HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6a. Adoption of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan Item 6a
Department: Utilities
Cost Center: 6001
For Agenda of: 12/7/2021
Placement: Public Hearing
Estimated Time: 60 Minutes
FROM: Aaron Floyd, Utilities Director
Prepared By: Mychal Boerman, Utilities Deputy Director - Water
SUBJECT: SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ADOPTION
RECOMMENDATION
1. Acting as the City of San Luis Obispo Groundwater Sustainability Agency , adopt a
Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo,
California, acting as the City of San Luis Obispo Groundwater Sustainability Agency,
adopting the San Luis Obispo Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan”; and
2. Authorize the County of San Luis Obispo Groundwater Sustainability Director, or their
designee, to serve as the authorized representative for submittal of the Groundwater
Sustainability Plan, and annual reports required under the Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act, to the California Department of Water Resources.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The City of San Luis Obispo (City) and County of San Luis Obispo (County) have worked
in collaboration to produce a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP)1 to address the long-
term sustainable management of the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin (SLO
Basin). This work effort is responsive to state legislation has been guided by a
Memorandum of Agreement defining multi-agency participation. There have been three
Council meetings covering draft versions of the GSP with Council providing specific
comments at a study session in July of this year.
The ten-chapter GSP identifies the agencies responsible for sustainable groundwater
management within the SLO Basin, as well as the users and beneficiaries of groundwater
within the basin. The plan also describes the land -uses and hydrologic and geologic
characteristics of the basin. The GSP identifies specific areas within the SLO Basin where
there is an ongoing imbalance of groundwater pumping and groundwater recharge.
Notably, areas of the SLO Basin within City limits are shown to have stable groundwater
levels while areas outside of City limits, within the Edna Valley, exhibit continually
declining groundwater levels, indicative of an imbalance of groundwater supply and
demand due to a pumping and recharge imbalance. As a result of a large geologic
bedrock divide between the two subareas of the SLO Basin, actions taken on one side of
the bedrock divide have minimal impact on water levels on the other side of the b edrock
divide.
1 The San Luis Obispo Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan and associated appendices can be
located on the City’s website at http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=151703
Page 469 of 520
Item 6a
The GSP also defines groundwater sustainability metrics for the SLO Bas in and the
actions that the City and County must take to ensure the basin is utilized in a sustainable
manner. These measures include ongoing monitoring of groundwater levels and surface
water flow, identification of possible water supply augmentation projects, and potential
pumping reductions.
The GSP must be adopted by both the City and the County Groundwater Sustainability
Agencies (GSAs) and submitted to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR)
on or before January 31, 2022. Once adopted by the City and County GSAs and approved
by DWR, implementation of the GSP will occur, and the GSAs will have until 2042 to
achieve sustainability or balance of the SLO Basin.
DISCUSSION
This Agenda Report provides summary information about why a GSP has been drafted;
how an interagency Groundwater Sustainability Commission (GSC) was formed to create
the GSP; how the GSP addresses the two differently situated subareas of the SLO Basin
(deficit in one surplus in another); and what projects and management actions should be
taken to bring the SLO Basin into sustainability. A reference guide of terms and definitions
is provided in Attachment A – Terms and Definitions and a summary of each GSP chapter
is provided in Attachment B – GSP Chapter Summaries.
Background
1. Why has a GSP Been Drafted?
Because it is Required by the
State of California.
The Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act (SGMA)
requires sustainable
groundwater management in all
high and medium priority
groundwater basins. The SLO
Basin, which underlays the City
and unincorporated areas
outside of the City, was
designated as a high priority
basin by the State of California
due to the documented lowering
of groundwater levels in the
eastern portion of the basin,
near Edna Valley, and the population overlying the basin in the western (City of San
Luis Obispo) portion of the basin.
Figure 1 - Overview of the SLO Basin
Page 470 of 520
Item 6a
SGMA legislation defines “Sustainable Groundwater Management” a s the
management and use of groundwater in a manner that can be maintained during the
planning and implementation horizon (2022-2042) without causing undesirable
results. The goal of SGMA is to ensure groundwater basins are managed sustainably
and that groundwater extraction within a basin is not exceeded by pumping/withdraw
over an extended period of time, causing undesirable results to the basin and
significant and unreasonable impacts to its users.
2. City and County Groundwater Sustainability Agencies Formed, Resulting in
GSP Coverage for the Entire SLO Basin
SGMA grants local agencies the authority to sustainably manage groundwater
supplies and allows for State intervention, when necessary, to protect groundwater
resources. SGMA requires the creation of Groundwater Sustainability Agencies
(GSAs) to develop and implement local plans, allowing 20 years to achieve basin
sustainability. SGMA required the formation of GSAs by June 2017. The City of San
Luis Obispo (City) and the County completed the GSA formation process and entered
into an agreement to produce one GSP which would cover the entirety of the SLO
Basin (Attachment C). This GSP must be adopted by both GSAs and submitted to the
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) on or before January 31, 2022.
Once adopted by the City and County GSAs and approved by DWR, implementation
of the GSP will occur, and the GSAs will have until 2042 to achieve sustainability of
the SLO Basin.
A Groundwater Sustainability Commission (GSC), comprised of significant users of
groundwater in the SLO Basin, was formed as an advisory body to the City and County
GSAs. After several years of collaboration, at its October 20, 2021, meeting, the GSC
unanimously voted to recommend the GSP to the City and County GSAs for a doption.
Figure 2 - SGMA Timeline
3. Sustainable Yield: Two Subareas in SLO Basin, One in Surplus (San Luis Valley
Subarea), the Other in Deficit (Edna Valley Subarea)
SGMA defines “Sustainable Yield,” as the maximum volume of water, calculated over
a period of time that is representative of long-term conditions in the basin, that can be
withdrawn each year from a groundwater supply without causing undesirable results
(defined below and within Attachment A). For the SLO Basin, the Sustainable Yield is
estimated to be 5,800 acre-feet per year (AFY), as shown in Table 1.
Page 471 of 520
Item 6a
The subarea of the SLO Basin underlying the City (San Luis Valley Subarea) is
estimated to have a 700 AFY year surplus of groundwater. However, the Edna Valley
Subarea of the basin experiences an estimated 1,100 AFY deficit due to excessive
groundwater use. Therefore, taken in its entirety, the SLO Basin is estimated to be in
overdraft by 400 AFY on average.
As a result of a large geologic bedrock divide between the two portions of the SLO
Basin, actions taken on one side of the basin have minimal impact on water levels on
the other side of the basin. Overdraft and surplus volumes for the SLO Basin and the
two subareas can be seen in Table 2 below.
Table 1 – Preliminary Sustainable Yield Estimate (Acre-Feet/Year)
San Luis Valley Subarea 2,500
Edna Valley Subarea 3,300
SLO Basin Total 5,800
Table 2 – Estimated Overdraft (Acre-Feet/Year)
San Luis Valley Subarea (700)*
Edna Valley Subarea 1,100
SLO Basin Total 400
*Surplus water available
Sustainability Indicators are the effects caused by groundwater conditions occurring
throughout the basin that, when significant and unreasonable, become Undesirable
Results. As defined by SGMA, Undesirable Results are one or more of the following
effects:
1. Chronic lowering of groundwater levels
2. Significant and unreasonable reductions in groundwater storage
3. Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion (does not apply to the SLO Basin)
4. Significant and unreasonable degradation of water quality
5. Significant and unreasonable land subsidence; and
6. Surface water depletions that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts
on beneficial uses
The proposed GSP is drafted using best available information, historical data,
scenario modeling, and climate change projections to avoid the five applicable
Undesirable Results within the SLO Basin, thus ensuring the protection of
groundwater resources for agriculture, domestic use, environmental benef it, and other
uses.
Page 472 of 520
Item 6a
4. GSP Projects and Management Actions Identified to Return the SLO Basin to
Sustainability
Through a series of public meetings and stakeholder workshops a number of Projects
and Management Actions were identified that could assist in bringing the basin into
sustainability. Projects identified within the GSP are not proposed to take place within
the San Luis Valley subarea. Rather, these projects are designed to benefit the Edna
Valley subarea and aimed to supplement groundwater supplies in that subarea.
The projects identified within the GSP are deemed to be technically feasible and able
to provide the volume of water needed to return the basin to sustainability. Early drafts
of Chapter 9 of the GSP included a project that proposed the sale of 200 acre-feet of
the City’s potable water to the Golden State Water Company. This project was
removed as it conflicted with existing City policy prohibiting the sale of potable water
outside of City limits. However, a project that proposes the sale of surplus recycled
water outside of City limits is included and is allowed by City policy when certain
findings can be made. Details on this project are provided in the summary of Chapter
9 in Attachment B. Should a recycled water sales project materialize, staff would first
seek Council’s approval to enter into exclusive negotiations on this topic as well as
the negotiation parameters for the same (with guiding principles consistent with
existing policies serving as a foundation for negotiations).
Addressing Public Comments on the Draft GSP Chapters
The City received input on the Draft GSP during multiple public comment periods. While
some of these comments were unrelated to the GSP, and more closely related to water
supply planning and population growth within the City, a summary of responses to
comments from City of San Luis Obispo community members can be found below with
the full list of GSP comments and associated responses found in Appendix I of the GSP.
1. Public Outreach Process
Public engagement and stakeholder
involvement was a critical component to
the development of the GSP. The
Communication and Engagement Plan
(C&E Plan), Appendix E of the GSP,
describes the activities for engaging
interested parties in SGMA
implementation efforts in the SLO
Basin. The C&E Plan was designed to
meet the stakeholder engagement
requirements of SGMA regulations
while ensuring local stakeholders are
provided an opportunity for education,
engagement, participation, and GSP
feedback. The purpose of the C&E Plan was to facilitate effective communication and
engagement with the multiple and varied stakeholders in the SLO Basin.
Figure 3 - SGMA Stakeholder Groups
Page 473 of 520
Item 6a
The GSC held 17 public meetings, three stakeholder engagement workshops, and
mailed four newsletters to over 400 local stakeholders who subscribed to the GSC e -
mail list. In addition to the direct outreach from the GSC, six items were brought before
the GSA/City Council, offering additional opportunities for public input and comment.
The development of a GSP was technically complex and took place over multiple
years. During the drafting of the plan, each GSP chapter was released for public
review after it was drafted. This public review period offered community members and
stakeholders and opportunity to provide comment and feedback on each chapter of
the GSP. Additionally, the entire GSP was released for a 30-day public review period
during August and September of 2021. To ensure the public was aware of the
progress of GSP development, the City and County posted updates on their websites,
social media platforms, and on the GSP portal and announcements were made at
various public meetings.
2. Public Comment: Recycled Water Availability
The City received several comments during the GSP public comment period stating
that the City did not have adequate recycled water suppl ies to sell as part of a
supplemental water supply project. While the GSP does not obligate the City to enter
into a contract to sell recycled water, staff believes that the misconception regarding
insufficient recycled water supplies should be addressed since it is one of the larger
water supply projects discussed in the GSP.
The GSP identifies a potential project that, if approved by the City Council at a later
date, could deliver up to 800 AFY of recycled water to the Edna Valley Growers. To
ensure that recycled water is available for in-City needs and not over-allocated, the
City developed a recycled water availability model which accurately projects how
much recycled water could be produced and delivered on a daily and monthly basis.
The City’s recycled water supply is predominately utilized for irrigation of parks, multi-
family housing tracts, and commercial business parks within the City. Since irrigation
is significantly reduced during the winter months when the weather cools and rainfall
provides the water needed by plants, a significant volume of water is available for
outside-City use from November through May each year. During the wettest months
of the year nearly 200 acre-feet of water are available each month. The volume of
recycled water that could feasibly be delivered during this period is currently limited
by pipeline capacity, not by the volume of wastewater available to treat.
As outlined in the GSP and in Attachment B, the City has policies that restrict the sale
of recycled water outside of City limits. These policies include restrictions that would
not allow recycled water to be used outside of the City if it would inhibit the City’s ability
to meet the water needs of the community, including needs of the community’s build
out. The requirements also stipulate that the uses cannot be to intensify development
and rather must advance conservation or agricultural preservation goals.
Page 474 of 520
Item 6a
3. Public Comment: State Water Project Use
During the GSP public comment period, the City received comments regarding the
reliability of the State Water Project (SWP) and the City’s history of opting to not
participate in the SWP. The GSP does not propose that the City receive, pay for, or
participate in any projects that would require the City purchase or receive water from
the SWP. The Edna Valley Growers, Golden State Water Company, and Edna and
Varian Ranch Mutual Water Companies expressed interest in the potential purchase
of water from the SWP and, if a project involving the SWP advanced, would fund and
enter into agreements for this water of their own accord, absent of any participation
from the City.
4. Public Comment: Surface Water Groundwater Interconnectivity and
Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs)
During the development of the GSP, public comment was received regarding surface
water/groundwater interconnectivity and the potential impacts of unsustainable
groundwater use on GDEs. City and County staff worked with the GSP consultant
team to address comments related to the protection of GDEs. While there is clearly a
connection between surface water and groundwater within the SLO Basin,
precipitation, temperature, evapotranspiration, and influent streamflow from the upper
contributing watershed have a greater influence on streamflow than groundwater
pumping. Due to the impacts of these contributors to streamflow, it is not within the
scope or capability of this Plan to mandate specific instream flow requirements for
groundwater-dependent ecosystem protection, such as minimum instream flows or
minimum pool depths. Rather, it is the objective to plan for management of
groundwater resources such that depletion of interconnected surface water is not
significantly increased due actions proposed in the Plan.
Inspection of hydrographs for a well site intended to monitor conditions near San Luis
Obispo Creek (RMS SLV-12), do not indicate any significant declines of water levels
since the drought of the early 1990s. Therefore, this data suggests that surface
water/groundwater interaction at this location have not been negatively impacted since
the early 1990s. Proposed Minimum Thresholds would not cause significant and
unreasonable impacts to surface water groundwater interconnections and associated
GDEs.
To improve the understanding of the interconnection between surface water and
groundwater within the basin, the GSP proposes several locations for new monitoring
wells. GSP criteria is anticipated to be modified as new wells are installed and surface
water groundwater interconnectivity is better documented and understood.
5. Public Comment: Climate Change
SGMA GSP regulations require incorporating forecasted climate estimates into the
future water budget. To meet this requirement, DWR developed an approach for
incorporating reasonably expected changes to monthly precipitation and reference
evapotranspiration.
Page 475 of 520
Item 6a
The GSP uses the approach developed by DWR for addressing future climate change
in the future water budget modeling for the SLO Basin. Modeled precipitation in the
SLO Basin averaged 20.28 inches per year in the baseline model run, and 20.74
inches per year in the climate change run, with DWR-approved factors applied to
climatological inputs. Model results indicated that the average groundwater level at
the ten Representative Monitoring Site wells would increase 3.4 feet due to climate
change (Chapter 6.6.2.3).
It is important to note that climate change projections may be refined over time as
more data and refined modeling becomes available. The GSP allows for adaptive
management, including interim plan updates every five years. As updated data
become available, the GSP will amended to reflect these changes.
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
The City of San Luis Obispo GSA has met on several occasions to satisfy administrative
requirements defined within SGMA and to discuss elements of the associated GSP.
On May 16, 2017, the City Council met to form the City of San Luis Obispo Groundwater
Sustainability Agency, one of the two governmental entities (alongside the County of San
Luis Obispo Groundwater Sustainability Agency) required to develop and implement a
GSP that will achieve sustainable management of the SLO Basin. This staff report can
be viewed in full here.
On January 16, 2018, the City Council authorized the City to participate in a Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) with the County, Golden State Water Company, Edna Ranch Mutual
Water Company, Varian Ranch Mutual Water company, and Edna Valley Growers Mutual
Water Company. This MOA defines the roles, responsibilities, and financial contributions
of each agency and also results in the formation of the G roundwater Sustainability
Commission, which acts as an advisory body to the two GSAs. This staff report can be
viewed in full here.
On December 8, 2020, the City GSA received an update on GSP production, including
draft chapters 1-6 of the GSP. This staff report can be viewed in full here.
On July 20, 2021, the City GSA received an update on draft chapters 7 -10 of the GSP
and participated in a study session held to inform the City GSA on the contents of the
GSP and to receive input from the GSA on the contents of the plan. This staff repor t can
be viewed in full here.
On September 7, 2021 City GSA received and filed the Public Draft of the GSP. This staff
report can be viewed in full here.
Page 476 of 520
Item 6a
Policy Context
The GSP is in alignment with City policies related to management of City water supplies,
including policies prohibiting the sale of potable water outside of City limits.
Public Engagement
To encourage inclusive stakeholder outreach, the development of the GSP was guided
by the Communication and Engagement Plan as discussed above.
CONCURRENCE
The GSC concurs with the contents of the GSP and has recommended that the City and
County GSAs adopt the GSP and complete submission of the GSP to DWR. The San
Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors will also be conducting a public hearing for
adoption of the SLO Basin GSP on December 7, 2021.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Preparation and adoption of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan is statutorily exempt from
review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to California
Water Code Section 10728.6. Adoption of the GSP would not authorize implementation
of specific projects identified in the GSP, and any implementation of such projects would
be subject to CEQA review at the time the project is considered for approval and
implementation.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2021-22
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund
State
Federal
Fees
Water Fund $150,000
Total $150,000
Page 477 of 520
Item 6a
In the current 2021-23 Financial Plan, Council approved CIP Project (1000150)
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act GSP and appropriated $150,000 from the
Water Fund to provide financial resources to collaborate with GSA stakeholders to
effectively manage the groundwater basin in the City, which may include preparation of
research studies, field investigations, legal documents, grant applications, and regional
participation in the development of a groundwater sustainability plan.
As stated within the GSP, the City is not proposed to bear financial responsibility for the
projects and management actions needed within the Edna Valley subarea. Costs related
to the implementation of the GSP are proposed to be proportionally shared between the
City and other groundwater users within the entirety of the SLO Basin and are estimated
to be $965,000/year for 2022-2026. Costs and cost distribution are projected to be further
defined in the fee study scheduled for the first quarter of 2022 and will be considered
when staff return to Council at budget supplement.
Management, monitoring, and reporting on the implementation of the GSP will continue
to require staff time. Impacts of staff time committed to SGMA will be tracked and
monitored and additional resources will be requested in future financial plans if needed.
ALTERNATIVES
The City GSA could choose not to adopt the GSP as presented and elect to have staff
return with addition modifications to the GSP. This alternative is not recommended as the
City and County GSAs are required to adopt the same plan and submit it to the Division
of Drinking Water on or before January 31, 2022. The County GSA is scheduled to
consider adoption of the GSP on the morning of December 7, 2021.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Terms and Definitions
B – GSP Chapter Summaries
C – SLO Basin MOA
D – Draft Resolution adopting the Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Page 478 of 520
Terms and Definitions
Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs)
Ecological communities of species that depend on groundwater emerging from aquifers
or on groundwater occurring near the ground surface.
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs)
Local public agencies tasked with developing and implementing Groundwater
Sustainability Plans under SGMA.
Groundwater Sustainability Commission (GSC)
An advisory board to the City and County GSAs, comprised of significant potential users
of groundwater in the SLO Basin.
Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP)
A 20-year plan to ensure that groundwater is managed sustainably within
a groundwater basin.
Interim Milestones (IMs)
Target values representing measurable conditions, set in increments of five years,
designed to help the basin achieve sustainability by 2042.
Measurable Objectives (MOs)
Specific, quantifiable goals for the maintenance or improvement of specified groundwater
conditions to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin. Measurable Objectives are
goals that the GSP is designed to achieve.
Minimum Thresholds (MTs)
The quantitative values that define what is deemed significant and unreasonable at each
Representative Monitoring Site.
Monitoring Network
A collection of monitoring points that pro mote the collection of data of sufficient quality,
frequency, and distribution to characterize groundwater and related surface water
conditions in the basin and evaluate changing conditions that occur through
implementation of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan.
Representative Monitoring Sites (RMSs)
Representative Monitoring Sites are individual locations within a Monitoring Network at
which sustainability indicators are monitored, and for which quantitative values for
Minimum Thresholds, Measurable Objectives, and Interim Milestones are defined.
Sustainability Goal
A comprehensive statement that describes the goals for sustainability within the basin
and important factors to be considered during the SGMA planning horizon (2022 -2042).
Page 479 of 520
Sustainable Groundwater Management
The management and use of groundwater in a manner that can be maintained during the
planning and implementation horizon (2022-2042) without causing Undesirable Results.
Sustainability Indicators
The effects caused by groundwater conditions occurring throughout the basin that, when
significant and unreasonable, cause Undesirable Results such as chronic lowering of
groundwater levels, significant and unreasonable reductions in groundwater storage,
significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion, significant and unreasonable
degradation of water quality, significant and unreasonable land subsidence, and surface
water depletions that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial
uses.
Sustainable Yield
The maximum volume of water, calculated over a period of time that is representative of
long-term conditions in the basin, that can be withdrawn each year from a groundwater
supply without causing undesirable results.
Undesirable Results
1. Chronic lowering of groundwater levels
2. Significant and unreasonable reductions in groundwater storage
3. Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion (does not apply to the SLO Basin)
4. Significant and unreasonable degradation of water quality
5. Significant and unreasonable land subsidence; and
6. Surface water depletions that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts
on beneficial uses.
Page 480 of 520
Chapter Summaries and Important Chapter Details
Chapter 1: Introduction to the SLO Basin GSP
Chapter 1 is largely administrative in nature and is designed to give the reader
background information related to why the GSP is being developed. This chapter outlines
the purpose of developing the GSP, a high -level description of the SLO Basin, and an
explanation of how the Department of Water Resources (DWR) prioritizes basins
throughout the state and why the SLO Basin is categorized as a high priority basin. The
reader will find information in this chapter that will set the stage for a better understanding
of the need for a GSP.
Chapter 2: Agency Formation
Chapter 2 of the GSP outlines agency information and management structure, including
information related to the creation of the City Groundwater Sustainability Agency (City
GSA) and the County of San Luis Obispo Groundwater Sustainability Agency (County
GSA). This chapter also discusses the formation of the Groun dwater Sustainability
Commission (GSC) which acts as an advisory body to the City GSA and County GSA, as
well as the development of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the two
agencies. The MOA’s purpose is for the City GSA and County GSA, with input f rom other
GSC members, to coordinate in the preparation of a single GSP for the entire SLO Basin.
Figure 1 below demonstrates the governance structure outlined in the MOA. It is important
to note that the City GSA and County GSA are responsible for indepen dently adopting
the GSP and implementing the GSP within their respective service areas.
Chapter 3: Description of Plan Area
Chapter 3 provides an introduction to the SLO Basin with a description of the jurisdictional
areas that overlie the basin, details about existing City and County land use plans, density
of groundwater wells within the basin, and a detailed description of a ctive groundwater
Figure 1 – Local SGMA Governance Structure
Page 481 of 520
and surface water monitoring and management programs. Not unlike Chapter 1 and
Chapter 2, this chapter helps document information that will assist in decision making as
subsequent GSP chapters are developed.
Chapter 4: Basin Setting
Chapter 4 of the GSP is a technical chapter that describes the regional and local basin
geology, groundwater aquifer information, and surface water information. This chapter
defines the physical extent and limitations of the SLO Basin as well as the importance of
how surface water and groundwater interact locally. Various maps within the chapter
document details about the groundwater basin such as infiltration rates within different
areas of the basin, bedrock elevations, and land subsidence risk. Additionally, this chapter
provides a series of cross-sectional diagrams that document the various types of geologic
layers of different parts of the SLO Basin.
Chapter 5: Groundwater Conditions
Following SGMA regulations, Groundwater Sustainability Agencies must deve lop and
implement a Groundwater Sustainability Plan for managing and using groundwater
without causing six specific undesirable results. These undesirable results are defined
as:
1. Chronic lowering of groundwater levels
2. Significant and unreasonable reductions in groundwater storage
3. Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion (does not apply to the SLO Basin)
4. Significant and unreasonable degradation of water quality
5. Significant and unreasonable land subsidence; and
6. Surface water depletions that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts
on beneficial uses
Chapter 5 describes the current and historical groundwater conditions in the SLO Basin,
including a series of maps showing groundwater flow direction and groundwater level
contours over several decades, allowing for the visualization of changes in groundwater
elevation over time. These maps document that areas within City limits have not
experienced significant reductions in groundwater elevation, and thus groundwater
storage, over the examined period of time. On the contrary, areas within the Edna Valley
area of the SLO Basin have experienced significant, continual declines in groundwater
elevation over time. The stability in groundwater elevation within City limits can be
attributed to the City’s increased surface water use for potable needs, a reduction in total
water demand, and the substantial reduction in groundwater use since the early 1990s.
On the contrary, the Edna Valley area’s declining water levels can be largely attributed to
increases in agricultural operations over time.
Page 482 of 520
Figure 2 - Changes in Groundwater Elevation from 1997 - 2011
Just as pumping groundwater for domestic and agricultural uses can remove water from
a groundwater basin, infiltration of rain, subsurface inflow from surrounding bedrock, and
percolation of streamflow from local creeks can return water to the groundwater basin.
This chapter qualitatively describes these, and other various groundwater recharge and
discharge types within the SLO Basin.
Following discussions related to the connection between groundwater and stream flows,
the chapter addresses groundwater quality within the basin. While SGMA is not designed
to resolve any specific groundwater contamination issues, it is important that the actions
within a GSP not allow for the worsening or exacerbation of groundwater quality issues.
Chapter 6: Water Budget
Chapter 6 takes the description of water flowing in and out of a basin and quantif ies this
flow volumetrically into a water budget. The purpose of a water budget is to provide an
accounting and assessment of the total annual volume of groundwater and surface water
entering and leaving a basin. A water budget identifies and quantifies various components
of the hydrologic cycle within a user-defined area, in this case the SLO Basin. Water
circulates between the atmospheric system, land surface system, surface water bodies,
and the groundwater system, as shown in Figure 3 below.
Page 483 of 520
Figure 3 – The Hydrologic Cycle. Source: Department of Water Resources (Water Budget BMP, 2016)
This chapter of the GSP provides an accounting and assessment of the total annual
volume of groundwater and surface water entering (inflow) and leaving (outflow) the SLO
Basin for historical and current conditions, as well as future conditions with climate
change and management actions. The current water budget developed for this chapter
was prepared for the two subareas that cover the SLO Basin, the San Luis Valley subarea
and the Edna Valley subarea, both individually and combined into a single water budg et
for the entire Basin. This water budget results in estimates of the preliminary sustainable
yield and overdraft, or surplus, for both subareas and for the entire Basin which are
outlined in Table 1 and Table 2 below. The water budget equation used within this chapter
to account for available water is as follows:
𝐼𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑛𝑤−𝑂𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑛𝑤=𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑒𝑒 𝐼𝑛 𝑆𝑡𝑛𝑟𝑎𝑒𝑒
Table 1 – Preliminary Sustainable Yield Estimate (Acre-Feet / Year)
San Luis Valley Subarea 2,500
Edna Valley Subarea 3,300
Basin Total 5,800
Table 2 – Estimated Overdraft (Acre-Feet / Year)
San Luis Valley Subarea -700*
Edna Valley Subarea 1,100
Basin Total 400
*Surplus water available
Page 484 of 520
Chapter 7: Monitoring Network
A groundwater basin that is subject to SGMA is required to establish a monitoring network
in which various types of data are collected to ensure the basin is operated in a
sustainable manner and to monitor progress toward meeting SGMA compliance and
basin sustainability goals. As a part of the larger monitoring network, an individual network
is established for groundwater levels, another for groundwater quality, and a final network
for surface water flow. These networks help monitor data for each of the six Undesirable
Results.
The three monitoring networks must be capable of capturing data on a sufficient temporal
and spatial distribution to demonstrate short-term, seasonal, and long-term trends in
groundwater and related surface water conditions, and to yield representative information
about these conditions for GSP implementation, tracking, reporting, and groundwater
model calibration.
Chapter 8: Sustainable Management Criteria
A significant effort in the creation of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan involves the
development of a measurement system to determine the current health of the basin and
measurable action points where intervention may be needed if goals are not being met.
SGMA regulations group this system together under the heading of “Sustainable
Management Criteria”. These criteria are defined in detail in Chapter 8 found in
Attachment B and include:
The Basin’s Sustainability Goal
Undesirable Results
Minimum Thresholds, and
Measurable Objectives
For each of the six Sustainability Indicators, Undesirable Results are defined, and
Minimum Thresholds and Measurable Objectives are established. These metrics are an
important part of the GSP as they identify metrics to determine if the Groundwater
Sustainability Plan is meeting its intended goal of sustainability and they identify the
starting point at which corrective actions must begin if goals are not met.
1. Discussion of Chapter 8’s SLO Basin’s Sustainability Goal
The sustainability goal for the SLO Basin is a statement that describes the
important factors to be considered during the SGMA planning horizon (2022 -2042).
The sustainability goal was developed over a series of public meetings and public
workshops with input from the City, County, and affected stakeholders. The June
10, 2020 Stakeholder Workshop, Groundwater Management Vision, was
dedicated to obtaining information to be used to develop a sustainability goal for
the SLO Basin. In the workshop, stakeholders participated in an interactive
exercise where they helped populate a virtual white board to answer the question,
“What is our shared vision of what a ‘sustainable SLO Basin’ means?”
Page 485 of 520
Guiding principles of the Sustainability Goal are:
Available groundwater supply supports diverse needs reliably and equitably
Stored groundwater equitably supports supply resilience and evolving needs
Groundwater levels support the sustained health of groundwater dependent
ecosystems
Cost of maintaining sustainable groundwater levels is equitably distributed
Groundwater quality is maintained to a safe standard to meet diverse basin
needs
After further coordination with the GSAs, GSC members, and other stakeholders,
a sustainability goal was drafted and approved. The sustainability goal for the
Basin is to, “manage the Basin to ensure beneficial uses and basin users have
access to a safe and reliable groundwater supply that meets current and future
demand without causing undesirable results”.
Chapter 9: Projects and Management Actions
Chapter 9 describes the Projects and Management Actions that have been identified as
providing feasible methods to achieve sustainable management goals in the SLO Basin.
The projects and management actions were developed over a series of working sessions
with GSA staff and in six public GSC meetings between December 9, 2020 and June 21,
2021.
Projects can generally be described as infrastructure-related improvements and water
purchase agreements designed to increase the amount of water available within the Edna
Valley subarea. Due to water levels being stable within the City’s subarea, projects are
not recommended within the City limits. Projects identified for the Edna Valley subarea
could include imported water being directly utilized by agricultural operations and/or local
residents for domestic and irrigation uses, or imported water being used to recharge the
Edna Valley subarea to benefit all of the users of the subarea.
Management Actions can generally be described as actions needed in order to directly
reduce the amount of groundwater pumping within the basin.
It is important to note that the projects and management actions listed in the draft GSA
have been included based on their feasibility from an engineering/infrastructu re
perspective solely. Identification of a project within the GSP does not obligate the GSAs
or project participants to implement the project.
Projects and Management Actions Strategies (GSP Table 9 -3) provides a summary of
the projects and management actions considered in the SLO Basin GSP. The table shows
the status, timing for implementation (years), capital costs ($), annual Operations and
Maintenance (O&M) ($/Year), quantity of water delivered in acre-feet per year (AFY), and
the unit cost ($/AFY) for each project and management action. Project costs outlined
within the table do not include the cost of the water being purchased as this would have
to be negotiated with the party who holds rights to the water. This table also does not
assess policy constraints and the likelihood that projects could occur if policy constraints
were identified.
Page 486 of 520
City of San Luis Obispo Water Sales Projects
The City is not proposed as a recipient of any projects identified within the GSP due to
the surplus of groundwater currently available within the San Luis Valley Subarea.
However, one project was identified within the plan that would involve the sale of recycled
water from the City to parties within the Edna Valley subarea. This project considers the
sale of 500-800 AFY of recycled water to the Edna Valley Growers for agricultural
irrigation. City policy allows for the sale of recycled water and raw wate r outside of City
limits under specific conditions and does not permit the sale of potable water outside of
City limits. A potential project to deliver potable water to the Golden State Water Company
was not included in the final GSP.
City of SLO Recycled Water Sales to Edna Valley Growers
The City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) treats municipal wastewater from
the City, Cal Poly, and the San Luis Obispo County Airport and in return produces
recycled water. Once produced, portions of the available recycled water are distributed
within the City for landscape irrigation and construction uses. The remaining recycled
water that is not needed by City customers is dechlorinated and discharged to San Luis
Obispo Creek for environmental benefit. The WRRF is required to maintain a minimum
daily average year-round discharge of 2.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) of treated effluent
to San Luis Obispo Creek, which equals approximately 1.6 million gallons per day (MGD)
or 1,800 AFY, for protection of downstream b iological resources as required by the
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service.
With current in-City recycled water demands increasing and influent into the WRRF
decreasing due to high levels of water conservation, it may be feasible for the City to
provide the Edna Valley growers with 500-800 acre-feet of recycled water annually with
quantities decreasing as new in-City users come online. In-City groundwater basin
augmentation efforts, new regulations, drought, and additional in-City recycled water
irrigation customers could further reduce the quantity of recycled water available to
outside users by several hundred acre-feet in the foreseeable future.
Within the 2021-23 Financial Plan the Council approved budget of $50,0000 to develop
a comprehensive understanding of the future availability of recycled water, the cost to
deliver recycled water to outside City users, pricing and equity parameters with existing
City ratepayers given past investments or sunk costs, and water rights implications. This
funding will ensure that the City’s water rights are protected, volumes of recycled water
available for sale are understood and maximized, and that sales pricing and price
structures are designed to ensure equity to the City’s water rate payers. Lastly, it will help
inform the City about ways to maximize its recycled water supplies when needed to meet
needs within the City.
Existing General Plan policy allows for the sale of recycled water outside of City limits
when certain findings are made, as follows:
Page 487 of 520
Provision of non-potable or recycled water outside of City limits may only be
considered in compliance with Water and Wastewater Element Policy A 7.3.4 and
the following findings:
A. Non-potable/recycled water is necessary to support continued
agricultural operations.
B. Provision of non-potable/recycled water will not be used to increase
development potential of property being served.
C. Non-potable/recycled water will not be further treated to make it potable.
D. Prior to provision of non-potable/recycled water, the property to be served will
record a conservation, open space, Williamson Act, or other easement
instrument to maintain the area being served in agriculture and open space
while non-potable/recycled water is being provided.
E. Provision of non-potable and recycled water will not impair the City’s ability to
maintain an adequate water supply that meets projected water demand at
buildout under the General Plan including the required reliability reserve.
Water and Wastewater Management Element, Program A 7.3.4 allows for the sale of
recycled water outside of City limits as follows:
Consider the potential to deliver available non-potable or recycled water supplies
to customers outside the city limits, including analysis of policy issues, technical
concerns, and cost recovery, provided it is found to be consistent with the General
Plan.
Non-City Water Supply Projects
A variety of water supply projects exist within the region that allow for both potable and
non-potable water to be imported to the Edna Valley subarea. Below is a brief summary
of the largest of these projects. A full list of projects and detailed project descriptions can
be found within Chapter 9.4 of the GSP. This report provides a highlight of many of the
major projects contained within the GSP but does not detail all of the identified projects.
1. Highest Ranked GSP Project: Obtain State Water Project (SWP) for Agricultural
Irrigation in the Edna Valley Subarea
The Coastal Branch of the SWP conveys water from Northern California to San Luis
Obispo County. As part of a ranking/scoring exercise that examined volumes of water
available, water supply reliability, costs, implementation timelines, and various other
factors, the delivery of SWP water to the Edna Valley subarea for use for agricultural
irrigation was the highest ranked project.
This water supply project is the only project identified within the GSP that can provide the
total volume of water needed to eliminate overdrafted conditions within the Edna Valley
subarea. It is anticipated that the Edna Valley growers could purchase over 1,000 acre -
Page 488 of 520
feet of water annually and directly apply this water to crops in order to reduce groundwater
pumping by an equivalent volume. Without the use of SWP for agricultural use, the Edna
Valley area would need to implement a combination of several other projects and/or
management actions, such as pumping reductions, in order to achieve sustainability.
2. State Water Project to Golden State Water Company (GSWC)
Golden State Water Company currently provides water to a small service area of County
administered land in the central part of the SLO Basin, near the bedrock divide that
separates the Edna Valley subarea and San Luis Valley subarea. GSWC obtains its water
supply from groundwater wells within its service area. The recent drought resulted in
significant constraints on GSWC’s groundwater supplies. Because their service area is
relatively small, their ability to site new wells to expand their source locations is limited.
For this reason, the conceptual project of obtaining SWP water to augment GSWC’s
current supplies was evaluated within the GSP.
This project assumes a SWP delivery of 200 AFY to GSWC, representing about 50% of
GSWC’s long-term water demand. This project would result in a 200 AFY reduction in
groundwater pumping within the Edna valley sub area and is the one of only two water
supply projects identified that would provide GSWC with a secondary source of potable
water. All other projects either benefit GSWC indirectly through reducing demand on the
groundwater basin or supplementing the basin with water that could later be extracted
through groundwater pumping. While not required by SGMA, this project provides water
supply diversification and resiliency to GSWC’s customers.
3. State Water Project to the Mutual Water Companies
The Varian Ranch Mutual Water Company and Edna Ranch Mutual Water Company,
located in the southeastern extent of the Edna Valley subarea, currently provide water to
their service areas from wells within the SLO Basin. The recent drought resulted in
significant constraints on their water supplies and groundwater levels within this area are
steadily declining.
Like the above section involving SWP delivery to GSWC, delivery of SWP water to the
two mutual water companies would allow for reduced groundwater pumping (50 AFY),
the introduction of an alternative source of potable water for supply resiliency and
diversification, and a water supply that is available through the entire S GMA planning
horizon (2022-2041).
4. State Water Project Recharge Basin
To enhance groundwater recharge in the Edna Valley, a recharge basin could be
constructed to percolate imported SWP water into the basin. A groundwater recharge
basin is a bermed basin structure designed for the purpose of efficiently allowing water
collected in the basin to infiltrate through the ground surface, and ultimately recharge the
underlying aquifer. The concept of this project is to construct a recharge basin in the Edna
Valley and supply it with water obtained from the SWP to recharge the aquifer. This
Page 489 of 520
project could recharge 500 acre-feet or more State Water Project water into the basin
each year, representing roughly half of the estimated need of the Edna Valley area.
Throughout the development of the GSP stakeholders expressed concern regarding the
availability of SWP water during periods of extended drought. While the SWP is subject
to reductions during dry years, SWP recipients have developed methods for dealing with
reduced availability. For instance, many SWP recipients purchase a “drought buffer”, or
more water than is needed when full entitlements are available, this drought buffer allows
for full delivery during dry years when delivery volumes are reduced. During wet years,
some SWP recipients sell water from their drought buffers to other SWP recipients on the
open market to help with cost recovery. SWP recipients are also known utilize
groundwater banking to store drought buffer water within the groundwater basi n in years
when a full allocation is available.
5. Price Canyon Discharge Relocation (Sentinel Peak)
Sentinel Peak Resources LLC is an energy company that operates a well field that
extracts petroleum hydrocarbons from an area approximately 1 -2 miles southwest of
Edna Valley in Price Canyon. Sentinel Peak owns and operates a process water
reclamation facility that has a permit to discharge into Pismo Creek about 1 mile
southwest of Highway 227 near Price Canyon Road. The discharge permit is primarily
provided for increased flow in Pismo Creek and wildlife propagation with a secondary
benefit to agriculture.
The proposed project would change the current point of discharge by about 3.5 miles by
moving it to the upper portion of West Corral de Piedras Creek i n the Edna Valley. The
new discharge point would be approximately 1 mile east of Orcutt Road. The project
would provide increased benefit to fisheries from increased streamflow, and also benefit
Edna Valley agriculture by increasing streamflow percolation to the underlying aquifer.
For the purpose of the GSP, it was assumed that 500 AFY of water would be available to
deliver to the new discharge location, resulting in approximately 350 acre-feet of recharge
to the SLO Basin. Due to the migration towards clean energy alternatives, some
uncertainly exists around the long-term availability of water from Sentinel Peak.
Management Actions
Management actions are taken by basin users to mitigate or avoid Undesirable Results.
The management actions in the GSP include the expansion of the monitoring network
(wells and stream gauges), development and implementation of a groundwater extraction
metering and reporting plan, and the development of a demand management plan that
includes pumping reductions. While direct pumping reductions would not be anticipated
within the City due to stable water levels within the area of the basin underlaying the City,
management actions such as expansion of the monitoring network and implementation
of a groundwater extraction and reporting plan would involve the City.
Adaptive Management
The GSP implementation process requires annual reporting and updates to the G SP at
minimum every five years. These reporting requirements provide opportunities for the
Page 490 of 520
GSAs to evaluate progress towards meeting its sustainability goals and avoiding
undesirable results.
Adaptive management triggers are thresholds that, if reached, initiate the process for
considering implementation of adaptive management actions or additional projects. For
SLO Basin, the trigger for adaptive management is the following:
If analytical or modeled projections anticipate that future conditions will exceed the
undesirable result thresholds, then the preparation for implementation of additional
projects and management actions would begin.
If actual conditions exceed the undesirable result thresholds, then additional
projects and management actions will be implemented.
Chapter 10: Implementation Plan
Chapter 10 is intended to serve as a conceptual roadmap and schedule for the GSAs to
start implementing the GSP during the first five years following GSP adoption.
The implementation plan provided in this chapter is based on current understanding of
SLO Basin conditions and includes consideration of the projects and management actions
included in Chapter 9, as well as other actions that are needed to successfully implement
the GSP, including:
1. GSP implementation, administration, and management
2. Fee Studies and funding
3. Reporting, including annual reports and five-year evaluations and updates
1. Future Governance Structure
The GSAs and the GSC will continue to operate under the existing City/County
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), including the existing governance structure, until
actions are taken amending/revising the existing MOA or developing new agreements.
The existing MOA will automatically terminate upon DWR’s approval of the SLO Basin
GSP (generally 18-24 months after GSP adoption). During the GSP review period, the
GSAs will need to update the governance structure to better serve the implementation of
the GSP. The existing governance structure consists of the two GSAs and an advisory
body, known as the Groundwater Sustainability Commission with representatives from
the Edna Valley Growers, Golden State Water Company, Edna and Varian Ranch Mutual
Water Companies, City of San Luis Obispo, and County of San Luis Obispo. The structure
of having an advisory body to the two GSAs has been effective throughout the creation
of the GSP.
2. Implementation Schedule and Costs
The GSP implementation schedule shown in Figure 10-1 of Chapter 10 of the GSP
illustrates activities necessary for ongoing GSP monitoring and updates, as well as
tentative schedules for the development of projects and management actions.
Page 491 of 520
GSP-related costs can be broken into two categories, one category for project -related
costs, and another for implementation related costs. As defined in the GSP, project costs
are not yet fully developed but are anticipated to be borne in full by project beneficiaries.
Since the City is not a project beneficiary, staff do not anticipate any project -related costs
for the City.
Implementation-related costs are those required to implement the GSP and include
annual and five-year reporting costs, monitoring network expansion costs, and
administrative and finance costs. These costs are anticipated to be borne by the Ci ty in
proportions directly related to the benefit received or cost incurred by the City. A fee study
is scheduled to be conducted in 2022 in order to establish funding mechanisms and cost
distribution associated with GSP funding. The implementation portion of the GSP is
estimated to cost approximately $965,000 per year for the first five years of
implementation and should be split equitably across the SLO Basin. Annual
implementation costs in years 6 through 20 should be reduced and will be developed
during future updates of the GSP.
Page 492 of 520
Page 493 of 520
Page 494 of 520
Page 495 of 520
Page 496 of 520
Page 497 of 520
Page 498 of 520
Page 499 of 520
Page 500 of 520
Page 501 of 520
Page 502 of 520
Page 503 of 520
Page 504 of 520
Page 505 of 520
Page 506 of 520
Page 507 of 520
Page 508 of 520
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2021 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ACTING AS THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY, ADOPTING THE SAN
LUIS OBISPO VALLEY BASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY
PLAN
WHEREAS, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014, California
Water Code sections 10720-10737.8 (“SGMA”) was signed into law on September 16,
2014; and
WHEREAS, SGMA requires that each groundwater basin be managed by a
Groundwater Sustainability Agency (“GSA”), or multiple GSAs, and that such
management be pursuant to an approved Groundwater Sustain ability Plan (“GSP”), or
multiple GSPs; and
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2017 the City Council (“Council”) elected to form a GSA
under SGMA, making it one of two GSAs within the San Luis Obispo Valley Basin; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Water Code Section 10727, SGMA requires that a GSP,
or multiple GSPs, be developed and implemented by January 31, 2022 ; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo GSA and County of San Luis Obispo GSA
have collaboratively prepared a joint GSP for the San Luis Obispo Valley Basin, in
accordance with Water Code Section 10727.2 to include all the components required by
SGMA; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo GSA is responsible for GSP
implementation in all areas within the City limits and the County of San Luis Obispo GSA
is responsible for GSP implementation in all areas outside of City limits ; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo gave notice on July 10, 2021, pursuant to
Water Code Section 10728.4 to affected cities and counties regarding the intent of the
City of San Luis Obispo GSA to adopt the GSP; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo GSA published a notice on November 25,
2021 in the New Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of San Luis Obispo,
giving notice that a public hearing would be held on December 7, 2021 for the purpose of
considering adoption of a GSP for its portion of the San Luis Obispo Valley Basin; and
WHEREAS, upon adoption of the GSP, Water Code Section 10733.4 requires that
the GSP be submitted to DWR for review on or before January 31, 2022.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
Page 509 of 520
Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 2
R ______
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct.
SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo does hereby adopt
the San Luis Obispo Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (“GSP”), and directs
staff to complete any minor, administrative changes to the GSP that are required by the
State of California Department of Water Resources (“DWR”) for certification. Should DWR
require substantive changes to the GSP adopted herein, staff shall bring such changes
back to Council for review and adoption.
SECTION 3. The County of San Luis Obispo is hereby authorized and directed to
provide notification of this adoption to DWR, including a copy of this Resolution, the
adopted GSP, and any additional information required by law.
Page 510 of 520
Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 3
R ______
SECTION 4. Preparation and adoption of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan is
statutorily exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to California Water Code Section 10728.6. Adoption of the GSP does not
authorize implementation of specific projects identified in the GSP, and any
implementation of such projects would be subject to CEQA review at the time the project
is considered for approval and implementation.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by
_______________________, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2021.
___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
___________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________.
___________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Page 511 of 520
Page 512 of 520
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Groundwater Sustainability Plan Adoption
City Water Supply Update
GSP Adoption by County Board of Supervisors
Recommendations1. Acting as the City of San Luis Obispo Groundwater Sustainability Agency,adopt a Resolution (Attachment D) entitled, “A Resolution of the CityCouncil of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, acting as the City ofSan Luis Obispo Groundwater Sustainability Agency, adopting the SanLuis Obispo Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan”; and2. Authorize the County of San Luis Obispo Groundwater SustainabilityDirector, or designee, to serve as the authorized representative forsubmittal of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan, and annual reportsrequired under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, to theCalifornia Department of Water Resources.
Resolution Modifications
Resolution Modifications
Acknowledgements•Groundwater Sustainability Commission (GSC)- (Edna Valley Growers, GoldenState Water Company, Edna Ranch and Varian Ranch Mutual Water Companies, andthe County of San Luis Obispo)•Consulting Team– GSI Water Solutions (GSI), Cleath-Harris Geologists (CHG),Water Systems Consulting (WSC), and GEI Consultants•County of San Luis Obispo Staff– Mladen Bandov, Dick Tzou, Angela Ford, &Courtney Howard•City’s GSC Representative– Councilmember Pease•400+ Members of the Public and Stakeholder Groups Who Contributed to thisPlan
SGMA Legislation Background• SGMA was adopted by the State in 2014.• Required that local agencies form Groundwater Sustainability Agencies(GSAs) forhigh and medium priority groundwater basins in California.• Required GSAs to develop and implement Groundwater Sustainability Plans(GSPs)in order to avoid “Undesirable Results” and to mitigate basin overdraft within 20-years (2022-2042).• The City of SLO overlies the San Luis Valley Groundwater Basin which was deemedas “High-Priority” by the State of California.• A GSP must be completed for the San Luis Valley Groundwater Basin by January31,2022
Governance StructureDAWN ORTIZ LEGG
Governance Structure
Basin Geology and GeographyBedrock Divide
Changes in Groundwater Elevation 1997-2011
Changes in Groundwater Elevation 2011-2015
Changes in Groundwater Levels Elevation 2011-2015
Development of a Groundwater BudgetInflowOutflowChange In Groundwater Storage•San Luis Subarea = 700 Acre-Feet/Year Surplus•Edna Valley Subarea = 1,100 Acre-Feet/Year Deficit
What is “Sustainable Groundwater Management”?Undesirable Results“The management and use of groundwater in a manner that can be maintained during the planning and implementation horizon (2022-2042) without causing Undesirable Results”
How we Stop Undesirable Results1. Establish a “Monitoring Network”•Groundwater Level Monitoring•Groundwater Quality Monitoring•Surface Water Flow Monitoring
Monitoring Network Creation
How we Stop Undesirable Results2. Establish Minimum Thresholds and Measurable Objectives
Reversing Trends & Returning to SustainabilityProjects & Management Actions
State Water ProjectsVolume Available: 1,000+ AF/YearEstimated Purchase Price of Water:$2,000 –$2,500/Acre-FootImportant Details:•Potable supply that could provide regional resiliency•Only project identified that can provide 1,100 AFY of water•Available for a long time period•Available quantities reduced by drought
Price Canyon (Sentinel Peak Oilfield) Discharge RelocationVolume Available: 500 Acre-Feet/YearEstimated Purchase Price of Water: UnknownImportant Details:•Moves discharge point into Pismo Creek upstream into the Edna Valley Subarea•Dependent on the continued operation of the Sentinel Peak facility•Estimated benefit of 300 AF/Year to the basin•Per acre-foot pricing is to be negotiated
City of SLO Recycled Water to Edna Valley GrowersVolume Available: 500-800 Acre-Feet/YearEstimated Purchase Price of Water : $4,100/Acre-FootImportant Details:•Not permanently available, to be reduced as City needs grow•Minimal volumes available during summer months•Non-potable
1,000 AF/Y Pumping Reduction in Edna Subarea
Management Actions•Efficiency Improvements•Water Efficient Crop Selection•Mandatory Pumping Reductions
Implementation Plan(GSP Table 10-1)
Addressing Draft GSP Public Comments1. Public Outreach2. Recycled Water Availability3. State Water Project Use4. Surface Water Groundwater Interconnectivity & Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems5. Climate Change
1. Public Outreach•17 Public Meetings•Three stakeholder workshops•Seven City Council meetings with GSP-related topics•Chapter-by-chapter public review periods •Full draft GSP 30-day review period•Website updates (City, County, and SLOWaterBasin.com)•E-mail list with over 400 stakeholders signed up to receive updates•Paid and unpaid advertising through Facebook and Instagram•Chamber of Commerce Presentations•Farmer’s Market Booth Info
2. Recycled Water Availability•City could feasibly deliver up to 800 AFY of Recycled Water to outside City users.•City utilizes a recycled water availability model to project deliveries based on influent, in-City demands, future recycled water customers, pipeline capacity.•Deliveries to Edna Valley would be restricted by pipeline size during non-summer months.•City has policies that would not allow for sale of recycled water outside of the City if it would inhibit the City’s ability to meet in-City needs.
3. State Water Project Use•City is not proposed to utilize water from the State Water Project.•GSC members and other stakeholders within the Edna Valley area have expressed interest in State Water and could purchase State Water without any type of involvement form the City.•58% of SWP is available on average year – often overpurchased to account for variations in year-to-year availability.•SWP used on 750,000 acres of agriculture across the state
4. Surface water/Groundwater Interconnectivity•SLO Basin has areas where surface water and groundwater are interconnected•Surface water/groundwater interconnectivity is influenced by many factors other than groundwater pumping such as rainfall, evaporation, and influent streamflow. •The City & County set Minimum Thresholds that are designed to protect the needs of Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems.•GSP outlines plans to expand surface water monitoring to better understand impacts of pumping on the basin.
5. Climate Change•SGMA requires incorporating forecasted climate estimates into the future water budget.•The SLO Basin GSP utilizes an approach developed by the Department of Water Resources for modeling climate change within our basin.•Climate-Change model runs indicated a slight increase in rainfall in the future (20.28 in the baseline run vs. 20.74 inches in the climate change run).
5. Climate Change•Climate change projections can be modified as refined projections become available.•SGMA compliance is based on actual water levels, not projections. The GSP may be required to be updated if compliance is not being demonstrated due to climate change or any other factor.
6. Supplemental Water Supply Feasibility•State Water Project Feasibility•State Water Project for Agricultural Use•What Occurs if Projects are not implemented?
Next Steps•Submit GSP to Department of Water Resources by January 31, 2022.•Prepare Annual Report (Due April 2022)•Continue with GSP Implementation (through 2042)
Questions?
Recommendations1. Acting as the City of San Luis Obispo Groundwater Sustainability Agency,adopt a Resolution (Attachment D) entitled, “A Resolution of the CityCouncil of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, acting as the City ofSan Luis Obispo Groundwater Sustainability Agency, adopting the SanLuis Obispo Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan”; and2. Authorize the County of San Luis Obispo Groundwater SustainabilityDirector, or designee, to serve as the authorized representative forsubmittal of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan, and annual reportsrequired under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, to theCalifornia Department of Water Resources.
Thank You!
Changes in Irrigated Agriculture 1987-2018