sustainable groundwater management implementation · presentation overview 1. purpose 2. background...
TRANSCRIPT
Sustainable Groundwater Management Implementation-Basin Boundary Regulations-
California Department of Water ResourcesApril, 2015
1
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
Presentation Overview1. Purpose
2. Background ‐ SGMA Requirements
3. Groundwater Basin Overview
4. Summary of Boundary Issues
5. Proposed Boundary Regulation Goal and Potential Characteristics
6. Future Steps
2
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
Section 1Purpose
3
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
Purpose
• Provide information to advance the discussion with stakeholders and the public as DWR develops basin boundary regulations• Basin Boundary Regulation Discussion Paper
• DWR invites comment and input on the preliminary draft information and identified questions presented in this paper and presentation.
4
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
Section 2Background ‐ SGMA
Requirements for Boundary Revisions
5
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
SGMA Requirements
6
• Emergency regulations for process to request and potentially approve revisions to existing Bulletin 118 basin boundaries • DWR shall adopt by January 1, 2016• Instructions to Local Agencies on submittal of (10722.2a):
1. Information demonstrating proposed basin can be sustainably managed2. Technical information on boundaries and conditions in proposed basin 3. Consultation with interested parties in affected basins4. Other information DWR deems necessary to justify revision
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
SGMA Requirements
7
• Emergency regulations for process to request and potentially approve revisions to existing Bulletin 118 basin boundaries • DWR shall adopt by January 1, 2016• Instructions to Local Agencies on submittal of (10722.2a):
1. Information demonstrating proposed basin can be sustainably managed2. Technical information on boundaries and conditions in proposed basin 3. Consultation with interested parties in affected basins4. Other information DWR deems necessary to justify revision
• Methodology and Criteria on how to assess (10722.2c):1. Likelihood proposed basin can be sustainably managed2. Whether proposed basin would limit the SGM of adjacent basin3. Whether there is a history of SGM of groundwater levels in the proposed basin
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
• Phases of Implementation
Basin Boundary Regulations Process
Scoping
• Notify OAL
• Collect Issues from Stakeholders
• Coordinate with SWRCB & CWC
Draft Framework
• Public Listening Sessions
• Present and Receive Input from Advisory Groups and Public
Draft Emergency Regulations
• Required Public Meetings
• Present and Receive Input from Advisory Groups and Public
Adopt Emergency Regulations
• CWC Approval
• Noticing and Submittal to OAL
Input and Feedback from the CWC and SWRCB
CWC – California Water CommissionSWRCB – State Water Resources Control BoardOAL – Office of Administrative Law 8
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
Basin Boundary and GSP/ALT RegulationsEstimated Project Timeline
Jan FebMar‐15 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Apr MayMar Jun‐16
BB Public Listening Sessions
CWCJuly 15BB Draft
Regulations
CWCOct. 21
Draft Final BB
Regulations
CWCJune /July
GSPDraft
Framework
GSP Public Listening Sessions
CWCNov.
Adopt Final BB
Regulations
CWCNov.
GSP Draft Regulations
GSP Required Public Meeting Comment Period
CWCMarch
Draft Final GSP
Regulations
Submit GSP Regs to OAL
2015 2016
Basin Boundary (BB) Emergency Regulations
Submit BB Regs to OAL
BB Required Public Meeting
Comment Period
CWCApril
Adopt Final GSP
Regulations
CWC April 15
BBDraft
Framework
Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) Emergency Regulations
BB Deadline
GSP Deadline
Input From Advisory Groups
Input from SWRCB
SGM Strategic Plan Comments
Due
Review and Approval of BB Revisions
9
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
Section 3 Groundwater Basin Overview
10
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
CA Groundwater Basins• Groundwater Basins Are Defined in Bulletin 118 Using the
Best Available Data
• Revisions to Basin Boundaries Have Occurred During B‐118 Updates. (Water Code 12924)
Bulletin 118‐2003 Bulletin 118‐1980 Bulletin 118‐1975 1952 11
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
CA Groundwater Basins
1952 Timeline
223
Data Used• Geologic Maps• Topographic Maps
1952 History Ground Water Basins in California 1952 ‐
223 (72) Basins/Subbasins, defined by unconsolidated, water‐bearing alluvium
1272
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
History Ground Water Basins in California 1952 ‐
223 (72) Basins/Subbasins, defined by unconsolidated, water‐bearing alluvium
B‐118 ‐ 1975 – 461 (18) Basins/Subbasins, defined by geological and hydrological conditions, except where defined by a court. Alluvium, Marine Deposits, Volcanic Deposits
1952 1975
223
461
1975 CA Groundwater Basins
Data Used• Geologic Maps
(1:750K Scale)• Technical Reports
1372 18
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
1952 1975 1980
223
461 447
B‐118 ‐ 1980 – 447 (35), Basins/Subbasins, defined by geological and hydrological conditions and consideration of political boundaries whenever practical. Alluvium, Marine Deposits, Volcanic Deposits
1980 CA Groundwater Basins History Ground Water Basins in California 1952 ‐
223 (72) Basins/Subbasins, defined by unconsolidated, water‐bearing alluvium
B‐118 ‐ 1975 – 461 (18) Basins/Subbasins, defined by geological and hydrological conditions, except where defined by a court. Alluvium, Marine Deposits, Volcanic Deposits
Data Used• Geologic Maps
(1:750K Scale)• Technical Reports
1472 18 35
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
1952 1975 1980 2003 2016
223
461 447515
B‐118 ‐ 2003 – 515 (108), Basins/Subbasins, defined by geological and hydrological conditions and consideration of political boundaries whenever practical. Alluvial Aquifers. • Volcanic and Marine Deposits classified as Groundwater
Source Areas.
2003
Data Used• Geologic Maps
(1:250K Scale)• Technical Reports
B‐118 ‐ 1980 – 447 (35), Basins/Subbasins, defined by geological and hydrological conditions and consideration of political boundaries whenever practical. Alluvium, Marine Deposits, Volcanic Deposits
History Ground Water Basins in California 1952 ‐
223 (72) Basins/Subbasins, defined by unconsolidated, water‐bearing alluvium
B‐118 ‐ 1975 – 461 (18) Basins/Subbasins, defined by geological and hydrological conditions, except where defined by a court. Alluvium, Marine Deposits, Volcanic Deposits
1572 18 35
108
CA Groundwater Basins
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
1952 1975 1980 2003 2015
223
461 447515
2015
Data Used• Geologic Maps
(1:250K Scale)• Technical Reports SGMA
SGMA ‐ 2015 – Unless modified, basin boundaries shall be as identified in Bulletin 118‐2003
B‐118 ‐ 2003 – 515 (108), Basins/Subbasins, defined by geological and hydrological conditions and consideration of political boundaries whenever practical. Alluvial Aquifers. • Volcanic and Marine Deposits classified as Groundwater
Source Areas.
B‐118 ‐ 1980 – 447 (35), Basins/Subbasins, defined by geological and hydrological conditions and consideration of political boundaries whenever practical. Alluvium, Marine Deposits, Volcanic Deposits
History Ground Water Basins in California 1952 ‐
223 (72) Basins/Subbasins, defined by unconsolidated, water‐bearing alluvium
B‐118 ‐ 1975 – 461 (18) Basins/Subbasins, defined by geological and hydrological conditions, except where defined by a court. Alluvium, Marine Deposits, Volcanic Deposits
515
72 18 35108 108
CA Groundwater Basins
16
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
Bulletin 118 Groundwater Basins SGMA Definition (B‐118‐2003) Groundwater Basin – An alluvial aquifer or
a stacked series of alluvial aquifers with reasonably well‐defined boundaries in a lateral direction and having a definable bottom.
Modified from Faunt, 2009
17
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
Bulletin 118 Groundwater Basins SGMA Definition (B‐118‐2003) Groundwater Basin – An alluvial aquifer or
a stacked series of alluvial aquifers with reasonably well‐defined boundaries in a lateral direction and having a definable bottom.
Groundwater Subbasin – A subbasin is created by dividing a groundwater basin into smaller units using geologic and hydrologic barriers or institutional boundaries.
Modified from Faunt, 2009
Modified from Faunt, 2009
18
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
Bulletin 118 Groundwater Basins
• Issues associated with exterior and interior basin boundaries not matching B‐118‐2003 written description
• Potential Pre‐Reg Adjustments
– County boundaries
– Hydrologic features
– Minor errors in B‐118‐2003
• Potential Post‐Reg Adjustments
– Extent of alluvium
19
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
Question & Answer ‐ 1
•Definition of a Groundwater Basin/Subbasin – DWR will use the Bulletin 118‐2003 definitions until future updates to Bulletin 118 occur.
• Creation of New Groundwater Basins – Creation of a new groundwater basin not adjacent to or part of an existing basin or subbasin will not occur as part of the initial basin boundary update. New basins may be defined in future updates to Bulletin 118.
•Question 3‐1: What are the advantages and disadvantages if DWR makes boundary revisions prior to or after regulations are adopted?
20
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
Section 4Summary of Basin Boundary
Issues
21
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
Summary of Boundary Issues• DWR has Received Input on
Potential Statewide Basin Boundary Issues
• Organized by Issue Types
• Governance
• Hydrogeologic
• SGMA Compliance
• Existing State Programs
22
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
• Summary of Boundary Issues – Governance
• Boundaries not consistent with Political Jurisdictions ‐ Basin boundaries are not necessarily consistent with various political and management boundaries such as county, city, water agency, and IRWM boundaries, which could require more intensive cooperation.
• Multiple Political Jurisdictions ‐ It may be more difficult to manage as a coordinated unit in some areas where basins cross multiple political boundary lines (counties)
• Tribal, Federal, and Adjudicated Areas ‐ Some adjudication, federal, and tribal boundaries do not match existing basin boundaries, which may require additional coordination by local agencies.
• Existing Planning ‐ Bulletin 118‐2003 basins do not reflect the new role that land‐use planning and water management agencies now have under the SGMA.
• Conflicting Boundaries ‐ In some basins there are unresolved boundary conflicts among agencies which may be an obstacle for completion of GSPs.
• Coordination ‐ There may be less flexibility and less cooperation in managing groundwater where GSAs are not able to develop a single GSP for an entire basin
23
Summary of Boundary Issues
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
• Summary of Boundary Issues – Hydrogeologic
• Updated Information ‐ Bulletin 118‐2003 basin boundaries may not be based on the most recent technical information
• Existing Management ‐ Locally developed subbasin definitions that have been the basis of extensive monitoring, modeling, and management may not be reflected
• Pumping Adjacent to Basin ‐ Substantial groundwater production from underlying or adjacent highly permeable non‐alluvial deposits may limit and significantly impact sustainable groundwater management in an existing basin.
• Watersheds ‐ Areas are currently being managed on a watershed basis, but the current B‐118 basins are alluvial.
• Stream‐Aquifer Interaction ‐ Basin Boundaries that coincide with streams may be problematic with regards to allocation of recharge and analysis of potential impacts on connected surface water and associated beneficial uses.
• Future Boundary Adjustments ‐ Basin boundary revisions after GSAs and GSPs are established may be problematic or may be needed based on improved understanding of the basin hydrogeology
24
Summary of Boundary Issues
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
• Summary of Boundary Issues – SGMA Compliance• Changes to Basin Priority
• Decrease Priority ‐ Basins identified as medium or high priority may have distinct areas included that would otherwise be low priority if looked at independently
• Increase Priority ‐ Areas outside Bulletin 118‐2003 basins could be included or very low and low priority basins could be enlarged in order to elevate basin priority and gain the powers and authority identified in the SGMA
25
Summary of Boundary Issues
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
• Summary of Boundary Issues ‐ Existing State ProgramsDWR• CASGEM ‐ Revising basin boundaries may result in CASGEM non‐compliance and limit
access to State grants.
• Basin Prioritization ‐ Revising basin boundaries will require DWR to reprioritize the groundwater basins.
• IRWM/RFMP ‐ Some Basin Boundaries cross multiple Integrated Regional Water Management regions/Regional Flood Management Planning regions requiring coordination between future GSAs and multiple IRWM/RFMP groups for regional water management.
• Reporting – Changes to basin boundaries may affect existing DWR reports.
State and Regional Water Boards• Basin Plans ‐ Basin Boundary Revisions may effect Basin Plans.
• Permits and Water Quality Objectives ‐ Basin Boundary Revisions may effect permits and water quality objectives.
26
Summary of Boundary Issues
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
Question & Answer ‐ 2
Question 4‐1: Has DWR accurately summarized and clearly characterized the boundary issue types?
Question 4‐2: Are there additional basin boundary issues types that need to be considered?
27
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
Section 5Proposed Basin Boundary Goal
&Potential Characteristics
28
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
DWR’s Proposed GoalState Policy (Water Code § 113, § 10721)
• Sustainable management of groundwater without causing undesirable results.
DWR’s Proposed Goal –• Groundwater resources are sustainably managed within
existing groundwater basin boundaries defined by Bulletin 118‐2003 unless compelling reasons, which are supported by adequate technical information and broad agreement, are provided for alternative boundaries that increase the likelihood of sustainable management of the proposed and adjacent basins.
29
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
Potential Basin Boundary Regulation Characteristics
• Intended to promote discussion on the potential advantages and disadvantages of basin boundary revisions.
• Assist with the development of draft regulations that align with the requirements of the SGMA and the overall goal to achieve groundwater sustainability statewide.
• Size and Scientific Characteristics
• Governance and Jurisdictional Characteristics
• Coordination Characteristics 30
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
Basin Boundary CharacteristicsSize and Scientific • Basin adequately sized to maximize water management opportunities ‐
Would it be advantageous if a groundwater basin is revised to be the largest hydrologic and hydrogeologically‐contiguous alluvial area including multiple local agencies, and defined to maximize opportunities to sustainably manage groundwater, integrate surface water management activities, and limit undesirable results?
• Basin properly sized for development and management of basin budgets ‐ Should an existing groundwater basin be the largest hydrologic and hydrogeologically‐defined contiguous area in which local agencies are capable of leveraging resources to characterize and sustainably manage the water budget and sustainable yield over the implementation and planning horizon?
• Fragmentation of a contiguous groundwater aquifer system ‐Should fragmentation of existing groundwater basins in the same geographic area with multiple local agencies managing the same groundwater aquifer system and water budget be considered?
From CA Water Foundation31
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
Governance and Jurisdictional
• Solely jurisdictional revisions ‐ To what extent should a groundwater basin or subbasin that is solely defined by a jurisdictional boundary such as, adjudication, county line, or other geopolitical boundary be considered?
• Basin properly sized for GSP governance ‐ Should existing groundwater basin or subbasin boundaries be revised to match the alluvial portion of an entire county, assuming the entire redefined basin or subbasin is completely managed? Would this revision: 1) leverage the existing groundwater authority of counties; 2) maximize the new authorities provided to GSA’s through SGMA; and 3) result in sustainable groundwater management in the State?
32
Basin Boundary Characteristics
• Scientific vs. Governance information ‐When evaluating boundary revisions, should scientific information be given greater consideration than jurisdictional or governance information?
From CA Water Foundation
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
Basin Boundary CharacteristicsGovernance and Jurisdictional – cont’d
• Basin boundary revision that does not create unmanaged area(s) in original basin ‐ Should a groundwater basin or subbasin revision only be considered if there is sufficient evidence that the entire basin will be covered by a GSA(s) and will not result in unmanaged areas?
• Fragmentation to exclude areas experiencing undesirable results ‐ Should a groundwater basin be revised for the purpose of excluding areas experiencing undesirable results rather than including other regional entities to sustain a long‐term regional groundwater planning effort?
33From CA Water Foundation
From CA Water Foundation
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
Basin Boundary CharacteristicsCoordination • Boundary revisions developed through multi stakeholder process ‐ Should
a groundwater basin be large enough to support the formation of functional GSA(s) that are inclusive and utilize a collaborative, multi‐stakeholder process to: 1) achieve broad local agreement; 2) assist disadvantaged communities; 3) monitor the basin and mitigate undesirable results; 4) address groundwater management issues; and 5) develop integrated, multi‐benefit, regional solutions that result in a compliant GSP(s)?
• Coordination agreements (Inter‐basin) ‐ If an existing basin or subbasin is split, what requirements and content should be included in an inter‐basin coordination agreement?
34
• Coordination agreements as an alternative to boundary revisions (Intra‐basin) ‐ Should local agencies be encouraged to expand existing groundwater management coordination and governance structures, through an intra‐basin agreement, within existing basins to include stakeholders that manage, direct, or are involved in processes that influence regional water management rather than revising existing boundaries?
From CA Water Foundation
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
Section 6Boundary Revision Timeline &
Future Steps
35
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
Boundary Revision Timeline
DWR has new SGMA requirements that are initiated when a basin boundary is revised:
• Evaluation, approval, and update of basin boundaries in accordance with new regulations
• California Water Commission hearing and comment period (60 Days)
• Basin prioritization
36
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
2015 2016 2017 2020
Basin Boundary Regulation Process
Initial Boundary Revision Requests(3 months)
DWR Evaluation & Approval of Boundaries
2018
CWC Hearing and
Comment (2 Months)
37
2022
GSA6/30/17
GSP1/31/20
GSP1/31/22
Boundary Revision TimelineQuestion: What are the advantages and disadvantages of the following boundary revision request submission timeline; 1) The initial boundary revision request “window” of 3 months?
2) Subsequent boundary revision request “windows” occur after future B‐118 updates (years ending in 1 and 6)?
CA’s Groundwater
B‐118(2020)
CA Water PlanB‐160(2018)
Future Boundary Revision Requests (yrs. 1 & 6)
Draft Regs(Aug.)
Final Regs(Nov.)
Basin Prioritization
CA’s Groundwater
B‐118(2017)
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
Future Steps
• Public Listening Sessions• April 28‐Willows• April 29‐ Visalia• April 30‐ San Bernardino• May 1 – Webex
• http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/sgm/listening.cfm
• Develop Draft Regulation Content• April ‐ July
38
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only
Thank You
39
Subject to Change – For Discussion Purposes Only