sustainable groundwater management implementation · presentation overview 1. purpose 2. background...

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


Section 1Purpose

3


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


Section 2Background ‐ SGMA

Requirements for Boundary Revisions

5


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


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


• 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


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


Section 3 Groundwater Basin Overview

10


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


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


History Ground Water Basins in California 1952 ‐


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


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 ‐





1472 18 35


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







1572 18 35

108



1952 1975 1980 2003 2015

223

461 447515

2015


(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.





515

72 18 35108 108


16


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


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.



18


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


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


Section 4Summary of Basin Boundary

Issues

21


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


• 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


• 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 – 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 ‐ 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



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


Section 5Proposed Basin Boundary Goal

&Potential Characteristics

28


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


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


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


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


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



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?



Section 6Boundary Revision Timeline &

Future Steps

35


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


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)


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


Thank You

39


sustainable groundwater management implementation · presentation overview 1. purpose 2. background...

Documents