North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency JPA Board Meeting July 25, 2019
• Pledge of Allegiance • Review Agenda • Review of Future Meetings • Public Presentations • 3 minutes max/person, 10 minutes max/subject • Potential Conflicts of Interest
1. Administrative Matters • 1.a – Appointment of Board Chair and Vice- Chair • Action Item • 1.b – Approval of June 27, 2019 Special Board Meeting Minutes • Action Item • 1.c – NKGSA timeline and schedule
1.d - Kings Basin Coordination Update • P&P reviewing GSPs for consistency • P&P completing data management system • All GSAs anticipate GSPs public Jul-Sep – McMullin Area GSA released July 10 – North Fork Kings GSA released July 17 • Adoptions planned for Oct-Dec • Finishing Common Basin Language • Draft Coordination Agreement final changes
1. Administrative Matters (cont.) • 1.e – Advisory Committee Update i. Technical Subcommittee Update • Chair: Adam Claes (FID) ii. Administration/Fiscal Subcommittee • Chair: Lisa Koehn (Clovis*) iii. Membership, Outreach & Communications Subcommittee • Chair: Brandy Swisher (FMFCD) • Planning September events • County “white area” east of FID • Small private well owners within FID
1. Administrative Matters (cont.) • 1.f – Draft Groundwater Sustainability Plan - Update
Draft Groundwater Sustainability Plan Overview July 25, 2019
SGMA Recap • SGMA Enacted in 2014 • Establishment of GSAs by June 2017 • GSP Adoption Required by Jan 2020 • Annual Reports due April 1 starting in 2020 • 5-Year GSP Updates • Reach Groundwater Sustainability by 2040
GSP Development Process • Prepared by Technical Committee of diverse group of stakeholders • Representatives of each agency • Private Landowners • Interested Party Representative • Meeting monthly since 2017 • Reviewed requirements, identified issues, developed draft language by section, Tech Com reviewed and commented, section revised • Information Kings Basin Coordination Efforts incorporated
NKGSA Current GSP Schedule Aug 7 Aug 16 Sept 16 Oct 24 Dec 2 nd Public Tech Com Start Public Regularly Board Mtg July 3rd Mtg to Comment Period, Notice for Scheduled for Adoption Draft GSP to address 90-day Notice, Comment Board (if needed) Tech Com comments GSP on website & Hearing Meeting July 31 Aug 19 Oct 18 Nov 21 Aug 15 1 st Public Notice Tech Com Presentation of Deadline for Public Hearing Comments for Comment & Comments at Board Mtg, GSP at Special Due Board Mtg Hearing GSP Adoption
Kings Subbasin NKGSA GSP MAGSA GSP SKGSA Coord GSP Agmt James GSP KREGSA GSP • 7 GSAs • 7 GSPs CKGSA NFKGSA GSP • DWR “Cannot submit GSP until all GSPs uploaded”
GSP Organization Executive Summary 1 – Introduction 2 – Plan Area 3 – Basin Setting 4 – Sustainable Management Criteria 5 – Monitoring Network 6 – Projects and Management Actions 7 - Implementation
GSP Organization • Common outline used by all GSAs in the Kings • Regulation Requirement listed first • Followed by Response
GSP Sections Executive Summary • Brief summary of each section in the GSP 1 – Introduction • Purpose of the GSP • Coordination Agreement • NKGSA Organization and Authority • GSP organization
GSP Sections 2 – Plan Area • Describes each agency Bakman Water Company Biola CSD City of Clovis City of Fresno City of Kerman County of Fresno Fresno ID FMFCD Garfield WD International WD Malaga CWD Pinedale CWD CSUF
Section 2 – Plan Area 2 – Plan Area (cont.) • Existing Water Resource Monitoring • Relation to General Plan documents • Additional GSP components • Notice and Communication • GSP Development • Public Engagement
Section 3 – Basin Setting 3 – Basin Setting It’s Big. It’s the Background. • Five sections • 3.1 Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model • 3.2 Groundwater Conditions • 3.3 Water Budget • 3.4 Water Supply for Augmentation • 3.5 Management Areas •
Section 3 – Basin Setting • 3.1 Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model • Not a surface-groundwater model • Description of the general physical characteristics of the regional hydrology, geology, geologic structure, water quality, principal aquifers, and principal aquitards in the basin setting
Section 3 – Basin Setting • 3.2 GW Conditions • Level Movement • Quality • Storage • Subsidence • • Interconnected Surface Water GW Dependent • Ecosystems Spring 2016
Section 3 – Basin Setting 3.3 Water Budget • • Common Approach by all GSAs – Analytical (spreadsheet) Model • 4 Water Budgets: Historic (97-11), Current, Future (2040) and 2070 • Plus Dry, Normal, Wet Years 30 factors – 8 measured, remainder or calculated/estimated • Compared to Storage Change estimations • Future considers urban growth and climate change •
Section 3 – Basin Setting Organization Future Water Demand Assumptions Bakman Water Company Demands increase from 2,900 AF/year (2016/17) to 6,200 AF/year (2040) Biola Community Services District No anticipated increase in net demands. Water conservation expected to offset any new demands. City of Clovis Demands increase from 21,300 AF/year (2016/17) to 47,800 AF/year (2040) City of Fresno Demands increase from 116,100 AF/year (2016/17) to 195,800 AF/year (2040) City of Kerman Demands increase from 2,800 AF/year (2016/17) to 5,300 AF/year (2040) California State University Fresno Increase student population by 5,500 by 2040 resulting in 240 AF increase in domestic demands. No change in agricultural demands. FID (not including agency No changes in cropping patterns. Reduction in demand due to conversion of 8,500 overlaps) acres to urban use. Fresno County No increase in demand. Combination of annexations by Cities and new land use policies assumed to offset any future demands. Garfield W.D. No changes in cropping patterns. Reduction in demand due to de-annexation of 500 acres by 2040. International WD No changes in cropping patterns. Reduction in demand due to de-annexation of 325 acres by 2040. Malaga County W.D. Increase in demands from 1,600 AF/year (2016/2017) to 1,900 AF/year (2040) Pinedale County W.D. No changes in demands since area is largely built out. Any remaining in-fill will be balanced out by savings from future residential metering.
GSP Sections • Section 4 – Sustainable Management Sustainability Indicators Criteria & Section 5 – Monitoring Network address Sustainability Groundwater Levels Indicators • Sustainable Management Criteria Groundwater Storage • Defined by GSA, coordinated Water Quality within the Basin • Include: Land Subsidence • Undesirable Results (UR) Depletion of Interconnected • Minimum Thresholds (MT) Surface Water • Measurable Objectives (MO) Seawater Intrusion
GSP Sections 4.1 - Sustainability Goal The sustainability goal of the Kings Basin and this GSA is to ensure that by 2040 the basin is being operated to maintain a reliable water supply for current and future beneficial uses without experiencing undesirable results. This goal will be met by balancing water demand with available water supply to stabilize declining groundwater levels without significantly and unreasonably impacting water quality, land subsidence, or interconnected surface water. The goal of the basin is to correct and end the long-term trend of a declining water table understanding that water levels will fluctuate based on the season, hydrologic cycle, and changing groundwater demands within the basin and its proximity.
Groundwater Levels (4.2 & 5.2) • Representative Monitoring Network • Wells selected from existing network • MOs and MTs set at each well
Groundwater Levels (4.2 & 5.2) Undesirable Result • The GSAs within the Kings Basin have defined the Undesirable Result for groundwater levels to be significant and unreasonable when either the water level has declined to a depth that a new productive well cannot be constructed, or when the water level has declined to a depth that water quality cannot be treated for beneficial use.
Groundwater Levels (4.2 & 5.2) Basin Mitigation Schedule Percent of Overdraft Cumulative Period Mitigated Mitigation 2020-2025 10% 10% 2025-2030 20% 30% 2030-2035 30% 60% 2035-2040 40% 100% Setting MO: • Hydrograph trendline projected • Mitigation applied to set MO UR & MT not necessarily at same level Setting MT: Base of Aquifer • Drought trendline rate of decline • Decline rate for 5 years • Total decline added from MO
Groundwater Levels (4.2 & 5.2)
Recommend
More recommend
