accountability of all funds and report all receipts and disbursements of the agency on no less than a quarterly basis.” Reports are being presented monthly.

DISCUSSION:Due to the cancellation of the November Board meeting the September financial reports are being presented at this time.

Attached are the following financial statements for the Agency through September 30, 2018:

Statement of Revenue & Expense - Budget vs. Actual – September expenseswere $57,360. Year-to-date revenues exceed expenses by $869,609.

Balance Sheet – shows $1,423,441 in cash and $20,000 in accounts receivable. Payment & Disbursement Report – shows the detail of deposits and

disbursements for the month of September with a net decrease in cash of$95,910.

FISCAL IMPACT:None.

ATTACHMENT(S):Financial Statements as stated above

PREPARED BY:Roberto Moreno, RGS Senior Advisor

15

Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability AgencyStatement of Revenues & ExpenseJuly 2018 through September 2018

Sep 18 Jul - Sep 18 Jul '18 - Jun 19$ Over (under)

Budget% of

Budget

Ordinary Income/ExpenseIncome

440000 · Member Contributions 0 1,145,000 1,145,000 0 100%451000 · Prop 1 DWR Grant 1,500,000 -1,500,000 0%

Total Income 0 1,145,000 2,645,000 -1,500,000 43%

Expense520000 · Administrative Services 32,919 100,819 435,300 -334,481 23%530000 · Groundwater Sustainability Plan 17,798 130,631 1,653,155 -1,522,524 8%530500 · Legal Services 9,212 60,000 -50,788 15%532100 · Consulting Hydrologist (RGS) 54,000 -54,000 0%532200 · Deputy Clerk of the Board (RGS) 10,800 -10,800 0%532300 · Grant Management Services (RG 369 3,628 40,000 -36,372 9%540100 · Agency Financing Plan 609 13,102 117,145 -104,043 11%540200 · Facilitation Services 30,000 -30,000 0%540300 · Grant Writing / Lobbying 20,000 -20,000 0%540400 · Outside Specialty Legal Svcs 40,000 -40,000 0%540500 · Communications Consultant (RGS) 20,000 -20,000 0%550200 · Conferences / Training 670 7,100 -6,430 9%550300 · Dues and Subscriptions 1,210 3,000 -1,790 40%550400 · External Audit 5,000 -5,000 0%550600 · Insurance Premium 185 555 3,000 -2,445 19%550700 · Legal Notices & Ads 104 10,000 -9,896 1%550800 · Office Supplies 4,500 -4,500 0%550900 · Postage and Delivery 3,000 -3,000 0%551000 · Printing and Reproduction 3,245 10,300 -7,055 32%551100 · Office Rent 250 750 3,000 -2,250 25%551200 · Technology 1,466 13,000 -11,534 11%551220 · Website Upgrade 3,035 8,885 8,250 635 108%551250 · Agenda Management Software 306 917 3,600 -2,683 25%551300 · Travel Expense 468 20,000 -19,532 2%551400 · Bank Service Charges 36 119 500 -381 24%551500 · Recruitments 2,000 -2,000 0%551700 · PIO Services 630 630 630551800 · Meals and Meeting Expenses 87 2,500 -2,413 3%551810 · Mileage Reimbursement 422 1,000 -578 42%551900 · Board Stipends 1,223 4,156 26,400 -22,244 16%599000 · Contingency 57,000 -57,000 0%

Total Expense 57,360 281,076 2,663,550 -2,382,474 11%

Net Ordinary Income -57,360 863,924 -18,550 882,474 -4657%

Other Income/ExpenseOther Income

702000 · Interest Income 2,019 5,685 200 5,485 2843%Total Other Income 2,019 5,685 200 5,485 2843%

Net Other Income 2,019 5,685 200 5,485 2843%

Net Income -55,341 869,609 -18,350 887,959 -4739%

Page 1 of 1

16

Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability AgencyBalance SheetAs of September 30, 2018 Accrual Basis

ASSETSCurrent Assets

Checking/Savings100100 · Rabobank Checking 26,546100200 · Rabobank Money Market 190,290100300 · CalTrust Medium Term Funds 1,206,605

Total Checking/Savings 1,423,441

Accounts Receivable110000 · Accounts Receivable 20,000

Total Accounts Receivable 20,000

Other Current Assets120005 · Prepaid Expense 3,932

Total Other Current Assets 3,932

Total Current Assets 1,447,373

TOTAL ASSETS 1,447,373

LIABILITIES & EQUITYLiabilities

Current LiabilitiesAccounts Payable

200000 · Accounts Payable 115,513Total Accounts Payable 115,513

Total Current Liabilities 115,513

Total Liabilities 115,513

Equity320000 · Retained Earnings 462,251Net Income 869,609

Total Equity 1,331,860

TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY 1,447,373

Page 1 of 1

17

Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability AgencyPayment & Disbursement ReportSeptember 2018

Type Date Num Name Memo Amount

General Journal 09/13/2018 33 Bank charge- Account analysis fee -36.25Bill Pmt -Check 09/17/2018 1129 Adam Secondo Board stipend- August Board meeting -100.00Bill Pmt -Check 09/17/2018 1130 Brenda Granillo Board stipend- August board meeting -100.00Bill Pmt -Check 09/17/2018 1131 County of Monterey September SVBGSA Rent- 1441 Schilling Place, South Building, 1st Floor, Salinas, CA -250.00Bill Pmt -Check 09/17/2018 1132 Freshtracks Communications Contract work- Website development -5,850.00Bill Pmt -Check 09/17/2018 1133 Hansford Economic Progress paymet -26,144.97Bill Pmt -Check 09/17/2018 1134 J. Harrison Printing and mailing work on Fee Development. -608.56Bill Pmt -Check 09/17/2018 1135 Janet Brennan Board stipend- July & Aug- Board & Budget meeting plus mileage. -242.51Bill Pmt -Check 09/17/2018 1136 Joe Gunter August & September board stipend -200.00Bill Pmt -Check 09/17/2018 1137 Luis A. Alejo August board stipend- regular board meeting & executive committee -200.00Bill Pmt -Check 09/17/2018 1138 Michael McHatten Board stipend- August Board and Executive Comm. meeting plus mileage -258.86Bill Pmt -Check 09/17/2018 1139 Montgomery & Associates Inc. Contract work on developing the GSP -39,277.87Bill Pmt -Check 09/17/2018 1140 Regional Government Servies Administration Expense -36,139.80Bill Pmt -Check 09/17/2018 1141 Ronald J. Stefani Board stipend- August Board & Executive Committee meeting plus mileage -221.80Bill Pmt -Check 09/17/2018 1142 U.S. Bank - CalCard August CalCard charges- CopyMay, Google-G Suite & cell phone charges -436.30Deposit 09/24/2018 Deposit 20,000.00Bill Pmt -Check 09/25/2018 1143 F.A.S.T Services Interpreter Services -400.00Bill Pmt -Check 09/25/2018 1144 Freshtracks Communications Website design- Edits, map loading, organize materials & photos -3,035.00Bill Pmt -Check 09/25/2018 1145 Keenan & Associates D&O Insurance 11-18 to 10-19 -2,219.00Bill Pmt -Check 09/25/2018 1146 Regional Government Servies Mileage Reimburesement for Gary Petersen -227.81Deposit 09/28/2018 Interest 38.83

-95,909.90

Page 1 of 1

18

Salinas ValleyBasinGroundwater SustainabilityAgency

BOARD OF DIRECTORSSTAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: December 13, 2018

AGENDA ITEM: 6.d

SUBJECT: Receive October 2018 Financial Reports

RECOMMENDATION:Staff recommends approval of the October 2018 financial reports.

BACKGROUND:Section 10.2 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement forming the Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (“Agency”) states “The Agency shall maintain strict accountability of all funds and report all receipts and disbursements of the agency on no less than a quarterly basis.” Reports are being presented monthly.

DISCUSSION:Since the Budget and Finance Committee now meets only as needed, all financial reports are being presented directly to the Board.

Attached are the following financial statements for the Agency through October 31, 2018:

Statement of Revenue & Expense - Budget vs. Actual – October expenses were $143,613. Year-to-date revenues exceed expenses by $678,943.

Balance Sheet – shows $1,326,039 in cash. Payment & Disbursement Report – shows the detail of deposits and

disbursements for the month of October with a net decrease in cash of $101,967.

FISCAL IMPACT:None.

ATTACHMENT(S):Financial Statements as stated above

PREPARED BY:Roberto Moreno, RGS Senior Advisor

19

Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability AgencyStatement of Revenue and Expense Budget vs. ActualJuly through October 2018 Accrual Basis

Oct 18 Jul - Oct 18 FY19 Budget $ Over Budget % of Budget

Ordinary Income/Expense

Income

440000 · Member Contributions 1,145,000 1,145,000 0 100%

451000 · Prop 1 DWR Grant 1,500,000 -1,500,000

Total Income 0 1,145,000 2,645,000 -1,500,000 43%

Expense

520000 · Administrative Services 35,152 135,971 435,300 -299,329 31%

530000 · Groundwater Sustainability Plan 98,035 278,092 1,653,155 -1,375,063 17%

530500 · Legal Services 2,193 11,405 60,000 -48,595 19%

532100 · Consulting Hydrologist (RGS) 54,000 -54,000

532200 · Deputy Clerk of the Board (RGS) 10,800 -10,800

532300 · Grant Management Services (RGS 164 3,792 40,000 -36,208 9%

540100 · Agency Financing Plan 524 13,626 117,145 -103,519 12%

540200 · Facilitation Services 30,000 -30,000

540300 · Grant Writing / Lobbying 20,000 -20,000

540400 · Outside Specialty Legal Svcs 40,000 -40,000

540500 · Communications Consultant (RGS) 20,000 -20,000

550200 · Conferences / Training 670 7,100 -6,430 9%

550300 · Dues and Subscriptions 180 1,390 3,000 -1,610 46%

550400 · External Audit 5,000 -5,000

550600 · Insurance Premium 185 740 3,000 -2,260 25%

550700 · Legal Notices & Ads 407 511 10,000 -9,489 5%

550800 · Office Supplies 4,500 -4,500

550900 · Postage and Delivery 3,000 -3,000

551000 · Printing and Reproduction 55 3,300 10,300 -7,000 32%

551100 · Office Rent 250 1,000 3,000 -2,000 33%

551200 · Technology 3,726 5,192 13,000 -7,808 40%

551220 · Website Upgrade 8,885 8,250 635 108%

551250 · Agenda Management Software 306 1,223 3,600 -2,377 34%

551300 · Travel Expense 1,069 1,537 20,000 -18,463 8%

551400 · Bank Service Charges 25 144 500 -356 29%

551500 · Recruitments 2,000 -2,000

551700 · PIO Services 630

551800 · Meals and Meeting Expenses 46 133 2,500 -2,367 5%

551810 · Mileage Reimbursement 186 608 1,000 -392 61%

551900 · Board Stipends 1,110 5,266 26,400 -21,134 20%

599000 · Contingency 57,000 -57,000

Total Expense 143,613 474,115 2,663,550 -2,189,435 18%

Net Ordinary Income -143,613 670,885 -18,550 689,435 -3,617%

Other Income/Expense

Other Income702000 · Interest Income 2,373 8,058 67 7,991 12,027%

Total Other Income 2,373 8,058 67 7,991 12,027%

Net Other Income 2,373 8,058 67 7,991 12,027%

Net Income -141,240 678,943 -18,483 697,426 -3,673%

Page 1 of 1

20

Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability AgencyBalance SheetAs of October 31, 2018 Accrual Basis

Oct 31, 18

ASSETS

Current Assets

Checking/Savings

100100 · Rabobank Checking 6,771

100200 · Rabobank Money Market 110,317

100300 · CalTrust Medium Term Funds 1,208,951

Total Checking/Savings 1,326,039

Other Current Assets120005 · Prepaid Expense 3,442

Total Other Current Assets 3,442

Total Current Assets 1,329,481

TOTAL ASSETS 1,329,481

LIABILITIES & EQUITY

Liabilities

Current Liabilities

Accounts Payable200000 · Accounts Payable 188,286

Total Accounts Payable 188,286

Total Current Liabilities 188,286

Total Liabilities 188,286

Equity

320000 · Retained Earnings 462,251

Net Income 678,944

Total Equity 1,141,195

TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY 1,329,481

Page 1 of 1

21

Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability AgencyPayment & Disbursement ReportOctober 2018

Type Date Num Name Memo Amount

Deposit 10/01/2018 Deposit 20,000.00

Bill Pmt -Check 10/10/2018 1147 Adam Secondo Board Stipend- Sept Budget & special joint Board and Advisory meeting -200.00

Bill Pmt -Check 10/10/2018 1148 Amp Media Recording of SVBGSA September Board meeting -630.00

Bill Pmt -Check 10/10/2018 1149 Brenda Granillo Special Joint Meeting Board and Advisory -100.00

Bill Pmt -Check 10/10/2018 1150 County of Monterey October SVBGSA Rent- 1441 Schilling Place, South Building, 1st Floor, Salinas, CA -250.00

Bill Pmt -Check 10/10/2018 1151 J. Harrison Public outreach for fee program -523.57

Bill Pmt -Check 10/10/2018 1152 Janet Brennan Board Stipend- Sept Board & Budget meeting plus mileage -243.60

Bill Pmt -Check 10/10/2018 1153 Luis A. Alejo Board Stipend- Sept Board & special joint meeting with Advisory group -200.00

Bill Pmt -Check 10/10/2018 1154 Michael McHatten Board Stipend- Sept Budget & Executive meeting plus mileage -256.68

Bill Pmt -Check 10/10/2018 1155 Montgomery & Associates Inc. Contract work performed in August 2018- -59,703.50

Bill Pmt -Check 10/10/2018 1156 Office of the County Counsel of Monterey Legal services rendered for August 2018 -3,070.62

Bill Pmt -Check 10/10/2018 1157 Regional Government Servies October administrative services -33,287.30

Bill Pmt -Check 10/10/2018 1158 Ronald J. Stefani Board Stipend- Sept Executive & special joint Board and Advisory meeting plus mileag -222.89

General Journal 10/15/2018 37 October RoboBank bank fee -24.91

Bill Pmt -Check 10/25/2018 1159 F.A.S.T Services Interpreter's fee- Oct 11th GSP Public Meeting, 2 hours. -200.00

Bill Pmt -Check 10/25/2018 1160 Hansford Economic Contract services for September (and partial October) 2018 -17,598.34

Bill Pmt -Check 10/25/2018 1161 U.S. Bank - CalCardOct 2018 CalCard- Travel-Denmark, interpretation system, printing, Adobe AcroPro subscription -5,482.61

Deposit 10/31/2018 Interest 26.85

-101,967.17

Page 1 of 1

22

Salinas ValleyBasinGroundwater SustainabilityAgency

BOARD OF DIRECTORSSTAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: December 13, 2018

AGENDA ITEM: 7.a.

SUBJECT: Review of Draft Chapters 1 – 3 of Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the 180-400 Foot Aquifer

RECOMMENDATION:

SVBGSA staff recommends that the Board of Directors review and approve for further public comment draft chapters 1 - 3 of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the 180-400 Foot Aquifer for a thirty-day public review period and provide any appropriatecomments or direction.

BACKGROUND:

The Agency is responsible for developing Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) in parts or all of six sub-basins in the Salinas Valley. With the 180-400 Foot Aquifer designated as critically over-drafted, the deadline is very short with the plan required to be complete by January 2020.

Additionally, the SVBGSA Board has determined that all plans will be connected via an overarching management plan, to be entitled the Integrated Sustainability Plan. Given that this document must be completed along with the first GSP it will be developed consistent with the timeline for the 180-400 Foot Aquifer.

DISCUSSION:

To create maximum transparency and participation, the Planning Committee provided an initial review of the documents and provided comments to the Consultant on November 6, 2018. The documents were then reviewed by the Advisory Committee who agreed to advance the first three chapters of the GSP for the 180-400 to the Board of Directors for review and consideration.

The Advisory Committee also determined that the first three chapters of the Integrated Sustainability Plan (ISP) required more review than time allowed. These chapters will be

23

revisited at the December 20th Advisory Committee Meeting. Staff is working closely with all committees and committee members to ensure that adequate review and discussion of all chapters is provide.

Staff recommends that the Board review the first three chapters and either recommend more changes or release for a thirty-day Public Comment Period. The documents will then be revised as appropriate and returned to the Board for final approval. Given the tight schedule this will likely mean that multiple chapters will be circulating simultaneously.

Once all chapters are complete and approved, a formal ninety-day window of public comment will be opened for the entirety of the GSP. The public approval process will begin no later than September 1, 2019.

FISCAL IMPACT:

All associated costs with this process are included in the budget as GSP development costs.

ATTACHMENT(S): Draft Chapters

PREPARED BY:Gary Petersen, General Manager SVBGSA

24

Page 1 of 1

Before the Board of Directors of theSalinas Valley Basin Sustainable Groundwater Management Agency

Resolution No. 2018-Approving and authorizing release of Chapters 1-3 of the draft Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the 180-400 Aquifer for Public Review.

)))))

WHEREAS, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014, Water Code Sections 10720-10736.6 was signed into law September 16, 2014; and,

WHEREAS, SGMA gives local agencies authorities and powers to manage groundwater; and,

WHEREAS, the Agency’s Groundwater Sustainability Plan, in conformance with SGMA, for the 180/400 Aquifer is required to be filed with the California Department of Water Resources by January 31, 2020; and,

WHEREAS, the first three chapters of the draft Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the 180-400 Aquifer have been reviewed by the Planning and Advisory Committees with a recommendation to the Board of Directors for approval; and,

WHEREAS, the approval by the Board would initiate a 30-day review period with return of the Chapters to the Board for final approval; NOW, THEREFORE,

BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency that the first three chapters of the draft Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the 180-400 Foot Aquifer are approved for release to the general public for a period of thirty daysfor further public comment.

PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 13th day of December 2018 by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES:NOES:ABSENT:ABSTAIN:

I, Ann Camel, Clerk of the Board of Directors of the Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of an original order of said Board of Directors duly made and entered in the minutes thereof

Dated: Ann Camel, Clerk of the Board of Directors of the Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency,

County of Monterey, State of California

_____________________________________

25

DRAFT

Salinas Valley:180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin

Groundwater Sustainability PlanChapters 1-3

Prepared for:Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency

November 2018

Prepared by:

DRAFT

26

This page leftintentionally blank

27

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - i -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abbreviations and Acronyms.................................................................................... iv

Section 1 Introduction to the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan.......................................................................................................11.1 Purpose of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan ................................................................... 11.2 Description of the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin ................................................................. 2

Section 2 Agency Information .....................................................................................42.1 Agency Names and Mailing Addresses ................................................................................... 62.2 Agencies’ Organization and Management Structure ............................................................. 6

2.2.1 SVBGSA.................................................................................................................................. 62.2.2 MCWD.................................................................................................................................... 7

2.3 Authority of Agency/Agencies .................................................................................................. 72.3.1 Individual GSAs.................................................................................................................... 72.3.2 Coordination Agreement/MOA.......................................................................................... 9

2.4 Contact information for Plan Manager..................................................................................... 9

Section 3 Description of Plan Area...........................................................................103.1 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin Introduction ........................................................................ 103.2 Adjudicated Areas, Other GSAs, and Alternatives .............................................................. 103.3 Jurisdictional Areas ................................................................................................................... 13

3.3.1 Federal Jurisdiction............................................................................................................. 133.3.2 State Jurisdiction ................................................................................................................. 133.3.3 County Jurisdiction............................................................................................................. 133.3.4 City and Local Jurisdiction ................................................................................................ 13

3.4 Land Use ..................................................................................................................................... 163.4.1 Water Source Types............................................................................................................ 183.4.2 Water Use Sectors ............................................................................................................... 20

3.5 Existing Well Types, Numbers, and Density......................................................................... 213.6 Existing Monitoring Programs ................................................................................................ 25

3.6.1 Existing Groundwater Level Monitoring........................................................................ 253.6.2 Groundwater Extraction Monitoring............................................................................... 273.6.3 Groundwater Quality Monitoring.................................................................................... 273.6.4 Surface Water Monitoring ................................................................................................. 283.6.5 Incorporating Existing Monitoring Programs Into the GSP......................................... 313.6.6 Limits to Operational Flexibility....................................................................................... 31

3.7 Existing Management Plans..................................................................................................... 3128

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - ii -

3.7.1 Monterey County Groundwater Management Plan ..................................................... 313.7.2 Integrated Regional Water management Plan................................................................ 323.7.3 Urban Water Management Plans ..................................................................................... 34

3.8 Existing Groundwater Regulatory Programs........................................................................ 363.8.1 Groundwater Export Prohibition ..................................................................................... 363.8.2 Agricultural Order.............................................................................................................. 373.8.3 Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basins............................................. 373.8.4 Requirements for New Wells ............................................................................................ 383.8.5 Title 22 Drinking Water Program..................................................................................... 383.8.6 Incorporating Regulatory Programs Into the GSP......................................................... 393.8.7 Limits to Operational Flexibility....................................................................................... 39

3.9 Conjunctive Use Programs....................................................................................................... 393.9.1 Monterey County Water Recycling Projects ................................................................... 393.9.2 Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project................................................................ 40

3.10 Land Use Plans......................................................................................................................... 403.10.1 Monterey County General Plan ...................................................................................... 403.10.2 City of Salinas General Plan ............................................................................................ 463.10.3 City of Gonzales General Plan ........................................................................................ 483.10.4 City of Marina General Plan............................................................................................ 503.10.5 Well Permitting ................................................................................................................. 503.10.6 County Moratorium on Accepting and Processing New Well Permits.................... 503.10.7 Land Use Plans Outside of Basin.................................................................................... 533.10.8 Plan Implementation Effects on Existing Land Use .................................................... 533.10.9 Plan Implementation Effects on Water Supply ............................................................ 53

29

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - iii -

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1: 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin ........................................................................................ 3Figure 2-1: Map of Areas Covered by GSAs and Overlap Areas ................................................... 5Figure 3-1: Area Covered by GSP...................................................................................................... 11Figure 3-2: Location of the Adjudicated Seaside Subbasin............................................................ 12Figure 3-3: Map of Federal and State Groundwater Jurisdictional Areas ................................... 14Figure 3-4: City, CSD, and Water District Jurisdictional Areas ................................................... 15Figure 3-5: Existing Land Use Designations (from DWR)............................................................. 17Figure 3-6: Municipal Areas Dependent on Groundwater and the CSIP Distribution Area ... 19Figure 3-7: Density of Domestic Wells per Square Mile ................................................................ 22Figure 3-8: Density of Agricultural Production Wells per Square Mile ...................................... 23Figure 3-9 Density of Municipal Wells per Square Mile................................................................ 24Figure 3-10: Locations of CASGEM Wells in the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin ..................... 26Figure 3-11: Locations of USGS GAMA Wells in the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin .............. 29Figure 3-12: Surface Water Gaging Locations ................................................................................ 30

30

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - iv -

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1: Land use summary ............................................................................................................ 16Table 3-2: Well count summary ......................................................................................................... 21Table 3-3 Monterey County General Plan Summary ..................................................................... 40Table 3-4: Monterey County Population Projections...................................................................... 46Table 3-5: City of Salinas General Plan Summary........................................................................... 46Table 3-6: City of Gonzales General Plan Summary....................................................................... 48Table 3-7: Monterey County Water Supply Guidelines for New Lots......................................... 52Table 3-8: Monterey County Well Permitting Guidelines for Existing Lots ............................... 53

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AFY ...................................................Acre-Feet per YearAMBAG............................................Association of Monterey Bay Area GovernmentsCASGEM..........................................California Statewide Groundwater Elevation MonitoringCCR...................................................California Code of RegulationsCCRWQCB.......................................Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control BoardCIFP ..................................................Capital Improvement and Financing PlanCSD ...................................................Community Services DistrictCSIP...................................................Castroville Seawater Intrusion ProjectDDW .................................................Division of Drinking WaterDWR..................................................Department of Water ResourcesGAMA ..............................................Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and AssessmentGRC...................................................General Rate CaseGMP ..................................................Groundwater Management PlanGSA ...................................................Groundwater Sustainability AgencyGSP....................................................Groundwater Sustainability PlanILRP ..................................................Irrigated Lands Regulatory ProgramIRWM................................................Integrated Regional Water ManagementJPA ....................................................Joint Powers AuthorityMCL ..................................................Maximum Contaminant LevelMCWD..............................................Marina Coast Water DistrictMCWRA...........................................Monterey County Water Resources AssociationMPWSP.............................................Monterey Peninsula Water Supply ProjectNPDES..............................................National Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystemRWMG..............................................Regional Water Management GroupSB.......................................................Senate BillSGMA ...............................................Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

31

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - v -

SRDF .................................................Salinas River Diversion FacilitySVBGSA............................................Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability AgencySVRP .................................................Salinas Valley Reclamation ProjectSVWP................................................Salinas Valley Water ProjectSWQCB.............................................State Water Quality Control BoardUWMP..............................................Urban Water Management PlanUSGS.................................................United States Geological SurveyWDR..................................................Waste Discharge Requirements

32

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 1 -

SECTION 1INTRODUCTION TO THE 180/400-FOOT AQUIFER SUBBASIN

GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN

In 2014, the State of California enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). This law required groundwater basins or subbasins that are designated as medium or high priority to be managed sustainably. The Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin comprises seven subbasins. The subject of this report is one of those subbasins, known as the 180-400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin.

Satisfying the requirements of SGMA generally requires four basic activities:

1. Forming one or more Groundwater Sustainability Agency(s) (GSAs) in the basin2. Developing a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP)3. Implementing the GSP and managing to measurable, quantifiable objectives4. Regular reporting to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR)

A Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) is a local agency responsible for developing the GSP for its area of responsibility. The Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (SVBGSA) is a GSA that was formed in 2017. The SVBGSA represents agriculture, public utility, municipal, county, and environmental stakeholders and is responsible for developing GSPs in much of the Salinas Valley.

This document satisfies the GSP requirement for the Salinas Valley – 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin (Subbasin or 180/400-Foot Subbasin). The GSP describes the Subbasin, establishes local sustainable management criteria and provides projects and programs for reaching sustainability in the Subbasin by 2040. The GSP also includes monitoring and reporting protocols to document long-term sustainable management in the Subbasin.

The Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (SVBGSA) developed this GSPwith coordination from the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) GSA. This GSP is developed in concert with GSPs for five other Salinas Valley subbasins under SVBGSA jurisdiction: the East Side Aquifer Subbasin (DWR subbasin number 3-004.02), the Forebay Aquifer Subbasin (DWR subbasin number 3-004.04), the Upper Valley Aquifer Subbasin (DWR subbasin number 3-004.05), the Langley Area Subbasin (DWR subbasin number 3-004.09) and the Monterey Subbasin (DWR subbasin number 3-004.10). The projects and programs presented in this GSP are part of a cohesive set of projects and programs designed to achieve sustainability throughout the entire Salinas Valley groundwater basin.

33

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 2 -

1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE 180/400-FOOT AQUIFER SUBBASIN

The 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin is identified by DWR as Subbasin 3-004.01. The Subbasin is part of the greater Salinas Valley groundwater Basin in the Central Coastal region of California (DWR, 2016). The Subbasin is named for its two primary water-bearing units: the 180-Foot Aquifer and the 400-Foot Aquifer. The Subbasin encompasses an area of approximately 84,400 acres, or 132 square miles. The subbasin lies in Monterey County and contains parts of the urban areas of Salinas, Castroville, Moss Landing, Marina, Chualar, and Gonzales (Figure 1-1). The subbasin is bounded by Monterey Bay to the northwest.

Five groundwater subbasins adjoin the 180/400-Foot Subbasin (Figure 1-1).

The Corralitos - Pajaro Valley Basin is located along the northern Subbasin boundary. The boundary between with the Corralitos – Pajaro Valley Basin coincides with the inland projection of a clay-filled paleodrainage of the Salinas River buried beneath Elkhorn Slough which acts as a flow barrier between the basins (DWR, 2004).

The East Side Subbasin is located along most of the northeastern boundary of the Subbasin. There is some, although potentially limited, hydraulic communication between the Eastside Subbasin and the 180/400-Foot Aquifer subbasin.

The Langley Area Subbasin is located along a short length of the northeastern boundary of the Subbasin.

The Forebay Aquifer Subbasin is located along the southeastern boundary, near the city of Gonzales. The boundary is the approximate limit of confining conditions in the up-valley direction (DWR, 2004).

The Monterey Subbasin is located along the southwestern boundary of the Subbasin. The boundary roughly follows portions of the Reliz fault and a groundwater divide.

All five surrounding subbasins are high priority and are required to develop GSPs under SGMA by January 31, 2022. GSPs for the East Side Subbasin and Langley Area Subbasin will be developed by the SVBGSA. The GSP for the Forebay Subbasin will be developed [to be finalized]. The GSP for the Monterey Subbasin will be developed jointly by the SVBGSA and the MCWD GSA. An alternative submittal for a GSP has been submitted for the Corralitos –Pajaro Valley Basin by the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency.

34

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 3 -

Figure 1-1: 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin35

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 4 -

SECTION 2AGENCY INFORMATION

Three GSAs cover the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin: the SVBGSA, the MCWD GSA, and the City of Marina GSA. DWR considers none of these three GSAs to be exclusive GSAs for the entire Subbasin; however, MCWD is an exclusive GSA for that portion of the Subbasin within its jurisdictional boundaries. The City of Marina GSA was not submitted during the required filing period, and therefore the City of Marina may not be a valid GSA. The 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSP was developed by the SVBGSA with input and assistance from the MCWD GSA. Both GSAs are signatories of the GSP.

The jurisdictional areas of all three GSAs in relation to the Subbasin boundary are shown onFigure 2-1.

36

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 5 -

Figure 2-1: Map of Areas Covered by GSAs and Overlap Areas37

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 6 -

2.1 AGENCY NAMES AND MAILING ADDRESSES

The following contact information is provided for each GSA that is a signatory to this GSP, pursuant to California Water Code § 10723.8.

Salinas Valley Groundwater Sustainability AgencyAttn.: Gary Petersen, General Manager1441 Schilling PlaceSalinas, CA 93901https://svbgsa.org

Marina Coast Water District Groundwater Sustainability AgencyAttn.: Keith Van Der Maaten, General Manager11 Reservation RoadMarina, CA 93933http://www.mcwd.org

2.2 AGENCIES’ ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE

2.2.1 SVBGSA

The SVBGSA is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The JPA membership comprises the County of Monterey, Water Resources Agency of Monterey County, City of Salinas, City of Soledad, City of Gonzales, City of King, the Castroville Community Services District (CSD), and Monterey One Water (formerly the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency). The SVBGSA is governed and administered by an eleven-member Board of Directors, representing public and private groundwater interests throughout the Valley. When a quorum is present, a Majority Vote is required to conduct business. Some business items require a Super Majority Vote or a Super Majority Plus Vote. A Super Majority requires an affirmative vote by eight of the eleven Board members. A Super Majority Vote is required for:

Approval of a GSP Amendment of budget and transfer of appropriations Withdrawal or termination of Agency members

A Super Majority Plus requires an affirmative vote by eight of the eleven Board members, including an affirmative vote by three of the four agricultural representatives. A Super Majority Plus Vote is required for:

38

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 7 -

Decisions to impose fees not requiring a vote of the electorate or property owners Proposals to submit to the electorate or property owners’ decisions to impose fees or

taxes Limitations on well extractions (pumping limits)

In addition to the Board of Directors, SVBGSA includes an Advisory Committee consisting of Directors and non-Directors. The Advisory Committee is designed to ensure participation by,and input to, the Board of Director by constituencies whose interests are not directly represented on the Board. The SVBGSA’s GSA activities are staffed by a contract General Manager.

2.2.2 MCWD

MCWD is governed by a five-member Board of Directors who each serve four-year terms. Board members are elected at large. Decisions on all GSA-related matters require an affirmative vote of a majority of the five Board of Directors members. The MCWD’s GSA activities are staffed by the MCWD’s existing staff.

2.3 AUTHORITY OF AGENCY/AGENCIES

2.3.1 INDIVIDUAL GSAS

Both GSAs involved in the development of this GSP were formed in accordance with the requirements of California Water Code § 10723 et seq. The resolutions of formation for both GSAs are included in Appendix A. Each agency’s specific authorities for GSA formation and groundwater management are listed below.

2.3.1.1 SVBGSA

SVBGSA is a JPA that was formed in accordance with the requirements of California Government Code § 6500 et seq. In accordance with California Water Code § 10723 et seq, the JPA signatories are all cities, counties, and water agencies with water or land use authority and are all independently eligible to serve as GSAs:

The County of Monterey has land use authority over the unincorporated areas of the County, including areas overlying the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin. The County of Monterey is therefore a local agency under California Water Code § 10721 with the authority to establish itself as a GSA.

The Monterey County Water Resources Agency is a California Special Act District with broad water management authority in Monterey County. The Monterey County

39

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 8 -

Water Resources Agency is therefore a local agency under California Water Code § 10721 with the authority to establish itself as a GSA.

The City of Salinas is incorporated under the laws of the State of California. The City provides water supply and land use planning services to its residents. The City is therefore a local agency under California Water Code § 10721 with the authority to establish itself as a GSA.

The City of Soledad is incorporated under the laws of the State of California. The City provides water supply and land use planning services to its residents. The City is therefore a local agency under California Water Code § 10721 with the authority to establish itself as a GSA.

The City of Gonzales is incorporated under the laws of the State of California. The City provides water supply and land use planning services to its residents. The City is therefore a local agency under California Water Code § 10721 with the authority to establish itself as a GSA.

The City of King is incorporated under the laws of the State of California. The City provides water supply and land use planning services to its residents. The City is therefore a local agency under California Water Code § 10721 with the authority to establish itself as a GSA.

The Castroville Community Services District is a local public agency of the State of California, organized and operating under the Community Services District Law, Government Code § 6100 et seq. Castroville CSD provides water services to its residents. Castroville CSD is therefore a local agency under California Water Code § 10721 with the authority to establish itself as a GSA.

Monterey One Water is itself a joint powers authority whose members include many members of the SVBGSA. Monterey One Water is a local agency under California Water Code § 10721 with authority to establish itself as a GSA.

Upon establishing itself as a GSA, the SVBGSA retains all the rights and authorities provided to GSAs under California Water Code § 10725 et seq. as well as the powers held in common by the members.

2.3.1.2 MCWD

MCWD was formed in accordance with California Water District Law, California Water Code § 34000, and is responsible for water supply in a portion of the Subbasin. MCWD is therefore a local agency under California Water Code § 10721 with the authority to establish itself as a GSA. Upon establishing itself as a GSA, MCWD retains all the rights and authorities provided to GSAs under California Water Code § 10725 et seq.

40

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 9 -

2.3.2 COORDINATION AGREEMENT/MOA

To be Completed After Agreements Signed

2.4 CONTACT INFORMATION FOR PLAN MANAGER

Mr. Gary Petersen, General ManagerSalinas Valley Groundwater Sustainability AgencyP.O. Box 1350Carmel Valley, CA 93924 (831) 682-2592peterseng@svbgsa.orghttps://svbgsa.org

41

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 10 -

SECTION 3DESCRIPTION OF PLAN AREA

3.1 180/400-FOOT AQUIFER SUBBASIN INTRODUCTION

This GSP covers the entire 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin, as shown on Figure 3-1. The Subbasin lies in northwestern Monterey County and includes the northern end of the Salinas River Valley. The Subbasin covers an area of 84,400 acres (132 square miles) (DWR, 2004). The boundaries of the Subbasin, combined with those of the Monterey and Seaside subbasins, are generally consistent with the Monterey County Water Resource Agency’s (MCWRA)Pressure Subarea (MCWRA, 2006).

The Salinas River drains the Subbasin, discharging into Monterey Bay. The Subbasin contains the municipalities of Marina, Salinas and Gonzales and the census-designated places of Castroville, Moss Landing, Elkhorn, Boronda, Spreckels, and Chualar. United StatesHighway 101 runs north-south along the eastern border of the Subbasin. State Highways 1, 156, 183, and 68 also cross the subbasin. Rivers and streams, urban areas, and major roads are shown on Figure 3-1.

3.2 ADJUDICATED AREAS, OTHER GSAS, AND ALTERNATIVES

The Subbasin is not adjudicated. The only adjudicated area in the Salinas Valley Basin is the Seaside Subbasin (3-004.08), which is not adjacent to the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin. The adjudicated Seaside Subbasin is shown by the shaded area on Figure 3-2.

The City of Marina is the only entity that claims to be a non-exclusive GSA in the Subbasin and is not a party to this GSP. As discussed earlier, the validity of the City of Marina’s GSA application has yet to be definitively determined. Figure 2-1 shows the area within the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin covered by the City of Marina GSA. No alternative plans have been submitted for any part of the Subbasin, or for any other Salinas Valley subbasin.

42

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 11 -

Figure 3-1: Area Covered by GSP43

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 12 -

Figure 3-2: Location of the Adjudicated Seaside Subbasin44

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 13 -

3.3 JURISDICTIONAL AREAS

There are several federal, state, and local agencies with water management authority in the Subbasin.

3.3.1 FEDERAL JURISDICTION

A portion of the Fort Ord former Army base lies in the Subbasin. Although this is currently operated by the City of Marina as an airport; the DWR land use dataset depicts this as Federal land. . The United States Department of Fish and Wildlife manages the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge. Areas under federal jurisdiction are shown on Figure 3-3.

3.3.2 STATE JURISDICTION

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife owns and operates the Elkhorn SloughEcological Reserve, the Moro Cojo Slough State Marine Reserve, and the Moss Landing Wildlife Area. The California Department of Parks and Recreation manages several areas in the Subbasin near Moss Landing including: Moss Landing State Beach, Salinas River Dunes Natural Preserve, Salinas River State Beach, and the Salinas River Mouth Natural Preserve.Areas under State jurisdiction are shown on Figure 3-3.

3.3.3 COUNTY JURISDICTION

The entire Subbasin lies in Monterey County; and the County of Monterey has jurisdiction over the entire Subbasin.

3.3.4 CITY AND LOCAL JURISDICTION

In accordance with the SGMA regulations, this section only covers governmental agencies with water management responsibilities. The cities of Salinas, Gonzales, and Marina have water management authority in their incorporated areas., although the City of Salinas is served by California Water Company and Alisal Water Corporation (Alco). The Castroville Community Service District provides water and sewer collection services in the town of Castroville. The Marina Coast Water District provides water and sewer collection services within its jurisdictional boundaries. A small portion of the Marina Coast Water District’s service area extends from the Monterey subbasin into the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin. The jurisdictional boundaries of these areas are shown on Figure 3-4.

45

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 14 -

Figure 3-3: Map of Federal and State Groundwater Jurisdictional Areas46

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 15 -

Figure 3-4: City, CSD, and Water District Jurisdictional Areas

47

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 16 -

3.4 LAND USE

Land use planning authority in the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin is the responsibility of the County of Monterey and the cities of Salinas and Gonzales. Land use information for the Subbasin was obtained from the California Department of Water Resources Statewide 2014 Crop Mapping Study conducted by LandIQ (DWR, 2017). Current land use in the Subbasin is shown on Figure 3-5 and summarized by major category in Table 3-1 (DWR, 2014).

The majority of land in the Subbasin is used for agriculture; the top three crops, by value, in Monterey County in 2017 were lettuce, strawberries, and broccoli (Monterey County Agriculture Commissioner, 2018. Vineyards are also a major crop in Monterey County.

Table 3-1: Land use summary

Category Area in subbasin (acres)Permanent Agriculture 1,690

Non-Permanent Agriculture 51,527Non-categorized Agriculture 11,373

Commercial and Services 1,167Residential 9,896Industrial 1,602Mixed Use 145

Public/Quasi-Public 2,470Pasture and Grazing 2,348

Conservation 4,536Recreation 448

Other 2,494Total 89,696

Source: CADWR, 2017https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer

48

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 17 -

Figure 3-5: Existing Land Use Designations (from DWR)49

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 18 -

3.4.1 WATER SOURCE TYPES

The Subbasin has three water source types: groundwater, surface water, and recycled water. Groundwater is the primary water source for all water use sectors in the Subbasin. Municipal areas that depend on groundwater are shown in green on Figure 3-6. Groundwater is also used for rural residential areas, small community systems, and small commercial operations such as vineyards, golf courses, and schools.

The coastal farmland surrounding Castroville receives a combination of recycled water from SVBGSA member Monterey One Water, groundwater, and surface water from the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project (CSIP). CSIP delivers this water to the agricultural land indicatedon Figure 3-6 (Brown and Caldwell, 2015). Reclaimed water is additionally used for irrigation in the Las Palmas Ranch development.

Surface water is supplied from the Salinas River and its tributaries. Direct diversions provide surface water to agriculture, and additional surface water is diverted through a pneumatic diversion dam known as the Salinas River Diversion Facility (SRDF). This dam is located on the Salinas River near Marina. The SRDF provides surface water to the CSIP distribution system to offset groundwater pumping.

50

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 19 -

Figure 3-6: Municipal Areas Dependent on Groundwater and the CSIP Distribution Area51

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 20 -

3.4.2 WATER USE SECTORS

Groundwater demands in the Subbasin are organized into the six water use sectors identified in the GSP emergency regulations. Groundwater extraction data are reported by MCWRA for areas within Zones 2, 2A, and 2B. This area is slightly larger than the 180/400-Foot Aquifer subbasin described in this GSP, and therefore the demand numbers reported by MCWRA cover the entire Subbasin. Groundwater demand categories include:

Urban. Urban water use is assigned to non-agricultural water uses in the cities and census-designated places. Domestic use outside of census-designated places is not considered urban use. For the years 2010-2015, urban water use averaged 17,400 ac-ft and accounted for an average of 15% of the groundwater pumped in the Subbasin (MCWRA, 2016).

Industrial. There is limited industrial use in the Subbasin. DWR does not have any records of wells in the subbasin that are categorized as for industrial use. MCWRA records lump Industrial use and Urban use together as a single type of water use.

Agricultural. This is the largest water use sector in the Subbasin; with an annual average use of 96,600 ac-ft between 2010 and 2015 (MCWRA, 2016). Agricultural water use accounted for an average of 85% of the groundwater pumped in the Subbasin (MCWRA, 2016).

Managed wetlands. DWR land use records indicate that there is one managed wetland in the Subbasin; an 11.2-acre wetland owned by the State of California and located northeast of the Monte De Lago neighborhood, between state highway 156 and Castroville Boulevard.

Managed recharge. There is no managed recharge in the Subbasin. Wastewater treated by the Salinas Valley Reclamation Project (SVRP) is distributed by the CSIP distribution system and used to offset agricultural groundwater pumping within the CSIP service area.

Native vegetation. Approximately 90% of the Subbasin is composed of commercial, industrial, agricultural, or residential land uses. Approximately 4% is identified as “conservation” and approximately 5% is identified as “public” or “quasi-public”. Groundwater use by native vegetation is minimal. Although not a native species, water use by Arundo donax is estimated at between 32,000 and 64,000 AFY in the entire Salinas Valley (California Invasive Plan Council, 2011); an unknown quantity occurs within the 180/400-Foot Aquifer subbasin.

52

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 21 -

3.5 EXISTING WELL TYPES, NUMBERS, AND DENSITY

Well density data for this GSP were derived from the database of wells that DWR specifically developed for use in GSPs. Other data sources are available from MCWRA or other sources; and they may have different data. The DWR data were used for simplicity and consistency with other DWR data used in this GSP.

DWR’s Well Completion Report Map Application classifies wells as domestic, production, and municipal; the majority of production wells are assumed to be used for agricultural irrigation, with some production wells used for industrial purposes. More than half of the wells in the DWR dataset are production wells. Domestic wells account for most of the remaining wells. Some of the domestic wells identified by DWR may be classified as de minimis extractors, defined as pumping less than 2 Acre-Feet per year (AFY). Well counts in the Subbasin are summarized in Table 3-2. Figure 3-7 and Figure 3-8 show the density of domestic and agricultural production wells, respectively, per square mile in the Subbasin.

Fewer than 3% of wells in the Subbasin are classified as public supply wells; even though groundwater is the primary water source for urban and rural communities in the Subbasin. Figure 3-9 shows the density of municipal wells per square mile. Figure 3-6 identifies municipal areas dependent upon groundwater.

Table 3-2: Well count summary

Category Number of wellsDomestic 691

Production 780Public Supply 43

Total 1514

53

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 22 -

Figure 3-7: Density of Domestic Wells per Square Mile54

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 23 -

Figure 3-8: Density of Agricultural Production Wells per Square Mile55

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 24 -

Figure 3-9 Density of Municipal Wells per Square Mile

56

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 25 -

3.6 EXISTING MONITORING PROGRAMS

3.6.1 EXISTING GROUNDWATER LEVEL MONITORING

3.6.1.1 MCWRA MONTHLY GROUNDWATER LEVEL MONITORING

MCWRA collects monthly groundwater level measurement from approximately 100 wells throughout the Salinas Valley. Of these wells, 38 are in the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin. MCWRA processes these monthly measurements to develop a computed average of depth to water for each Subbasin.

3.6.1.2 MCWRA ANNUAL FALL GROUNDWATER LEVEL MONITORING

Each fall, MCWRA collects annual groundwater level measurements from an additional 120wells in the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin. MCWRA uses these annual measurements to develop contour maps depicting the groundwater table elevation.

3.6.1.3 MCWRA AUGUST GROUNDWATER LEVEL MONITORING

MCWRA collects groundwater level measurements every August from approximately 100 wells in the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin to establish the location and extent of groundwater pumping depressions that drive seawater intrusion. The August measurements usually coincides with the end of the irrigation season, and groundwater levels at this time reflect low groundwater elevations prior to the onset of seasonal winter recharge. These pumping depressions occur in the Pressure 180-Foot and Pressure 400-Foot Aquifers between the City of Salinas and the coast. MCWRA uses the August groundwater elevation data to develop groundwater contour maps of the coastal pumping depressions on odd-numbered years.

3.6.1.4 CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MONITORING (CASGEM)

MCWRA is the responsible agency for CASGEM monitoring in Monterey County. The monitoring network comprises 51wells throughout the Salinas Valley. Of these 51 wells, 23are in the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin. Some of the CASGEM monitoring wells are owned by MCWRA and others are privately owned by owners who have volunteered the well for inclusion in the CASGEM program. MCWRA collects quarterly groundwater elevation data from the CASGM wells and reports the groundwater elevation data to DWR twice per year.Figure 3-10 shows the locations of the CASGEM monitoring wells in the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin.

57

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 26 -

Figure 3-10: Locations of CASGEM Wells in the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin 58

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 27 -

3.6.2 GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION MONITORING

MCWRA collects groundwater extraction information from all wells in the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin that have discharge pipes of three inches or greater in diameter. These data have been collected since 1993. Extraction is self-reported by well owners.

3.6.3 GROUNDWATER QUALITY MONITORING

3.6.3.1 MCWRA SEAWATER INTRUSION MONITORING

MCWRA monitors seawater intrusion in the Salinas Valley with a network of 121 monitoring wells located in the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin. 96 wells in the network are agricultural production wells that are sampled annually in June and August (during peak pumping). 25 wells in the network are dedicated monitoring wells that are maintained by either MCWRA or by California-American Water as part of its Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP).

Water quality samples from the wells are analyzed for major constituents, including anions and cations, conductivity, etc. The data are used to develop time-series plots of chloride and conductivity trends, Stiff and Piper diagrams, and to compute molar ratios of chloride to sodium.

The data are used to prepare maps of seawater intrusion in the 180/400-Foot Aquifer in odd-numbered years. Additional information about the occurrence and extent of seawater intrusion in both the 180- and 400-Foot Aquifers is provided in Section 5.

3.6.3.2 OTHER

Groundwater quality is monitored under several different programs and by different agencies including:

Muncipal and community water purveyors must collect water quality samples on a routine basis for compliance monitoring and reporting to the California Division of Drinking Water.

The USGS collects water quality data on a routine basis under the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) program. These data are stored in the State’s GAMA/Geotracker system. Figure 3-11 shows the location of wells in the State’s GAMA Geotracker database that are in the 180/400-Foot Aquifer subbasin.

59

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 28 -

There are multiple sites that are monitoring groundwater quality as part of investigation or compliance monitoring programs through the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Required California American (CalAm) Water Company and MCWRA monitoring wells for CalAm’s proposed source wells for the MPWSP.

3.6.4 SURFACE WATER MONITORING

Streamflow gages operated by the USGS within the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin include:

Reclamation Ditch near Salinas (USGS Site #11152650) Salinas River near Chualar (USGS Site #11152300) Salinas River near Spreckels (USGS Site #11152500)

Water levels (stage) in the Salinas River Lagoon are measured by MCWRA at Monte Roadand near the slide gate to the Old Salinas River. The locations of the surface-water monitoring facilities are depicted in Figure 3-12.

60

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 29 -

Figure 3-11: Locations of USGS GAMA Wells in the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin 61

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 30 -

Figure 3-12: Surface Water Gaging Locations62

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 31 -

3.6.5 INCORPORATING EXISTING MONITORING PROGRAMS INTO THE GSP

The existing monitoring programs and monitoring networks constitute a well-developed and broadly distributed system that provides representative data throughout the Subbasin. The groundwater elevation monitoring programs are operated by an existing member of the SVBGSA, and therefore will be incorporated into the GSP monitoring plan. The existing groundwater level monitoring programs will be updated and improved to document the avoidance of undesirable results in each significant aquifer in the Subbasin.

The current water quality monitoring program from the production wells will be incorporated into this GSP to demonstrate that groundwater quality undesirable results do not occur based on data from a representative number of production wells. The existing stream gauges will also be incorporated into this GSP monitoring plan to validate projections of surface water depletions from pumping.

This section to be completed after GSP is complete.

3.6.6 LIMITS TO OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY

The existing monitoring programs are not anticipated to limit the operational flexibility of this GSP.

3.7 EXISTING MANAGEMENT PLANS

3.7.1 MONTEREY COUNTY GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

MCWRA developed a Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) that is compliant with AB3030and SB1938 legislation (MCWRA, 2006). This GMP exclusively covered the Salinas Valley in Monterey County.

The GMP identified three objectives for groundwater management:

Objective 1: Development of Integrated Water Supplies to Meet Existing and Projected Water Requirements

Objective 2: Determination of Sustainable Yield and Avoidance of OverdraftObjective 3: Preservation of Groundwater Quality for Beneficial Use

To meet these three objectives, the plan identified 14 elements that should be implementedby MCWRA:

63

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 32 -

Plan Element 1: Monitoring of Groundwater Levels, Quality, Production, and SubsidencePlan Element 2: Monitoring of Surface Water Storage, Flow, and QualityPlan Element 3: Determination of Basin Yield and Avoidance of OverdraftPlan Element 4: Development of Regular and Dry Year Water SupplyPlan Element 5: Continuation of Conjunctive Use OperationsPlan Element 6: Short-Term and Long-Term Water Quality ManagementPlan Element 7: Continued Integration of Recycled WaterPlan Element 8: Identification and Mitigation of Groundwater ContaminationPlan Element 9: Identification and Management of Recharge Areas and Wellhead

Protection AreasPlan Element 10: Identification of Well Construction, Abandonment, and Destruction

PoliciesPlan Element 11: Continuation of Local, State and Federal Agency RelationshipsPlan Element 12: Continuation of Public Education and Water Conservation ProgramsPlan Element 13: Groundwater Management ReportsPlan Element 14: Provisions to Update the Groundwater Management Plan

3.7.2 INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Greater Monterey County Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Plan was developed by the Greater Monterey County Regional Water Management Group (RWMG), which consists of government agencies, nonprofit organizations, educational organizations, water service districts, private water companies, and organizations representing agricultural, environmental, and community interests, including:

Big Sur Land Trust California State University Monterey Bay California Water Service Company Castroville Community Services District City of Salinas City of Soledad Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve Environmental Justice Coalition for Water Garrapata Creek Watershed Council Marina Coast Water District Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office Monterey County Water Resources Agency Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency

64

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 33 -

Moss Landing Marine Laboratories Resource Conservation District of Monterey County Rural Community Assistance Corporation San Jerardo Cooperative, Inc

The 180/400-Foot Aquifer subbasin falls within f the IRWM Plan area The IRWM Plan consists of a set of goals and objectives that were identified by the RWMG as being critical to address water resource issues within the planning area in the areas of:

Water Supply Water Quality Flood Protection and Floodplain Management Environment Regional Communication and Cooperation Disadvantaged Communities Climate Change

The IRWM Plan includes more than 25 projects that could assist regional groundwater management.

65

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 34 -

3.7.3 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS

3.7.3.1 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE (SALINAS DISTRICT) URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

California Water Service serves a portion of the City of Salinas. Its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) (CA Water Service, 2016) describes the service area; reports historic and projected population; identifies historic and projected water demand by category (single-family, multi-family, commercial, industrial, institutional/government, and other); and describes the distribution system and identifies losses.

The UWMP describes the system’s reliance on groundwater and California Water Service’s support for efforts to avoid overdraft, including working cooperatively with MCWRA and participation in the development of this GSP. Specific activities that California Water Service intends to conduct include:

Outreach to public agencies to ensure that the Company’s presence, rights and interests, as well as historical and current resource management concerns are honored/incorporated within the GSA and GSP formulation process(es).

Outreach to applicable local and regulatory agencies to ensure that the Company’s full participation, while also meeting the requirements and expectations set forth by SGMA.

The enhanced use of digital/electronic groundwater monitoring equipment and other new technology aimed at measuring withdrawal rates, pumping water levels, and key water quality parameters within the context of day-to-day operations.

Full participation in the development of GSP's and formulation of groundwater models being constructed in basins where the Company has an operating presence.

Full participation in individual and/or joint projects aimed at mitigating seawater intrusion and other undesirable results.

Inclusion of sound groundwater management principles and data in all applicable technical reports, studies, facility master plans, and urban water management plans (including this 2015 update), particularly as these undertakings relate or pertain to water resource adequacy and reliability.

Inclusion of sound groundwater management principles and data in all general rate case (GRC) filings and grant applications to ensure that resource management objectives remain visible and central to Cal Water’s long-term planning/budgeting efforts.

The UMWP also addresses California Water Service’s position on alternative supplies currently being developed for the Salinas Valley. California Water Service is evaluating the

66

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 35 -

possibility of using up to 10,000 AFY (or more) of water from the proposed Deep Water Desal LLC desalination plant at Moss Landing.

The UWMP addresses the need for California Water Service to implement a well replacement program to mitigate water quality impacts from nitrates, uranium, MTBE, and sand contamination.

California Water Service’s UWMP notes that it is expected that groundwater will continue to remain as its sole supply source due to uncertainties regarding the cost and implementation other options, such as surface water diversion or desalination. However, the UWMP recognizes that it would be beneficial for California Water Service to diversify its supply portfolio.

California Water Service evaluated the impact of climate change on its water supply. The study found that climate change could result in a supply reduction of 6% to 7% by the end of the century.

3.7.3.2 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY (CHUALAR)

The California American (Cal-Am) Water Company operates a satellite water system serving approximately 1,000 residents near Chualar. The operation of this system is described in Cal-Am’s 2010 UWMP. The Cal-Am UWMP provides a description of the system, historic and projected water demands, and an assessment of current and future water supplies. Although the Cal-Am UWMP discusses future water supply options such as desalination, aquifer storage and recovery, and recycled water; none of these are applicable to the Chualar satellite system.

The Chualar system is entirely dependent on groundwater from the 180-Foot Aquifer, and is far enough inland that it is not considered susceptible to seawater intrusion. The UWMP reports that water quality from the Chualar system wells is generally good.

3.7.3.3 MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

The MCWD most recently updated its UWMP in 2015 (Schaff & Wheeler, 2016). The UWMP describes the service area; reports historic and projected population; identifies historic and projected water demand by category (single-family, multi-family, commercial, industrial, institutional/government, and other); and describes the distribution system and identifies losses.

The MCWD currently relies solely on groundwater, although the UWMP notes that, “The District is located along the Salinas River, and MCWD Board of Directors has considered

67

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 36 -

purchasing surface water rights in the Salinas River Basin as a means of meeting long-term (beyond 2030) demands.” The UWMP further notes that, “…the total Ord Community groundwater supply of 6,600 afy falls short of the total 2030 Ord Community demand of 8,293 afy by 1,693 afy. [and] …the Central Marina service area is not projected to exceed its current SVGB groundwater allocation from the Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) within the planning period.”

The MCWD UWMP includes a number of demand management measures including:

Water Waste Prevention Ordinances Metering Conservation Pricing Public Education and Outreach Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution System Real Loss Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support Water Survey Programs for Residential Customers Residential Plumbing Retrofits Residential Ultra-Low Flow Toilet Replacement Programs High-Efficiency Washing Machine Rebate Programs Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Accounts Landscape Conservation Programs and Incentives

3.8 EXISTING GROUNDWATER REGULATORY PROGRAMS

3.8.1 GROUNDWATER EXPORT PROHIBITION

The Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act, § 52.21 prohibits the export of groundwater from any part of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, including the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin. In particular, the Act states:

For the purpose of preserving [the balance between extraction and recharge], no groundwater from that basin may be exported for any use outside the basin, except that use of water from the basin on any part of Fort Ord shall not be deemed such an export. If any export of water from the basin is attempted, the Agency may obtain from the superior court, and the court shall grant, injunctive relief prohibiting that exportation of groundwater.

68

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 37 -

3.8.2 AGRICULTURAL ORDER

In 2017 the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB) issued Agricultural Order No. R3-2017-0002, a Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from Irrigated Lands (Agricultural Order). The permit requires that growers implement practices to reduce nitrate leaching into groundwater and improve surface receiving water quality. Specific requirements for individual growers are structured into three tiers based on the relative risk their operations pose to water quality.

Growers must enroll, pay fees, and meet various monitoring and reporting requirements according to the tier to which they are assigned. All growers are required to implement groundwater monitoring, either individually or as part of a cooperative regional monitoring program. Growers electing to implement individual monitoring (i.e., not participating in the regional monitoring program implemented by the Central Coast Groundwater Coalition or CCGC) are required to test all on-farm domestic wells and the primary irrigation supply well for nitrate or nitrate plus nitrite, and general minerals (including, but not limited to, TDS, sodium, chloride and sulfate).

Negotiations with the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board staff and Board Members for the next iteration of the Agricultural Order are on-going, expected to conclude in March 2020 with the adoption of a new Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP) Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) for farming operations in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin area (and the entire Central Coast region). As mandated by the State Water Resources Control Board, specific reporting requirements for nitrogen applications and removal, irrigation and surface water discharge management, and groundwater quality monitoring will be included with quantifiable milestones. While the outcome is not certain, the expectation is that the next Agricultural Order will be more complex with additional compliance reporting measures for all growers.

3.8.3 WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL COAST BASINS

The Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (Basin Plan) was most recently updated in September 2017. The objective of the Basin Plan is to outline how the quality of the surface water and groundwater in the Central Coast Region should be managed to provide the highest water quality reasonably possible.

The Basin Plan lists benceficial users, describes the water quality which must be maintained to allow those uses, provides an implementation plan, details State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and CCRWQCB plans and polices to protect water quality and a statewide survelliance and monitoring program as well as regional surveillance and monitoring

69

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 38 -

programs. The SWRCB’s Sources of Drinking Water Policy adopted in Resolution No. 88-63 and incorporated in its entirety in the CCRWQCB’s Basin Plan provides that water with water quality equal to or less than 3,000 mg/L TDS is considered suitable or potentially suitable for drinking water beneficial uses.

Present and potential future beneficial uses for inland waters in the Basin are: surface water and groundwater as municipal supply (water for community, military or individual water supplies); agricultural; groundwater recharge; recreational water contact and non-contact; sport fishing; warm fresh water habitat; wildlife habitat; rare, threatened or endangered species; and, spawning, reproduction, and/or early development of fish.

Water Quality Objectives for both groundwater (drinking water and irrigation) and surface water are provided in the Basin Plan.

3.8.4 REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW WELLS

In October, 2017, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 252 which became effective on January 1, 2018. SB 252 requires well permit applicants in critically overdrafted basins to include information about the proposed well, such as location, depth, and pumping capacity. The bill also requires the permitting agency to make the information easily accessible to the public and the GSAs.

3.8.5 TITLE 22 DRINKING WATER PROGRAM

The SWRCB Division of Drinking Water (DDW) regulates public water systems in the State to ensure the delivery of safe drinking water to the public. A public water system is defined as a system for the provision of water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances that has 15 or more service connections or regularly serves at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year. Private domestic wells, wells associated with drinking water systems with less than 15 residential service connections, industrial and irrigation wells are not regulated by the DDW.

The DDW enforces the monitoring requirements established in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) for public water system wells, and all the data collected must be reported to the DDW. Title 22 also designates the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for various waterborne contaminants, including volatile organic compounds, non-volatile synthetic organic compounds, inorganic chemicals, radionuclides, disinfection byproducts, general physical constituents, and other parameters.

70

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 39 -

3.8.6 INCORPORATING REGULATORY PROGRAMS INTO THE GSP

Information in these various plans have been incorporated into this GSP and used during the preparation of Sustainability Goals, when setting Minimum Thresholds and Measurable Objectives and were considered during development of Projects and Management Actions.

This section to be completed after GSP is complete.

3.8.7 LIMITS TO OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY

Some of the existing management plans and ordinances will limit operational flexibility. These limits to operational flexibility have already been incorporated into the sustainability projects and programs included in this GSP. Examples of limits on operational flexibility include:

The groundwater export prohibition included in the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act prevents export of water out of the Subbasin. This prohibition is not expected to adversely affect our ability to reach sustainability.

The Basin Plan and the Title 22 Drinking Water Program restrict the quality of water that can be recharged into the Subbasin.

This section to be completed after GSP is complete.

3.9 CONJUNCTIVE USE PROGRAMS

3.9.1 MONTEREY COUNTY WATER RECYCLING PROJECTS

One conjunctive use project operates in the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin. This project uses recycled water from the Salinas Valley Reclamation Project and distributes it through the CSIP distribution system. This project serves approximately 12,000 acres of farmland within the Subbasin. The extent of the current CSIP distribution area is shown in Figure 3-6. The recycled water in the CSIP is supplemented with groundwater and surface water diverted from the SRDF. When river water is available and the SRDF is operating, grower groundwater pumping has been reduced by about 80% during peak irrigation demand periods. However, currently, it is necessary to conjunctively manage all three water sources to match irrigation demands with water supplies.

71

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 40 -

3.9.2 REGIONAL URBAN WATER AUGMENTATION PROJECT

MCWD is currently installing pipelines for the Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project (RUWAP). This project includes a recycled water transmission and distribution system that will provide up to 1,427 ac-ft per year of recycled water to offset groundwater pumping in the Monterey Subbasin. The initial phase of the project will deliver 600 ac-ft per year of water to customers in Marina and Fort Ord.

3.10 LAND USE PLANS

Monterey County and the cities of Gonzales, Marina, and Salinas have land use authority over all or portions of the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin. Land use is an important factor in water management as described below. The following sections provide a general description of these land use plans and how implementation may affect groundwater in the 180/400-ft Subbasin. The following descriptions were taken from publicly-available general plans at the time of the GSP preparation.

3.10.1 MONTEREY COUNTY GENERAL PLAN

Relevant elements of the Monterey County General Plan (Monterey County, 2010) are summarized in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3 Monterey County General Plan Summary

Element Goal / PolicyLand Use LU-1.4 Growth areas shall be designated only where an adequate level

of services and facilities such as water, sewerage, fire and police protection, transportation, and schools exist or can be assured concurrent with growth and development. Phasing of development shall be required as necessary in growth areas in order to provide a basis for long-range services and facilities planning

Open Space OS-3.8 The County shall cooperate with appropriate regional, state and federal agencies to provide public education/outreach and technical assistance programs on erosion and sediment control, efficient water use, water conservation and re-use, and groundwater management. This cooperative effort shall be centered through the Monterey County Water Resources Agency.

et. seq.PublicServices

GOAL PS-2 Assure an adequate and safe water supply to meet the county’s current and long-term needs.

PS-2.1 Coordination among, and consolidation with, those public water service providers drawing from a common water table to prevent overdrawing the water table is encouraged.

72

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 41 -

Element Goal / PolicyPS-2.2 The County of Monterey shall assure adequate monitoring of

wells in those areas experiencing rapid growth provided adequate funding mechanisms for monitoring are established in the CIFP.

PS-2.3 New development shall be required to connect to existing water service providers where feasible. Connection to public utilities is preferable to other providers.

PS-2.4 Regulations for installing any new domestic well located in consolidated materials (e.g., hard rock areas) shall be enacted by the County.

PS-2.5 Regulations shall be developed for water quality testing for new individual domestic wells on a single lot of record to identify:a. Water quality testing parameters for a one-time required water quality test for individual wells at the time of well construction.b. A process that allows the required one-time water quality test results to be available to future owners of the well.Regulations pursuant to this policy shall not establish criteria that will prevent the use of the well in the development of the property. Agricultural wells shall be exempt from the regulation.

GOAL PS-3 Ensure that new development is assured a long-term sustainable water supply.

PS-3.1 Except as specifically set forth below, new development for which a discretionary permit is required, and that will use or require the use of water, shall be prohibited without proof, based on specific findings and supported by evidence, that there is a long-term, sustainable water supply, both in quality and quantity to serve the development….

PS-3.2 Specific criteria for proof of a Long-Term Sustainable Water Supply and an Adequate Water Supply System for new development requiring a discretionary permit, including but not limited to residential or commercial subdivisions, shall be developed by ordinance with the advice of the General Manager of the Water Resources Agency and the Director of the Environmental Health Bureau. A determination of a Long-Term Sustainable Water Supply shall be made upon the advice of the General Manager of the Water Resources Agency. The following factors shall be used in developing the criteria for proof of a long-term sustainable water supply and an adequate water supply system: …

PS-3.3 Specific criteria shall be developed by ordinance for use in 73

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 42 -

Element Goal / Policythe evaluation and approval of adequacy of all domestic wells. The following factors shall be used in developing criteria for both water quality and quantity including, but not limited to: ….

PS-3.4 The County shall request an assessment of impacts on adjacent wells and instream flows for new high-capacity wells, including high-capacity urban and agricultural production wells, where there may be a potential to affect existing adjacent domestic or water system wells adversely or in-stream flows, as determined by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency. In the case of new high-capacity wells for which an assessment shows the potential for significant adverse well interference, the County shall require that the proposed well site be relocated or otherwise mitigated to avoid significant interference. The following factors shall be used in developing criteria by ordinance for use in the evaluation and approval of adequacy of all such high-capacity wells, including but not limited to:a. Effect on wells in the immediate vicinity as required by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency or Environmental Health Bureau.b. Effects of additional extractions or diversion of water on in-stream flows necessary to support riparian vegetation, wetlands, fish, and other aquatic life including migration potential for steelhead, for the purpose of minimizing impacts to those resources and species.This policy is not intended to apply to replacement wells.

PS-3.5 The Monterey County Health Department shall not allow construction of any new wells in known areas of saltwater intrusion as identified by Monterey County Water Resources Agency or other applicable water management agencies:a. Until such time as a program has been approved and funded that will minimize or avoid expansion of salt water intrusion into useable groundwater supplies in that area; orb. Unless approved by the applicable water resource agency.This policy shall not apply to deepening or replacement of existing wells, or wells used in conjunction with a desalination project.

PS-3.6 The County shall coordinate and collaborate with all agencies responsible for the management of existing and new water resources

PS-3.7 A program to eliminate overdraft of water basins shall be developed as part of the Capital Improvement and Financing Plan (CIFP) for this Plan using a variety of strategies, which may include but are not limited to:a. Water banking;

74

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 43 -

Element Goal / Policyb. Groundwater and aquifer recharge and recovery;c. Desalination;d. Pipelines to new supplies; and/ore. A variety of conjunctive use techniques.The CIFP shall be reviewed every five (5) years in order to evaluate the effectiveness of meeting the strategies noted in this policy. Areas identified to be at or near overdraft shall be a high priority for funding.

PS-3.8 Developments that use gray water and cisterns for multi-family residential and commercial landscaping shall be encouraged, subject to a discretionary permit.

PS-3.9 A tentative subdivision map and/or vesting tentative subdivision map application for either a standard or minor subdivision shall not be approved until the applicant provides evidence of a long-term sustainable water supply in terms of yield and quality for all lots that are to be created through subdivision.

PS-3.10 In order to maximize agricultural water conservation measures to improve water use efficiency and reduce overall water demand, the County shall establish an ordinance identifying conservation measures that reduce agricultural water demand.

PS-3.11 In order to maximize urban water conservation measures to improve water use efficiency and reduce overall water demand, the County shall establish an ordinance identifying conservation measures that reduce potable water demand

PS-3.12 The County shall maximize the use of recycled water as a potable water offset to manage water demands and meet regulatory requirements for wastewater discharge, by employing strategies including, but not limited to, the following:a. Increase the use of treated water where the quality of recycled water is maintained, meets all applicable regulatory standards, is appropriate for the intended use, and re-use will not significantly impact beneficial uses of other water resources.b. Work with the agricultural community to develop new uses for tertiary recycled water and increase the use of tertiary recycled water for irrigation of lands currently being irrigated by groundwater pumping.c. Work with urban water providers to emphasize use of tertiary recycled water for irrigation of parks, playfields, schools, golf courses, and other landscape areas to reduce potable water demand.d. Work with urban water providers to convert existing potable water customers to tertiary recycled water as infrastructure and water supply become available.

PS-3.13 To ensure accuracy and consistency in the evaluation of watersupply availability, the Monterey County Health Department, in coordination with the MCWRA, shall develop guidelines and

75

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 44 -

Element Goal / Policyprocedures for conducting water supply assessments and determining water availability. Adequate availability and provision of water supply, treatment, and conveyance facilities shall be assured to the satisfaction of the County prior to approval of final subdivision maps or any changes in the General Plan Land Use or Zoning designations.

PS-3.14 The County will participate in regional coalitions for the purpose of identifying and supporting a variety of new water supply projects, water management programs, and multiple agency agreements that will provide additional domesticwater supplies for the Monterey Peninsula and Seaside basin, while continuing to protect the Salinas and Pajaro River groundwater basins from saltwater intrusion. The County will also participate in regional groups including representatives of the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency and the County of Santa Cruz to identify and support a variety of new water supply, water management and multiple agency agreement that will provide additional domestic water supplies for the Pajaro Groundwater Basin. The County’s general objective, whilerecognizing that timeframes will be dependent on the dynamics of each of the regional groups, will be to complete the cooperative planning of these water supply alternatives within five years of the adoption of the General Plan and to implement the selected alternatives within five (5) years after that time.

PS-3.15 The County will pursue expansion of the Salinas Valley Water Project (SVWP) by investigating expansion of the capacity for the Salinas River water storage and distribution system. This shall also include, but not be limited to, investigations of expanded conjunctive use, use of recycled water for groundwater recharge and seawater intrusion barrier, and changes in operations of the reservoirs. The County’s overall objective is to have an expansion planned and in service by the date that the extractions from the Salinas Valley groundwater basin are predicted to reach the levels estimated for 2030 in the EIR for the Salinas Valley Water Project. The County shall review these extraction data trends at five-year intervals. The County shall also assess the degree to which the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (Zone 2C) has responded with respect to water supply and the reversal of seawater intrusion based upon the modeling protocol utilized in the Salinas Valley Water Project EIR. If the examination indicates that the growth in extractions predicted for 2030 are likely to be attained within ten years of the date of the review, or the groundwater basin has not responded with respect to water supply and reversal of seawater intrusion as predicted by the model, then the County shall convene and coordinate a working group made up of the Salinas

76

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 45 -

Element Goal / PolicyValley cities, the MCWRA, and other affected entities. The purpose will be to identify new water supply projects, water management programs, and multiple agency agreements that will provide additional domestic water supplies for the Salinas Valley. These may include, but not be limited to, expanded conjunctive use programs, further improvements to the upriver reservoirs, additional pipelines to provide more efficient distribution, and expanded use of recycled water to reinforce the hydraulic barrier against seawater intrusion. The county’s objective will be to complete the cooperative planning of these water supply alternatives within five years and to have the projects on-line five years following identification of water supply alternatives.

The Monterey County General Plan does not include population projections; however, the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) has developed population projections through 2050, as shown in Table 3-4.

77

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 46 -

Table 3-4: Monterey County Population Projections

3.10.2 CITY OF SALINAS GENERAL PLAN

The Land Use and Conservation/Open Space Elements of the City of Salinas General Plan (City of Salinas, 2002) are relevant to water-resources within the 180/400-Foot Subbasin, and are summarized in Table 3-5.

Table 3-5: City of Salinas General Plan Summary

Element Goal / Policy78

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 47 -

Element Goal / PolicyLand Use Goal LU-6 Work with water suppliers and distributors such as Cal

Water and Alco to continue to provide quality water supply and treatment capacity to meet community needs.

Policy LU-6.1 Actively work with Cal Water and Alco, as well as regional water suppliers and distributors, to ensure that high quality water is available for the community.

Policy LU-6.2 Review development proposals to ensure that adequate water supplies, treatment, and distribution capacity is available to meet the needs of the development without negatively impacting the existing community,

Policy LU-6.3 Participate in and support regional programs and projects that target the improvement and conservation of the region’s groundwater and surface water supply.

Policy LU-6.4 Actively promote water conservation by City residents, businesses, and surrounding agricultural producers.

Policy LU-6.5 Review projects subject, such as residential projects with 500 or more units, for compliance with Section 10910-10915 of the California Water Code.

Conservation Goal COS-1 Provide a safe and adequate water supply for community uses.

Policy COS-1.1

Work with regional and local water providers to ensure that adequate supplies of water are available to meet existing and future demand.

Policy COS-1.2

Cooperate with local, regional, and state water agencies to develop new water sources.

Policy COS-1.3

Work with local and regional water providers to increase the production, distribution, and use of recycled water,

Policy COS-1.4

Maintain and restore natural watersheds to recharge the aquifers and ensure the viability of the ground water resources.

Policy COS-1.5

Cooperate with the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, the State Water Resources Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Board to implement programs that address the two primary causes of poor water quality in the planning area: salt water intrusion and nitrate contamination.

Policy COS-1.6

Enforce national (NPDES) requirements and participate in regional efforts to protect and enhance water quality.

Goal COS-2 Encourage the conservation of water resources.79

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 48 -

Element Goal / PolicyPolicy COS-2.1

Participate in and implement local and regional programs that promote water conservation.

Policy COS-2.2

Work with water providers to institute conservation programs to address water supply problems caused by groundwater overdrafting,

Policy COS-2.3

Apply standards that promote water conservation in agricultural, residential and non-residential uses.

Policy COS-2.4

Enforce the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance.

3.10.3 CITY OF GONZALES GENERAL PLAN

Relevant elements of the City of Gonzales General Plan (City of Gonzales, 2011) are summarized Table 3-6.

Table 3-6: City of Gonzales General Plan Summary

Element Goal / PolicyLand Use LU-1.2.2 New developments must have adequate water supplies.

LU-8.3.1: Modify proposed designs for industrial development to reduce adverse environmental impacts, particularly nose, air, and water pollution, odor, soil, and groundwater contamination, traffic, and visual blight to the degree practicable.

LU-8.3.2 Plan for Sewer and Water Expansion. Ensure that adequate water and sewer capacity is available to support all areas designated for industrial development

Housing HE-9.2 Promote Water Conservation Promote the use of water-saving devices, drought-tolerant landscaping, and other water conservation measures to achieve a reduction in home water bills for residential customers

HE-9.4.1 Water Conservation. The City will continue to promote ways to reduce monthly home water bills. Such measures already include: (a) requiring new houses to utilize low-flow toilets, low-flow shower heads, and low flow faucets consistent with the requirements of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, and (b) requiring the use of drought-tolerant landscaping within new developments

80

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 49 -

Element Goal / Policy(as specified in the State Model Landscape Ordinance). The City will also support new water retrofitting programs undertaken by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, such as providing free low-flow plumbing fixtures to existing customers in Gonzales. Responsibility: Building Department, Public Works Department, Planning Department Timing: Ongoing

Community Health and Safety

Paragraph HWater Quality

Groundwater and surface water quality both affect the health of Gonzales residents. Because groundwater is the sole source of domestic water in Gonzales, a healthful supply is essential to the city's future. Surface water pollution creates negative aesthetic and environmental impacts, as well as creating potential health hazards locally and downstream. The Community Health and Safety Element includes policies to reduce the extent of water pollution that could occur from urban development in Gonzales, as well as policies to minimize potential risks if contamination does occur.

The groundwater beneath Gonzales is vulnerable to contamination from lawn fertilizer, leaking underground storage tanks, failing septic systems, animal waste, and naturally occurring minerals. High nitrate levels are a persistent problem in the Salinas Valley, with about half of the 58 wells sampled exceeding the State water standard over a testing period of about 30 years.

Nitrate problems around Gonzales are most prevalent on the northeast side of the Planning Area, where former greenhouse and dairy operations and the existing feed lot are probably the primary contaminant sources. Elsewhere in the Planning Area, groundwater quality is generally acceptable and meets all water quality standards. The Gonzales Public Works Department conducts regular measurements of water quality for city wells and takes corrective actions if nitrate levels exceed acceptable standards. In the past, well water quality problems have been addressed with special seals which block nitrates from entering the water supply. If activities and land uses

81

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 50 -

Element Goal / Policyaround the wells are not properly managed in the future, contamination could result. This would require that wells be relocated or that well-head treatment be introduced.

3.10.4 CITY OF MARINA GENERAL PLAN

The City of Marina General Plan (City of Marina, 2010) recognizes that future water demands will require changes in the management of water resources in the area. The City of Marina’s 2020 water demand is projected to be 7,720 acre-feet. [Section 3.44]. The General Plan includes the following measures related to water-supply planning.

New developments must have identified water sources. [3.45] A 15-percent reserve will be maintained between demand and supply. When demand

exceeds 85% of the available supply, no new development will be allowed until supplemental water sources are identified. [3.47].

3.10.5 WELL PERMITTING

The Public Service element of the Monterey County General Plan addresses permitting of individual wells in rural or suburban areas. New residential or commercial lots in rural or suburban areas with limited utility services must have a minimum area of 2.5 acres if a well is the water source. Existing lots (of any size) can utilize an on-site well if they are outside of a water system service area. Existing lots within an established water system service area can utilize wells if they are greater than 2.5 acres or have a connection to a public sewage system. Table 3-7 summarizes the Monterey County General Plan’s water supply guidelines for new lots. Table 3-8 depicts the decision matrix from the Monterey County General Plan for permitting new wells for existing lots.

3.10.6 COUNTY MORATORIUM ON ACCEPTING AND PROCESSING NEW WELL

PERMITS.

On May 22, 2018, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 5302 pursuant to Government Code Section 65858. The ordinance imposed a moratorium on the County Health Department accepting and processing new well permits; it was not a moratorium on additional groundwater pumping from existing wells. The ordinance was an Interim Urgency Ordinance, which took effect immediately upon adoption. The ordinance prohibits the acceptance or processing of any applications for new wells in the defined Area of Impact within the180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin, with stated exceptions including municipal wells and replacement wells. Pursuant to Section 65858, the ordinance was

82

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 51 -

originally only effective for 45 days to July 5, 2018, but at the June 26 Board meeting, the Board of Supervisors on a 4-1 vote extended the ordinance to May 21, 2020, by adoption of Ordinance No. 5303. During the moratorium, the County has stated that it will conduct further studies.

83

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 52 -

Table 3-7: Monterey County Water Supply Guidelines for New Lots

84

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 53 -

Table 3-8: Monterey County Well Permitting Guidelines for Existing Lots

3.10.7 LAND USE PLANS OUTSIDE OF BASIN

The Cities of Greenfield and Soledad have general plans with land use elements in the adjoining Forebay Aquifer Subbasin. Because Soledad is a member of the SVBGSA, management actions taken by the SVBGSA will be in alignment with the concerns and plans of that city. If a cooperation agreement is reached with the City of Greenfield, management action taken by the SVBGSA should likewise be in alignment with that City’s concerns. Therefore, it is unlikely that these two land use plans will affect the ability of the SVBGSA to achieve sustainable groundwater management.

3.10.8 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION EFFECTS ON EXISTING LAND USE

This section to be completed after GSP is complete.

3.10.9 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION EFFECTS ON WATER SUPPLY

A lawsuit filed against the County of Monterey’s general plan led to a settlement agreement that affects water supplies. The settlement agreement requires the County of Monterey to develop a study of a portion of the Basin’s water supplies that includes, among other items:

85

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 54 -

An assessment of whether the total water demand for all uses designated in the General Plan for the 2030 are likely to be reached or exceeded

An evaluation and conclusions regarding future expected trends in groundwater elevations

An evaluation and conclusions regarding expected future trends in seawater intrusion

Should the study conclude that: Total water demand for all uses is likely to be exceeded by 2030, or Groundwater elevations are likely to decline by 2030, or The seawater intrusion boundary is likely to advance inland by 2030

Then the study shall make recommendations on how to address those conditions.

The settlement agreement furthermore required the development of the Salinas Valley Integrated Hydrologic Model that was used in developing this GSP.

86

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 55 -

87

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 56 -

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Agency AuthorityJPA

88

DRAFT

180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSPJanuary, 2020 - 57 -

APPENDIX B: Coordination Agreement

89

Comment Number DocumentChapter Section Figure Table Page Comment Commenter Date Response

I-1 ISP Include any changes to 180/400 report in the ISPDW notes from November planning committee meeting 11/6/2018

Changes made in the 180/400 will be carried over to the ISP report

I-2 ISP Be sure data and model are consistentDW notes from November planning committee meeting 11/6/2018

Will check for consistency when model becomes available

I-3 ISP 34 Find data for PS-1, PS-2, PS-3DW notes from November planning committee meeting 11/6/2018

Text revised to include summaries of these plan elements.

I-4 3.3 9Update descriptions of jurisdictional areas; verify text and figures match Tamra Voss 11/14/2018 Text and figures revised

I-5 3.3.3 9 Describe County land adjacent to Fort Ord Tamra Voss 11/14/2018 The land in question is the Laguna Seca Recreation

I-6 3.4.2 15Clarify that MCWRA reports groundwater withdrawals for Zones 2, 2A, and 2B Tamra Voss 11/14/2018 Text revised

I-7 3.4.2 15GEMS distinguishes between industrial and agricultural groundwater pumping Tamra Voss 11/14/2018

report (most recent available) groups industrial use with urban. The report provides an average water use per connection (by category, including industrial); but does not indicate how many industrial connections

I-8 3.6

Revise monitoring program descriptions to reflect current number of wells in each program; update descriptions of monitoring programs. Update description of frequency of CASGEM data collection and submittal. Tamra Voss 11/14/2018 Same as comment P-32; text revised

I-9 3-10 Revise map to show correct locations of all piezometers. Tamra Voss 11/14/2018 Map removed based on subsequent discussions

I-10 3.2Describe what an adjudicated basin is; provide additional details about the Seaside basin. Robert S. Jaques 11/16/2018 Text revised

I-11 3.6.1Mention Seaside Basin Watermaster monitoring and management plan Robert S. Jaques 11/16/2018 Text revised

I-12 3.6.2Mention that the Seaside Basin Watermaster compiles extraction data. Robert S. Jaques 11/16/2018 Text revised

I-13 3.10.3 3-6 Reference to Land Use Element: LU-8.3.3 should be LU-8.3.2 Harold R Wolgamott / City of Gonzales 11/19/2018 Text revised; also applies to the 180/400-Foot planI-14 3.10.3 3-6 Housing Element: HE-9.4 should be HE-9.2 Harold R Wolgamott / City of Gonzales 11/19/2018 Text revised; also applies to the 180/400-Foot plan

I-15 3.10.3 3-6

The paragraph about water quality should show it is from Community Health and Safety Element and Section reference is H-Water Quality Harold R Wolgamott / City of Gonzales 11/19/2018 Text revised; also applies to the 180/400-Foot plan

I-16 v The acronym SVRP is for the Salinas Valley Reclamation Project Advisory Committee meeting minutes 11/15/2018 Text revised; also applies to the 180/400-Foot plan

I-17The document should reference data sources and indicate that other data sources may be available. Advisory Committee meeting minutes 11/15/2018 Text revised; also applies to the 180/400-Foot plan

I-18Comments should reference the page or paragraph to facilitate review. Advisory Committee meeting minutes 11/15/2018 Comments are referenced by multiple categories

90

Comment Number DocumentChapter Section Figure Table Page Comment Commenter Date Response

I-19Many general plans are being updated, how will this be handled? Advisory Committee meeting minutes 11/15/2018

Agreed, the GSP was developed using the general plans as they existed during preparation. Future revisions to the GSP will incorporate changes to general plans.

I-20How will recommendations from the 2017 study conducted by the Water Resources Agency be addressed? Advisory Committee meeting minutes 11/15/2018

The GSP will be coordinated with regulations stemming from the study.

I-21 3.6This section implies that the existing monitoring programs have already been decided (determined). Advisory Committee meeting minutes 11/15/2018

The text will be revised to indicate that the descriptions of the monitoring programs are based on information provided by each agency conducting the monitoring; and that individual monitoring programs can and may change.

I-22Additional comments will be provided on non-managed wetlands. Advisory Committee meeting minutes 11/15/2018 Waiting on additional non-managed wetlands

I-23 ISP 3.2The document should provide a definition of the term "adjudicated basin" Advisory Committee meeting minutes 11/15/2018 Text revised

I-24 ISP 3.6A description of the Seaside subbasin monitoring program should be included Advisory Committee meeting minutes 11/15/2018 Text revised

I-25 Clarify how the document addresses water quality Advisory Committee meeting minutes 11/15/2018

The GSP is not intended to solve water quality problems. Actions or recommendations presented in the GSP must not make water quality worse; but they do not have to make it better.

I-26 3-1 Cities should be labelled in this figure Advisory Committee meeting minutes 11/15/2018 Figure revised

I-27 3.4.2Some industrial groundwater use is grouped with agricultural water use; some processing plants use potable water. Advisory Committee meeting minutes 11/15/2018

Data are not available from MCWRA on the quantity of industrial water used.

I-28The Davis Road discharge ponds should be considered as a water resource. Advisory Committee meeting minutes 11/15/2018

Text will be revised to mention that these ponds may be a water source in the future.

I-29 3.8.2

The description of the Agricultural Order should note that negotiations are underway and that the agreement may be substantially revised. Advisory Committee meeting minutes 11/15/2018 Written comments requested.

I-30 3.4.2Irrigation water provided by CSIP should not be included in this section Advisory Committee meeting minutes 11/15/2018 No action

I-31 3.8.2Expand discussion of the Agricultural Order, update list of acronyms Norm Groot / Monterey County Farm Burea 11/16/2018 Text revised

I-32 3.6

The document should mention nitrates and discuss how the GSA will address elevated nitrate concentrations; either by itself or in conjunction with the RWQCB. Include a map showing nitrate concentrations in groundwater. Future Chapters

91

Salinas ValleyBasinGroundwater SustainabilityAgency

BOARD OF DIRECTORSSTAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: December 13, 2018

AGENDA ITEM: 7.b.

SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution to Authorize Execution of a Framework Agreement for the Monterey Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan by the Marina Coast Water District Groundwater Sustainability Agency and the Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency

RECOMMENDATION:The Board is requested to authorize the General Manager to execute a Framework Agreement for the Monterey Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan between the Marina Coast Water District Groundwater Sustainability Agency (MCWDGSA) and the Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (SVBGSA).

BACKGROUND:On September 16, 2014, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Senate Bills 1168 and 1319 and Assembly Bill 1739, known collectively as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (the “Act”), effective January 1, 2015; and the Act was amended by Senate Bill 13, effective January 1, 2016. The legislative intent of the Act is to provide sustainable management of groundwater basins, to enhance local management of groundwater, to establish minimum standards for sustainable groundwater management, and to provide local agencies with the authority and the technical and financial assistance necessary to sustainably manage groundwater.

The Act requires formation of one or more groundwater sustainability agencies (“GSAs”) that will be responsible for developing a single or multiple groundwater sustainability plan (“GSP”) for a groundwater basin; and the purpose of a Framework Agreement is to outline the process to be used by the Parties to work collaboratively to develop one GSP for the entire Monterey Subbasin and one GSP for the entire 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin (the “GSPs”). It is further intended to guide the Parties’ coordination during GSP development in the Monterey Subbasin and the 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin and further intended to, in part, implement the intent and purposes of the Coordination Agreement between the Parties dated November 21, 2017.

The Parties recognize that a detailed approach is to be developed by the Parties’ technical staff under these guidelines to make sure that the elements of the GSPs are appropriately coordinated to support sustainable management.

92

DISCUSSION:The Framework Agreement’s intent is that one GSP will be developed for the entire Monterey Subbasin (i.e. the Monterey Subbasin GSP), which will contain three management areas that generally encompass the Marina Subarea, the Ord Subarea (both of which are generally located north of State Route 68), and the Corral de Tierra Subarea (located generally south of State Route 68).

The Agreement clarifies that the MCWDGSA will prepare the GSP components for the Marina Management Area and the Ord Management Area, and SVBGSA will prepare the GSP components for the Corral de Tierra Management Area and the entire 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin.

The Agreement requires the MCWDGSA and the SVBGSA to actively consult with each other and include each other for review of draft work products during the GSP development process for the 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin and the Monterey Subbasin.

FISCAL IMPACT:There is no perceived fiscal impact from this action.

PREPARED BY:Gary Petersen, General Manager SVBGSA

93

Page 1 of 2

Before the Board of Directors of theSalinas Valley Basin Sustainable Groundwater Management Agency

Resolution No. 2018-Authorizing Execution of a Framework Agreement for the Monterey Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan between the Marina Coast Water District Groundwater Sustainability Agency and the Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency

)))))))

WHEREAS, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014, Water Code Sections 10720-10736.6 was signed into law September 16, 2014; and,

WHEREAS, SGMA gives local agencies authorities and powers to manage groundwater; and,

WHEREAS, Groundwater Sustainability Plans, in conformance with SGMA, for the 180/400 Aquifer and the Monterey subbasins are required by January 31, 2020 and 2022 respectively; and,

WHEREAS, SGMA requires a coordinated Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) or GSPs among or between adjacent GSAs and adjacent subbasins; and,

WHEREAS, GSP development requires collaboration amongst GSAs and other local or regional water management groups at the groundwater subbasin level and encourages collaboration across groundwater subbasin boundaries; and,

WHEREAS, the Marina Coast Water District Groundwater Sustainability Agency (MCWDGSA) and the Salinas Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency previously entered into a Proposition 1 Coordination Agreement regarding cooperation and coordination on the application for and receipt of Proposition 1grant funds to fund the development of GSPs for theMonterey Subbasin and the 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin; and,

WHEREAS, the proposed Framework Agreement’s intent is that one GSP will be developed for the entire Monterey Subbasin (i.e. the Monterey Subbasin GSP), which will contain three management areas that generally encompass the Marina Subarea, the Ord Subarea (both of which are generally located north of State Route 68), and the Corral de Tierra Subarea (located generally south of State Route 68); and,

WHEREAS, the Framework Agreement clarifies that the MCWDGSA will prepare the GSP components for the Marina Management Area and the Ord Management Area, and SVBGSA will prepare the GSP components for the Corral de Tierra Management Area and the GSP for the entire 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin; and,

WHEREAS, the Agreement requires the MCWDGSA and the SVBGSA to actively consult with each other and include each other for review of draft work products during the GSP

94

Page 2 of 2

development process for the 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin and the Monterey Subbasin; NOW, THEREFORE,

BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency, that the General Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute theFramework Agreement for the Monterey Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan between the Marina Coast Water District Groundwater Sustainability Agency and Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency attached hereto as Exhibit A.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the General Manager and Agency Counsel are hereby authorized and directed to take such further actions as may be necessary or appropriate to implement the intent and purposes of this Resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 13th day of December 2018 by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

I, Ann Camel, Clerk of the Board of Directors of the Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of an original order of said Board of Directors duly made and entered in the minutes thereof

Dated: Ann Camel, Clerk of the Board of Directors of the Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency,

County of Monterey, State of California

_____________________________________

95

FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT

This Framework Agreement is made effective as of ________ by the Marina Coast Water District Groundwater Sustainability Agency (MCWD) and Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (SVBGSA) (collectively, the “Parties”) regarding Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) development for the Monterey Subbasin and the 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin, with reference to the following:

RECITALS

A. On September 16, 2014 Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Senate Bills 1168 and 1319 and Assembly Bill 1739, known collectively as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (the “Act”), effective January 1, 2015; and

B. The Act was amended by Senate Bill 13, effective January 1, 2016; and

C. The legislative intent of the Act is to provide sustainable management of groundwater basins, to enhance local management of groundwater, to establish minimum standards for sustainable groundwater management, and to provide local agencies with the authority and the technical and financial assistance necessary to sustainably manage groundwater; and

D. The Act requires formation of one or more groundwater sustainability agencies (“GSAs”) that will be responsible for developing a single or multiple groundwater sustainability plan (“GSP”) for a groundwater basin; and

E. The purpose of this Framework Agreement is to outline the process to be used by the Parties to work collaboratively to develop one GSP for the entire Monterey Subbasin and one GSP for the entire 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin (the “GSPs”). It is further intended to guide the Parties’ coordination during GSP development in the Monterey Subbasin and the 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin and further intended to, in part, implement the intent and purposes of the Coordination Agreement between the Parties dated November 21, 2017.

F. The Parties recognize that a detailed approach is to be developed by the Parties’ technical staff under these guidelines to make sure that the elements of the GSPs are appropriately coordinated to support sustainable management.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, terms, conditions and covenants contained herein, the Parties to this Agreement hereby agree as follows:

1. Overarching Approach. The Parties agree that one GSP will be developed for the entire Monterey Subbasin (i.e. the Monterey Subbasin GSP), which will contain three management areas that generally encompass the Marina Subarea, the Ord Subarea (both of which are generally located north of State Route 68), and the Corral de Tierra Subarea (located generally south of State

96

Route 68). The Parties recognize that the exact boundaries of the management areas are to be confirmed. Consistent with the Proposition 1 Grant Work Plans:

(a) MCWD GSA will prepare the GSP components for the Marina Management Area and the Ord Management Area;

(b) SVBGSA will prepare the GSP components for the Corral de Tierra Management Area.

(c) The Parties further agree that SVBGSA will prepare a GSP for the entire 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin.

(d) The Parties agree that they will actively consult with each other, and include each otherfor review of draft work products during the GSP development process for the 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin and the Monterey Subbasin.

2. Schedule. The Parties agree to develop a detailed approach and schedule for development of the GSPs. The detailed approach and schedule for the Monterey Subbasin GSPshould outline the process of preparing separate and common GSP components, as well as identify the timing of data sharing and review of key work products. The detailed approach and schedule for the 180/400 Foot Aquifer should identify the process and timing of consultation and review for key work products. The Parties recognize that a successful GSP relies on involving each other for early input and providing draft work products to the other Party for timely review, and further recognize that the GSP for the 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin must be filed with DWR no later than January 31, 2020, and the GSP for the Monterey Subbasin must be filed no later than January 31, 2022.

3. Coordination Committees; Stakeholder Engagement. The Parties agree to form a Steering Committee that oversees activities under this agreement. The Steering Committee shall include the General Manager and one Board Member from each Party, who will update each Party’s Board of Directors. Staff and consultants from each Party may participate in the Steering Committee as necessary. In addition, the Parties agree to form a Technical Committee that consists of staff and/or technical consultants to perform activities under this agreement. The Steering Committee and Technical Committee shall each hold regular meetings pursuant to schedules described in Attachment A and may hold special meetings and workshops as necessary.

The Parties agree to work collaboratively to develop and implement stakeholder engagement plans for the GSPs and ensure regular, productive communication between the Parties, stakeholders, and stakeholder representatives. Each Party is responsible for guiding efforts within their respective plan preparation areas in both basins, e.g., MCWD for the Marina and Ord Subareas of the Monterey Subbasin, and SVBGSA for the Corral de Tierra Subarea of the Monterey Subbasin as well as the 180/400 Foot Subbasin

4. Data Management and Exchange. (a) The Parties agree to develop and maintain coordinated data management system(s) that meet the requirement California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 23, Section 352.6, such as a single DMS or separate DMSs with coordinated schema to facilitate data sharing.

97

(b) Each Party shall be responsible for the collection of information to support GSP analyses within their respective plan preparation areas, including but not limited to data to support groundwater conditions assessment, hydrogeologic conceptual model development, numerical model development, and water budget analysis.

(c) The Parties agree, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to make all data necessary to facilitate development of the GSPs available to the other Party and conduct information exchange, either through a formal or informal request, in a timely fashion. To the extent it is necessary to make a written request for information to another Party, each Party shall designate a representative to respond to information requests and provide the name and contact information of the designee to the Coordination Committee. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prohibit any Party from voluntarily exchanging information with any other Party by any other mechanism separate from the Coordination Committee.

(d) It is understood and agreed that a Party to this Agreement may provide the other Partywith confidential information. To ensure the protection of such confidential information and in consideration of the agreement to exchange said information, appropriate arrangements may be made to restrict or prevent disclosure.

(e) It is further understood that information to be exchanged may include data obtained from the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) under agreements with the MCWRA. The Parties agree to make the data obtained from MCWRA available for information exchange to the extent permitted by law, and as long as provision of such exchanges follow the terms of agreement with MCWRA.

(f) The Parties agree to consider the development of a Uniform Data Sharing and Confidentiality Agreement with MCWRA so that there will be uniform rules among the three agencies as to how and what data is to be shared, what data shall be considered confidential, and how confidential data is to be secured, protected, shared, and released.

5. Water Budget. The Parties agree to prepare coordinated water budgets and basin setting information for the Monterey and 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasins, as required by 23 CCR 354.18. The Parties agree to work to reach consensus on inputs, assumptions, and methodology, as well as review and potential refinement of the portion of the Salinas Valley Integrated Hydrological Modelthat addresses the Monterey Subbasin and 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasins.

6. Monitoring Network. The Parties agree to develop coordinated monitoring network objectives for the Monterey and 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasins. The monitoring network shall facilitate the collection of data necessary to characterize groundwater and related surface water conditions and evaluate changing conditions that occur from implementation of the GSPs in each Management Area.

7. Proposition 1 Grant Administration. The Parties agree to coordinate grant administration for GSP development in the Monterey Subbasin. Pursuant to the provisions of the Proposition 1 Sustainable Groundwater Planning Grant Agreement for the Monterey Subbasin,

98

MCWD will submit invoices, deliverables and other grant administration materials to DWR on behalf of SVBGSA and will redistribute SVBGSA’s potion of grant reimbursements to SVBGSA. However, MCWD will not be responsible for verifying the format or information within SVBGSA’s submittals. SVBGSA is responsible for timely providing MCWD the information necessary for preparation of quarterly progress reports and grant completion reports.

8. Indemnification. Each Party agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the other Party, and their officers, employees and agents, from against any and all demands, claims, causes of action, suits, judgements, liabilities, liens, losses, damages, expenses, fines, penalties and assessments (collectively, “damages”) arising out of or related to the preparation, consideration and approval of a GSP or GSP components by the indemnifying Party for its respective management area, except in the case of a claim or litigation by one Party against the other. The Parties agree to cooperate in the defense of any claim or lawsuit arising out of such actions to theextent permitted by law.

9. Termination. Either Party by majority vote of its governing body may terminate this Framework Agreement for any reason or no reason upon at least nine (9) months’ prior written notice to the other Party. Such notice may be made by personal delivery or first class U.S. Mail (postage prepaid), and shall be deemed delivered upon actual receipt of the notice by the other Party. Such notice shall be addressed to the General Manager of the non-noticing Party. Within thirty (30) days of delivery of the notice, the Steering Committee representatives shall personallymeet and attempt in good faith to resolve the dispute.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, this Framework Agreement shall not be terminated (the “effective termination date”) unless and until the parties shall have entered into intra-basin coordination agreements in accordance with Water Code §10727.6 and 23 CCR §357.4 for each parties’ respective GSP for their respective portions of the 180/400 Foot Aquifer and the Monterey Subbasin. The intra-basin coordination agreement must address any necessary approvals resulting in grant changes from DWR as a result of changing from a single GSP for each of the sub-basins to coordinated multiple GSP’s for each of the sub-basins

Until the effective termination date, each Party shall continue to develop their respective portions of the GS Plans pursuant to the Proposition 1 Coordination Agreement. The Parties shall obtain any necessary approvals for resulting grant changes from DWR. All reimbursements required by that agreement shall be due and payable on the effective termination date.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, MCWD and SVBGSA execute this Framework Agreement effective as of the date first written above.

Marina Coast Water District Groundwater Sustainability Agency,

By:

Date:

99

APPROVED AS TO FORM

______________________________Roger MasudaMCWDGSA General Counsel

Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency,

By:

Date:

APPROVED AS TO FORM

______________________________Leslie J. GirardSVBGSA General Counsel

100

ATTACHMENT ARegular Committee Meeting Schedules

The Steering Committee for coordinating GSP development in the 180/400 Foot Aquifer and Monterey Subbasins will meet quarterly beginning the fourth quarter of 2018. Meetings of the Steering Committee shall be subject to the California Open Meeting Law (“Brown Act”). The first meeting of the Committee shall be called by the General Manager of the SVBGSA, who shall preside pro tem at the start of the meeting. At the initial meeting the Committee shall choose a chairperson and set a regular schedule of meetings as required by the Brown Act.

The Technical Committee will meet regularly every other month starting September 2018, exact time and location to be determined. Meetings of the Technical Committee are not subject to the Brown Act. During the Technical Committee meetings, GSA staff and technical consultants will

Provide status update regarding work progress and schedule; Exchange data and information available at the time of the meeting; Coordinate development and review of work products; and Present and discuss technical topics.

101

12/6/2018

Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency

BOARD OF DIRECTORS FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

January 10, 2019

• Receive draft fee report/provide comments

• GSP Chapters 4) Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model

• Mid Year Budget Adjustments

• Receive Audited Financial Statement for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018

February 14, 2019

• Board accepts Final fee report and 1st reading of Ordinance

•

March 14, 2019

• 2nd reading of fee ordinance

• GSP Chapters and 5) Groundwater Conditions 6) Water Budget – historic; 7) Sustainable Management Criteria; 8) Monitoring Networks

April 11, 2019

• Board Certification Resolution for placement of fees on Tax Roll

• Budget adoption 60 days prior to the end of FY (JPA § 10.3b)

• GSP Chapter 6 – Water Budget - current

May 9, 2019

•

June 13, 2019

• FY Board Meeting Calendar

July 12, 2019

• Election of Board Officers

102

12/6/2018

103