HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWRCB - Prop 1 Groundwater Funding Guidelines Menchaca, Clarissa
From: Bennett, Robin
Sent: Wednesday October 11, 2.017 8:58 AM
To: Menchaca,Wednesday,
Cc: Hahn, Paul; Gosselin, Paul; Newlin, Vickie
Subject: FW: NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT, PUBLIC OUTREACH MEETING, PUBLIC
WORKSHOP &ADOPTION MEETING - PROP 1 GROUNDWATER FUNDING GUIDELINES
Attachments: draft prop 1 gw funding guidelines-strikethrough-october 2017.pdf,' notice_prop 1 gw
guidehnes.pdf
See email announcement and attachments.
BOS correspondence from the CA SWRCB regarding Prop I funding guidelines draft amendments.
From: lyris@swrcbl8.waterboards.ca.gov [maiIto:lyris@swrcbl8.waterboards.ca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 5:27 PM
To: Bennett, Robin <RBennett@buttecounty.net>
Subject: NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT, PUBLIC OUTREACH MEETING, PUBLIC WORKSHOP&ADOPTION
MEETING - PROP 1 GROUNDWATER FUNDING GUIDELINES
This is a message from the State Water Resources Control Board
Attached is a Notice of Opportunity for Public Comments, Public Workshops and Adoption, Meeting on the Draft
Amended Proposition 1 Groundwater Grant Program Funding Guidelines.
Comment Deadline is November 9, 2017 by 12 noon.
You are currently subscribed to regs_general as: rbennett(a_)buftecounty.net.
To unsubscribe click here: leave-6553644-
50852918.f8efclfel463a520fef6bdlOdcld1 bOf4@swrcbl 8.waterboards.ca.gov
1
PROPOSITION I
GROUNDWATER GRANT PROGRAM
GUIDELINES
PR P 1
2.............
NO:
RIM
GOVERNOR EDMUND G. BROWN, JR.
WATER BOND 2014
Adopted by the State Water Board May 18, 2016
Amended by the Deputy Director on May 24, 2016 and
October 24, 2016
DRAFT Amendments, October 2017
Oro
Water Boards
hA 11 At Y1 A,1 " UY:At 3" tl Q N t n1), %I f,A r,r,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW..............................................................................................................................4
1.1 Funding......................................................................................................................................................4
2. PROGRAM PRIORITIES, REQUIREMENTS,AND Preferences...........................................................................4
2.1 Priorities Established in Proposition 1.......................................................................................................5
2.2 Eligibility Requirements Established by the State Water Board for Implementation Projects.................5
2.3 Project Preferences Established by the State Water Board for Implementation Projects........................6
3. COMPETITION.................................................................................................................................................7
4. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS............................................................................................................................7
4.1 Eligible Grant Applicants............................................................................................................................7
4.2 Eligible Project Types.................................................................................................................................7
4.3 Planning and Monitoring Projects..................................... ..8
4.4 Implementation Projects............................................. .....8
4.5 Drinking Water Treatment Projects...........................................................................................................8
4.6 Septic-to-Sewer Proiects............................................................................................................................9
4.7 Contaminants.............................................................................................................................................9
4.8 Other Eligibility Considerations....................................................
4.9 Ineligible Project Types and Expenditures...............................................................................................10
5. GRANT AMOUNTS AND MATCH REQUIREMENTS........................................................................................11
5.1 Funding Minimum and Maximum Amounts............................................................................................11
5.2 SDACs, DACs,and EDAs............................................................................................................................12
5.3 Availability of Funds.................................................................................................................................12
5.4 Match Requirements...............................................................................................................................12
6. PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS AND RELATED INFORMATION......................................................................14
7. Funding Cycles...............................................................................................................................................17
8. Metrics of Success.........................................................................................................................................18
9. Responsible Party Requirements..................................................................................................................18
9.1 Responsible Party Considerations During the Application Process.........................................................19
9.2 Responsible Party Considerations-Award/Grant Agreement...............................................................19
10. General Program Requirements.............................................................................. ..20
...................................
10.1 Conflict of Interest...................................................................................................................................20
10.2 Confidentiality..........................................................................................................................................20
-2-
10.3 Labor Code Compliance...........................................................................................................................20
10.4 CEQA Compliance....................................................................................................................................21
10.5 Related Litigation.....................................................................................................................................21
10.6 Compliance with Emergency Drought Regulations .................................................................................21
10.7 Project Assessment and Evaluation Plan (PAEP) .....................................................................................21
10.8 Monitoring Requirements.......................................................................................................................22
10.9 Data Management...................................................................................................................................22
10.10 Reporting...........................................................................................................................................22
1.0.11 Operations and Maintenance...........................................................................................................22
10.12 Urban and Agricultural Water Management Plan and Groundwater Planning Requirements........23
10.13 Applicant Notification................................................................................................ .......24
................
10.14 Grant Agreement..............................................................................................................................24
10.15 Reimbursement of Costs...................................................................................................................25
10.16 Grant Manager Notification..............................................................................................................25
10.17 Deputy Directory, Division of Financial Assistance Additional Authority.........................................26
10.18 Technical Assistance Set-aside..........................................................................................................26
APPENDIX A:ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS USED IN THESE GUIDELINES AND APPENDICES.............................27
APPENDIX B: REQUESTS FOR REDUCED FUNDING MATCH FOR DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES AND
ECONOMICALLY DISTRESSED AREAS.....................................................................................................................32
B.1 PURPOSE..................................................................................................................................................32
B.2 ALLOWANCES...........................................................................................................................................33
B.3 STEPS TO REQUEST A REDUCED FUNDING MATCH.................................................................................33
APPENDIX C: NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBE NOTIFICATION........................................................................................35
APPENDIX D:GUIDELINES FOR GRANTEES ................................................................................. ..36
........................
APPENDIX E: PLANNING PROPOSAL EVALUATION SCORING CRITERIA................................................................38
APPENDIX F: IMPLEMENTATION PROPOSAL EVALUATION SCORING CRITERIA...................................................44
APPENDIX G: REGIONAL WATER BOARD AND DIVISION OF DRINKING WATER RESPONSIBILITIES .....................50
APPENDIX H: RESPONSIBLE PARTY SEARCH..........................................................................................................51
APPENDIX 1:TECHNICAL, MANAGERIAL,AND FINANCIAL CAPACITY....................................................................53
-3-
1. PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW
The Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 (commonly referred to
as Proposition 1), Chapter 10 Groundwater Sustainability (Chapter 10), includes $900 million for
grants,and loans,for projects that prevent or cleanup the contamination of groundwater that
serves or has served as a source of drinking water. The State Water Resources Control Board
(State Water Board) is charged with administering $800 million of those funds. Thuds
79775) aAd the Department of Water Resources (DWR)will administer the remaining $100
million to fund projects that develop and implement groundwater plans.
This document serves as the required project solicitation and evaluation guidelines (Guidelines)
(Water Code section 79706(x))for the State Water Board's Division of Financial Assistance
(DFAQivisise) Groundwater Sustainability Grant Program (Groundwater Grant Program). The
funds available for projects will be provided as grants only. These Guidelines do not establish a
loan program. The individual solicitations for proposals for each funding round will include more
information on how to apply and include a detailed application.
Additional changes to the guidelines may be necessary due to legislation or changes in State
Water Board policy. If additional substantive changes are necessary, these guidelines will be
amended and subject to a public review process per Water Code section 79706(b).
1.1 Funding
After accounting for administrative and bond costs, approximately $744 million is available to
fund projects through the Groundwater Grant Program. The State Water Board is setting aside
$160 million for projects serving disadvantaged communities (DACs)leconomically distressed
areas (EDAs) and will ensure that at least$80 million of those funds go to projects that serve
severely disadvantaged communities (SDACs) (Water Code section 79774(d)).
Projects funded by general obligation bonds must be for construction or acquisition of capital
assets (Government Code section 16727) unless specifically authorized by the bond. Water
Code section 79704 allows up to ten (10) percent of the Groundwater Grant Program funds (up
to $80 million) for"... planning and monitoring necessary for the successful design, selection,
and implementation of the projects authorized...". Additionally, of the $744 million, $80 million
shall be available for"treatment and remediation activities that prevent or reduce the
contamination of groundwater that serves as a source of drinking water' (Water Code section
79772&-,
2. PROGRAM PRIORITIES, REQUIREMENTS, AND PREFERENCES
The State Water Board will evaluate and score project proposals competitively based on the
program priorities, requirements, and preferences identified in this section. In addition to the
program priorities that are based on Proposition 1, the State Water Board has established
requirements and preferences for implementation projects. Planning projects will be evaluated
a(,A0v9tFes that FRay be 4[Rded und-er the wate-r r-A-d-te 79:7:72 PFOV481GR. These draft G,Adelinar,w0l he vised,
Fe
nGonsistentany .
-4-
based on whether they will result in implementation projects that meet the established
requirements and preferences.
2.1 Priorities Established in Proposition 1
2.1.1 Leverage Funds— Priority will be given to projects that leverage private, federal, or
local funding or produce the greatest public benefit (Water Code section 79707(b)).
2.1.2 Include New and Innovative Technology—Special consideration will be given to
projects that employ new or innovative technology or practices, including decision
support tools that support the integration of multiple jurisdictions, including, but not
limited to, water supply, flood control, land use, and sanitation (Water Code section
79707(e)).
2.1.3 Proposition 1, Chapter 10 (Water Code section 79771(b)(1-5)) prioritization criteria:
a. The threat posed by groundwater contamination to the affected community's
overall drinking water supplies, including an urgent need for treatment of
alternative supplies or increased water imports if groundwater is not available due
to contamination.
b. The potential for groundwater contamination to spread and impair drinking water
supply and water storage for nearby population areas.
c. The potential of the project, if fully implemented, to enhance local water supply
reliability.
d. The potential of the project to maximize opportunities to recharge vulnerable, high-
use groundwater basins and optimize groundwater supplies.
e. The project addresses contamination at a site for which the courts or the
appropriate regulatory authority has not yet identified responsible parties, or where
the identified responsible parties are unwilling or unable to pay for the total cost of
cleanup, including water supply reliability improvement for critical urban water
supplies in designated superfund areas with groundwater contamination listed on
the National Priorities List established pursuant to Section 105(a)(8)(B) of the
federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980 (42 U.S.C. Section 9605(a)(8)(B)).
2.2 Eligibility Requirements Established by the State Water Board for
Implementation Projects
To be eligible for funding, implementation projects must meet the following requirements:
2.2.1 Consistent with the California Water Action Plan (CWAP), the project must achieve at
least one or more of the following objectives:
a. Prevent the spread of contamination in an aquifer that serves or has served as a
source of drinking water;
b. Accelerate the cleanup of contamination in an aquifer that serves or has served as
a source of drinking water;
c. Protect an aquifer that serves as a source of drinking water; or
d. Provide clean drinking water to DACs or EDAs.
2.2.2 The project must be identified as a high priority by the applicable state or federal
regulatory agencies (e.g. Regional Water Quality Control Board [Regional Water
Board], State Water Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control [DTSC], the
United States Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA], and DWR)J2-
2 State Water Board, DFADimvimsie staff will consult with the applicable regulatory agencies to determine whether the
project is a high priority. The applicant for funds may provide information to the State Water Board to support a
determination that the project is a high priority.
-5-
2.2.3 The project must cleanup or prevent the contamination of groundwater that serves or
has served as a source of drinking water.
2.2.4 The applicant must demonstrate the availability of funds for any match required and
that the applicant has the capacity to pay for the ongoing operation and maintenance
(O&M) of any facility funded (Water Code section 79774(c)).
2.2.5 The project must have a useful life of at least 20 years and the applicant must have
established, or have a detailed plan for establishing, adequate rights of way for the
useful life of the project.
2.3 Project Preferences Established by the State Water Board for
Implementation Projects
In its evaluation of projects, the State Water Board will give higher scores to projects that
effectively address the following project preferences:
a. Human Right to Water-the project supports and advances the State's policy on
the human richt to water, including any resolutions or policies adopted by the State
Water Board.
b. Community Benefit--the project benefits the largest number of people per dollar
spent considering the size of the community in which the project is located.
c. Contaminant Removal Efficiency-the project removes the most contamination at
the lowest cost.
d. Timeliness for Project Completion -the project can be completed within the
appropriation time frame.
e. Promote Groundwater Sustainability-the project supports attainment of the goals
of and is identified in an approved Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP)3 or the
project is consistent with the applicable court decree in an adjudicated basin.
f. Demonstrated Ability-the applicant has demonstrated the ability to complete
similar projects or previous phases of the overall cleanup effort on time and within
scope and budget.
g. Regional Project-the project is identified in the applicable integrated regional
water management plan (Water Code section 10544).
h. Public Health Risk/Benefit-the project provides a quantifiable reduction in an
existing risk to public health. .
i. Multiple Benefits-the project is designed to address more than one Proposition 1
prioritization criteria; more than one CWAP objective identified in Section 2.2.1; or
is an integrated part of a groundwater recharge program.
The priorities, requirements, and preferences are consistent with the CWAP. The focus on
preventing and cleaning up contamination, and, thereby increasing local water supplies and
reliability, is consistent with Action 6 of the CWAP. Funding preferences to support treatment of
drinking water for DACs, where additional grant support is needed, is consistent with Action 7 of
the CWAP.
3 The requirement to be consistent with an approved GSP only applies to projects that are awarded funding after the
applicable Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan deadlines take effect—see Section 10.12(f).
4 For example,drinking water is being delivered above a primary maximum contaminant limit or drinking water
notification levels and the project will reduce concentrations below those levels; or the project includes cleanup of
contaminated soil that is impairing groundwater and causing health risks through vapor intrusion.
-6-
3. COMPETITION
Groundwater contamination prevention or cleanup grants will be awarded on a competitive
basis based on application scores using specific criteria contained in these Guidelines (Water
Code section 79771(a)). Grants provided to support drinking water treatment and septic-to-
sewer projects, as described in SectionsSestten 4.5 and 4.6, will be funded competitively using
the process identified in the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) and Clean Water
State Revolving Fund (CWSRFSR€) Intended Use Plans (IUPs), respectively.P" T
4. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
4.1 Eligible Grant Applicants
Eligible grant applicants are public agencies, non-profit organizations, public utilities, federally
recognized Indian tribes, California Native American Tribes, and mutual water companies
(Water Code section 79712(a-b)). See Appendix A for definitions of these terms.
4.2 Eligible Project Types
Projects that are eligible to receive funds through the Groundwater Grant Program must:
4.2.1 Meet the purpose of Proposition 1 Chapter 10, Groundwater Sustainability, to prevent
or cleanup the contamination of groundwater that serves or has served as a source of
drinking water and meet the eligibility requirements and project preferences specified
in Sections 2.2 and 2.3.
4.2.2 Be consistent with water quality protection requirements outlined in Division 7
(commencing with section 13000) of the Water Code, and with applicable Regional
Water Board and State Water Board policies, permits, and orders such as
Antidegradation Policy, Salt and Nutrient Management Planning, 97-005 Policy
Guidance for Direct Domestic Use of Extremely Impaired Sources, Resolution 92-49
Policies and Procedures for Investigation and Cleanup and Abatement of Discharges).-
Thea applicant is expected to consult with the local Regional
,.,...,........,...,.,........,,..."""""""'_.._.._
pp � p Regional Water Board and Division
of Drinking Water (DDW) district office, prior to submitting their Full ProposalF nw
Applisatiee, to ensure that their project is consistent with Water Board policies,
permits, and orders and to identify any permits that may be required.
4.2.3 Be consistent with.Section 13100 of the Government Code relating to state
infrastructure funding plans (Water Code section 79707(h)). The applicant is expected
to provide a description in its application of how the proposed project is consistent with
the applicable sections of the Governor's Five-Year Infrastructure Plan.$-
4.2.4 Promote state planning priorities and sustainable community strategies (consistent
with Sections 65041.1 and 65080 of the Government Code, respectively) (Water Code
section 79707(i)). The applicant is expected to provide a description in its application
of how the proposed project is consistent with the applicable sections of Government
Code Sections 65041.1 and 65080, and the applicable components of the local
regional transit plan (if such a plan is available).
The general types of projects eligible for funding are described below. Project proposals that
are not eligible projects will not be evaluated or scored. DFAD+visiae staff will refer applicants of
5 The applicant should specifically review the chapters of the Plan associated with DWR and the California
Environmental Protection Agency(CalEPA).
-7-
ineligible projects to appropriate state or federal funding programs, if an applicable funding
program can be readily identified.
4.3 Planning and Monitoring Projects
Planning projects generally produce a report or information needed to design and build an
eligible implementation project. Planning and monitoring projects include, but are not limited to,
site assessment; site characterization; modeling; remedial investigation (RI); feasibility study
(FS); monitoring and reporting plan; responsible party search; and preliminary engineering
design. Planning projects may include regional modeling, monitoring, and
assessment/prioritization efforts necessary to identify and design qualifying_implementation
rp oiectS.
4.4 Implementation Projects
Implementation projects can include, but are not limited to the following: design, construction,
pilot studies, and initial startup of facilities. Implementation projects must meet the Government
Code Section 16727(a) definition of"capital assets" and produce a positive, quantifiable
environmental outcome.
Implementation projects that prevent or clean up the contamination of groundwater that serves
or has served as a source of drinking water include, but are not limited to:
a. Wellhead treatment;
b. Installation of extraction wells combined with treatment systems;
c. Centralized groundwater treatment systems;
d. Source area cleanup;
e. Groundwater recharge to prevent or reduce contamination of municipal or domestic
wells;6
f. Groundwater injection to prevent seawater intrusion— ', and
g. Groundwater well destruction.
4.5 Drinking Water Treatment Projects
Projects that treat groundwater for direct potable use, with no cleanup or remediation of the
aquifer, are considered "drinking water treatment projects"for purposes of these Guidelines.
Drinking water treatment projects generally address regional contamination that is not
conducive to aquifer cleanup due to the extent of the contamination, ongoing discharge, or
naturally elevated levels of the contaminant(e.g., regional nitrate plumes, hexavalent
chromium).
Drinking water treatment implementation projects that benefit DACs or EDAs are eligible for
Groundwater Grant Program funding. Groundwater grant amounts ma be in addition to
grants or principal forgiveness awarded through the DWSIRF.^FO^king Water SRF= The
evaluation of a project's eligibility for these funds will be based on the evaluation criteria and
funding decision process set forth in the most current version of the DWSRF iRg VVateF
� IUP (see Section 5.1 for Groundwater Grant Program fundinggrawt limits).
6 Projects that will utilize recycled water may be eligible for Groundwater Grant Program funding.__However,the
portions of such projects that treat water for recycled use,generally are not eligible. The portions of such projects
that directly prevent contamination or seawater intrusion, for example injection wells that will prevent migration of
contaminants, may be eligible for Groundwater Grant Program funding.
'-Such projects will be evaluated to ensure they are not contributing to groundwater overdraft—e.g.,the project is
located in an adjudicated basin or is consistent with an approved GSP.
-8-
4.6 Septic-to-Sewer Proiects
Proiects that decommission septic systems and connect residents to public sewer infrastructure
are considered "septic rojects"for the ur oses of these Guidelines. Se tic-to-sewer
roiects generally address regional contamination that is not conducive to a uifer cleanup due
to the extent of contamination or ongoing discharge, or both.
Septic-to-sewer implementation projects that benefit DACs or EDAs and prevent or reduce
contamination of municipal or domestic wells are eligible for Groundwater Grant Program
funding. Groundwater grant amounts may be in addition to grants or principal forgiveness
awarded through the CWSRF. The evaluation of aproject's eligibility for these funds will be
based on the evaluation criteria and funding decision process set forth in the most current
version of the CWSRF IUP (see Section 5.1 for Groundwater Grant Program funding limits).
4.64.7 Contaminants
Implementation projects must address contamination in groundwater that serves or has served
as a source of drinking water. Only those projects addressing contaminants causing
contamination will be funded by the Groundwater Grant Program. See Appendix A for the
definitions of"contaminant" and "contamination".
4:74.8 Other Eligibility Considerations
4.8.1 Projects vs. Programs: Some applicants may want to fund a groundwater cleanup
"program", which is composed of multiple projects. Multiple projects proposed by an
applicant may be funded provided that the projects would have otherwise been
recommended for funding had they been submitted individually. The State Water
Board may enter into a single agreement with an applicant with multiple projects, if it is
administratively expedient to do so or may have separate funding agreements for
individual projects (e.g., if the projects have significantly different timelines for
completion; or legal issues may hold up one project, but not another).
A groundwater cleanup or prevention "program"that provides grants from an eligible
applicant to an otherwise non-eligible entity(e.g., an individual or business)for source
area cleanu is eligible for funding. Under such a program, the sites undergoing
cleanup must be under a Regional Water Board or Department of Toxic Substances
Control order and the responsible party0es) must be financially unable to pay for the
total cost of the cleanup. Eligible costs for such a program also include the
investigation and planning required to conduct the source area cleanup.
4214.8.2 "Phased" Projects: Groundwater cleanup projects can often be complex and
can be most effectively carried out in "phases'. A"phased" project is one in which
either one phase of the project must be completed before the next phase is begun
(e.g., an FS is completed before construction of the selected alternative), or two or
more phases can be conducted independently, but each phase must be completed to
successfully accomplish the overall project goals (e.g., a wellhead treatment"phase"
and a soil remediation/source cleanup "phase").
"Phased" projects may be funded separately: if the information from one phase is
needed to accurately describe the scope and budget of the subsequent phase; if one
phase is on a significantly different schedule than another; or if the overall cleanup
effort is sufficiently complex that phasing the effort is in the best interest of the state to
maintain adequate fiscal and regulatory oversight. "Phased" projects may be included
-9-
in one funding agreement if it is administratively expedient to do so and the projects
have similar, relatively short-term schedules for completion. The State Water Board
encourages applicants to break up long-term (i.e., greater than five years) cleanup
projects into "phases".
For implementation projects, the phases of the overall cleanup effort that are most
well-defined, and for which construction can be completed in less than five years, will
receive priority consideration. The State Water Board will also give priority
consideration to funding projects from applicants who have projects that benefit DACs
and EDAs.
4.8.24.8.3 Public Purpose: Projects proposed by a public utility regulated by the Public
Utilities Commission or a mutual water company shall have a clear and definite public
purpose and shall benefit the customers of the water system and not the investors
(Water Code section 79712(b)(1)). Public utility or mutual water company applicants
may be required by the Deputy Director of the DFDivisionto provide information
necessary to demonstrate that the customers of the water system receive the benefits
of the project through a reduction in rates (or decrease in rate increase)
commensurate with the grant funding provided; or otherwise demonstrate how the
customers and not the investors in the water system benefit from the project. In
addition, the Deputy Director of the DFAsivisie4 may require applicants to conduct any
independent, third-party audit necessary to demonstrate that the investors are not
benefiting from the grant funding provided.
4:84.9 Ineligible Project Types and Expenditures
Proposition 1 Groundwater Grant Program funds cannot be used for the following items:
a. Projects that do not meet the purpose of Proposition 1 Chapter 10, Groundwater
Sustainability.
b. Any project that could adversely impact a wild and scenic river, or any other river,
afforded protection under the California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act or the Federal
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Water Code section 79711(e)).
c. Acquisition of land through eminent domain (Water Code section 79711(g)).
d. Design, construction, operation, mitigation, or maintenance of Delta conveyance
facilities (Water Code section 79710).
e. Acquisition of water except for projects that will provide fisheries or ecosystem
benefits or improvements that are greater than required applicable environmental
mitigation measures or compliance obligations in effect at the time the funds are
made available for the project(Water Code section 79709(c)).
f. To pay any share of the costs of remediation recovered from parties responsible
for the contamination of a groundwater storage aquifer(funds may be used to pay
costs that cannot be recovered from responsible parties (Water Code section
79771(c)).
g. Ineligible monitoring or planning projects, including, but not limited to, monitoring,
planning, or modeling efforts that are not necessary to design and build an eligible
implementation project.
h. Ineligible implementation activities, including, but not limited to, projects or tasks
that: (1)fund ongoing 4&M; (2) avoid, but do not prevent or cleanup, the
groundwater contamination (e.g., drilling a new supply well in a part of the aquifer
that is not contaminated; blending to reduce contaminant concentrations);
(3) repair/replace drinking water infrastructure that would be necessary even in the
absence of groundwater contamination.
-10-
i. Overhead or costs not directly related to the project (see Section 10.15).
j. State or federal taxes.$
5. GRANT AMOUNTS AND MATCH REQUIREMENTS
This section establishes a funding "set-aside"for DACs and EDAs, as well as minimum and
maximum funding amounts for planning and implementation grants for funding decisions
delegated to the Deputy Director of the DFA944sion.
5.1 Funding Minimum and Maximum Amounts
Table 1 provides#;t-, minimum and maximum grant amounts that apply to funding decisions that
are delegated to the Deputy Director of the DFA.Divisien.
There is a minimum grant amount
of$100,000 and a maximum grant amount of$2.1-million for planning projects that are designed
to lead to implementation projects that prevent or clean up contamination of an aquifer.
There is a minimum grant amount of$500,000 and a maximum grant amount of$50 million for
implementation projects that prevent or clean up contamination of an aquifer.
Implementati-Qn prQjeQta thatr r' Ki can receive up to 5 million and
se tic-to-sewer prodects can receive up to 8 million in Proposition 1 Groundwater Grant
Program funds if the 12romect directly benefits a DAC or EDA also see Sections 4.5 and 4.6).
The evaluation of a project's eligibility for these funds will be based on the evaluation criteria
and funding decision process set forth in the most current versions of the DWSRF and CWSRF
IUPs, respectively.
The State Water Board may waive the maximum planning or implementation grant limitsW44
through its approval of a project exceeding these caps#ie-eap at a State Water Board meeting.
The Deputy Director of the DFA on a case-by-case basisrAuis+en may approve funding of
projects below the minimum amounts foroog d�causenrniantconafi4inn rl4l`��
implementatmen ppejeets mking water t ment only pFojeGts (see SeGtien 4.5) G
DFiRkinn 1Nafer -RRF1114p,
8 Grant proceeds maybe taxable for certain entities. Grantees should consult with their tax advisors. The
DFADavis+en cannot provide assistance related to federal or state taxes. Under no circumstances can Proposition 1
funds be used to pay a Grantee's taxes.
- 11-
Table 1. Limits on Grant Amounts
e - a
� e
a s s
a
Minimum $100,000 $500,000 NIA NIA
Maximum $24-,000,000" $50,000,000*NA $5,000,000** $8,000,000**
*When funding a groundwater cleanup program,with multiple projects funded under a single agreement,the
maximum grant limit will be applied on aper-project basis.
**Groundwater grant amounts may be in addition to grants or principal forgiveness awarded through the DWSRF or
CWSRF Programs.
5.2 SDACs, DACs, and EDAs
Twenty(20) percent of the available funds ($160 million) will be set aside for projects directly
benefiting DACs1EDAs. At least half of the$160 million (i.e., $80 million) will go to projects that
serve SDACs.
5.3 Availability of Funds
The Budget Act of 2015 (Assembly Bill 93) appropriates Proposition 1 funds9 and makes the
funding available for expenditure (i.e., encumbered in a funding agreement) until June 30, 2018,
and available for liquidation (i.e., funds encumbered in funding agreements have been invoiced
and paid) until June 30, 2021. Since projects to be funded with the appropriation from the
Budget Act of 2015 must meet the expenditure and liquidation deadlines, project selection in the
initial rounds will be based on the ability to meet those respective deadlines.
However, the legislature has routinely re-appropriated bond funds to extend the expenditure and
liquidation deadlines. The State Water Board will, therefore, award funds to projects in
anticipation that the deadlines established in the Budget Act of 2015 will be extended, if
necessary. Extension of those deadlines may be necessary to fund the implementation of a
project after a planning project has been.completed; or to fund additional phases of a complex,
multi-year implementation project.
5.4 Match Requirements
The applicant is required to provide a minimum local cost share ("match funds") of fifty (50)
percent of the total project cost(Water Code section 79774(b)). Other state funds (regardless
of the issuing state agencies) cannot be used for the required match funds. Match funds
may include, but are not limited to: federal grants and loans, local and private funding, donated
and volunteer services; or"in-kind" services provided by the applicant.
Match funds can include costs recovered by the applicant from responsible parties.107 An
applicant that recovers costs from a responsible party can request that its match be adjusted to
reflect the costs recovered from the responsible party that have been applied to eligible
expenses for completion of the project. A request for such an adjustment in the source of the
9 Item: 3940-101-6083—For local assistance,State Water Board, payable from the Water Quality, Supply, and
Infrastructure Improvement Fund of 2014,to be available for expenditure until June 30,2018, and available for
liquidation until June 30,2021..............Amount: $1,357,500,000.
10 Grant funds, however,cannot be used to pay any share of costs of remediation recovered from responsible parties
[Water Code section 79771(c)].
-12-
match can be made after execution of a funding agreement with the State Water Board and
prior to the final invoice for the project.
Repayable financing received through the DWSRF DFinking Water-or CWSRFG!eaR Water SRF
Programs, or other state or federally sponsored loan program, may be used for match. The
State Water Board reserves the discretion to review and approve funding match expenditures.
Match funds include only those costs that are otherwise eligible reimbursable planning or
implementation expenses (see Section 10.15) and were incurred on or after approval of
Proposition 1 by the voters (November 4, 2014).
Proposition 1 requires added consideration be given to projects that leverage private, federal, or
local funding (Water Code section 79774(a)). Since applicants must provide a minimum fifty
(50) percent match (unless waived or reduced for projects benefiting a DAC or EDA), projects
that go beyond the minimum match requirements will be given priority consideration.
5.4.1 DAC and EDA Match (non-Drinking Water Treatment or Septic-to-Sewer
Projects):
The match requirement for a DAC or EDA may be reduced or waived (Water Code
section 79774(b)). Appendix B includes eligibility requirements and steps the applicant
must take to apply for a reduction in funding match. The Deputy Director of the
DFA9ivasiep will determine the appropriate match reduction for projects that cleanup or
prevent the contamination of an aquifer(non-drinking water treatment or septic-to-
sewer projects) based on Table 2, below. The Deputy Director of the DFA9+v+slaR
may request documentation necessary to verify any claims regarding how the project
benefits the DAC or EDA.
Projects that cleanup contamination of an aquifer may have two different components:
(1) a source cleanup component that benefits the community near where the cleanup
occurs (e.g., soil remediation that reduces vapor intrusion into nearby residences;
aquifer cleanup that reduces drinking water treatment cost for those community
systems relying on the aquifer); and (2) a component of the project that treats the
contaminated water and delivers the water into a community's water distribution
system. The Deputy Director may provide a match reduction for the component(s) of
the project that provides direct benefits to the DAC or EDA and not provide match
reduction for the component(s) of therroiec!pF9v+d2 that do not benefit the DAC or
EDA (e.g., the soil cleanup benefits a DAC, but the treated drinking water is delivered
to a water system with a jurisdictional boundary with a community that is not a DAC).
An applicant with a jurisdictional boundary with a population that meets the definition of
a DAC or EDA may qualify for the applicable Group A�Group B, or Group C$ match
reduction. An applicant with a jurisdictional boundary with a population that does not
meet the definition of a DAC or EDA may qualify for a match reduction under Group C
for those components of the project that benefit a DAC or EDA (see Table 2).
If the Deputy Director of the DFAQ*if Ft determines a match reduction is not allowed
and the project is approved for funding, DFA9Yisiew staff will work with the applicant
to reduce the grant amount or increase matching funds.
- 13-
Table 2. Reduced Match for the Pro•ect Components That Directly Benefit a DAC or EDA
P
7Gro.ull�;A**•
of the Project Benefits a Small Severely DAC
atch if population is less than 20,000 persons AND median household income (MI-11) is
less than 60% of the Statewide MHI.
Group B�-. e.,.,�:.- ^+,..:+R nen „� cne e.o� ^,+ 100% of the Project Benefits
aComponents Benefit the DAC or EDA
10% match if the community meets the definitions.
Group C: Applicant with a Jurisdictional Area that is not a DAC or EDA, but with Project
Components that Benefit a DAC or EDA
20% match for the component(s) of the Project that benefit a DAC or EDA.
Match is calculated based on the total project cost, not on the grant amount.
Total Project Cost x Percent Match (%)=Required Match
Group B Example[whole project benefits DAC and applicant is a DAC]-$3,750,000(Total Project Cost)x 10%
(Percent Match)=$375,000 Required Match
Group C Example—Project includes source soil cleanup($1,000,000),which is located in a DAC and a groundwater
treatment system with water provided into a distribution system ($5,000,000),which serves a community that is not
considered a DAC. Source soil cleanup takes place within the DAC community: match requirement=20%x
$1,000,000=$200,000. Treated groundwater goes into a distribution system with a service area that is NOT a DAC:
match requirement=50%x$5,000,000=$2,500,000. Total project cost=$6,000,000;total match =$2,700,000.
**When funding a groundwater cleanup program,with multiple projects funded under a single agreement,the
reduced match may be calculated on a per-project basis.
The requirement for match is waived for those entities that provide technical
assistance to DACs and EDAs (see Section 10.18).
5.4.2 DAC and EDA Match (Drinking Water Treatment and Septic-to-Sewer Projects):
Drinking water treatment and septic-to-sewer projects(as described in
Sectiones 4.5 and 4.6)that benefit DACs and EDAs that receive funding from
the Proposition 1 Groundwater Grant Program will have the match requirements
waived or reduced as described in the most current version of the DWSRF and
CWSRF IUPsnrin4in9 W@tAr CI7G H to
6. PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS AND RELATED INFORMATION
The project selection process primarily will consist of the steps described below:
Step 1. Concept ProposalPr-a-e^^'i^a Submittal: An applicant first fills out an online
"Concept Proposal" using the Financial
Assistance Application Submittal Tool (FAAST), which includes basic information
about the proposed project. The DFAT"e ore Annllnatinn in GentiRuousl . available•
will periodically announce a deadline to submit Concept
Proposals for the next
round of funding. Potential applicants will be provided at least 30 days to complete
their Concept ProposalPre A nnl Ga#er. prior to the deadline. DFAQivisj staff will
conduct technical assistance workshops to address questions and provide general
assistance to applicants in preparing their pFGfeGt proposals. The dates and locations
- 14-
of the workshops will be posted on the Proposition 1 Groundwater Sustainability
website and announced via the Groundwater Quality Funding electronic mailing list.",
Examples of protects and lessons learned from Round 1 proposals can be found on
the Proposition 1 Groundwater Sustainability website. Applicants are encouraged to
review this information prior to submitting a Concept Proposal.
Step 2. Initial Staff Review: All Concept ProposalsPFe Applieatiarrs will be reviewed to
identify the bestappfGpf to funding program for the proposed project. The initial staff
review will identify whether the"best'funding fit for the proposed project is the
Proposition 1 Groundwater Grant program; Site Cleanup Subaccount Program;
DWSRF: CWSRMFink,ng Water cor; or potentially other Proposition 1 funding
programs. Each program is administered by different units in the DFABiv+�. Staff
from the funding program that is identified as the"best"fit will follow-up with the
applicant.
General Decision Rules to Identify"Best" Funding Fit:
a. Projects with no other available funding will be reviewed for funding in the Site
Cleanup Subaccount Program.
b. Projects that are primarily drinking water treatment projects (i.e., treatment of
natural contaminants or contaminants that are not amenable to source area
cleanup)will be administered through the DWSREDFiRkiRg Water cow program.
Proposition 1 Groundwater Sustainability funds can be used to support the drinking
water treatment project if there is a need for grant funds and there are insufficient
funds through the DWSRF^riRkir.g Water SAR to support the project.
c. Pro'ects that are primarilVse tic-oto-sewer promects will be administered throuh the
CWSRF Program. Prol2osition 1 Groundwater Sustainability funds can be used to
support the septic-to-sewer project if there is a need for grant funds and there are
insufficient funds through the CWSRF to support the project.
e:d.Projects with eligible applicants and eligible projects that address the cleanup or
prevention of contamination of groundwater that serves or has served as a source
of drinking water AND will substantially reduce the contaminants in the drinking
water aquifer will be administered by the Proposition 1 Groundwater Grant
Program.
d.g. Applicants with projects that are ineligible for the abovethree drinking
tAiateOgFe mi^water q a*y funding programs will be directed to other funding
programs if staff can identify a funding program that fits the applicant and project.
The steps below apply to projects that will be administered by Proposition 9
Groundwater Grant Program staff.
Step 3. Applicant Contact: Groundwater Grant Program staff will contact the applicant and
begin a dialogue with the applicant and regulatory agencies (i.e., Regional Water
Board, DDW, DTSC, U.S. EPA, DWR) on the scope/budget for the project. Discussion
with the applicant will focus on adjustments to the scope, as needed, to meet State
"Check the box next to"Groundwater Quality Funding Assistance"under the Financial Assistance(Grants&Loans)
category.
-15-
Water Board or the other regulatory agency's priorities and goals and any additional
detail required to evaluate the project.
Step 4. Full Propos Final AppliGation Submittal: Based on discussions in Step 3, the
applicant will be invited to submit a Full ProposalFmiRal-APplieatier►that includes, at a
minimum, a detailed work plan (tasks, deliverables, and schedule), budget, and
metrics of success for implementation projects (see Section 8). The Full ProposalF44
Applieatian should incorporate the feedback from the discussions in Step 3. The
DFAQ44s+ee will provide all applicants with a common deadline to complete their Full
Proposal iRal Appl+eaprior to the evaluation of proposals (see Step 5 below).
DFADivis+an staff will develop a Full ProposalFinal Annli^nti.,n in the FAAST system
based on the requirements and scoring criteria in these Guidelines.
Step 5. Evaluation; DFADjvisiGn staff will conduct an initial review of readily available
information from the applicant and regulatory agency(ies) related to responsible party
searches to verify that the project is eligible for funding. A technical review team,
including State Water Board, Regional Water Board, and (potentially) DTSC and DWR
staff will score all complete, eligible applications submitted based on the evaluation
criteria established in these Funding Guidelines. Planning and implementation
projects will be evaluated separately (see Appendix E and Appendix F for planning and
implementation evaluation criteria, respectively). Responsibilities of the Regional
Boards and DDW in reviewing submitted Concept Proposals/Full ProposalsP—re-
are discussed in Appendix G.
Step 6. Preliminary Award: DFADiv+sien staff will identi deye'^^ a list ^f projects
recommended for funding for each solicitation round, along with a recommended
funding amount, based on the evaluation by the technical review team. The Deputy
Director of the DFAQ4+si�will make the final decision as to which applicants will
receive notification of a "Preliminary Award", and will take one of the following actions:
a) offer a Preliminary Award to the applicant consistent with recommendations
provided by DFA9h4sieo staff; b) offer a Preliminary Award to the applicant but award
a different amount than recommended by DFAOMs"staff; or c) do not award funds
for the applicant's project as recommended by DFAQM&k)i R staff. The Deputy Director
may also award funds to an applicant for a project not recommended by DFADM-sien
staff, provided such a project otherwise meets the requirements of these Guidelines.
Any projects exceeding the established maximum grant amount ma be presented
to the State Water Board for consideration.
DFAiDivisie staff will prepare and make publicly available, the list of awarded projects,
rationale for the fi iRding omni mt
The Preliminary Award letter will identify the amount of funding that the State Water
Board intends to provide and the additional information that must be provided to
complete the grant agreement.
Those applicants who are not awarded funding will also be notified and will be
provided an opportunity to receive feedback on the basis for their project not receiving
funding.
- 16-
Step 7. Grant Agreement: The applicant will work with DFAD'Wsien staff to complete the
grant agreement based on the direction provided in the Preliminary Award letter.
DFADiv+siae staff, with assistance from the regulatory agencies, will evaluate
additional documents to:
a. Confirm the technical feasibility of the project;
b. Evaluate any additional information regarding responsible parties and their ability
and/or willingness to pay for the cost of cleaning up the contamination being
addressed (see Appendix H);
c. Where applicable, determineDeteFMiRe the technical, managerial, and financial
capacity (TMF) of the applicant to operate and maintain the project for the useful
life of the project
(see Appendix 1);
d. Determine the status of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)1
environmental documentation, if available;
e. Determine the status of any legal issues that may affect the outcome of the project
(e.g., site access, pending litigation regarding cleanup); and
f. Address any information gaps or issues that must be resolved prior to completing
the grant agreement.
g. Require that the applicant develop a Technical Adviso Committee if determined
necessary by the DFA, to ensure early and adequate involvement by regulatory
agencies to provide feedback and comments on the proposed proiect activities and
ensure that the proposed protect realizes the goals and objectives of the Proiect
Assessment and Evaluation Plan (PAEP).
h. Require that the applicant develop a Stakeholder Adviso Group, if determined
necessary by the DFA, to inform and provide an opportunity for interested parties
or other potential stakeholders, not included in the Technical Advisory Committee,
to provide feedback on the proposed project activities.
i. Require that the applicant develop and execute a Memorandum of Understanding
with the State Water Board and the Regional Water Board, if determined
necessary by the DFA. The Memorandum of Understanding must establish the
principles of how the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)will operate. The TAC
will provide technical analysis, insight and comments on technical issues related to
monitoring, modeling, remedial investigation, feasibility studies, design,
construction, operation, and compliance, as applicable to the project.
Based on the information gathered from the applicant during Step 7, the Deputy
Director may approve adjustments to the amount awarded or scope of the project.
The Deputy Director may withdraw the Preliminary Award and direct staff not to
complete a grant agreement if the additional information gathered indicates that: the
applicant would be unable to satisfactorily complete the project; the project is deemed
ineligible; or a more appropriate source of funding is identified.
7. FUNDING CYCLES
The DFABi-��intends to have approximately annual solicitations for projects until all funds
have been expended. The DFA acknowledges that proiects receiving Dianning funds may
require several years to complete planning work. The DFA intends to reserve approximately_
$300 million for the 2020 solicitation, to allow planning projects funded in the initial solicitation(s)
to compete for implementation funding. However, the DFA will need to weigh this need against
-17-
other funding demands and deadlines on funding authority, which may require the DFA to award
these funds to proiects prior to 2020.
The DFA-ma rliirioi^� .affil' have two types of solicitations: (a) solicitations targeted to
projects benefiting DACs and EDAs and (b) general solicitations. Applicants with projects
benefiting DACs and EDAs can respond to both solicitation types. The first general solicitation
closed_in_Jul y 2__016. The second general solicitationThe first snlinitatinns will open0 61
approximately one month after the Board adopts -e€these amended Guidelines.
The solicitation notice will include deadlines to complete the Concept ProposalP e--A9piea#9n
and Full Proposal.Final The solicitation notice will also include information on: the
anticipated award date; any deadlines for completion of the project; when final invoices must be
submitted; and where applicants can find standard terms and conditions for grant agreements.
8. METRICS OF SUCCESS
Proposition 1 requires the State Water Board to establish metrics of success (Water Code
section 79716). For implementation projects, the applicant must provide estimates for one or
more of the following metrics of success:
a. Annual volume of clean drinking water provided or annual volume (acre-feet) of
water that is prevented from becoming contaminated (e.g. by recharge, source
area cleanup).
b. Number of people or residential connections directly benefiting 12 from the project.
c. Population and percentage of DAC or EDA directly benefiting from the project.
d. Average annual mass of contaminant and total mass of contaminant removed (or
prevented from contaminating the drinking water source) over the projected useful
life of the project.
e. Number or percentage of previously contaminated or threatened municipal or
domestic wells, and cumulative capacity (volume/time) of those wells, that will no
longer be contaminated or threatened after the end of the useful life of the project.
f. Percent reduction in concentration of the contaminant(or percent increase in
concentration prevented) over the projected useful life of the project.
Grant agreements will include requirements to evaluate actual project performance relative to
these metrics of success (see Section 10.7, PAEPJ]}:
9. RESPONSIBLE PARTY REQUIREMENTS
Proposition 1 includes two references regarding responsible parties. In prioritizing projects, the
State Water Board is to prioritize projects where the responsible party has not yet been
identified or the responsible party is unwilling or unable to pay for the total cost of cleanup
(Water Code section 79771(b)(5)). Water Code section 79771(c) does not allow Proposition 1
funds to be used to pay for the share of costs recovered from responsible parties, but they may
be used to pay for costs that cannot be recovered. In addition, Water Code section 79771(c)
also states "...Parties that receive funding for remediating groundwater storage aquifers shall
exercise reasonable efforts to recover the costs of groundwater cleanup from the parties
12 A direct benefit includes both the cleanup and prevention of contamination.
- 18-
responsible for the contamination. Funds recovered from responsible parties may only be used
to fund treatment and remediation activities."
The expectation for Parties receiving funding to exercise reasonable efforts to recover costs
only applies to efforts to recover costs associated with the grant funding provided. The
treatment and remediation activities that may be funded with recovered funds include acquiring
new capital assets and paying for any ongoing costs to maintain the treatment and remediation
system, including, but not limited to, O&M costs.
The primary venues for identifying responsible parties and recovering costs for cleanup are the
courts and through the processes established by the regulatory agencies. Proposition 1
Groundwater Grant funds can be used to accelerate cleanup efforts that would otherwise be
delayed due to the length of the processes associated with those venues. Proposition 1 funds
can also support efforts to identify viable responsible parties.
Roles and expectations of DFADM6i9R staff and applicants regarding assessment of
responsible parties are described below.
9.1 Responsible Party Considerations During the Application Process
As part of the application process and prior to execution of a grant agreement, the applicant
must make reasonable efforts to identify existing and readily available information on any
potentially responsible parties and the status of efforts by the regulatory agencies to require
responsible parties to pay for the total cost of cleanup. The applicant should contact the
regulatory agencies and, as part of its application, provide documentation summarizing the
status of potentially responsible parties.
DFA94v+�staff will work with the applicant and regulatory agencies to determine the ability
and willingness to pay for the total cost of cleanup of any identified responsible parties. Should
the available information indicate that responsible parties are able and willing to pay for the total
cost of cleanup associated with the proposed project; the project is considered ineligible for
funding.
9.2 Responsible Party Considerations — Award/Grant Agreement
Should the Deputy Director award funding to a project, the Deputy Director will take one of the
following actions based on consideration of the potentially responsible parties' ability and
willingness to pay for the total cost of cleanup:
a. Award funding for the project and not require any additional efforts on the part of
the applicant to make further efforts to recover the cost of cleanup. The Deputy
Director will take this action, if available information indicates that reasonable
efforts have already been made by the applicant, regulatory agencies, or other
parties to require the responsible parties to pay for the total cost of the cleanup and
recovering additional costs for cleanup is infeasible.
b. Award funding for the project at a reduced amount from the total cost of the
cleanup and not require any additional efforts on the part of the applicant to make
further efforts to recover the cost of cleanup. The Deputy Director will take this
action, if available information indicates that reasonable efforts have already been
made by the applicant, regulatory agencies, or other parties to require the
responsible parties to pay for the total cost of the cleanup and the responsible
parties are obligated to pay for a portion of the project cost. The Deputy Director
will reduce the amount awarded, as necessary, to ensure that Proposition 1 funds
are not used to pay for the share of costs recovered from responsible parties.
_ 19_
C. Award funding for the project and require additional efforts on the part of the
applicant to make further efforts to recover the cost of cleanup. The Deputy
Director may increase the award amount to provide the applicant with funds
necessary for any additional efforts (e.g., responsible party searches; source
identification), but in no case shall any such additional award exceed $1 million or
five (5) percent of the total project cost(whichever is smaller). The Deputy Director
will also include such conditions in the funding agreement as necessary to ensure
that the applicant makes reasonable efforts to recover the costs of cleanup, and
that such funds recovered are used to fund treatment and remediation activities,
including, but not limited to, ongoing costs of O&M.
10. GENERAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
All applicants that are awarded a grant through the Groundwater Grant Program must comply
with the following general program requirements. Before proceeding with the application
process, applicants must consider their ability to comply with these requirements. Guidelines
for grantees, including details that State Auditors would need to review if a grant were audited
are discussed in Appendix D.
10.1 Conflict of Interest
Applicants are subject to state and federal conflict of interest laws. Failure to comply with these
laws, including business and financial disclosure provisions, will result in the application being
rejected and any subsequent grant agreement being declared void. Other legal action may also
be taken. Before submitting an application, applicants are urged to seek legal counsel
regarding conflict of interest requirements. Applicable statutes include, but are not limited to,
California Government Code Section 1090 and California Public Contract Code Sections 10410
and 10411.
10.2 Confidentiality
Any privacy rights, as well as other confidentiality protections afforded by law with respect to the
application package,will be waived once the proposal has been submitted to the State Water
Board. The locations of all projects awarded funding, including the locations of management
measures or practices implemented, must be reported to the State Water Board and Regional
Water Boards (Water Boards) and made available to the public. The Water Boards may report
project locations to the public through internet-accessible databases. The State Water Board
uses Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates for project and sampling locations. See
Sections 10.8 through 10.10 of the General Program Requirements below for additional
information on monitoring and reporting requirements.
10.3 Labor Code Compliance
Grantees are bound by all of the provisions of the Labor Code regarding prevailing wages and
shall monitor all contracts subject to reimbursement from the grant agreement to ensure that the
prevailing wage provisions of the Labor Code are being met.
Before submitting an application, applicants are urged to seek legal counsel regarding Labor
Code compliance. See the California Department of Industrial Relations website for more
information.
-20-
10.4 CEQA Compliance
Grantees are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations for their
projects, including CEQA. State Water Board selection of a project for a grant does not indicate
that the consideration of alternatives or mitigation measures that would reduce or eliminate
adverse environmental effects of that project is adequate. No work may proceed until the State
Water Board completes its own CEQA findings. Details about the State Water Board's
environmental compliance process can be found online at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/grants Ioansldocsfenvironmental revie
w/environmental fa df.
Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.3.1 requires that, prior to the release of a
Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report (EIR)for
a project, the Lead Agency shall (under certain conditions) begin consultation with a California
Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the
project. PRC Section 75102 requires that, prior to the adoption of a Negative Declaration or EIR
for any project, the Lead Agency shall notify the proposed action to a California Native American
tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
if that tribe has traditional lands located within the area of the proposed project. See Appendix
C for the Office of Planning and Research's (OPR) procedures for tribal consultation for General
Plans and Specific Plans as guidance to meeting the Native American Tribe Notification
requirement.
10.5 Related Litigation
A grantee cannot use funds from any disbursement under a grant agreement to pay costs
associated with any litigation the grantee pursues. Regardless of whether the project is the
subject of litigation, the grantee agrees to complete the project funded by the grant agreement
or to repay all grant funds plus interest.
10.6 Compliance with Emergency Drought Regulations
A grantee shall comply with the State Water Board's Drought Emergency Water Conservation
regulations in Sections 863-866 of title 23 of the California Code of Regulations.
10.7 Project Assessment and Evaluation Plan (PAEP)
Grantees are required to assess and report on project effectiveness. Such reporting is required
to ensure that the State Water Board meets its obligation to establish metrics of success (Water
Code section 79716). At a minimum, implementation projects must include one or more of the
metrics of success identified in Section 8.
All.implementation Proposals must include a PAEP table to summarize how project
performance will be assessed, evaluated, and reported. The goals of a PAEP are to:
a. Provide a framework for assessment and evaluation of project performance,
b. Identify measures that can be used to monitor progress towards achieving project
goals and desired outcomes; and
c. Provide a tool for grantees and State Water Board's Grant Managers (Grant
Managers)to monitor and measure project progress and guide final project
performance reporting that will fulfill the grant agreement requirements.
In addition, grantees must submit an updated PAEP after the grant agreement is executed and
make annual updates thereafter for the term of the agreement. The PAEP must include a
summary of project goals, the appropriate performance measures to track the project progress,
-21-
and measurable targets that the applicant thinks are feasible to meet during the project period.
The PAEP is not intended to be a monitoring plan (MP). PAEP guidance isw+ll-be provided onby
the Groundwater Sustainability website. sskj e r_ a4t��.
10.8 Monitoring Requirements
If project effectiveness is being evaluated through water quality, water quantity, or other
environmental monitoring, the grantee must prepare a MP. The MP must include a description
of the monitoring program and objectives, types of constituents to be monitored, methodology,
the frequency and duration of monitoring, and the sampling location for the monitoring activities.
10.9 Data Management
Projects must include appropriate data management activities so that grantees can provide data
in the format necessary to upload into the applicable statewide data systems.
a. Groundwater quality monitoring data must be integrated into GeoTracker and be
compliant with an approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). Data will be
available to the stakeholders, agencies, and the public. Please see the
GeoTracker website http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.govl for additional
information.
b. Groundwater monitoring data also must be integrated into the Groundwater
Ambient Monitoring &Assessment (LAMA) database. Please see the GAMA
website http://waterboards.ca.gov/gamal for additional information.
c. Water quality monitoring data must be integrated into the California Environmental
Data Exchange Network(CEDEN) and be compliant with an approved QAPP.
Data will be available to the stakeholders, agencies, and the public. Please see
the CEDEN website http://www.ceden.org/for additional information.
10.10 Reporting
Every grantee is required to submit quarterly progress reports to the DFADN4sie44 that detail
activities that have occurred during the applicable reporting period. Reporting is required even if
no grant related activities took place during the reporting period. At the conclusion of the
project, the grantee must submit a Final Project Summary, Final Project Inspection and
Certification, and a comprehensive Draft and Final Project Report. Post-construction
performance monitoring may be required for the useful life of the proiect. DFADivis+en staff will
make templates available to grantees, where possible, to reduce reporting burdens.
10.11 Operations and Maintenance
For implementation projects, the grantee shall maintain and operate the facility and structures
constructed or improved as part of the project throughout the useful life of the project (and in no
instance less than 20 years) consistent with the purposes for which the grant was made. The
grantee assumes all O&M costs of the facilities and structures; the State Water Board shall not
be liable for any cost of such maintenance, management, or operation. Operation costs include
direct costs incurred for material and labor needed for operations, utilities, insurance, and
similar expenses. Maintenance costs include ordinary repairs and replacements of a recurring
nature necessary to prolong the life of capital assets and basic structures, and the expenditure
of funds necessary to replace or reconstruct capital assets or basic structures. O&M costs are
not an eligible grant expense, and, therefore, do not qualify as an eligible match cost. O&M for
both planning and implementation projects may include destruction of monitoring wells at the
completion of the project, or when no longer needed.
-22-
10.12 Urban and Agricultural Water Management Plan and Groundwater
Planning Requirements
a. Urban Water Management Planning Act Compliance: Water suppliers who were
required by the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Water Code section
10610 et seq.)to submit an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)to DWR must
have submitted a complete UWMP to be eligible for grant funding. Applicants that
are urban water suppliers and have projects that would receive funding through the
Groundwater Grant Program must have a UWMP that has been verified as
complete by DWR before a grant agreement will be executed. Note: The 2095
UWMPs are due for submittal to DWR by July 1, 2016.
b. Agricultural Water Management Plan Compliance: Beginning July 1, 2013, an
agricultural water supplier is not eligible for a water grant or loan awarded or
administered by the state unless the supplier complies with Senate Bill (SB)x7-7
water conservation requirements outlined in Water Code section 10608, Division 6,
Part 2.55, which requires submittal of an Agricultural Water Management Plan
(AWMP). Note: The 2095 AWMPs were due for submittal to DWR by
December 31, 2095.
c. Water Code Section 10920 Compliance: Water Code section 10920 et seq.
establishes a groundwater monitoring program designed to monitor and report
groundwater elevations in all or part of a basin or sub-basin. Information on the
requirements of the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring
(CASGEM) Program can be found at the CASGEM link here:
http://www.water.ca.goy/groundwater/casgem/. DWR has established high,
medium, low, and very low priority groundwater basins, as well as CASGEM
monitoring entities. Water Code section 10927 identifies potential CASGEM
monitoring entities. Applicants who match the list for potential CASGEM
monitoring entities, and whose jurisdictional boundaries include high or medium
priority basins with no CASGEM monitoring entity, will not be eligible for a
Groundwater Grant Program award pursuant to Water Code section 10933.7(a).
Consistent with Water Code section 10933.7(b), if the entire service area of the
grant applicant is demonstrated to be a DAC, the project will be considered eligible
for grant funding notwithstanding CASGEM compliance.
d. Surface Water Diversion Reporting Compliance: A diverter of surface water is
not eligible for a water grant or loan awarded or administered by the state unless it
complies with surface water diversion reporting requirements outlined in Part 5.1
(commencing with section 5100) of Division 2 of the Water Code.
e. AB 1420 Compliance: Assembly Bill (AB) 1420 (Stats. 2007, Chapter 628)
conditions the receipt of a water management grant or loan, for urban water
suppliers, on the implementation of water demand management measures
described in Water Code section 10631. DWR has determined that
implementation of the California Urban Water Conservation Council best
management practices (BMPs) will fulfill the requirements of AB 1420. An urban
water supplier may be eligible for a water management grant or loan if it
demonstrates that it has implemented or scheduled, or is in the process of
implementing or scheduling the implementation of BMPs. Urban water suppliers
applying to use grant funds for implementation of BMPs must ensure they have
submitted all the necessary information. Therefore, urban water suppliers who are
applicants in a grant application must supply additional information which can be
found at DWR Water Use and Efficiency website here:
htti)://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiencv/.
-23-
f. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act(SGMA) Compliance: The
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act is intended to provide for the
sustainable management of groundwater by enhancing the local management of
groundwater. SGMA includes a multi-year and multi-step process of forming local
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs); establishing local GSPs; and
implementing those GSPs.
To support the goals of SGMA, the State Water Board will only fund projects in
basins in which the local agencies are taking the required steps to comply with
SGMA. The following is required of applicants with grants in non-adjudicated high-
or medium-priority CASGEM basins, as designated by DWR:
i) After July 1, 2017, the project must be located in a basin in which a GSA has
formed or an alternative has been submitted to DWR (Water Code section
10735.2 (a)(1)).
ii) After January 31, 2020, the project must be consistent with an adopted GSP, if
the project is located in a basin that is subject to critical conditions of overdraft
(Water Code section 10735.2 (a)(2)).
iii) After January 31, 2022, the project must be consistent with an adopted GSP, if
the project is located in a basin that is not subject to critical conditions of
overdraft (Water Code section 10735.2 (a)(4)).
If the applicant is not a GSA, the applicant must demonstrate that it has
coordinated with the appropriate GSA and document that the GSA supports the
proposed project.
The above SGMA-requirements do not apply to the adjudicated areas listed in
Water Code section 10720.8(a), since the water master or local entity managing
groundwater is not required to form a GSA or prepare a GSP. Applicants with
projects in adjudicated areas that have not complied with the reporting
requirements of Water Code section 10720.8(f) are not be eligible to receive grant
funding.
g. SBx7-7 Compliance: Sustainable Water Use and Demand Reduction (Water
Code section 10608 et seq.). SBx7-7 conditions the receipt of a water
management grant or loan for urban water suppliers on achieving Gallons per
Capita per Day reduction targets with the end goal of a twenty (20) percent
reduction by 2020. Applicants that are urban water suppliers will be required to
provide proof of compliance with SBx7-7 as a condition of the grant.
10.13 Applicant Notification
DFA9+visiee staff will notify applicants of awards via email, or by letter, and post ttae-approved
Funding ListsLjiFA on the State Water Board website as the list is updated with awarded projects.
10.14 Grant Agreement
Following funding awards, the State Water Board will execute a grant agreement with the
grantee. Grant agreements are not executed until signed by authorized representatives of the
grantee and the State Water Board.
It is HIGHLY recommended that applicants review the grant agreement template prior to
submission of their proposal. If applicants are not able to abide by the terms and conditions
-24-
contained therein, applicants should not submit a proposal. A copy of a grant agreement
template will be posted prior to opening the funding solicitations on the Proposition 1
Groundwater Grant Program website.
The State Water Board encourages collaboration in the development and implementation of
projects. Parties that wish to collaborate on a proposal may elect to use a contractor-
subcontractor relationship, a joint venture, a joint powers authority (JPA), or other appropriate
mechanism. Grant agreements will be executed with one eligible grantee per project. This
grantee can subcontract with partners that are responsible for implementation of the project
tasks. The grant funding and the implementation responsibilities will be the province of the
grantee; subcontracting to another entity does not relieve the grantee of its responsibilities. The
State Water Board will not have a relationship with collaborators or subcontractors.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the State Water Board may revise the standard grant agreement
terms and conditions to reflect changes in state law.
10.15 Reimbursement of Costs
Only direct costs and work performed within the terms of the grant agreement will be eligible for
reimbursement. Indirect costs, such as overhead, contingency, or markup are not eligible
expenses. Eligible expenses incurred upon the start date listed in the grant agreement and
prior to the project completion date may be directly reimbursed. Advance funds will not be
provided.
Reimbursable costs include the reasonable costs of planning, engineering, design, permitting,
preparation of environmental documentation, environmental mitigation, easement and land
purchases, project implementation, project monitoring within the term of the agreement, and
education and outreach necessary for successful project implementation.
Costs that are not reimbursable with grant funds and do not qualify for meeting local cost share
requirements include, but are not limited to:
a. Costs, other than those noted above, incurred outside the terms of the grant
agreement with the state;
b. O&M costs for maintenance, management, and operation beyond initial startup;
c. Education and outreach not directly related to project construction;
d. Purchase of equipment not an integral part of the project or included in the line
item budget;
e. Establishing a reserve fund;
f. Replacement of existing funding sources for ongoing programs;
g. Expenses incurred in preparation of the proposal;
h. Payment of principal or interest of existing indebtedness or any interest payments;
i. Overhead, markup, or costs not directly related to the project, and
j. State or federal taxes' ,
10.16 Grant Manager Notification
Grantees will be required to notify the Grant Manager prior to conducting construction,
monitoring, demonstration, or other implementation activities so that the Grant Manager may
13 Grant proceeds may be taxable for certain entities. Grantees should consult with their tax advisors. The
DFABfv+s+eA cannot provide assistance related to federal or state taxes. Under no circumstances can Proposition 1
funds be used to pay a Grantee's taxes.
-25-
observe to verify activities are conducted in accordance with the grant agreement. The Grant
Manager may document the inspection with photographs or notes, which may be included in the
Groundwater Grant Program project file.
10.17 Deputy Directory, Division of Financial Assistance Additional
Authority
Funds may become available from projects that are withdrawn or completed under budget. The
Deputy Director of the DFADh4siee shall have the authority to utilize these funds for funding
additional projects below the funding line or for augmenting the scope and budget of projects
previously awarded. Additional activities funded under existing grants will be subject to these
Guidelines and must complement or further the goals of existing projects.
10.18 Technical Assistance Set-aside
The State Water Board has initially set aside $10 million to provide technical assistance for
DACs and EDAs. The technical assistance program will be administered by the Office of
Sustainable Water Solutions. Technical assistance may include, but not be limited to,
preparation of Concept Proposals/Full Propos 11SPFe_ ppliGat'GRsXIRal ppliGatiGRG; assistance
in assessment of the scope of contamination; initial assessment of potential cleanup options;
legal assistance; organization formation and managerial assessment and assistance; and
technical training. The Deputy Director of the DFAQ!vsiee is authorized to provide up to an
additional $10 million in technical assistance to benefit DACs and EDAs.
-26-
APPENDIX A: ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS USED IN THESE
GUIDELINES AND APPENDICES
Acronyms
AB Assembly Bill
AWMP Agricultural Water Management Plan
Basin Plan Regional Water Quality Control Plan
BMP Best Management Practice
CaIEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CASGEM California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring
CEDEN California Environmental Data Exchange Network
Census Bureau United States Census Bureau
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
Chapter 10 Chapter 10 Groundwater Sustainability of Proposition 1
COC Chemical of Concern
CWAP California Water Action Plan
DAC Disadvantaged Community
DDW Division of Drinking Water
DFA Divishep Division of Financial Assistance
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
DWR Department of Water Resources
EDA Economically Distressed Area
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FAAST Financial Assistance Application Submittal Tool
FS Feasibility Study
GAMA Groundwater Ambient Monitoring &Assessment
GPS Global Positioning System
Grant Manager State Water Resources Control Board's Grant Manager
Groundwater Grant Program Groundwater Sustainability Grant Program
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Guidelines Project solicitation and evaluation guidelines
[UP Intended Use Plan
JPA Joint Powers Authority
MHI Median Household Income
MP Monitoring Plan
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NOI Notice of Intent
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OPR Office of Planning and Research
PAEP Project Assessment and Evaluation Plan
PRC Public Resources Code
PWS Public Water System
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
Regional Water Board Regional Water Quality Control Board
RI Remedial Investigation
SB Senate Bill
-27-
SDAC Severely Disadvantaged Community
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 (federal)
SRF State Revolving Fund
State Water Board State Water Resources Control Board
TMF Technical, Managerial, and Financial
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
Water Code California Water Code
WDR Waste Discharge Requirement Permit
Definitions
Agricultural Water Supplier—means a water supplier, either publicly or privately owned,
providing water to 10,000 or more irrigated acres, excluding the acreage that received recycled
water; also include a supplier or contractor for water regardless of the basis of right that
distributes or sells water for ultimate resale to customers (Water Code section 10608.12 (a)).
Applicant—means the entity that is formally submitting a grant application. This is the same
entity that would enter into an agreement with the state should the grant application be funded.
Application—the electronic submission to the State Water Board that requests grant funding
for a proposal that the applicant intends to implement.
Aquifer -A body of rock or sediment that is sufficiently porous and permeable to store, transmit,
and yield significant or economic quantities of groundwater to wells and springs. (DWR Bulletin
118 Glossary).
Basin—means a groundwater basin or subbasin identified and defined in Bulletin 118 or
modified pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing at section 10722) of the Water Code.
Beneficial Uses—means the uses of groundwater, streams, lakes, rivers, and other water
bodies, that are beneficial to humans and the environment. Beneficial uses are identified in
each Regional Water Board's Basin Plan(s) and in state-wide Water Quality Control Plans.
Bulletin 118—means "California's Groundwater: Bulletin 118" updated in 2003, as it may be
subsequently updated or revised in accordance with section 12924 of the Water Code.
California Native American Tribe—the term "state Indian tribes" (Water Code section
79712(a)) means Indigenous Communities of California, which are on the contact list
maintained by the NAHC, including those that are federally non-recognized and federally
recognized, and those with allotment lands, regardless of whether they own those lands.
Additionally, because some water bodies and Tribal boundaries cross state borders, this term
may include Indigenous Communities in Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona that are impacted by
water in California.
Community—for the purposes of this grant program, a community is a population of persons
residing in the same locality under the same local governance.
Contaminant—means any physical, chemical, biological, or radiological substance or matter in
water(Health and Safety Code section 116275 (a)).
Contamination—includes the Water Code section 13050(k) definition: "Contamination" means
an impairment of the quality of the waters of the state by waste to a degree which creates a
hazard to the public health through poisoning or through the spread of disease. "Contamination"
also includes any equivalent effect resulting from the disposal of waste, whether or not waters of
the state are affected.
"Contamination" of an aquifer occurs when a contaminant, whether naturally occurring or
resulting from a discharge of waste, exceeds a primary maximum contaminant level (MCL) or
notification level; or when contaminants, in combination, pose a risk to public health equivalent
to exceeding a primary MCL or notification level.
-28-
Disadvantaged Community (DAC)— means a community with an annual median household
income that is less than eighty (80) percent of the statewide annual median household income
(Water Code section 797020)which cross references to Water Code section 79505.5).
Economically Distressed Area (EDA)—means a municipality with a population of 20,000
persons or less, a rural county, or a reasonably isolated and divisible segment of a larger
municipality where the segment of the population is 20,000 persons or less, with an annual
median household income that is less than eighty-five (85) percent of the statewide median
household income, and with one or more of the following conditions as determined by DWR:
(1) financial hardship; (2) unemployment rate at least two (2) percent higher than the statewide
average; or(3) low population density(Water Code section 79702(k)).
Evaluation Criteria—means the set of specifications used to select or choose a project based
on available funding.
Federally Recognized Indian Tribes—means an American Indian or Alaska Native tribal entity
that is recognized as having a government-to-government relationship with the United States,
with the responsibilities, powers, limitations, and obligations attached to that designation, and is
eligible for funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Funding Match—means funds made available by the applicant for the Project including, but
not limited to, federal funds (grants or loans), local and private funding, or donated and
volunteer ("in-kind") services. Repayable financing received through the CWSRFG!ean Water
SR-F Program or a federally sponsored loan program may be used for the match. Regardless of
the source, state funds cannot be used for the required match.
Grantee—means a grant recipient.
Groundwater—refers to water beneath the surface of the earth within the zone below the water
table in which the soil is completely saturated with water, but does not include water that flows
in known and definite channels.
Groundwater Recharge—the augmentation of groundwater, by natural or artificial means.
Groundwater Sustainability Agency—means one or more local agencies that implement the
provisions of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. For purposes of imposing fees
pursuant to Chapter 8 (commencing with section 10730) or taking action to enforce a GSP,
"groundwater sustainability agency' also means each local agency comprising the groundwater
sustainability agency if the plan authorizes separate agency action (Water Code section
107210)) .
Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP)---a plan of a groundwater sustainability agency
proposed or adopted pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (Water Code
section 10721(j)).
In-Kind Contributions—work performed by the grantee that furthers the scope of the grant, the
cost of which is considered local cost share in-lieu of actual funds from the grantee.
INDIPAY—means a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) screening process that
assesses an individual's ability to pay civil penalties, Superfund cleanup costs, and pollution
control expenditures. .
Land Subsidence—means a gradual settling or sudden sinking of the Earth's surface due to
movement of earth materials. (USGS Fact Sheet-965-00 December 2000)
Local Cost Share--see Funding Match.
Long-term —means for a period of not less than 20 years (Water Code section 79702(0)).
Management Measures—means economically achievable measures for the control of the
addition of pollutants from existing and new categories and classes of nonpoint sources of
pollution, which reflect the greatest degrees of pollutant reduction achievable through the
application of the best available nonpoint pollution control practices, technologies, processes,
siting criteria, operating methods, or alternatives.
-29-
Median Household Income (MHI)—commonly used to provide data about geographic areas.
It divides households into two equal segments, with the first half of households earning less
than the MHI, and the other half earning more.
MUNIPAY— means a U.S. EPA screening process that assesses a municipality's ability to
afford civil penalties, Superfund cleanup costs, and pollution control expenditures.
Mutual Water Company—means a private corporation or association organized for the
purposes of delivering water to its stockholders and members at cost, including use of works for
conserving, treating, and reclaiming water(Public Utilities Code Sections 2725-2729).
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program —means a
program that controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into
waters of the United States. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-
made ditches.
Non-profit Organization—means any non-profit corporation qualified to do business in
California and qualified under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (Water Code
section 79702(p)).
Overdraft—means the condition of the groundwater basin or aquifer where the average annual
amount of water extracted exceeds the average annual supply of water to a basin or aquifer.
Person—includes any city, county, district, the state, and the United States, to the extent
authorized by federal law.
Pollution—an alteration of the quality of the waters of the state by waste to a degree which
unreasonably affects either of the following: 1)the waters for beneficial uses; or 2)facilities
which serve these beneficial uses. "Pollution" may include"contamination"(Water Code section
13050(1)).
Project—means the entire set of activities, including, but not limited to, planning, permitting,
constructing, monitoring, and reporting that is included in a request for grant funding from an
applicant.
Project Area—means the geographical boundaries, as defined by the applicant that
encompass the area where the project will be implemented 1 constructed, including the area
where the benefits and impacts of project implementation or planning activities extend.
Proposal--means all of the supporting documentation submitted that details the project and
actions that are proposed for funding pursuant to an application for a grant.
Proposition 1 —means the"Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of
2014" passed by California voters on November 4, 2014, and as set forth in Division 26.7 of the
Water Code.
Public Agency—means any state agency or department, special district, JPA, city, county, city
and county, or other political subdivision of the state (Water Code section 79702(s)).
Public Utility—means an entity as defined in Public Utilities Code Section 216.
Regional Water Board—means any California Regional Water Board as specified in section
13200 of the Water Code.
Reimbursable Costs—means costs that may be repaid by state grant funds.
Scoring Criteria—means the set of requirements used by the State Water Board to evaluate a
proposal for funding.
Severely Disadvantaged Community (SDAC)—means a community with a median household
income of less than sixty (60) percent of the statewide average. (Water Code section 79702(v)
which cross references to Health and Safety Code Section 116760.20).
Stakeholder—means an individual, group, coalition, agency, or other entity that is involved in,
affected by, or has an interest in the implementation of a specific program or project.
Superfund—refers to the program administered by the U.S. EPA under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).
-30-
Sustainable Groundwater Management--means the management and use of groundwater in
a manner that can be maintained during the planning and implementation horizon without
causing undesirable results (Water Code section 10721(u).
Technical Reviewers—means a group of DFAOivis&e staff assembled to evaluate the
technical competence of a proposed project and the feasibility of the project being successful if
implemented. Representatives from the Regional Water Boards, DTSC, DWR, and/or other
State Water Board divisions may also be invited to participate as technical reviewers.
Undesirable Result—means one or more of the following effects caused by groundwater
conditions occurring throughout the basin (Water Code section 10721(w)):
1. Chronic lowering of groundwater levels indicating a significant and unreasonable
depletion of supply if continued over the planning and implementation horizon. Overdraft
during a period of drought is not sufficient to establish a chronic lowering of groundwater
levels if extractions and recharge are managed as necessary to ensure that reductions
in groundwater levels or storage during a period of drought are offset by increases in
groundwater levels or storage during other periods.
2. Significant and unreasonable reduction of groundwater storage.
3. Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion.
4. Significant and unreasonable degraded water quality, including the migration of
contaminant plumes that impair water supplies.
5. Significant and unreasonable land subsidence that substantially interferes with surface
land uses.
6. Depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable
adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water.
Urban Water Supplier—means a supplier, either publicly or privately owned, that provides
water for municipal purposes, either directly or indirectly, to more than 3,000 customers or
supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually (Water Code section 10617).
Useful Life—refers to the length of time that a funded project must be operated and maintained
in order to achieve the environmental outcome identified in the applicable grant agreement. The
useful life can also refer to the length of time that the environmental outcome of a funded project
will be sustained, after the funded project is no longer operated or maintained. The useful life
must be at least 20 years.
Waste—includes sewage and any and all other waste substances, liquid, solid, gaseous, or
radioactive, associated with human habitation, or of human or animal origin, or from any
producing, manufacturing, or processing operation, including waste placed within containers of
whatever nature prior to, and for purposes of, disposal.
Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs)—means requirements that are adopted by the State
or Regional Water Boards to regulate the discharge of waste to protect the waters of the state in
accordance with the applicable Water Quality Control Plan and other statewide policies or plans.
-31-
APPENDIX B: REQUESTS FOR REDUCED FUNDING MATCH FOR
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES AND ECONOMICALLY DISTRESSED
AREAS
BA PURPOSE
The purpose of this Appendix is to provide a method for demonstrating eligibility for the reduced
funding match for the Groundwater Grant Program. At a minimum, the following information
must be included in the application:
• A map with sufficient geographic detail to define the boundaries of the overlying drinking
water entity's service area (if applicable), the DACIEDA, -and the project construction
and benefit areas (applicants with GIS should provide a shapefile(s) of water system
boundaries and/or claimed protect benefit areas, if such files are available);;
• Description of the method used in determining the total population of the proposed
DACIEDA. The applicant must identify what census geographies (e.g., census
designated place, census tract, census block group) were used, and how they were
applied. Also, the applicant must explain how the DACs/EDAs were identified;
• Annual MH1 data for the DACIEDA in the project area;
• Information on amount and type of direct benefit the project provides to the DACs1EDAs
may vary and will be dependent upon the project type;
o For cleanup,proiects (planning or implementation) that provide clean drinking
water as a direct end use the benefitting water purveyor(s) entire service area is
generally considered the benefit area;
o For source area cleanup projects(planning or implementation), the Census
Bureau Block Group(s) population within the investigation or clean up area, is
generally considered the benefit area:
o For prevention type proiects (planning or implementation), applicants must show
or describe the area that is claimed to benefit from contamination prevention as a
result of the protect;
• Descriptions or information on the DACIEDA involvement, such as past, current, and
future efforts to include DACIEDA representatives in the planning and/or implementation
process; and
• Letters of support from representatives of the DACIEDA indicating their support for the
project or component of the proposal designed to provide direct benefit to the DACIEDA
and acknowledging their inclusion in the planning and/or implementation process.
The following data requirements must be met, for the entire claimed benefit area:
• MHI and population data must be from the 2010 or later United States Census Bureau
(Census Bureau) data sets, or an income/population survey if no representative census
data are available; and
• MHI and population data used in analysis must be from the same time period and
geography.
To determine whether the project is located within an EDA, please refer to DWR's website at:
hftp://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/grants/resources—eda.cfm.
-32-
B.2 ALLOWANCES
For assistance with accessing census data see the Census Bureau American Fact Finder
website (http://factfinder.census.gov/). Applicants may use a single type of census geography
or combinations of 2010 or later Census Bureau geographies in determining the MHI and
population for DACs and the project area. However, the census geography that is used must be
consistent for both MHI and population. Official census geographies, such as census tract,
place, and block group, are acceptable.
B.3 STEPS TO REQUEST A REDUCED FUNDING MATCH
Step A. Documentation of the Presence of DACs1EDAs: The project must directly benefit a
DACIEDA. If the project is not directly benefit a DACs1EDA, do not apply for a
reduced funding match. The DACIEDA should be identified in the description of the
project area in the Proposal. Applicants should ensure that the description of the
DACIEDA is sufficient to determine whether the community meets the applicable
definition. The DACIEDA should also be shown on maps of the project area. In
describing the DACIEDA, include the relationship to the project objectives and
information that supports the determination of DACIEDA in the project area.
Step B. Documentation of DACIEDA Representation &Participation: The mere presence
of a project within a DACIEDA area is not sufficient cause to grant a reduction of the
funding match. The DACIEDA must be involved in the implementation process.
Supporting information that demonstrates how the DACIEDA is, or will be, involved in
the implementation process of the project must be included. Information must
demonstrate how the DACIEDA or their representatives are participating in the
implementation process. As indicated above, include letters from the DACIEDA
representatives that verify support of and inclusion and participation in the process. If
DACIEDA representation or participation in the implementation process cannot
be demonstrated, do not apply for a reduced funding match.
Step C. Benefits and Impacts to DACs1EDAs: The applicant must explain anticipated
benefits and impacts to the DACIEDA in their project area for the specific work item in
their proposal. The explanation should include the nature of the anticipated benefit,
the certainty that benefit will accrue if the project is implemented, and which
DACIEDA in the project area will benefit and/or be impacted.
For assistance with accessing census data, see the Census Bureau's website
(http://www.census.gov/#) or American Fact Finder website
(http://factfinder.census.gov/). Include the method used for population determination,
the population of the project area, population of DACs/EDAs in the project area, MHI
data for DACs1EDAs, and calculation of the reduced funding match.
Step D. Determining Funding Match Reduction: The applicant must provide a proposed
funding match reduction and justification for the proposed reduction. DFA 4isi
staff will review the information submitted by the applicant to develop a recommended
match reduction based on the requirements in Section 5.4.1. Match reduction for
drinking water treatment and septic-to-sewer projects will be determined as discussed
on Section 5.4.2. The DFA will make the ultimate determination on approved match
reductions.
-33-
Exhibit B-1: Certification of Understanding
The undersigned certifies that:
The application submitted by <Insert Name of Applicants for<Insert Proposal Title> for a
Proposition 1 Groundwater Grant Program contains a request for a reduction of the funding
match based on <°small & severely disadvantaged", "disadvantaged". or"economically
distressed area"> community status.
The above named applicant understands:
• The reduction of the funding match presented in the application is a request that will not
be automatically granted.
• State Water Board staff will review the DAC/EDA information submitted in the application
prior to malting a decision to accept, modify, or deny such a reduction.
• Should the proposal be chosen for funding, but the requested reduction in funding match
is rejected or modified, the grantee is responsible for costs exceeding the grant funding
amount to complete the project and any additional required match.
• The State Water Board will rescind the grant award if the grantee cannot either:
1. Cover the increased costs and/or match due to rejection or modification of the
request for reduction in the funding match; or
2. Adequately restructure the grant proposal within the available budget, while still
meeting the intent of the original proposal.
Authorized Signature:
Printed Name:
Title:
Agency:
Date:
-34-
APPENDIX C: NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBE NOTIFICATION
Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 requires the CEQA lead agency to consider project
effects on tribal cultural resources and to conduct consultation with California Native American
tribes. The State Water Board recommends using the OPR's procedures for tribal consultation
for General Plans and Specific Plans as guidance to meeting the Native American Tribe
Notification requirement. The notification process a lead agency uses may include the following
steps:
• Determine if the proposed project is a project under CEQA.
• If the project will use a negative declaration or an EIR to comply with CEQA and the
CEQA document was not adopted by March 1, 2009, tribal notification is required prior to
adoption of the CEQA document.
• To determine which tribes may have traditional lands located within the project area,
send a request to the NAHC using the NAHC request form which can be found at the
following link: http://nahc.ca.eov/resources/forms/. Expect a reply within 30 days.
• Once tribal information from NAHC is received, notify tribes of the project nature and
project location.
• Allow tribes 90 days to reply to the notification.
• Solicit input from tribes that respond to the notification.
• Consider tribal input to the project prior to adoption of a negative declaration or EI R.
The above notification process follows OPR's procedures for tribal consultation for General
Plans and Specific Plans. Further information on tribal consultation can be found at the
following link: http://www.opr.ca.gov/s localandtribalinteraovernmentalconsultation.php
Contact information for the NAHC is as follows:
Tribal Advisor
Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Executive Secretary, Native American Heritage Commission
1550 Harbor Blvd. Suite 100
West Sacramento, California 95691
(916) 373-3710
(916) 373-5471
nahc@nahc.ca.gov
http://nahc.ca.gov/
-35-
APPENDIX D: GUIDELINES FOR GRANTEES
The lists below details the documents/records that State Auditors would need to review in the
event of a grant being audited. Grantees should ensure that such records are maintained for
each funded project for a minimum of three years after termination of the grant agreement.
Internal Controls
1) Organization chart(e.g. the Grantee's overall organization chart and organization chart
for the grant funded Program/Project)
2) Written internal procedures and flowcharts for the following:
a) Receipts, deposits, and disbursements
b) State reimbursement requests
c) Grant expenditure tracking
d) Guidelines, policy, and procedures on grant funded Program/Project
3) Audit reports of the Agency's internal control structure and/or financial statements within
the last three years
4) Prior audit reports on grant funded Program/Project
Grants
1) Original grant agreement, any amendment(s), and budget modification documents
2) A listing of all bond-funded grants received from the state
3) A listing of all other funding sources for each Program/Project
Contracts
1) All subcontractor and consultant contracts and related or partners documents, if
applicable
2) Contracts between the Agency and member agencies as related to the grant funded
Program/Project
Invoices
1) Invoices from vendors and subcontractors for expenditures submitted to the state for
payments under the grant
2) Documentation linking subcontractor invoices to state reimbursement requests and
related grant budget line items
3) Reimbursement requests submitted to the state for the grant
Cash Documents
1) Receipts (copies of warrants) showing payments received from the state
2) Deposit slips (or bank statements) showing deposit of the payments received from the
state
3) Cancelled checks or disbursement documents showing payments made to vendors,
subcontractors, consultants, and/or agents under the grant
4) Bank statements showing the deposit of the receipts
Accounting Records
1) Ledgers showing entries for grant receipts and cash disbursements
2) Ledgers showing receipts and cash disbursement entries of other funding sources
3) Bridging documents that tie the general ledger to requests for grant reimbursement
-36-
Administration Costs
1) Supporting documents showing the calculation of administration costs
Personnel
1) List of all contractors and Grantee's staff that worked on the grant-funded project
2) Payroll records including timesheets for contractor staff and the Grantee's personnel
who provided services charged to the project
Project Files
1) All supporting documentation maintained in the project files
2) All grant-related correspondence
-37-
APPENDIX E: PLANNING PROPOSAL EVALUATION SCORING CRITERIA
1. Eligibility Review
The Eligibility Review includes a simple "Yes/No" determination as to whether the proposal
includes the information requested. Proposals which do not receive a "Yes" determination for
all questions will not be considered for funding.
2. Evaluation Scoring Criteria
The Evaluation Scoring Criteria require the reviewer to determine how well the proposal
addresses the evaluation question. Four to five points will be given if the proposal addresses
the question well and no changes are needed to fund. One to three points will be given if the
proposal addresses the question to some degree, but changes are needed to fund. No points
are given if the proposal does not address the evaluation question. The Evaluation Scoring
Criteria also include "Yes/No" questions. These questions are evaluated so that five points, or
more, will be given for each "Yes" determination while"No" determinations will receive zero
points.
Please note that the Eligibility Review and Evaluation Scoring Criteria include the same
questions considered "critical_'14. Critical questions will be evaluated with a "Yes/No"
determination in the Eligibility review and will be scored during the evaluation review.
A bonus of up to 15 points will be given for projects that directly benefit DACs or EDAs.
14 An"*"is used to designate"critical"evaluation questions.
-38-
APPENDIX E: PLANNING PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA
-
> ,,PROPOStTION11 GROUND'WA`'I'ERSCRANT PROGRAM PLANNING PROPOS�A�r
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA NO, KEY
1. Is the applicant an eligible entity?
2. Does the proposal provide a summary of existing
information, technical description and discussion that
demonstrates that a critical information gap will be
addressed by the planning project?*
3. Does the proposal, including the identified project goals and
purpose:
a. Provide a clear and well supported description of how
the proposed planning project will lead to
implementation of a contamination cleanup or
prevention project?*
b. Demonstrate that the anticipated implementation
project, supported by the planning project, is consistent
with one or more Proposition 1 prioritization criteria
(Water Code section 79771(b)(1-5) (see Section 2.1)?*
c. Demonstrate that the anticipated implementation
project, supported by the planning project, is consistent Applicant must
with State Water Board requirements and preferences receive a"fes"
(see Sections 2.2 and 2.3)?* to be eligible for
d. Demonstrate that the anticipated implementation proposal
project, supported by the planning project, addresses a evaluation
significant groundwater contamination problem based
on best estimates of the anticipated implementation
project benefits?*
4. Does the proposal include:
a. The detailed work tasks necessary to complete the
project and the deliverables expected to be completed
for each task?*
b. A detailed description and technical justification for the
methodology or study design the project is proposing to
use and the feasibility of the approach?*
c. A discussion of the scientific and technical information
that will be collected or assessed to achieve the project
goals and purpose?*
d. A discussion of the alternatives to achieving the project
purpose and how the proposed project is the lowest cost
alternative for achieving the project purpose?*
-39-
APPENDIX E: PLANNING PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA
L -! es rfi '{. wv4�^ y- .< .� ar r r't.- ✓ - ` �v �'r -� f s
's �;,,PROP�}SITION�1rGROUNDrWATER GRAN�T�PROGRAIVI�PIrANN[yy�,,IG�,ROPOSQL� ',, ,,'s
�� 5r:,,.-n "�5 y. - U 3� > �4�,Z. �" .'."�"'��a ' F -�'` �"' -1"^�.✓✓�2'.�'"�y ,,aa., �ia� �Y'� -',, �. nfs�f 'Sj> � �tJ'� ��
YES/
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA NO KEY
5. Based on the proposed schedule and deliverables, can the Applicant must
project be completed within the appropriation timeframe?* receive a"Yes'
to be eligible for
6. Does the summary budget table and narrative justify the proposal
project costs?Are the costs reasonable?* evaluation
Yes=Proposal
7. Indicate whether the application should be assigned for will be scored.
review and scoring based on the answers to questions
No o=Proposal
will not be
scored.
-40-
APPENDIX E: PLANNING PROPOSAL EVALUATION SCORING CRITERIA
SCORED CRITERIA
ProJectrApplicant Background-40 Points
1. Does the proposal:
a. Describe the beneficial use(s), water quality and quantity issues present, and
ongoing efforts to address issues within the groundwater basin? (Yes = 5 points,
No = 0 points)
b. Describe current and proposed projects within the basin that address groundwater
contamination? (Yes= 5 points, No = 0 points)
c. Describe the roles and responsibilities of the applicant and cooperating entities in
the project? (Yes = 5 points, No = 0 points)
2. Has the applicant and its technical team (if identified) conducted similar projects and
demonstrated an ability to complete projects on time and within scope and budget?
3. Does the proposal:
a. Provide a complete description of the extent to which a search for Responsible
Parties/Potentially Responsible Parties has been conducted?
b. Provide a complete and accurate description of the known responsible
party/potentially responsible party(ies) in relation to the proposed project?
c. Clearly describe the relationship between the proposed project and any other
planning or monitoring efforts that are addressing critical information gaps?
d. Provide a summary of existing information, technical description and discussion
that demonstrates that a critical information gap will be addressed by the planning
project?*
Program Priorities, Requirements and Preferences-25 Points
4. Does the proposal, including the identified project goals and purpose:
a. Provide a clear and well supported description of how the proposed planning
project will lead to implementation of a contamination cleanup or prevention
project?*
b. Demonstrate that the anticipated implementation project, supported by the planning
project, is consistent with one or more Proposition 1 prioritization criteria (Water
Code section 79771(b)(1-5) (see Section 2.1)?*
c. Demonstrate that the anticipated implementation project, supported by the planning
project, is consistent with State Water Board requirements and preferences (see
Sections 2.2 and 2.3)?*
d. Demonstrate that the anticipated implementation project, supported by the planning
project, addresses a significant groundwater contamination problem based on best
estimates of the anticipated implementation project benefits?*
e. Include the use of new and innovative technologies (or approaches)?
(Yes = 5 points, No = 0 points)
-41-
APPENDIX E: PLANNING PROPOSAL EVALUATION SCORING CRITERIA
SCORED CRITERIA
Scope of Work=40.Points
5. Does the proposaUproject include sufficient justification and provide:
a. Adequate and appropriate stakeholder involvement and include sufficient public
outreach?
b. Include a discussion of any applicable required permits and landowner/access
agreements to implement the project? (Yes = 5 points, No = 0 points)
c. The detailed work tasks necessary to complete the project and the deliverables
expected to be completed for each task?*
d. A detailed description and technical justification for the methodology or study
design the project is proposing to use and the feasibility of the approach?*
e. A discussion of the scientific and technical information that will be collected or
assessed to achieve the project goals and purpose?*
f. A discussion of how the applicant will ensure the validity and quality of the
information produced by the proposed project?
g. A discussion of how the information and data will be stored and managed and
presented in any reports produced?
h. A discussion of the alternatives to achieving the project purpose and how the
proposed project is the lowest cost alternative for achieving the project purpose?*
Schedule—.15 Points
6. Will the project be completed in a timeframe required for the next phase of the overall
project (e.g., FS, remedial design, pilot study)?
7. Does the proposal include a schedule that is consistent with and reasonable given the
tasks described in the Scope of Work and the available budget?
8. Based on the proposed schedule and deliverables, can the project be completed within
the appropriation timeframe?*
Budget-15 Points
9. Does the summary budget table and narrative justify the project costs?Are the costs
reasonable?*
10.Are the tasks shown in the budget consistent with the tasks shown in the work plan and
schedule?
11. Does the proposal include leveraging of other funding sources (i.e., private, federal or
local) and are the sources of matching funds clearly committed and well-documented?
(Yes = 5 points, No = 0 points)
-42-
APPENDIX E: PLANNING PROPOSAL EVALUATION SCORING CRITERIA
SCORED CRITERIA
DAC/EDA—15 Possible Points
12. Does the implementation project, supported by the planning project proposal, identify
project benefits to SDACs/DACs1EDAs and are the anticipated benefits sufficiently
justified?
13. Does the applicant provide sufficient documentation that the project is supported by
representatives of the SDACs/DACs/EDAs that are anticipated to benefit from the
implementation project?
OVERALL TOTAL POINTS: 150
-43-
APPENDIX F: IMPLEMENTATION PROPOSAL EVALUATION SCORING
CRITERIA
The proposal evaluation scoring for implementation projects includes an eligibility review and
evaluation scoring criteria:
1. Eligibility Review
The Eligibility Review includes a simple"Yes/No" determination as to whether the proposal
includes the information requested. Proposals which do not receive a "Yes" determination for
all questions will not be considered for funding.
2. Evaluation Scoring Criteria
The Evaluation Scoring Criteria requires the reviewer to determine how well the proposal
addresses the evaluation question. Four to five points will be given if the proposal addresses
the question well and no changes are needed to fund. One to three points will be given if the
proposal addresses the question to some degree, but changes are needed to fund. No points
are given if the proposal does not address the evaluation question. The evaluation scoring
criteria also include"Yes/No" questions. These questions are evaluated so that five points, or
more, will be given for each "Yes" determination while"No" determinations will receive zero
points.
Please note that the Eligibility Review and Evaluation Scoring Criteria include the same
questions considered "critical".eik5- Critical questions will be evaluated with a "YeslNo"
determination in the Eligibility review and will also be scored during the evaluation review.
A bonus of up to 20 points will be given for projects that benefit DACs or EDAs.
15 An`"is used to designate"critical'evaluation questions.
-44-
APPENDIX F: IMPLEMENTATION PROPOSAL EVALUATION SCORING
CRITERIA
f u_"gag
3 t"r✓ "z ,y 3 ;> s- cam
PROPQSITION 1 GROUNDWATER GRANT NPROGRAM`IMPLEMENTATION PROPOSAL
YES/
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA NO KEY
1. Is the applicant an eligible entity?
2. Is the project coordinated with cooperating entities such as;
a water master(for adjudicated basins); federal, state, and
local regulatory agencies; and any community organizations
and is there documented support for the project from
cooperating entities?*
3. Does the applicant demonstrate the required TMF capacity
necessary for successful long-term O&M of the project?*
4. Does the proposal, including the identified project goals and
purpose, as described:
a. Address one or more Proposition 1 prioritization criteria Applicant must
(Water Code section 79771(b)(1-5) (see Section 2.1)?* receive a"Yes"
b. Address the State Water Board requirements (see to be eligible for
Section 2.2)7* proposal
c. Address one or more State Water Board preferences evaluation
(see Section 2.3)?*
d. Address a significant groundwater contamination
problem based on best estimates of the anticipated
project benefits(by prevention or cleanup of
contamination)?*
e. Provide the lowest cost alternative for achieving the
project purpose and adequately considered other
alternatives?*
5. Has the applicant estimated one or more of the metrics of
success (see Section 8) and are the estimates reasonable
for the project? Are the goals and targets reasonable and
feasible within the life of the project?*
-45-
APPENDIX F: IMPLEMENTATION PROPOSAL EVALUATION SCORING
CRITERIA
PRKOPOSITIONAk"0{OUNDWATER GRANTPROGRAM<1MPLEMENTATION PROR
OPOSkR
AL$ h
,ter F7?,'-...,:':: 5t'?,s?.:��_.".:; r.����s eN;�,.n A.a>•,i,<,,�.q..,..>x._
-`y,
-.� �2i9nris����32T. Cr�44�y�y ��. '�z e l i. � Nv- ,�. P •- Y.`z', `< 2a
� ` 3 EVALUATION�`ELlGIBILITY.REVIEW ?�- < �r ,
YES/
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA NO KEY.
6. Does the proposal include:
a. A detailed description of the technology and practices
the project is proposing to use and adequate justification
for the technical basis of the approach?*
b. The supporting engineering calculations to demonstrate
that the project will achieve its purpose?*
c. The detailed tasks and deliverables necessary to
complete the project?
d.—Adequate technical justification that completion of the
tasks are appropriate and necessary to achieve the
project purpose?*
d:e. A discussion on the required permits, environmental Applicant must
documentation f CEQAI National Environmental Policy receive a"Yes'
Act f NEPAI), and landowner/access agreements to be eligible for
required to undertake the project?* proposal
evaluation
7. Based on the proposed schedule and deliverables, can the
project be completed within the appropriation timeframe?*
8. Do the summary budget table, narrative, and supporting
cost documentation justify the project costs?Are the costs
reasonable?*
9. Was a cost-benefit analysis provided justifying the proposed
project relative to other feasible alternatives?*
10. Indicate whether the application should be assigned for Yes=Proposal
review and scoring based on the answers to questions will be scored.
above. No=Proposal
will not be
scored.
-46-
APPENDIX F: IMPLEMENTATION PROPOSAL EVALUATION SCORING
CRITERIA
SCORED CRITERIA
ProjectlApplicant Background;-55 Points
1. Does the proposal provide the following to support and justify the project:
a. An accurate and complete summary of other work completed to address the
groundwater contamination and the relation of this project to other efforts?
b. Accurate and complete regional and project maps depicting the site location,
lateral and vertical extent of contaminated groundwater, location of production
wells, location of any injection wells and area to be remediated?
c. A description of the groundwater basin, beneficial uses, and groundwater quality
issues especially related to chemicals of concern (CDCs) and their impact on
drinking water sources? (Yes = 5 points, No = 0 points)
d. Accurate and complete identification of contaminant source area(s) associated
with the project area?
e. Accurate and complete summary of the data available on the COCs and any
changes in the extent of the plume and COC levels over time?
f. Description of consistency with any applicable groundwater management plan,
court decree (for an adjudicated basin), salt and nutrient management plan, and
other regulatory orders or requirements?
2. Does the proposal:
a. Provide a complete description of the extent to which a search for responsible
party(ies)/potentially responsible party(ies) has been conducted?
b. Provide a complete and accurate description of the known responsible
party/potentially responsible party(ies) in relation to the proposed project?
3. Has the applicant and its technical team (if identified) conducted similar projects and
demonstrated an ability to complete projects on time and within scope and budget?
4. How well is the project coordinated with cooperating entities such as; a water master
(for adjudicated basins); federal, state, and local regulatory agencies; and any
community organizations and is there documented support for the project from
cooperating entities?*
5. Does the applicant demonstrate the required TMF capacity necessary for successful
long-term O&M of the project?*
-47-
APPENDIX F: IMPLEMENTATION PROPOSAL EVALUATION SCORING
CRITERIA
SCORED CRITERIA
Program Priorities, Requirements,.and Preferences,-35 Points
6. Does the proposal, including the identified project goals and purpose, provide sufficient
justification that the project, as described:
a. Address one or more Proposition 1 prioritization criteria (Water Code section
79771(b)(1-5) (see Section 2.1)?*
b. Address the State Water Board requirements (see Section 2.2)?*
c. Address one or more State Water Board preferences (see Section 2.3)?*
d. Address a significant groundwater contamination problem based on best
estimates of the anticipated project benefits (by prevention or cleanup of
contamination)?*
e. Provide the lowest cost alternative for achieving the project purpose and
adequately considered other alternatives?*
7. Does the project include the use of new and innovative technology (or approaches)?
(Yes = 5 points, No = 0 points)
8. Has the applicant estimated one or more of the metrics of success (see Section 8) and
are the estimates reasonable for the project? Are the goals and targets reasonable
and feasible within the life of the project?*
Scope.of.Work 40 Points
9. Does the proposal include sufficient justification and provide:
a. A detailed description of the technology and practices the project is proposing to
use and adequate justification for the technical basis of the approach?*
b. The supporting engineering calculations to demonstrate that the project will
achieve its purpose?*
c. The detailed tasks and deliverables necessary to complete the project?
d. Adequate technical justification that completion of the tasks are appropriate and
necessary to achieve the project purpose?*
e. Adequate and appropriate stakeholder involvement and include sufficient public
outreach?
f. An adequate description of how the proposed project is consistent with or is the
appropriate next phase to address the contamination?
g. A discussion on the required permits, environmental documentation (CEQAI
National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA]), and landowner/access agreements
required to implement the project?*
h. A description of the status of any design plans and specifications?
(Yes = 5 points, No = 0 points)
-48-
APPENDIX F: IMPLEMENTATION PROPOSAL EVALUATION SCORING
CRITERIA
SCORED CRITERIA ,
Schedule."20 Points
10. Does the proposal include a description of any key decision points, milestones, or
deliverables that could impact project scope, cost, and schedule?
11. Will the project be completed in a timeframe required for the next phase of the overall
project, if applicable?
12. Does the proposal include a schedule that is consistent with and reasonable given the
tasks described in the Scope of Work and the available budget?
13. Based on the proposed schedule and deliverables, can the project be completed within
the appropriation timeframe?*
Budget-25 Points
14. Do the summary budget table, narrative, and supporting cost documentation justify the
project costs?Are the costs reasonable?*
15. Are the tasks shown in the budget consistent with the tasks shown in the work plan
and schedule?
16. Was a cost-benefit analysis provided justifying the proposed project relative to other
feasible alternatives?*
17. Are the benefits significant given the cost of the project?
18. Does the proposal include leveraging of other funding sources (i.e., private, federal or
local) and are the sources of matching funds clearly committed and well-documented?
(Yes = 5 points, No = 0 points)
Performance Evaluation and Monitoring-15 Points
19. Does the proposal include sufficient justification and provide a discussion of the
proposed data collection and monitoring and how that data will be managed and
reported?
20. Will the measurement tools and methods effectively monitor project performance and
target progress?
21. Is the proposed monitoring appropriate for the benefits claimed, and the process for
which it will be tracked discussed?
DACIEDA—20 Points
22. Does the implementation project, supported by the planning project proposal indicate
project benefits to SDACs/DACs/EDAs and are the anticipated benefits sufficiently
justified?
23. Does the applicant provide sufficient documentation that the project is supported by
SDACs/DACs1EDAs that are anticipated to benefit from the implementation project?
OVERALL TOTAL POINTS: 210
-49-
APPENDIX G: REGIONAL WATER BOARD AND DIVISION OF DRINKING
WATER RESPONSIBILITIES
The Regional Water Board and/or the State Water Board DDW will assist DFADivision staff in
reviewing the scope, budget, and schedule of each Concept Proposals/Full Proposal
that is submitted and determined eligible for Proposition 9
Groundwater Grant Program funding. The level of involvement and review by both the Regional
Water Board and DDW will depend on the scope of the proposed project. The Regional Water
Board will assist the applicant in identifying responsible parties, when possible, or providing
information that will assist the applicant's search for responsible parties within the proposed
project area or areas that are adjacent to the project area, if necessary. The Regional Water
Board will also inform the applicant of any Water Board permit requirements for the proposed
project(e.g., WDRs, NPDES permits, Notices of Intent [NO[s]). To the extent feasible, the
Regional Water Board will inform the applicant of any other local ordinance requirements (e.g.
well construction permits by local environmental agency), under which the applicant may be
required to operate the proposed remediation facilities or conduct site investigations. Similarly,
the DDW will inform the applicant of any 1996 federal Safe Drinking Water Act(SDWA)
requirements that may require consideration in the applicant's project proposal.
-50-
APPENDIX H: RESPONSIBLE PARTY SEARCH
Water Code section 79771(c) states that funding authorized by this chapter (Chapter 10) shall
not be used to pay for costs of cleanup recovered from responsible parties. Furthermore, Water
Code section 79771(b)(5) states that prioritization of projects that are funded under this chapter
shall in part be based on if the project addresses contamination for which a responsible party
has not yet been identified or where the identified responsible party is unwilling or unable to pay
for the total cost of the cleanup. Water Code section 79771(c) also requires that the Grantee
exercise "reasonable efforts"to recover costs of the cleanup activities but does not specifically
define these requirements.
The aforementioned requirements will be addressed in two steps.
➢ In the Concept Proposal" �' inn the applicant is required to provide all available
information that was used to identify potentially responsible parties. If applicable, the
applicant is also required to determine financial viability of the potentially responsible
party.
In the Full Proposal, DFA staff will review all available
information submitted by the applicant and any additional information that is gathered
after consulting with regulatory agencies that have information or knowledge that is
directly or indirectly related to the proposed project and project area(s) described in the
application.
The applicant will have the responsibility to provide the following (minimum) information (as
applicable) pertaining to the property or area(s) that would be addressed by the project:
Property file searches
Online database searches such as Westlaw, etc.
➢ Conducting a tax and financial documents search
Providing title history reports and documents
➢ Performing corporate and other public documents search
➢ Performing property searches via assessor's office
Identifying and locating witnesses and other knowledgeable parties
➢ Providing lien information and moratorium documents
The information (above) should be reviewed by the applicant to determine if any viable
responsible parties should be contributing to the investigation and cleanup actions in the
proposed project area or any adjoining areas (not necessarily within the scope of the proposed
project).
Financial Status (Viability of Responsible Party)
An applicant seeking to determine the financial status (i.e., the viability) of a responsible party
should consider consulting the following resources and any other resources it may deem to be
useful to make this determination:
1. Responsible Party: Asir the responsible party for its financial information (tax returns, bank
statements, financial statements, insurance policies designed to address environmental
liabilities, etc.), especially if the responsible party is still associated with the site or is the
applicant, and, therefore, will receive the benefit of the grant. An applicant that is a
-51-
responsible party and claiming it is not viable should provide conclusive information, such as
an INDIPAY or MUNIPAY analysis, or its inability to pay for the assessment or cleanup.
2. Federal, State, and Local Records: federal, state, and local (i.e., county and city) records
often provide information on the status of a business. An applicant that is a state or local
government should, at the very least, search its own records for information on a
responsible party. Examples of such resources include regulatory records (e.g., state
hazardous waste records), Secretary of State databases, and property/land records.
3. Public and Commercial Financial Databases: Applicants also may obtain financial data from
publicly available and commercial sources. Please note that some commercial sources may
charge fees. The State Water Board does not endorse the use of any specific sources, and
will accept reliable data from other sources as part of a proposal for funding. Examples of
sources that could searched include: Lexis/Nexus, Dun & Bradstreet reports, Hoover's
Business Information, Edgar Database of Corporate Information, Thomas Register of
American Manufacturers, The Public Register, Corporate Annual Reports, Internet search
engines (Google, Ask).
The project solicitation package for the Full Proposal ilial Appi+oat+en will include additional
guidance on how applicants can evaluate and identify financial viability of a potentially
responsible party (i.e., financial means test).
-52-
APPENDIX I: TECHNICAL, MANAGERIAL, AND FINANCIAL CAPACITY
The federal SDWA required states to incorporate TMF capacity into Public Water System
(PWS) operations. This requirement helps ensure that PWSs have long-term sustainability and
are able to maintain compliance with all applicable drinking water laws and regulations.
The DFADivisisn recognizes that applicants (PWSs)that apply for funding have in many cases
been required to conduct a TMF capacity analysis to obtain construction financing from the
State Water Board's DWSREPrinkinn Wale.SR program. The TMF capacity analysis and the
required TMF elements that must be addressed for the DWSRFDFFnkiRg VVateF epi program
will in many cases be complimentary to the TMFT-F-M capacity that the applicant will be required
to have to operate and maintain a groundwater remediation system. O&M of projects that are
funded by the Groundwater Grant Program may, in some instances, be directly linked to the
PWS that previously was required to demonstrate TFM capacity.
The TMF capacity analysis for applicants that receive funding for groundwater remediation
facilities will be required to provide an assessment of the following TMF elements:
➢ System Description
➢ Certified Operators
➢ Operations Plan
➢ Training
➢ Organization
➢ Emergency Response Plan
➢ Policies
➢ Budget and Capital Improvement Plan
Applicants must demonstrate that these TMF elements have been satisfactorily assessed or will
be assessed prior to execution of the implementation grant agreement. The Full ProposaIF4na4
Appl+satien submittal package will include the appropriate TMF assessment forms, depending
on the applicant type. Applicants representing large PWSs (over 10,000 water service
connections) will be required to submit a self-certification form demonstrating capacity to
perform_the proposed prosect. Applicants representing small PWSs (less than 10,000 water
service connections) will be required to submit a_TMF assessment demonstrating the TMF 40F
fine-elements listed{above. TMF re uirements for all other applicants will be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis in consideration of the proposed project type.)~ During the Full
ProposalFinai-Applisatien step, DFA94Wee staff will review and comment on the TMF
assessment and will determine if all TMF elements have been satisfactorily addressed by the
applicant.
The applicant will be required to address any deficiencies in the assessment before the grant
agreement is completed, or the Deputy Director may require that TMF elements are adequately
addressed prior to funding the construction phase of a project. If necessary, DFAl3iviakep staff
will determine if the applicant requires technical assistance to ensure that all TMF elements will
be addressed.
-53-
=r.
�4"fir Gt>.lrr 0. 9:.. Jr•
Water Boards
State Water Resources Control Board
NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS,
PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, AND ADOPTION MEETING
DRAFT AMENDED
PROPOSITION 1 GROUNDWATER GRANT PROGRAM FUNDING GUIDELINES
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water
Board) will receive public comments on the Draft Amended Proposition 1 Groundwater Grant
Program (GWGP) Funding Guidelines (Amended Guidelines), dated October 2017.
NOTICE IS ADDITIONALLY HEREBY GIVEN that State Water Board staff will conduct one
public outreach meeting. Interested parties may provide oral comments on the Draft Amended
Guidelines at this workshop. Details of the meeting are provided below.
Thursday, November 2, 2017--1:00 p.m.
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board —Sacramento Office
11020 Sun Center Drive, Suite 200
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
NOTICE IS ADDITIONALLY HEREBY GIVEN that State Water Board will hold a public Board
Workshop to hear public comments on the Draft Amended Guidelines. Details of the Board
Workshop are provided below.
Tuesday, November 7, 2017—Time and Location are To Be Determined
Please note, this State Water Board Workshop will be held in Los Angeles, not Sacramento.
Please check the State Water Board Agenda for final location of this workshop, to be released
at least ten days prior to the Workshop. Agenda information can be found here:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board info/calendar/index.shtml#nov17
NOTICE IS ADDITIONALLY HEREBY GIVEN that the State Water Board will consider adoption
of the Amended Guidelines at the Tuesday, December 5, 2017 State Water Board Meeting.
The location and start time of the Board meeting are provided below:
Tuesday, December 5, 2017—9:30 a.m.
Joe Serna Jr. CaIEPA Headquarters Building
Coastal Hearing Room
1001 1 Street, Second Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
j Gni.._
- 2-
BACKGROUND
Proposition 1 authorizes $800 million to the State Water Board to provide competitive grants for
projects that prevent or clean up the contamination of groundwater that serves or has served as
a source of drinking water (California Water Code§ 79771). The Proposition 1 GWGP Funding
Guidelines, which were initially adopted by the State Water Board on May 18, 2016, outline the
process to solicit applications, criteria to evaluate and select eligible proposals, and
requirements that apply to funded projects.
Division of Financial Assistance (DFA) staff are completing the evaluation of proposals and
award of funds for the first round of funding (Round 1). DFA intends to have annual solicitations
for projects until all GWGP funds have been expended. In anticipation of the second round of
funding (Round 2)to occur in 2018, staff have proposed amendments to the Guidelines to
provide clarification on funding eligibility, general program requirements and expectations, and
to make changes to the maximum funding amounts.
DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY
The Draft Amended Guidelines are available for review online at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues) rorams) rants loans) ro osition1/groundwater
susta inabil ity.shtm I
You may also request a paper copy of the Draft Amended Guidelines by contacting
Ms. Erin Crandall at(916) 319-8263 or Erin.CrandalI@waterboards.ca.gov.
Staff intend to present the Draft Amended Guidelines to the State Water Board for consideration
of adoption at the December 5, 2017 Board Meeting. After reviewing public comments and
input from the public meeting and workshop, an updated version of the Draft Amended
Guidelines will be posted for public comment prior to the December 5, 2017 Board Meeting.
This will occur as part of the regular State Water Board Meeting Agenda process, at:
http:lfwww.waterboards.ca.gov/board info/calendar.
SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS
The State Water Board will accept written comments on the Draft Guidelines. To submit written
comments, please use the subject line: "Comment Letter.- Proposition 1 Groundwater
Grant Program Funding Guidelines". Written comments must be received by 12:00 noon on
Thursday, November 9, 2017 and should be submitted to the attention of:
Jeanine Townsend, Clerk to the Board
State Water Resources Control Board
1001 1 Street, 24th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Comment letters may be submitted to Cleric to the Board via email (if less than 15 megabytes)
at commentletters@waterboards.ca.gov. If the electronic comment letter is greater than
15 megabytes, it may be submitted by fax at(916) 341-5620. Couriers delivering hard copies of
comment letters must check in with lobby security personnel, who can contact Ms. Townsend at
(916) 341-5600
- 3-
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
At the November 7, 2017 State Water Board Workshop, a quorum of the State Water Board
may be present; however, no Board action will be taken at the workshop. At the
December 5, 2017 State Water Board Meeting, the Board will consider adoption of the
Guidelines. Participants will be given the opportunity to speak to the Board directly during the
Board Workshop and to summarize and supplement their written materials with oral
presentations during the Board Meeting. There will be no sworn testimony or cross-examination
of participants. However, the State Water Board and its staff may ask clarifying questions. To
ensure a productive and efficient Board Meeting, the Board may limit the time for oral
comments.
For recommendations regarding presentations to the Board, please go to:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board info/meetings/board presentations.shtm1.
WORKSHOP AND MEETING LOCATIONS
November 2, 2017, Public Meeting
Spaces for in-person attendance at the Sacramento public workshop are limited. You may
register to attend at:
https:llwww.eventbrite.com/e/public-workshop-for-draft-prop-1-qw-grant-r)rgrm-funding_
g uidel ine-revisions-tickets-38399815883
Individuals requiring special accommodations or language interpretation services should contact
Ms. Marina Perez at the State Water Board at least 14 days before the public workshop at
(916) 322-4265 or at.Marina.Pereza-waterboards.ca.gov.
A broadcast of the Sacramento public meeting will be available online at:
https:llvideo.calepa.ca.gov/
November 7, 2017, State Water Board Workshop
Please note, this State Water Board Workshop will be held in Los Angeles, not Sacramento.
For more details about this workshop please go to:
http:ilwww.waterboards.ca.gov/board info1calendar/index.shtm1#nov17
December 5, 2017, State Water Board Meeting
For directions to the Joe Serna, Jr. (CaIEPA) Building and public parking information, please
refer to this website: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/headquarters-sacramento/location/. The CaIEPA
Building is accessible to persons with disabilities. Individuals requiring special accommodations
are requested to call (916) 341-5881 at least five working days prior to the meeting. TDD users
may contact the California Relay Service at (800) 735-2929 or voice line at(800) 735-2922. A
broadcast of the meeting will be available via the internet and can be accessed at
https:iivideo.calepa.ca.gov/.
All visitors to the CaIEPA Building are required to sign in and obtain a badge at the Visitor
Services Center located just inside the main entrance (10th Street entrance). Valid picture
identification may be required. Please allow up to 15 minutes for security clearance.
For more details about this meeting please go to:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board infolcalendarlindex.shtml
_q._
FUTURE NOTICES
The State Water Board will hold the public outreach meeting, Board workshop, and adoption
meeting at the times and places noted above. Any change in the date, time, and place of the
public outreach meeting, Board workshop, or adoption meeting, or to the public comment period
will be provided via the State Water Board email distribution list. Any person desiring to receive
future notices concerning the Amended Guidelines must subscribe to the State Water Board's
email distribution list. The subscription form is located at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/resources/email subscriptionslswrcb subscnbe.shtmi.
To subscribe, select the "Financial Assistance (Grants and Loans)" category, then check the
box for"Groundwater Quality Funding Assistance," and provide the required information.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Please direct all questions regarding this notice and the Guidelines to Ms. Erin Crandall at
(916) 319-8263 or Erin.Crandal]CcD-waterboards.ca.gov.
October 10, 2017Q
Date Jeanne Townsend
Clerk to the Board