HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-16-2017 Item 11 Formation of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency Meeting Date: 5/16/2017
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared by: Aaron Floyd, Utilities Deputy Director - Water
SUBJECT: FORMATION OF A GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Rescind all prior approvals and appointments associated with the formation of a Groundwater
Sustainability Agency from the March 7, 2017 City Council meeting; and
2. Approve a Resolution (Attachment E) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California authorizing the City of San Luis Obispo to become a
Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin for
the area that lies beneath and within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of San Luis
Obispo” (Attachment E); and
3. Authorize the City Manager to approve use of up to $200,000 of water fund working capital
for expenditures related to the formation and administration of a groundwater sustainability
agency and the development of a groundwater sustainability plan; and
4. Authorize the City Manager to execute a letter to the California Department of Water
Resources notifying them of the City’s decision to become a Groundwater Sustainability
Agency as required by Water Code § 10723.8; and
5. Authorize the City’s Utilities Director to perform any acts necessary under the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act in order to effectuate the purposes and acts authorized herein;
and
6. Once formed, appoint Council Member Pease and the Utilities Director as an alternative
representative to serve on the to the Groundwater Sustainability Commission.
DISCUSSION
Background
On March 2, 2017, in compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA),
the City Council approved and authorized the Mayor to execute a Joint Powers Agreement with
the County of San Luis Obispo for the purpose of forming the San Luis Obispo Valley
Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency. That staff report is included as
Attachment A. Earlier that same day, the County of San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors took
action to amend certain sections of its adopted SGMA policy related to funding. The Board held
another public hearing on April 4, 2017 to re-consider that action. At this meeting, the Board
maintained the March 7 policy change.
The Board’s policy change directs the use of County General Fund money to develop
Packet Pg 221
11
groundwater sustainability plans in areas of the County not covered by another Groundwater
Sustainability Agency. The Board stated it would not raise fees to support the development of the
plans. The Board’s prior SGMA policy stated that it would not fund the development of
groundwater sustainability plans through its General Fund. This action effectively removed the
ability for the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency to
fund itself through basin user fees as required in the Joint Powers Agreement. In short, the Joint
Powers Agreement is no longer a viable option for the City and it is recommended the City
Council rescind all prior approvals and appointments associated with the action taken on that
item.
The recommended alternative path forward (Alternative 1 from the City’s March 7, 2017 staff
report) is for the City to form its own Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) over its
jurisdictional boundaries. The City as the GSA will work in a coordinated approach with the
County (who will form its own Groundwater Sustainability Agency over its portion of the San
Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin) to develop a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP)
that covers the entire San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin. See Attachment B for map of
proposed GSAs.
Pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, the deadline to form a Groundwater
Sustainability Agency is June 30, 2017.
Continuing Efforts / Next Steps
The San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin “eligible entities” as shown in Attachment C,
(City, County, Golden State Water Company, Edna Ranch Mutual Water Company-East, Varian
Ranch Mutual Water Company, and Edna Valley Growers Mutual Water Company) are all ba ck
at the table working collaboratively to comply with SGMA requirements. A draft governance
structure of a coordinated approach to managing the groundwater basin is attached (Attachment
D). The proposed structure includes a Groundwater Sustainability Commission which is an
advisory body to the City Council and the Board of Supervisors. The Commission consists of
one City Council Member, one County Supervisor and a representative of each of the water
companies identified above. The structure is subject to change.
The City, County, and eligible entities are required by SGMA to work together to create
Groundwater Sustainability Plans. A draft memorandum of agreement among the parties is under
review. City and County staff are working to develop an appropriate cost sharing and decision-
making approach to Groundwater Sustainability Plan development by the separate Groundwater
Sustainability Agencies.
Should the Council approve the formation of the City of San Luis Obispo Groundwater
Sustainability Agency, the full program (coordinated approach with the County GSA) will be
presented to City Council for its consideration as soon as feasible. Meeting the statutory deadline
to form the City GSA is the focus of this report.
It should be noted that the County’s modified policy is limited to the development of the
Groundwater Sustainability Plan. It is unclear what funding the County will deem appropriate for
plan implementation. The City and County have the option in the future to form a Joint Powers
Packet Pg 222
11
entity, as originally envisioned, should circumstances justify that approach. SGMA requires the
Groundwater Sustainability Plan to be developed by January 31, 2022.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The adoption of this resolution to form a Groundwater Sustainability Agency is not s ubject to
CEQA. Preparation of the appropriate environmental findings at this stage is premature given
that the process is still in its early stages and adequate information is not available to inform any
required analysis as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15004(b).
FISCAL IMPACT
Costs and efforts associated with SGMA compliance to-date have been borne by the County with
in-kind support and stakeholder outreach by the City, Golden State Water Company, Edna
Valley Growers Mutual Water Company, Varian Ranch Mutual Water Company, and Edna
Ranch - East Mutual Water Company.
With the City as the GSA, City staff will incur additional responsibilities related to the
administration of this program. In addition, the City must coordinate efforts with the County of
San Luis Obispo GSA to create a Groundwater Sustainability Plan.
Costs associated with the administration and operation of the City of San Luis Obispo
Groundwater Sustainability Agency are estimated at $150,000 annually; however, because this is
a cost estimate, authority to use up to $200,000 of working capital is requested. Ultimately how
the Agency will be administered and funded has yet to be determined. At this time, funding
through water fund working capital is being recommended. The use of fund balance has been
taken into consideration of the fund review and the fund is projected to maintain working capital
above 20% of the operating expenditures policy reserve.
Long-term costs for the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin GSAs to impl ement the
GSP and manage the entire basin in coordination with one another are unknown at this time. The
methodology for collection of funds and share apportionment among the basin’s entities is also
unknown at this time. The County of San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors has not made its
intent clear as to how GSP implementation will be paid for in its countywide GSAs. This funding
hurdle will need to be resolved in the future.
Efforts to minimize costs associated with the GSA include exploration of partnerships with other
GSAs in the County to share resources, continue in-kind services where applicable, and pursue
grants. The County has already secured funding of $150,000 towards a basin characterization
study for the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin - a needed work effort for creation of a
GSP.
ALTERNATIVES
Pursuant to SGMA, if any portion of the basin is not covered by a GSA, the County is presumed
to be the GSA for that area. If the County does not take on this role, then the State will intervene
Packet Pg 223
11
until it can turn basin management back to a local entity. Activities could include groundwater
extraction reporting by basin users, development of Interim Plan(s) and related studies and
CEQA compliance as applicable, collection of fees, and issuance of cease and desist orders if
necessary to handle violations. The State’s clear intention is local groundwater issues should be
governed by local entities.
1. Council could choose not to form a GSA. Doing so would cede authority to the County;
its GSA would be the only agency with the designated authorities and jurisdiction over
the groundwater basin. The City would have an advisory position comparable to the other
eligible entities in the basin. During the creation of the groundwater sustainability plan,
there would be some cost to the City (likely under $20,000) in order to have influence on
the Groundwater Sustainability Commission shown in the draft governance structure
(Attachment C).
With this alternative, the County would bear the cost of administering and operating the
new GSA and creating a groundwater sustainability plan for the entire San Luis Obispo
Valley Groundwater Basin. While current County policy direction on this issue is not
clear, at some future point, the GSA would have authority to enact fees and charges over
the basin in order to bring it into sustainability.
Attachments:
a - 3/7/2017 Council Agenda Report - SGMA
b - San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin - GSA Concept
c - San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin - Eligible Entities
d - SLOVGB New Governance Structure
e - Resolution forming GSA
Packet Pg 224
11
Meeting Date: 3/7/2017
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared by: Aaron Floyd, Utilities Deputy Director – Water
SUBJECT: JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO FORM A GROUNDWATER
SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute a Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement between the City of San Luis Obispo and the County of San Luis Obispo
to form the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency”
(Attachment B); and
2. Authorize the City Manager to approve minor modifications to the Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement; and
3. Authorize the use of up to $200,000 of Water fund balance as the City’s portion of initial
operating capital for fiscal year 2017/18 for the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (subject
to reimbursement from the Groundwater Sustainability Agency); and
4. Authorize the County of San Luis Obispo to take certain actions relative to the formation of
the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency; and
5. Appoint one representative from City Council and the Utilities Director as an alternative
representative to serve on the Board of Directors of the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwat er
Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency.
REPORT IN BRIEF
The City of San Luis Obispo has a long history of groundwater use. The majority of
groundwater basins across the State have not been sustainably managed. With increased focus
due to the drought, the Governor signed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
(SGMA), which went into effect January 1, 2015. SGMA requires the formation of
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies to manage groundwater basins.
The Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) is recommended to be formed by a Joint Powers
Agreement between the City of San Luis Obispo and County of San Luis Obispo. Other entities
utilizing groundwater would be represented on the GSA. The deadline for formation of a GSA is
June 30, 2017.
Funding for this effort will be shared proportionally by all entities until a permanent funding
source can be secured.
DISCUSSION
Background
Groundwater has played a significant role in the City’s historical water use and is an integral part
Packet Pg 225
11
of its One-Water future, in which water from all sources are used conjunctively to achieve the
greatest beneficial use. While the City relies more on surface water in average rain years,
groundwater is a vital part of the community’s multisource water supply. For example, the
drought that began in 1986 resulted in a significant decrease in surface water supplies and a
corresponding need for increased groundwater use. In 1990, at the height of that drought,
groundwater accounted for about 50 percent of the water supplied. As part of the 2016-17
Financial Plan supplement, Council authorized the expansion of the existing groundwater
program, including the rehabilitation of an existing well, as part of an overall water resiliency
strategy. As the City contemplates the best path towards potable reuse of highly treated
wastewater, the viable option of indirect potable reuse is directly tied to injection and extraction
of groundwater from the basin. For these reasons, it is important for the City to be actively
involved in the management of the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin (“SLO Basin”).
According to the California Department of Water Resources, thirty million Californians rely on
groundwater for a portion of their drinking water. Groundwater provides about 40 percent of the
State’s total water supply which, depending on wet or dry years, serves as a critical buffer
against drought and climate change. Currently, in the few regions where groundwater is
managed, it is done so by local and regional agencies, some of which sustainably manage their
resources. Other regions do not manage their basin or do not do so sustainably, resulting in
problems such as groundwater overdraft, land subsidence, wells going dry, and deteriorated
water quality.
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
Multiple years of drought combined with a lack of uniform standards for groundwater
management led to the Governor signing the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
(SGMA), which took effect January 1, 2015. This legislation requires the creation of new
institutions and adoption of planning documents, and grants the institutions the authorities and
resources to implement such requirements. SGMA includes enforcement tools to carry out
effective local sustainable groundwater management through the formation of Groundwater
Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) and development and implementation of a Groundwater
Sustainability Plan (GSP).
GSAs, and their respective GSPs, are required to ensure groundwater basins are managed
sustainably within 20 years of GSP adoption. Though the term “sustainability” is not specifically
defined in SGMA, the GSP must mitigate or avoid undesirable results, which are defined in the
California Water Code as one or more of the following effects caused by groundwater conditions
occurring throughout a groundwater basin:
(1) Chronic lowering of groundwater levels,
(2) Significant and unreasonable reduction of groundwater storage,
(3) Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion,
(4) Significant and unreasonable degraded water quality,
(5) Significant and unreasonable land subsidence, and
(6) Depletions of interconnected surface water that has significant and unreasonable
adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water.
Packet Pg 226
11
In order to communicate the condition of the various groundwater basins in the State, the
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) became responsible for prioritizing the
State’s groundwater basins. DWR designated 127 basins statewide as high and medium priority.
Six of these priority basins are located in whole or in part in San Luis Obispo County, including
the medium priority SLO Basin (Figure 1), the groundwater basin the City of San Luis Obispo
overlies.
Figure 1. Outline of San Luis Obispo (Edna) Valley Basin with overlying ent ities. Areas in blue represent the
service area of domestic water purveyors. Areas in yellow represent lands covered by Edna Valley Growers
Mutual Water Company, which provides agricultural water. All areas not shaded are represented by the
County of San Luis Obispo.
SGMA Requirements for GSA Formation
When SGMA was adopted, it became part of the California Water Code and Government Code.
Pursuant to the applicable section of this Code, an eligible local agency or combination of local
agencies (e.g. counties, cities, community services districts) overlying a groundwater basin may
decide to become a GSA for that basin. GSAs can be formed under a joint powers agreement, a
memorandum of agreement, or other legal agreement. Mutual water companies and water
corporations regulated by the Public Utilities Commission are also eligible to participate on a
GSA through a Participation Agreement (Attachment A). Pursuant to SGMA, the GSA must be
formed by June 30, 2017.
Collaborative Development of San Luis Obispo (Edna) Valley Basin GSA Agreement
Implementation of SGMA will involve local and State agencies, various water companies, and
concerned landowners. While SGMA specifies which agencies are eligible to participate on a
GSA, stakeholder outreach, coordination efforts, and the practical realities of preparing a GSP all
Packet Pg 227
11
benefit from the involvement of the entire community.
Under the leadership of San Luis Obispo County, eligible entities in the SLO Basin 1) County of
San Luis Obispo, 2) Golden State Water Company, 3) Edna Ranch Mutual Water Company-East,
Varian Ranch Mutual Water Company, 4) Edna Valley Growers Mutual Water Company and the
5) City of San Luis Obispo) have met to collaboratively develop the governance and funding
strategies defined in the attached Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA) (Attachment A).
The Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
The proposed GSA will be a separate legal entity formed pursuant to the Joint Exercise of
Powers Act (“JEPA”), Government Code sections 6500 et seq. Under JEPA, two or more public
agencies can come together to form a separate legal entity in order to provide certain services or
regulatory functions. In regards to the GSA, the City and County will execute the JPA in order to
form the GSA as required under SGMA. Although only the City and County will sign the JPA,
the GSA will be comprised of a five-member board of directors which includes representatives
from the City, the County and the three eligible entities noted above.
SGMA allows a GSA to be formed via a JPA or a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”)
executed between all eligible entities overlying the basin. The consensus among the City and
County staff and representatives from the other entities is to form a JPA rather than execute
MOUs. The primary reasons for this recommendation is efficiency, focus and effectiveness.
With an MOU, the GSA will largely depend on City and County resources to develop and
implement the GSP and to manage the day to day operations of the agency. The City and County
obviously have differing priorities and fluctuating resources. In addition, with an MOA, both the
City and the County would need to take action on items relative to the operation of the GSA;
with a JPA, a single board with representatives from the City and County could make such
approval.
Below are some of the more significant components of the proposed JPA:
Five-member Board of Directors with representatives from the City, County, Public
Utilities Commission Water Company, and two mutual water companies overlying the
SLO Basin. The City and County will each appoint their own representative and an
alternate. Because the other entities are within the unincorporated area, the County will
appoint a representative for each company based on a recommendation from each
company.
The GSA will share the common powers of the City and County and will also have the
authorities and enforcement capabilities set forth in SGMA. As discussed in more detail
below, the GSA will have no land use authority.
Supermajority approval of the Board is required for approval of the annual budget,
levying assessments, taxes and fees, issuance of indebtedness, any stipulation to resolve
litigation regarding groundwater rights or groundwater management. Unanimous
approval is required for the adoption of the GSP or any amendments thereto. It should be
noted that through the JPA development process, there was some disagreement whether
Packet Pg 228
11
any decisions should be unanimous.
The creation of a stakeholder advisory committee and technical advisory committee.
Initial contributions in the total amount of $500,000 for fiscal year 2017/18 in order to
cover the initial operating costs of the GSA. The City’s share is approximately $149,000
which is subject to reimbursement by the GSA once funding sources are secured. Any
subsequent contributions, beyond the amount requested in the attached Resolution, would
need the approval of the City and other contributing parties.
The JPA can be terminated by the City or the County upon ninety days prior written
notice.
The City and abovenamed entities held stakeholder forums in Fall/Winter 2016 to receive input
on governance strategies. Presenters at the meetings gave an overview of SGMA and detailed
how the community could be involved and have their interests heard during GSA formation and
creation of the GSP.
The importance of including stakeholder representation in the GSA decision-making process is
addressed through the formation of stakeholder and technical advisory committees through
development and implementation of the basin’s GSP. Figure 2 shows the proposed approach of
the governance structure for GSA formation.
Figure 2: Proposed Groundwater Sustainability Agency Structure
Once a GSA is formed, the City and County will each appoint a representative and alternate to
the governing board. Representatives for the Agricultural Mutual Water Company Group,
Domestic Mutual Water Company Group, and PUC Regulated Water Company Group will come
from nominations by their respective group with final appointment by the Count y Board of
Supervisors. This appointment process by the Board of Supervisors is required so as to not cede
governmental powers to a non-elected body. The rationale for the County Board of Supervisors
appointing the three entity representatives is the fact that those areas all lie within the
Packet Pg 229
11
unincorporated area. Appointment terms are for four terms and the Board meeting are subject to
the Brown Act.
Relationship Between SGMA & Land Use Authorities
In accordance with SGMA, the GSA will function and exercise authorities as an independent
entity. One required action of the GSA will be creation of a GSP, which may result in the
regulation of groundwater extraction in a basin to ensure sustainability. Although the GSA will
not have any specific land use authority over the basin, SGMA does provide certain policy
statements and amends various provisions of the Government Code related to Planning and
Zoning Law. Specifically, the State Legislature declared that
“…it is vital that there be close coordination and consultation between California’s water
supply or management agencies and California’s land use approval agencies to ensure that
proper water supply and management occurs to accommodate projects that will result in
increased demands on water supplies or impact water resource management.”
Once the GSP is created, the GSA must review and report on any substantial amendments
proposed to the City’s General Plan for its effect on the GSP. This process is similar to the
referral provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which is commonly
performed for any substantial modification to the City’s General Plan. Unlike CEQA, SGMA
does not have a conformity finding requirement or overrule type of process. Instead, the
amendments to the Government Code require coordination and information gathering between
the Groundwater Sustainability Agency and the City before a General Plan may be substantially
modified. The City and the County retain full control of its land use authority.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The adoption of this resolution to form a JPA is not subject to CEQA. Preparation of an
environmental impact report or negative declaration would be too early in the process to provide
meaningful information for environmental assessment, as described in State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15004(b). Approval of the GSP is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Water
Code section 10728.6. Actions to implement the GSP are subject to environmental review.
FISCAL IMPACT
Costs associated with SGMA compliance can be separated into three stages. The first stage
involves the preparation of the JPA document, outreach efforts, and GSA formation. Associated
costs and efforts to-date have been made by County staff with in-kind support and stakeholder
outreach by the 1) City, 2) Golden State Water Company, 3) Edna Valley Growers Mutual Water
Company, 4) Varian Ranch Mutual Water Company, and 5) Edna Ranch - East Mutual Water
Company.
Costs associated with the second stage of the process have been reduced to a minimum and are
solely for administration of the newly formed GSA until a long-term funding solution can be
secured. This interim time-frame is expected to last through the second quarter of 2018 and
carries an estimated total expenditure of $500,000. This estimate includes legal fees for the first
Packet Pg 230
11
fiscal year and an estimated $219,000 in annual operating and administration costs.
Of this initial amount, $250,000 is designated for the creation of a long-term funding mechanism
for continued expenses associated with administration of the GSA, creation of the GSP, and
future management of the basin (third funding phase). If this future independent funding is not
secured, per the Water Code, a GSA may withdraw from managing the basin by notifying DWR
in writing.
The City’s proportional share of this $500,000 is currently established at $149,948. This amount
was based on a variety of factors including population, water consumption and service area with
differing weights attached to each category. Staff is requesting a not-to-exceed amount of
$200,000 to allow the Utilities Department to make any necessary subsequent contributions
which may be needed. It is also anticipated that these initial funds will be re-paid to the entities
upon formation of a long-term funding mechanism. These initial funds are available in the Water
Fund from fund balance.
Long-term costs for the GSA to implement the GSP and manage the basin are unknowable at this
time. The methodology for collection of funds and share apportionment among the basin’s
entities are also unknown at this time and will need to be one of the initial work efforts of the
newly formed GSA. Efforts to lower costs include exploration of partnerships with other GSAs
in the County to minimize expenses through shared resources, continuation of in-kind services
where applicable, and pursuance of grants. The County has already secured funding of $150,000
towards a basin characterization study – a needed work effort for creation of a GSP.
Figure 3: GSA Formation Flowchart
Packet Pg 231
11
ALTERNATIVES
Pursuant to SGMA, if any portion of the basin is not covered by a GSA, the County is presumed
to be the GSA for that area. If the County does not take on this role, then the State will intervene
until it can turn basin management back to a local entity. Activities could include groundwater
extraction reporting by basin users, development of Interim Plan(s) and related studies and
CEQA compliance as applicable, collection of fees, and issuance of cease and desist orders if
necessary to handle violations. The State’s clear intention is local groundwater issues should be
governed by local entities. As shown above, the ability for ongoing local control will require a
secured funding source.
1. Council could choose to form an independent GSA, isolated to those areas of the San Luis
Obispo (Edna) Valley Basin under the jurisdiction of the City. This is known as the
‘coordinated’ approach. The recommendation before City Council is known as the
‘collaborative’ approach. Regardless of the approach chosen, all areas of the entire groundwater
basin would still need to be covered by a GSA by the June 30, 2017 deadline. Selecting this
strategy would likely result in increased management complications and expenditures as
creation of a GSP and all future management would still require collaboration with other entities
in the basin.
2. Council could choose not to participate in the formation of a JPA with the County. If the City
still chose to participate in the GSA, not participating in the JPA would cede authorities (such as
appointments to the GSA) to the County; they would be the only agency with the designated
authorities and jurisdiction over the basin.
3. Council could choose to not participate in the GSA. As the GSA will prepare the GSP, which
will dictate groundwater use in the basin, including the portion the City overlies, this alternative
would result in the City having a diminished voice in basin management decisions.
4. Council could choose to appoint both the representative and alternative representative from
City Council to serve on the Board of Directors of the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater
Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency. The selection of the Utilities Director to serve as
the alternative representative was recommended as a consistent resource for the elected
official during the initial stages of SGMA and in particular, during the creation of a
Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Actions taken by the GSA will likely have significant
impacts on the City’s current and future water portfolio.
Attachments:
a - JPA Agreement Part Agreement
b - Resolution for SGMA
Packet Pg 232
11
£¤101
GSA 2
GSA 1
Edna RanchMutual WaterCompany- East
GoldenState WaterCompany- Edna
Varian RanchMutual WaterCompany
San LuisObispo WaterDepartment
|ÿ1
|ÿ1
|ÿ227
Conceptual ModelGSA 1 - County of SanLuis Obispo
GSA 2 - City of SanLuis Obispo
Local Agencies &Mutual Water Co.
DWR - Bulletin 118 SanLuis Obispo Valley
Department of WaterResources (DWR) -Bulletin 118Groundwater Basins
DWR Bulletin 118 - San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin - Conceptual GSA Model
³
0 1.5 30.75
Miles
Date Printed: 4/6/2017
Packet Pg 233
11
County Of San LuisObispo as a GSA
£¤101
Edna RanchMutual WaterCompany - East
GoldenState WaterCompany - Edna
Varian RanchMutual WaterCompany
San LuisObispo WaterDepartment
City of San LuisObispo as a GSA
Edna ValleyGrowers MutualWater Company
|ÿ1
|ÿ1
|ÿ227
DWR - Bulletin 118San Luis Obispo Valley
Department of WaterResources (DWR) -Other Bulletin 118Groundwater Basins
County of San LuisObispo Service Area
GSAs
City of San LuisObispo Coverage Area
County of San LuisObispo Coverage Area
Other Eligible Entities
Edna Ranch MutualWater Company - East
Golden State WaterCompany - Edna
Varian Ranch MutualWater Company
Edna Valley GrowersMutual WaterCompany
DWR Bulletin 118 - San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin
³
0 1.5 30.75
Miles
Date Printed: 4/17/2017
Packet Pg 234
11
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO www.slocounty.ca.gov
SLO
County
GSA 1
Advisory
CommitteeStaffof
GSAs
San Luis Obispo Valley Basin Governance Structure
SLO City
GSA 2
County of SLO
City of SLO
VR&ER MWC
GS WC
EVG MWC
Groundwater
Sustainability
Commission
Decision-Maker Decision-Maker
MOA
Packet Pg 235
11
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO BECOME A
GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY FOR THE SAN LUIS
OBISPO VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN FOR THE AREA THAT LIES
BENEATH AND WITHIN THE JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES OF
THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
WHEREAS, in 2014 the California Legislature and the Governor passed into law the
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) for local management of groundwater
resources in California through the formation of Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) and
through preparation and implementation of Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs); and
WHEREAS, the City overlies a portion of the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin
(SLOVGB), which is subject to SGMA, and thus one or more GSAs must be formed for the
SLOVGB by June 30, 2017, or the SLOVGB may be subject to regulation by the State Water
Resources Control Board; and
WHEREAS, the City is a “local agency” as that term is defined by SGMA, and as such is
authorized to form a GSA to manage groundwater resources in the SLOVGB and within the City’s
jurisdictional boundaries in accordance with SGMA and other applicable laws and authorities; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to form a GSA to manage groundwater resources in the
SLOVGB beneath and within the City’s jurisdictional boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the City intends that its GSA will work cooperatively with the other GSAs
that have formed or will be formed in the SLOVGB to prepare one or more GSPs by January 31,
2022, so that groundwater resources in the SLOVGB will be properly managed and sustainable in
accordance with the provisions of SGMA; and
WHEREAS, it is essential that the City form this GSA because SGMA grants GSAs
substantial additional powers and authorities to ensure sustainable groundwater management.
Acting as the GSA within the City’s jurisdictional boundaries will, among other things, confirm
the City’s role as the local groundwater management agency, ensure access to SGMA authorities,
and preserve access to grant funding and other opportunities that may be available to GSAs; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of SGMA, the City held a public hearing on this
date after publication of notice pursuant to California Government Code section 6066 to consider
adoption of this Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
Packet Pg 236
11
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
R _____
SECTION 1. All of the above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by
reference.
SECTION 2. The City of San Luis Obispo hereby elects to become the Groundwater
Sustainability Agency in accordance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act over the
portion of the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin which lies under and within the
jurisdictional boundaries of the City of San Luis Obispo.
SECTION 3. The City Manager is authorized and directed to submit a notice of this
Resolution along with all other required information to the California Department of Water
Resources in accordance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.
SECTION 4. The City Groundwater Sustainability Agency shall consider the interests of
all beneficial uses and users of the groundwater within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City
and will develop an outreach program for all such stakeholders. The City Groundwater
Sustainability Agency will continue to coordinate with other local agencies and stakeholders that
overlie the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin in order to manage groundwater resources.
SECTION 5. The City Groundwater Sustainability Agency shall establish and maintain a
list of persons interested in receiving notices regarding the City’s involvement in the preparation
of one or more Groundwater Sustainability Plans in the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater
Basin, where any person may request in writing to be placed on the City’s list of interested persons.
SECTION 6. Resolution Number 10777 (2017 Series) is hereby repealed.
Packet Pg 237
11
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3
R _____
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2016.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
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, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg 238
11
5/17/2017
Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act
May 16, 2017
SGMA: Schedule
STEP 1: STEP 2: STEP 3:
Form GSA Develop GSP Implement
i
KEY 1/1/2015: 3/31/16: 6/30/2017: 1/31/2022: Goal:
DATES SGMA Boundary Establish Adopt Achieve
enacted modification GSA GSP sustainability
+ + +
Background
■ SGMA - Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act
■ GSA - Groundwater Sustainability Agency
■ GSP - Groundwater Sustainability Plan
* JPA - Joint Powers Agreement
■ One Independent GSA. - -
J
San Luis Obispo (Edna) Valley Groundwater Basin
Governance Structure
pp -
GSA
City of SLO
City of SLO JPA County of •
County of SLO Domestic
Mutual Water - Ag
PUC Water Co.
Supplemental
Agreerhertts l
Mut , M1tual`1 16Lstakeholder
C PUC Committee
Water Water Water Co. .
Agriculture Domestic
5/17/2017
2
I • �
r f
� f �
San Luis Obispo Basin
DWR Bulletin 778 -San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin -Conceptual GSA Model
-tetlull
11
t
5/17/2017
3
A t
Policy Change
• March 7 - Board of Supervisors
■ April 4 - Policy change confirmed
• County to cover costs "unrepresented areas"
• No State intervention
GES '
' supeVisoxs
ate � �� Step ito ma�alge
t t
Worried TJ
,Y wapay
t 8Z
decide e°undwater areas �t�', ��v°s'2sc,�
o h e Qr `
some gr B g� 0TV °"Ssl
ac � raspt�o polio; � �I �e tl�e os�aY
ot11� a ajl �A sg1.°�
�e�CY Pers co date,. Cost
Who should ans �l�a�st�s
groundwater?ay to manage t
supervisors wil�r a County
revisit the question
5/17/2017
4
SL® County SGMA Basins
' r
DWR Bulletln III Groundwater Basins In San Luis Oblspo County r �.
1
h
Y
Policy Change to SL® Basin
a Without funding - viability of independent GSA?
i "Pay to Play"
■ Fair -Share
■ Voting
■ City Control
5/17/2017
5
f
r.
pWR QuilalNi I td - Suit LulAr
CITYa dM+pa Vnllvy Graundwalw B++in - Can[a411uu1 GSA Model
OF S911 LUIS 1 i
`r � '
• �..
can. wwr
�• " J
F
/}r
•4wyen rphMl•
SLO Valley Basin
Governance Structure
decision -Makes flecision-Makes
County of SLO
Groundwater
CltyofsLo Sustainability
- �f�__ Commls3ion
�EVGMWt f;• —
VR&ER MVVC �
,-�
GSWC,�- �-
5/17/2017
5/17/2017
Outcome of Policy Change
■ SGMA requirements still met
• Inclusive of stakeholders
• GSAs cover entire basin
■ Collaborative
■ Retention of control of basin
• Groundwater Use
• Potable Reuse Opportunities
N� 1
-�a
County Of san yule "'� f r
ogl:po as a GSR � -�/
Fiscal & Next Steps
■ No funding assessment
■ Initial Funding - Working Capital
■ Estimate $150,000 Annual
■ Cost sharing within / outside basin
• Memorandum Of Agreement
L11
Y
� G
5/17/2017
8
5/17/2017
SGMA: Schedule
STEP 1: STEP 2: STEP 3:
Form GSA Develop GSP Implement
KEY 1/1/2015:
3131/16:
11 Vi
6/30/2017: 1/31/2022: Goal:
DATES SGMA
Boundary
Establish Adopt Achieve
enacted
modification
GSA GSP sustainability
■
TODAY
—4
_yr
.j
Questions
F
J�
r.
S, • I CITY OF SfiP LUIS OBISPO IF
Recommendations
1, Rescind all prior approvals and appointments associated with the formation of a
Groundwater Sustainability Agency from the March 7, 2017 City Council meeting; and
2. Approve a Resolution (Attachment E) entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
San Luis Obispo, California authorizing the City of San Luis Obispo to become a Groundwater
Sustainability Agency for the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin for the area that lies
beneath and within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of San Luis Obispo" (Attachment
E); and
3. Authorize the City Manager to approve use of up to $200,000 of water fund working capital
for expenditures related to the formation and administration of a groundwater sustainability
agency and the development of a groundwater sustainability plan; and
4. Authorize the City Manager to execute a letter to the California Department of Water
Resources notifying them of the City's decision to become a Groundwater Sustainability
Agency as required by Water Code § 10723.8; and
5. Authorize the City's Utilities Director to perform any acts necessary under the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act in order to effectuate the purposes and acts authorized herein;
and
6. Once formed, appoint Council Member Pease and the Utilities Director as an alternative
representative to serve on the to the Groundwater Sustainability Commission.
5/17/2017
10
Alternatives
1. Council could choose not to form a GSA. Doing so would cede authority
to the County; its GSA would be the only agency with the designated
authorities and jurisdiction over the groundwater basin. The City would
have an advisory position comparable to the other eligible entities in the
basin. During the creation of the groundwater sustainability plan, there
would be some cost to the City (likely under $20,000) in order to have
influence on the Groundwater Sustainability Commission shown in the draft
governance structure (Attachment C).
5/17/2017
11
a
d y .� o vq � o' � w ter* w 0 H �j �:! -rim y
Ej
C) UO It �Tj
CMFA 'C3 Cil CD O K *k ¢
n w
o i� y FD CD lTJ trJ C� o v�
CD R O P� O p', y 0, p �r1 In O1 C
O � .Y CD to A� n' \0 �� ¢ A N' 1'r7CD
C/n
69 +°� N O CD N CSD n g- ID CD p (� Y H CD
00 0 CD CD
CD
Cn `� <D `' o d a P o o w 0 cooCD lZt. °C CD
rl CD
¢ � 0 o � -0 c tri y r"CD
CD CD CD c:�r CD CD UQ Z r* n • CD
cn UQ CD
CD p� O. ' � A' O A � O -1CD 0 O O 0
A cn
O n CD0 CD .�' p' ¢ n O w
CD ` R COD C]. A' OQ
N
`C CCD '* Q. vCDi CD p Wit' ° CaD w'
CD
CD
N C0 0 ° ° 0 0 ° CCD O
000 mgr g=Q7p oNQ S .gypr� T L7 wn m o
•<�?
CLIP w m ° 3 �° N W- $ m CD G13'a N W3 WC°'G}� Z D 0 O> 0 M AvmSw
mo - '6-•'. •em�$�w °'o-_.� ycQwN.3� `^p�GtNO mV ow .N
C) N m< S o g 0 O 3 -0 cD o P1 0- m y �< N 'Q o ° S N 5 H N• C)'� c c in Ul o CO)
o�m0 m-Swo m'&� ° �O 3ua off° °o �2oG)NNg� 3 N' >? N W C. < �a.NN v_ N D oru
<m on L7 a �NwO c� m ?D N �a DZ MA v --J ZD
Nwicw N waN c N w c omC) tiC) r o n
o� �tID �3Dm (n <D°� •N°° G)c<w°a(n�o -Owg m 'i1C �.o OZ
w moC)oo*5 �m�.allon <Nw a m�oyyw mmaaL) ay m� mN .ic�cm o m� S S Y m �ON 1r�` p
�r m w°�v �Q y°o o N�o� C o '(nm r mc�o-o Nm .�C)3.c m4°N NxCy v-.° r C i:v
c S -4 NN cpm .moc 3 ° e wc� o �o cn °wa o wwo O$ arn0�b57 O0 m9 (D A
ti N �.nC)��omy <u�i' o QN.� w0 O 3w�i •�N )=O<oD o ay C]aa >: 3. o-'n�angioNn��... CD x7ir 'A 11 N3>•c QN m!A
O m�OW 3 cN w° w3- -m T3 N goo" '�aQN E3CDm wNKw °*�cN0- m r m 0 w NNv 00��
o N c . C) 3 v � N u N w o w N ° m m N N O o N m C A D frt O
0 3 w m o N o < N m o D N N a s „Fw, m O D Q 3 w ° o A m m A m N o W
N IID- NN. oQ Q .o<y 3 mwQo �_ i�N <o w y m3 mm m�N0� r4 KCz av'
'0 - o w m Nay�wm ��(pyNw Sv3 N nc.m ° NmG1 Z D (p mom �N
N�C)� mocow5c�D-•'< 030 S 3 <mN °3 �.3woL� w�OG) y� O O SD C O»`�.G�N CM
0 30o m o �,m 3w� oaN m w o oo? ON C)W�su 7 [] O� N m0 w
C) m w m? w N 0 S 3 0 N Cn o w
N w so a� cn ww p �Q <�mc3o3wc c<o ,�NNQ O� N 0 >` 2 r h41
o� �m �N.<•c3N �0 3 w�wwmw�Qw �+,D N �NmS°m m o-p� a y�C amvmi mNm3oC) o
ym3
-0 'd �n5�NC.o° (@ IDC cn�3�CDCCM w3Q� cnc iomc°w�w'm�gq3a p7w ovi m n Z 0-I o�=0 Cf-
�C� o(��Om '`<Qc30otCL Cpm oDO03��oUv •n G)�5'�yawQooj<wo�oNwoD o� ° f es a oro C) m�
S=m mo C) .mww o -Wz w37 D Q 3 iQ3° QNamQ r $ C) N Am cc�3C A
O O j— Q N m O N A N •< N O y 7 _ C O N N S N (w O U .'� D O N O w. w O fD w N — c — O '*. N Q 7 0
m N o o m o o m �' -g NMr m n C
��moC)'m�v �3S<o�oN o�c<__. 3- C)
W' f °i. 7CD �m7m N3Nwtncm <❑� o aC 0 .N Z
m CL CL �•owc�.m o -'N N5�wmo��O�wCD -00, o�mO�ym:3 CL 0 nc��3�o g 022N�� c0�w� On
° cm 0) nm�0�.5& °.°mQ a°y'°°w3N�����m mm. 'w°' °v_.� D3�'m��3�QnmOroa� o �YGoz amVv� r
m No o N o om w° 9-m m0 ND�� owN-m��wNo ffl Of mGi N