HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.9.22 Board Correspondence - FW_ Glenn Groundwater Authority Board Meeting- May 9, 2022 (2)
From:Paulsen, Shaina
To:BOS
Subject:Board Correspondence - FW: Glenn Groundwater Authority Board Meeting- May 9, 2022
Date:Monday, May 9, 2022 8:00:42 AM
Attachments:22.05.09_GGA_ Agenda_FINAL.pdf
Please see Board Correspondence below.
Shaina Paulsen
Associate Clerk of The Board
Butte County Administration
25 County Center Drive, Suite 200, Oroville, CA 95965
T: 530.552.3304 | F: 530.538.7120
From: Lisa Hunter <LHunter@countyofglenn.net>
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 10:34 AM
Subject: Glenn Groundwater Authority Board Meeting- May 9, 2022
ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening
..
attachments, clicking on links, or replying.
Please see attached agenda for the Glenn Groundwater Authority Board meeting.
Meeting of the Glenn Groundwater Authority Board of Directors
May 9, 2022 1:30 PM
LOCATION: 225 North Tehama Street, Willows, CA 95988
And
Teleconference
Microsoft Teams meeting
Join on your computer or mobile app
Click here to join the meeting
Or call in (audio only)
+1 323-676-6164,,902863754# United States, Los Angeles
Phone Conference ID: 902 863 754#
Find a local number | Reset PIN
Learn More | Meeting options
________________________________________________________________________________
The agenda and meeting materials (once available) can also be found on the GGA Meetings webpage
at:
https://www.countyofglenn.net/resources/minutes-agendas-groundwater-authority-water/glenn-
groundwater-authority-meeting-may-9-2022
Have a wonderful day!
Lisa Hunter
Water Resource Coordinator, Glenn County
Program Manager, Glenn Groundwater Authority
(530) 934-6540 (office)
Glenn Groundwater Authority
Groundwater Sustainability Agency
225 North Tehama Street, Willows, CA 95988 530.934.6540
Meeting of the Glenn Groundwater Authority Board of Directors
May 9, 2022 1:30 PM
LOCATION: 225 North Tehama Street, Willows, CA 95988
And
Teleconference
Microsoft Teams meeting
Join on your computer or mobile app
Click here to join the meeting
Or call in (audio only)
+1 323-676-6164,,902863754# United States, Los Angeles
Phone Conference ID: 902 863 754#
Find a local number | Reset PIN
Learn More | Meeting options
________________________________________________________________________________
MEETING AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. *Approval of meeting minutes from April 11, 2022
b. *Approval of special meeting minutes from April 26, 2022
4. PERIOD OF PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public are encouraged to address the GGA Board of Directors on items relevant to the GGA.
Public comments are limited to no more than 5 minutes. No action may be taken on public comments.
5. STAFF UPDATES
6. FINANCIAL REPORT
a. *Review and accept Monthly Activities Report
b. *Review and consider approval of claims
7. BUDGET AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT
a. Receive report and recommendations from Budget Ad Hoc Committee.
8. GLENN GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY OPERATIONS FEE
a. *Adopt the Glenn Groundwater Authority Operations Fee per acre for Fiscal Year 2022/2023.
b.*Adopt Resolution 2022-005Authorizing the County to Collect Property-Related Fees on the County Tax
Roll and Indemnification of the Collecting Agency.
c. *Authorize the Program Manger to complete or direct the completion of all tasks necessary for the
completion of the submittal packet to the Glenn County Department of Finance.
9. FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023 BUDGET
a. *Consider approval of the Fiscal Year 2022/2023 Glenn Groundwater Authority Budget.
10. COLUSA SUBBASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILTY PLAN
a. GSP Development Grants (Proposition 1 and Proposition 68) and Project Agreements
b. Groundwater Sustainability Plan Implementation
11. DISCUSSION ON AGREEMENT WITH DAVIDS ENGINEERING, INC. TO PROVIDE ON-CALL TECHNICAL CONSULTING
SERVICES
12. DISCUSSION ON WATER CONSERVATION CAMPAIGN
13. * APPROVE LETTER OF SUPPORT: CITY OF ORLAND DOMESTIC WELL AND GROUNDSWATER STORAGE TANK
PROJECT
14. RECEIVE RECOMMENDATION FROM RECHARGE AD HOC COMMITTEE TO ENGAGE THE SERVICES OF A
TECHNICAL CONSULTANT TO PLAN AND DEVELOP RECHARGE PROJECT(S)
15. DISCUSSION ON EXECUTIVE ORDER N-7-22 AND WELL PERMIT ACKNOWLEDGMENT RESPONSE
16. COMMITTEE UPDATES
a. 2022/2023 Budget Ad Hoc Committee
b. Executive Committee
i. CGA/GGA Joint Executive Committee
c. Multi-Benefit Recharge Pilot Project Ad Hoc Committee
d. Recharge Pilot Project Ad Hoc Committee
e. Technical Advisory Committee
f. Water Well Drilling Permits and Standards Ad Hoc Committee
17. CLOSED SESSION
§54956.9 Conference with Legal Counsel Anticipated or significant exposure to litigation
regarding tax refund claims and challenges to previously adopted property related fees.
18. CLOSED SESSION
Conference with Legal Counsel Existing Litigation
Aqualliance, California Water Impact Network, and California Sportfishing Alliance vs. Colusa Groundwater
Authority, Glenn Groundwater Authority
Colusa County Superior Court - Case Number CV24584
19. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
20. MEMBER REPORTS AND COMMENTS
21. NEXT MEETING
Page | 2
22. ADJOURN
*Indicates Action Item
A complete agenda packet, including back-up information, is available for public inspection during normal work hours at 225 North Tehama Street,
Willows, CA 95988. After posting of this Meeting Agenda, the public may request copies of support information for public agenda items listed.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, The Glenn Groundwater Authority will make available to persons with a disability disability-
related modification or accommodations. Notification two days prior to the meeting will enable the Glenn Groundwater Authority to make
arrangements to provide reasonable accommodations. If requested, this document and other agenda materials can be made available in an
alternative format for persons with a disability who are covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Contact Lisa Hunter at 530-934-6540.
CERTIFICATION: Pursuant to Government Code §54954.2 the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on or before 1:30 pm on May 6, 2022.
Page | 3
Glenn Groundwater Authority
Groundwater Sustainability Agency
225 North Tehama Street, Willows, CA 95988 530.934.6540
Meeting of the Glenn Groundwater Authority Board of Directors
May 9, 2022 1:30 PM
LOCATION: 225 North Tehama Street, Willows, CA 95988
And
Teleconference
Microsoft Teams meeting
Join on your computer or mobile app
Click here to join the meeting
Or call in (audio only)
+1 323-676-6164,,902863754# United States, Los Angeles
Phone Conference ID: 902 863 754#
Find a local number | Reset PIN
Learn More | Meeting options
________________________________________________________________________________
MEETING AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. *Approval of meeting minutes from April 11, 2022
b. *Approval of special meeting minutes from April 26, 2022
4. PERIOD OF PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public are encouraged to address the GGA Board of Directors on items relevant to the GGA.
Public comments are limited to no more than 5 minutes. No action may be taken on public comments.
5. STAFF UPDATES
6. FINANCIAL REPORT
a. *Review and accept Monthly Activities Report
b. *Review and consider approval of claims
7. BUDGET AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT
a. Receive report and recommendations from Budget Ad Hoc Committee.
8. GLENN GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY OPERATIONS FEE
a. *Adopt the Glenn Groundwater Authority Operations Fee per acre for Fiscal Year 2022/2023.
b.*Adopt Resolution 2022-005Authorizing the County to Collect Property-Related Fees on the County Tax
Roll and Indemnification of the Collecting Agency.
c. *Authorize the Program Manger to complete or direct the completion of all tasks necessary for the
completion of the submittal packet to the Glenn County Department of Finance.
9. FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023 BUDGET
a. *Consider approval of the Fiscal Year 2022/2023 Glenn Groundwater Authority Budget.
10. COLUSA SUBBASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILTY PLAN
a. GSP Development Grants (Proposition 1 and Proposition 68) and Project Agreements
b. Groundwater Sustainability Plan Implementation
11. DISCUSSION ON AGREEMENT WITH DAVIDS ENGINEERING, INC. TO PROVIDE ON-CALL TECHNICAL CONSULTING
SERVICES
12. DISCUSSION ON WATER CONSERVATION CAMPAIGN
13. * APPROVE LETTER OF SUPPORT: CITY OF ORLAND DOMESTIC WELL AND GROUNDSWATER STORAGE TANK
PROJECT
14. RECEIVE RECOMMENDATION FROM RECHARGE AD HOC COMMITTEE TO ENGAGE THE SERVICES OF A
TECHNICAL CONSULTANT TO PLAN AND DEVELOP RECHARGE PROJECT(S)
15. DISCUSSION ON EXECUTIVE ORDER N-7-22 AND WELL PERMIT ACKNOWLEDGMENT RESPONSE
16. COMMITTEE UPDATES
a. 2022/2023 Budget Ad Hoc Committee
b. Executive Committee
i. CGA/GGA Joint Executive Committee
c. Multi-Benefit Recharge Pilot Project Ad Hoc Committee
d. Recharge Pilot Project Ad Hoc Committee
e. Technical Advisory Committee
f. Water Well Drilling Permits and Standards Ad Hoc Committee
17. CLOSED SESSION
§54956.9 Conference with Legal Counsel Anticipated or significant exposure to litigation
regarding tax refund claims and challenges to previously adopted property related fees.
18. CLOSED SESSION
Conference with Legal Counsel Existing Litigation
Aqualliance, California Water Impact Network, and California Sportfishing Alliance vs. Colusa Groundwater
Authority, Glenn Groundwater Authority
Colusa County Superior Court - Case Number CV24584
19. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
20. MEMBER REPORTS AND COMMENTS
21. NEXT MEETING
Page | 2
22. ADJOURN
*Indicates Action Item
A complete agenda packet, including back-up information, is available for public inspection during normal work hours at 225 North Tehama Street,
Willows, CA 95988. After posting of this Meeting Agenda, the public may request copies of support information for public agenda items listed.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, The Glenn Groundwater Authority will make available to persons with a disability disability-
related modification or accommodations. Notification two days prior to the meeting will enable the Glenn Groundwater Authority to make
arrangements to provide reasonable accommodations. If requested, this document and other agenda materials can be made available in an
alternative format for persons with a disability who are covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Contact Lisa Hunter at 530-934-6540.
CERTIFICATION: Pursuant to Government Code §54954.2 the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on or before 1:30 pm on May 6, 2022.
Page | 3
Glenn GroundwaterAuthority
Groundwater Sustainability Agency
225 N. Tehama Street, Willows, CA 95988 530.934.6540
Board of Directors Meeting Materials
May 9, 2022 1:30 PM
LOCATION: 225 North Tehama Street, Willows, CA 95988
And
Teleconference
Microsoft Teams meeting
Join on your computer or mobile app
Click here to join the meeting
Or call in (audio only)
+1 323-676-6164,,902863754# United States, Los Angeles
Phone Conference ID: 902 863 754#
Find a local number | Reset PIN
Learn More | Meeting options
________________________________________________________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Chairperson will call the meeting to order and lead the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
Roll call will be conducted.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. *Approval of meeting minutes from April 11, 2022
b. *Approval of special meeting minutes from April 26, 2022
Draft meeting minutes are attached.
Attachments
April 11, 2022 GGA Board meeting minutes
April 26, 2022 CGA/GGA Joint Board meeting minutes
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 1
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Glenn Groundwater Authority
Groundwater Sustainability Agency
225 N. Tehama Street,Willows, CA 95988 530.934.6540
Meeting Minutes
Glenn Groundwater Authority Board of Directors
April 11, 2022 1:30 p.m.
LOCATION: 225 N. Tehama Street, Willows, CA 95988
The meeting was also conducted via teleconference; accessible via telephone, computer, smartphone or tablet.
nd
Director Members Present: Alternate/2 Alternate Directors Agency Representing:
X X
Grant Carmon Tom Arnold County of Glenn
X
Bruce Roundy Pete Carr City of Orland
nd
Ed Vonasek (2) City of Orland
X X
Gary Hansen (Vice Chair) Evan Markey City of Willows
X Matt Deadmond X Leslie Nerli Glide Water District
X X
John Amaro (Chair) Thad Bettner (2:10) Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District
X X
Charles Schonauer Emil Cavagnolo Orland-Artois Water District
X
Randy Hansen Wade Danley Kanawha Water District
nd
Michael Alves (2) Kanawha Water District
X
Mark Lohse Seth Fiack Monroeville Water District
X X
Gary Enos Lance Boyd Princeton-Codora-Glenn Irrigation District/
Provident Irrigation District
Others in attendance:
Lisa Hunter (GGA/Glenn County), Valerie Kincaid (GGA Counsel), Ashlee Veneman (Glenn County staff/clerk), Donald Bills
(CGA TAC), Brandon Davison (DWR), Jaime Lely (landowner), Michael Bolzowski, Jim Brobeck, Matt Jones, Denise Carter
(Colusa County/CGA), George (last name unknown).
1.CALL TO ORDER
Chair Amaro called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m.
2.ROLL CALL
Roll call was taken as indicated above.
3.AB 361 OPEN MEETINGS: STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES: TELECONFERENCES
a. *Consider approval of Resolution 2022-004 Authorizing Remote Teleconference Meetings in Accordance
with Government Code Section 54953 (e)
Chair Amaro introduced the item. No further discussion was heard.
On motion by Director Enos, seconded by Director Lohse, it was unanimously approved to adopt Resolution
2022-004 Authorizing Teleconference Meetings in Accordance with Government Code Section 54953 (e).
4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. * Approval of meeting minutes from March 16, 2022
Chair Amaro invited comments or revisions on the aforementioned meeting minutes. No comments were
heard.
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 2
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
On motion by Director Gary Hansen, seconded by Director Carmon, the meeting minutes of the March 16,
2022 meeting were unanimously approved as presented.
5.PERIOD OF PUBLIC COMMENT
No public comments were presented or heard.
6.STAFF UPDATES
Glenn Groundwater Authority (GGA) Program Manager, Lisa Hunter, announced the Golden State Risk
Management Authority (GSRMA) Annual Report is available for review.
Ms. Hunter stated the Airborne Electromagnetic (AEM) survey launched by the California Department of
Water Resources (DWR) will begin helicopter flights in the region (Sacramento Valley, Redding Area, Eel
thth
River Valley and Sierra Valley) starting April 26 and will continue until approximately May 25. Director
Nerli asked where more information can be gathered for the program; whereby, Ms. Hunter stated she
would send the link to the DWR webpage (https://water.ca.gov/programs/sgma/aem). Ms. Hunter reviewed
some of the program details and what data would be gathered.
7.FINANCIAL REPORT
a. *Review and accept Monthly Activities Report.
b. *Review and consider approval of claims.
No discussion was held on item 7.a.
On motion by Director Nerli, seconded by Director Randy Hansen, it was unanimously ordered to accept the
Monthly Activities Report as presented.
No discussion was held on Item 7.b.
On motion by Director Roundy, seconded by Director Gary Hansen, it was unanimously ordered to approve
the claims as presented.
8.COLUSA SUBBASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILTY PLAN
a. GSP Development Grants (Proposition 1 and Proposition 68) and Project Agreements
b. Groundwater Sustainability Plan Implementation
c. Well Monitoring Pilot Program
i) *Approve selection of Well Monitoring Pilot Program Round 2 sites
ii) *Authorize Chairman to execute Well Monitoring Pilot Program Round 2 Landowner
Agreements for well sites within the GGA area
Ms. Hunter stated grant amendments four and five have been approved and the agency is on track to finish
the tasks still needing completion. Ms. Hunter further stated an invoice will be submitted to the Department
of Water Resources (DWR) for the period from January 1, 2022 and March 31, 2022 and there are no
updated expended numbers on the grant as invoicing has not been completed. The two project agreement
details were included in the meeting packet as well.
In relation to item 8.b, Ms. Hunter stated a status report was provided from the consultant and is available
in the meeting packet; the consultant is also working on creating a public presentation for GSP
Implementation outreach and to share with each respective agency. Ms. Hunter further stated the GSP
comment period will close April 23, 2022, with one comment being received and available in the meeting
2
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 3
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
packet. Ms. Hunter relayed the first GSP Annual Report was submitted by the April 1, 2022 deadline and no
comments have been received at this point.
Ms. Hunter encouraged the Board to review the Annual Report on the SGMA portal (DWR website) to see
the information available for the public; whereby, Director Nerli asked Ms. Hunter to review the site with
the Board and she presented and reviewed each section of the Annual Report, including the map of the
basin, groundwater extraction, surface water supply information, total water use, water storage and the
monitoring network. The Board discussed some of the metrics shown.
Chair Amaro introduced item 8.c.i. No further discussion was heard.
On motion by Director Schonauer, seconded by Director Carmon, it was unanimously ordered to approve the
selection of Well Monitoring Pilot Program Round 2 sites as presented.
Chair Amaro introduced item 8.c.i.i. No further discussion was heard.
On motion by Director Gary Hansen, seconded by Director Enos, it was unanimously ordered to authorize the
Chair to execute Well Monitoring Pilot Program Round 2 Landowner Agreements for well sites within the GGA
area.
9.*APPROVE AGREEMENT 1178.03 AMENDMENT 3 COLUSA SUBBASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
WITH DAVIDS ENGINEERING, INC. PENDING LEGAL REVIEW
Chair Amaro introduced the item and asked if this agreement was for the completion of the annual report;
whereby, Ms. Hunter stated it is not and this agreement is to align the uncontracted grant funds as
discussed in September 2021, which will be adding funding to the Well Monitoring Pilot Program and the
installation of subsidence benchmarks with a total budget increase of $204,600.
On motion by Director Randy Hansen, seconded by Director Schonauer, it was unanimously ordered to
approve Agreement 1178.03 Amendment 3 Colusa Subbasin GSP with Davids Engineering as presented
pending legal review.
10. *DISCUSSION ON EXECUTIVE ORDER N-7-22 AND CONSIDER APPROVING WELL PERMIT ACKNOWLEDGMENT
RESPONSE
GGA Counsel, Valerie Kincaid, reviewed the aforesaid matter, stating the Executive Order was passed in
March and requires Counties to consult with GSAs on whether a potential well would be consistent with the
GSP and will not create subsidence issues before issuing a permit. Ms. Kincaid stated it is difficult to
determine what wells will be used for in the future, but the purpose of the Order is to encourage
collaboration between Counties and the GSAs. Ms. Kincaid reviewed the acknowledgment form that may be
used in the well permitting process that the applicant must sign off on and the GSA can provide this to the
State as proof of compliance.
Director Nerli asked if the order only applies to new well permits going forward and not applications already
submitted, whereby Ms. Kincaid confirmed yes.
Chair Amaro asked if the GSAs are expected to review the well permit applications before the County
whereby, Ms. Kincaid confirmed this is likely the case.
3
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 4
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Director Enos asked who enforces and polices this Order, whereby Ms. Kincaid stated it is unclear at this
point. Chair Amaro asked if DWR would be clarifying the language within the Order, whereby Ms. Kincaid
stated several counties have been in contact with DWR and the Governor for clarification so most likely
there will be clarification. Director Nerli suggested waiting until more clarification is presented and as the
countywide agricultural well moratorium potentially ends.
Director Carmon provided an example of how the collaborative permitting process between the County and
the GSA could be and discussion ensued.
Ms. Kincaid stated she would amend the acknowledgment language per the discussion and submit to the
County to begin a dialogue on this subject.
On motion by Director Schonauer, seconded by Director Randy Hansen, it was unanimously ordered to
approve Well Permit Acknowledgment Response as amended by legal counsel and submit to the County for
discussion.
11. *WATER WELL DRILLING PERMITS AND STANDARDS AD HOC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ON COMMENTS
TO GLENN COUNTY RELATING TO DRAFT WATER WELL DRILLING PERMITS AND STANDARDS
Director Carmon state
permitting, having both agencies a part of the approval process. Director Carmon asked to review the
comments and recommendations for the Board, whereby Ms. Hunter pulled the draft water well permits
and standards draft for review.
The following comments were reviewed and discussed:
o Clarify definition of abandoned well or remove verbiage
o Require an additional inspection for monitoring purposes
o Change from 8 inch well casings to 6 inch
o Address district water wells
o Agreed with having a variance committee
o Water Advisory Committee language and reference removed or updated
o Possible fee for appeal process
Jim Brobeck asked if there are any well drilling regulations that limit well casings and perforations and spoke
objective in reviewing the proposed ordinance and noted the varying land types and use in the County.
Director Carmon noted that the proposed ordinance would require periodic sealings to prevent aquifer
drainage.
On motion by Director Schonauer, seconded by Director Nerli, it was unanimously ordered to approve the Ad
omments so far to Glenn County relating to draft Water Well Drilling
Permits and Standards.
12. DISCUSSION ON STAFFING
Ms. Hunter reviewed the aforesaid matter, bringing staffing information forth as requested from the last
meeting. Ms. Hunter noted that the Colusa Groundwater Authority (CGA) is also recruiting for an employee
and has released a Request for Proposal (RFP) that the GGA may want to review. Ms. Hunter further stated
the County is considering adding a regular employee to the Water Resources Division, but that this would
4
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 5
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
not be effective until the next fiscal year and the anticipated hiring date would be approximately September
2022. Director Nerli suggested the Budget Ad Hoc Committee review what is the best funding option for
staffing.
Ms. Hunter reviewed the types of assistance needed, stating the work is generally administrative in nature
revolving, around agendas, minutes, template creations, staff reports, research, data entry, etc.
Director Roundy stated he is concerned about the current workload and would like to see additional staff
hired prior to September. Directors Carmon, Gary Hansen, and Nerli spoke against the GSA recruiting and
managing its own employee though funding the position should still be considered.
Director Enos stated he is in favor of recruiting a full-time employee and does not mind the GSA managing
the recruitment. Director Schonauer asked if the GSA funded the position but the County managed the
employee, would the County manage the recruitment whereby Ms. Hunter confirmed they would.
The Board directed Director Carmon to request the County move forward with creating the position for the
division.
13. COMMITTEE UPDATES
a. 2022/2023 Budget Ad Hoc Committee
b. Executive Committee
i. CGA/GGA Joint Executive Committee
c. Multi-Benefit Recharge Pilot Project Ad Hoc Committee
d. Recharge Pilot Project Ad Hoc Committee
e. Technical Advisory Committee
f. Water Well Drilling Permits and Standards Ad Hoc Committee.
Chair Amaro introduced the item and stated only the Recharge Pilot Project Ad Hoc Committee have met
since the last regular Board meeting.
Director Schonauer provided an update for the Recharge Pilot Project Ad Hoc Committee, stating some
committee members attended the Orland Unit Water Users Association Board of Directors meeting and the
group is interested in collaborating. Director Schonauer further stated the committee has identified four
potential sites and will provide a more descriptive presentation next month.
14. CLOSED SESSION
Conference with Legal Counsel Anticipated or significant exposure to litigation
regarding tax refund claims and challenges to previously adopted property related fees.
15. CLOSED SESSION
Conference with Legal Counsel Existing Litigation
Aqualliance, California Water Impact Network, and California Sportfishing Alliance vs. Colusa Groundwater
Authority, Glenn Groundwater Authority
Colusa County Superior Court - Case Number CV24584
No public comments were presented or heard for agenda items 14 or 15.
The Board adjourned to closed session at 3:19 p.m.
5
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 6
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
16. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
The Board returned from closed session at 3:59 p.m.; the Board provided direction to counsel.
17. MEMBER REPORTS AND COMMENTS
Director Roundy provided an update on the City of Orland water project with DWR which includes $8-12
million of funding to provide water to residents.
Director Lohse asked if there was any new information on the sinkholes that have been discussed in the
past. Ms. Hunter indicated there was no significant update. She has indicated to DWR that there is interest
in applying for funding through the Technical Support Services program to better understand the issue.
18. NEXT MEETING
The next regular meeting is scheduled for May 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m.
19. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 4:01 p.m.
6
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 7
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Minutes
95988
joinedZoom
1.
Colusa Groundwater Authority:
nd
Director Members Present: Alternate/2 Alternate Directors Agency Representing:
XDenise Carter Gary Evans County of Colusa
Jesse Cain X Denise Conrado City of Colusa
Tom Reische City of Colusa
XSajit Singh Alfred Sellers, Jr. City of Williams
Blake Vann X Thad Bettner Glenn Colusa Irrigation District
Knute Myers X Shelly Murphy Colusa County Water District
Zach Dennis X Dan Ruiz Westside Water District
Jim Campbell X Lance Boyd Provident Irrigation District
XHilary Reinhard X Bill Vanderwaal Reclamation District 108
Derrik Strain Vacant Reclamation District 479
XJim Wallace Lynell Pollock Colusa Drain Mutual Water Company
Darrin Williams Private Pumper
Jeff Moresco Private Pumper
Drew Dirks Chris Dobson Maxwell Irrigation District
Dan Ruiz Maxwell Irrigation District
Glenn Groundwater Authority:
nd
Director Members Present: Alternate/2 Alternate Directors Agency Representing:
XGrant Carmon X Tom Arnold County of Glenn
XBruce Roundy Pete Carr City of Orland
nd
Ed Vonasek (2) City of Orland
Gary Hansen X Evan Markey City of Willows
X
Matt Deadmond Leslie Nerli Glide Water District
John Amaro X Thad Bettner (1:03) Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District
XCharles Schonauer X Emil Cavagnolo Orland-Artois Water District
XRandy Hansen Wade Danley Kanawha Water District
XMark Lohse Seth Fiack Monroeville Water District
XGary Enos X Lance Boyd Princeton-Codora-Glenn Irrigation District/
Provident Irrigation District
April 26, 2022 Joint CGA-GGA Board of Director Meeting
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 8
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
2. -04
Board)
3. Comment
N.
4. -
-
5.
-84
6.
action.
April 26, 2022 Joint CGA-GGA Board of Director Meeting
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 9
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
4. PERIOD OF PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public are encouraged to address the GGA Board of Directors on items relevant to the GGA.
Public comments are limited to no more than 5 minutes. No action may be taken on public comments.
5. STAFF UPDATES
The program manager will provide brief status updates. Reminders and/or clarifications may also be made at
this time.
6. FINANCIAL REPORT
a. *Review and accept Monthly Activities Report.
b. *Review and consider approval of claims.
The Monthly Activities Report and Claims Summary are attached.
Attachments
Monthly Activities Report
Claims Summary
Budget to Actuals (DRAFT)
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 10
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Monthly Activities Report
Glenn Groundwater Authority
Monthly Activities Report
March 2022
DescriptionAmount
Beginning Balance$ 1,234,840.95
Revenue
CY SEC INTEREST 2/28/22 (INTEREST)$ 113.23
DEL SEC DIR ASSMT 03/25/22 (PENALTIES/COST DELQ TAXES)$ 1.10
DEL SEC DIR ASSMT 03/25/22 (PENALTIES/COST DELQ TAXES)$ 2.15
DEL SEC DIR ASSMT 03/25/22 (SPECIAL ASSESSMENT)$ 11.27
Total Revenue$ 127.75
Expenses
Paris Kincaid Wasiewski, LLP Inv 1755$ 3,815.00
Davids Engineering, Inc. Inv 1178.03-5028$ 21,560.50
Davids Engineering, Inc. Inv 1178.04-5050$ 4,075.50
A-87 COST (3/2022)$ 149.08
Total Expenses$ 29,600.08
Ending Balance$ 1,205,368.62
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 11
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Monthly Activities Report
Glenn Groundwater Authority
Monthly Activities Report
April 2022 DRAFT
DescriptionAmount
Beginning Balance$ 1,205,368.62
Revenue
DEL SEC DIR ASSMT 04/20/22 (PENALTIES/COST DELQ TAXES)$ 0.06
DEL SEC DIR ASSMT 04/20/22 (PENALTIES/COST DELQ TAXES)$ 0.18
3/2022 INTEREST APPORTIONMENT (INTEREST)$ 5,022.93
CY SEC INTEREST 3/31/22 (INTEREST)$ 266.88
DEL SEC DIR ASSMT 4/20/22 (SPECIAL ASSESSMENT)$ 0.80
Total Revenue$ 5,290.85
Expenses
Paris Kincaid Wasiewski, LLP Inv 1793$ 16,380.00
CliftonLarsonAllen LLP Inv 3202997$ 5,000.00
Davids Engineering, Inc. Inv 1178.03-5071$ 6,615.75
A-87 COST (4/2022)$ 149.08
Total Expenses$ 28,144.83
Ending Balance$ 1,182,514.64
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 12
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Claims Summary
Glenn Groundwater Authority
Invoices to be paid
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Invoice DateInvoice NumberDescriptionAmount
4/12/20221178.04-5122Davids Engineering, Inc. (Annual Report)$ 42,728.50
4/25/20221178.03-5125Davids Engineering, Inc. (GSP Development)$ 18,339.00
5/1/20221823Paris Kincaid Wasiewski, LLP$ 13,845.00
22-WR-03Glenn County- Admin Support (Jan-Mar 2022)
5/1/2022$ 23,246.98
Total$ 98,159.48
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 13
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Glenn Groundwater Authority Budget
FY 2021/2022 FINAL APPROVED 6/16/21
Current Actual
Approved FY Through Apr Remaining
21/22 Draft Budget
REVENUES
Grant Revenue
Other $ -
Total Grants - $ - $ -
Other Government Agencies
Colusa Groundwater Authority* 973,500 $ 763,539.88 $ 209,960.12
Other $ -
973,500 763,540 $ 209,960.12
Total Other Government Agencies
Assessments
Property Related Fee Per Acre (current $1.50/ac) 427,786 $ 318,229.71 $ 109,556.29
Well Head Fee - $ - $ -
Extraction Fee - $ - $ -
Other - $ - $ -
427,786 318,230 $ 109,556.29
Total Assessments
Other
Interest 5,000 $ 7,266.18 $ (2,266.18)
5,000 $ 7,266.18 $ (2,266.18)
Total Other
TOTAL REVENUES 1,406,286 $ 1,089,035.77 $ 317,250.23
EXPENSES
Administration- Contracted County Services 120,000 $ 41,163.19 $ 78,836.81
Program Administration Support - $ - $ -
Legal Services 100,000 $ 54,900.00 $ 45,100.00
Certified Public Accountant (Yearly Audits) 10,500 $ 9,000.00 $ 1,500.00
JPA Insurance 1,800 $ 1,754.00 $ 46.00
County Bookkeeper 5,000 $ 1,490.84 $ 3,509.16
GSP Development/Implementation 1,223,500 $ 526,299.44 $ 697,200.56
Long Term Funding Options $ - $ -
Professional Services 20,000 $ 1,709.70 $ 18,290.30
Board Expenses 2,000 $ - $ 2,000.00
Special Department Expenses 25,000 $ - $ 25,000.00
Legal Notices 1,200 $ - $ 1,200.00
County Tax Roll Fee 5,000 $ 2,354.57 $ 2,645.43
Contingency/Reserve 42,000 $ - $ 42,000.00
TOTAL EXPENSES 1,556,000 $ 638,671.74 $ 917,328.26
Note: A-87 Cost allocated to County Bookkeeper line item
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 14
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
7. BUDGET AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT
a. Receive report and recommendations from Budget Ad Hoc Committee.
The 2022/2023 Budget Ad Hoc Committee (Grant Carmon, Gary Hansen, Leslie Nerli) met April 25, 2022 and has
communicated via email to provide a draft budget and recommended property related fee for fiscal year
2022/2023. The committee reviewed available cost estimates provided in the 2019 GGA Fee Study and the 2022
Colusa Subbasin GSP.
Fee Study Table 5-1. Proposed 5-Year Budget Summary provides an early estimate of GSP Development and
Implementation costs including daily GSA operations. The Table is included as an attachment.
Table 7-3. Glenn Groundwater Authority GSA Estimated Implementation Costs from the 2022 Colusa Subbasin
GSP provides an estimate of funding needs over a calendar year. The figures provided for 2023 GSP Studies and
GSP Updates was combined to provide an estimate for the GSP Implementation line in the 2022/2023 proposed
budget, although this line item is not limited to the GSP Studies and Updates in the GSP, but rather provides a
reasonable estimate of the funds needed for the upcoming fiscal year. The GSP Studies and GSP Updates that
are identified in Section 7 of the GSP include the following (note: not all are funded in this first year of GSP
implementation):
Expand Shallow Groundwater Level Monitoring Network
Expand Water Quality Monitoring Network
Colusa Subbasin Western Boundary Investigation
Westside Streams Monitoring Program
Groundwater Well Monitoring Program
Groundwater Financial Incentives Investigation
C2VSimFG-Colusa Model Updates and Enhancement
Well Inventory Program
Well Registration Program
Increasing GSA Involvement in County Well Permitting and Land Use Planning
GSA Coordination with Water Quality Coalitions and Regulatory Agencies
Sutter Buttes Rampart Water Quality Interbasin Working Group
Participation in Interagency Drought Task Forces
Sacramento Valley Subsidence Interbasin Working Group
Evaluate Infrastructure Sensitivity to Subsidence
GSP Annual Report
GSP Periodic Evaluations (5-Year Updates)
It is also important to note, Project and Management Actions costs (GSP Section 7.3) are not included in the GSP
Studies and GSP Updates.
The committee reviewed staffing options, as discussed at April 11, 2022 Board meeting. The funding allocated in
the draft budget will continue to allow the Program Manager to provide a similar level of support and
accommodate an addition staff member at approximately 20-25 hours per week. This level of support depends
on continued communication with Glenn County, and Glenn Countys approval of the additional staff member.
Glenn County Water Resources has requested the additional position in the 2022/2023 Glenn County budget
proposal.
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 15
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Property-Related fees were discussed in detail. The committee recommends maintaining the fee at $1.50 per
acre. This would result in a deficit budget, utilizing funds that were not spent in prior years to balance the
expected expenses.Related to this topic, expenses are included in the draft budget to evaluate funding GSP
implementation (long-term funding tasks).
The proposed draft 2022/2023 budget is attached review and comment. The 2022/2023 Budget Ad Hoc
Committee provides the following recommendations:
1. Approve the 2022/2023 Budget
2. Set the Property Related Fee to $1.50 per acre for fiscal year 2022/2023
Attachments
Draft 22/23 Budget
Budget Notes & At A Glance
Property Related Fee Scenarios
Fee Study Table 5-1. Proposed 5-Year Budget Summary
GSP Table 7-3. Glenn Groundwater Authority GSA Estimated Implementation Costs
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 16
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Glenn Groundwater Authority Budget
FY 2022/2023
DRAFT 5/9/22
FY 2022/2023
Current Actual
Approved FY through March Remaining Projected Year Baseline
20/21 2022 Budget End Totals DRAFT
REVENUES
Grant Revenue
Other $ - $ - -
Total Grants - $ - $ - $ - -
Other Government Agencies
Colusa Groundwater Authority* (Grant
reimbursement pass-through) 973,500 $ 763,539.88 $ 209,960.12 $ 1,139,248.00 100,000
Other $ - -
Total Other Government Agencies 973,500 763,540 209,960 1,139,248 100,000
Assessments
Property Related Fee Per Acre (current & proposed
$1.50/ac) 427,786 $ 318,214.15 $ 109,571.85 $ 419,230.28 427,786
Well Head Fee - $ - $ - $ - -
Extraction Fee - $ - $ - $ - -
Other - $ - $ - $ - -
Total Assessments 427,786 $ 318,214.15 $ 109,571.85 $ 419,230.28 427,786
Other
Interest 5,000 $ 1,976.37 $ 3,023.63 $ 4,611.53 4,000
Total Other 5,000 $ 1,976.37 $ 3,023.63 $ 4,611.53 4,000
TOTAL REVENUES 1,406,286 $ 1,083,730.40 $ 322,555.60 $ 1,563,089.81 531,786
EXPENSES
Administration- Contracted County Services 120,000 $ 41,163.19 $ 78,836.81 $ 86,163.19 170,000
Program Administration Support - $ - $ - $ -
Legal Services 100,000 $ 38,520.00 $ 61,480.00 $ 74,900.00 120,000
Certified Public Accountant (Yearly Audits) 10,500 $ 4,000.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 10,500.00 10,800
JPA Insurance 1,800 $ 1,754.00 $ 46.00 $ 1,754.00 2,000
County Bookkeeper 5,000 $ 1,341.76 $ 3,658.24 $ 1,789.00 9,519
GSP Development/Implementation** (Grant funded) 1,223,500 $ 519,683.69 $ 703,816.31 $ 862,412.19 -
GSP Development/Implementation** 583,000
Long Term Funding Options $ - $ - $ - 90,000
Professional Services 20,000 $ 1,709.70 $ 18,290.30 $ 1,709.70 35,000
Board Expenses 2,000 $ - $ 2,000.00 $ - 2,000
Special Department Expenses 25,000 $ - $ 25,000.00 $ - 25,000
Legal Notices 1,200 $ - $ 1,200.00 $ - 1,000
County Tax Roll Fee 5,000 $ 2,354.57 $ 2,645.43 $ 2,354.57 5,000
Contingency/Reserve 42,000 $ - $ 42,000.00 $ - 50,000
TOTAL EXPENSES 1,556,000 $ 610,526.91 $ 945,473.09 $ 1,041,582.65 1,103,319
Net (Revenue-Expenses) (149,714) 473,203 521,507 (571,533)
Note: A-87 Cost allocated to County Bookkeeper line item
*The revenue is grant reimbursements from the CGA for GSP Development (pass through to reimburse technical consultant work).
**GSP Development expenses were funded through a grant (see CGA revenue line) for FY 21/22. FY 22/23 expenses are expected to be
funded directly by the GGA.
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 17
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Budget Notes
The GGA must be prepared to pay all expenses without the expectation of receiving any grants for FY
22/23. Grants are expected to be available for application in the Fall 2022, but are not expected to be
under contract until FY 23/24.
Revenues received from the Colusa Groundwater Authority are generally reimbursement for grant-
related activities. On occasion, CGA reimburses the GGA for other shared activities, such as consultant
services not covered by a grant.
Expenses related to GSP Development/Implementation have been covered by grants in the past. The
GGA should be prepared to cover GSP Implementation costs for at least the first year without grant
funds, although grant options will continue to be explored.
At A Glance
Cash in Treasury (March 2022) $ 1,205,354
Expected Cash Balance end FY 21-22/Roll over to FY 22-23 $ 1,253,657
FY 22-23 Expected Revenue $ 531,786
FY 22-23 Expected Expenses $ 1,103,319
Expected Cash Balance end FY 22-23 $ 682,124
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 18
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Page 19
GGA Board of DirectorsMeeting Date: May 9, 2022
Excerpt From 2019 Fee Study
Table 5-1 below summarizes the proposed budget and total fees needed to fund the
Agency efforts over the next five years and the methodology for setting fees in proportion
to cost of service. Proposition 218 requires that fees charged to each customer be
proportional to the cost of service attributable to that customer. The costs of administering
the GSA and special studies for landowners in the GGA are proportional to the number
of acres covered by the GSA and studies. Therefore, collecting fees on a cost per acre
basis fulfills the proportionality requirement.
Table 5-1. Proposed 5-Year Budget Summary
Actual Estimated Proposed
OPERATING EXPENSES 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24
Administration- Contracted County
Services $59,599 $85,000 $120,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000
Program Administration Support 0 0 0 0 20,000 20,000 20,000
Legal Services 18,535 70,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000
Certified Public Accountant (Yearly
Audits) 0 9,500 9,750 10,000 10,500 10,800 11,100
JPA Insurance 1,350 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800
County Bookkeeper 0 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Plan
Development/Implementation 0 50,000 72,002 59,481 66,865 50,000 50,000
Long Term Funding Options 0 50,000 15,000 0 0 70,000 70,000
Professional Services 6,486 0 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000
Board Expenses 0 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Special Department Expenses 0 2,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
Legal Notices 0 500 1,000 1,000 1,200 1,000 1,000
County Tax Roll Fee 0 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Contingency/Reserve 0 0 42,000 42,000 45,000 50,000 50,000
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $85,970 $269,800 $458,552 $461,281 $492,365 $550,600 $550,900
Table 5-2 below indicates the proportionate amount of fees for each category for the
budget shown above.
Table 5-2. Proposed 5-Year Fee Schedule
Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed
2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24
Operating Expenses $458,552 $461,281 $492,365 $550,600 $550,900
Total Proposed Assessment ($/Acre) $1.61 $1.62 $1.73 $1.93 $1.93
The GGA is seeking to implement an annualized charge of up to $1.93 per acre for all
assessable parcels.
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Page 14
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 20
\\\\ppeng.com\\pzdata\\clients\\Glenn Groundwater Authority-2871\\287119001-Prop 218 Majority Protest\\_DOCS\\Reports\\2019-0521 GGA Prop 218 Report Final.docx
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Excerpt From 2022 Colusa Subbasin GSP
Chapter 7
Plan Implementation
1 7.2.2
2 Table 7-3 summarizes estimated GGA costs. The GGA estimated annual costs for GSP implementation
3 averages approximately $945,000. GGA costs are slightly greater than CGA estimated costs based on the
4 2019 rate studies and actual expenditure summaries in the 2020 audited financial reports. This does not
5 include PMA-specific costs (see Section 7.3). Several planned studies are assumed to begin in 2022. As
6 such, estimated costs are greatest in 2023.
Table 7-3. Glenn Groundwater Authority GSA Estimated Implementation Costs
Cost Category 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027+
$445,000 $499,000 $499,000 $499,000 $499,000 $499,000
GSA Administration
$520,000 $560,000 $343,000 $230,000 $230,000 $315,000
GSP Studies
$23,000 $23,000 $23,000 $23,000 $23,000 $113,000
GSP Updates
$50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
Contingency
Total $1,038,000 $1,132,000 $915,000 $802,000 $802,000 $977,000
7
8 7.3
9 The costs for PMAs, described in Chapter 6, are reported separately from other GSP implementation costs.
10 In addition, the costs of PMAs may be allocated to different entities or the Subbasin more broadly (see
11 Section 7.5 and Appendix 7A).
12 There are currently five planned PMAs that the GSAs or other project proponents are working to
13 implement (as described in GSP Section 6.3). Costs for ongoing and potential PMAs are not shown. This is
14 because these projects are already underway (and therefore funded) or will not be implemented unless
15 required by changing groundwater conditions in the Subbasin.
16 Table 7-4 summarizes planned PMA capital and initial study costs and ongoing operation and maintenance
17 (O&M) costs. Capital and initial study costs are one-time expenses to build or design a project. For
18 example, the Orland-Artois Water District (OAWD) land annexation project includes an initial capital cost
19 for distribution system construction. OAWD is currently working to refine the estimated construction cost.
20 Other PMAs include one-time expenses for studies to develop the project. O&M costs are annual costs
21 after the project is implemented. The total estimated cost for capital and studies is approximately
22 $20.6 million. Estimated annual O&M costs are approximately $6.7 million per year at full implementation
23 of the planned PMAs.
24
December 2021 7-18 Colusa Groundwater Authority
Glenn Groundwater Authority
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 21
n\\c\\277\\60-20-11\\wp\\GSP
Colusa Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
8. GLENN GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY OPERATIONS FEE
a. *Adopt the Glenn Groundwater Authority Operations Fee per acre for Fiscal Year 2022/2023.
b.*Adopt Resolution 2022-005Authorizing the County to Collect Property-Related Fees on the County Tax
Roll and Indemnification of the Collecting Agency.
c. *Authorize the Program Manger to complete or direct the completion of all tasks necessary for the
completion of the submittal packet to the Glenn County Department of Finance.
On August 1, 2019, the Glenn Groundwater Authority Board adopted Resolution No. 2019-Resolution
Fee The maximum operations fee is set at $1.93 per acre. The Board set the property-related fee at $1.61 per
acre for fiscal year 2019/2020 and $1.50 per acre for fiscal years 2020/2021 and 2021/2022. The Budget Ad Hoc
Committee provided a recommendation under Item 7 to set the property-related fee at $1.50 per acre for fiscal
year 2022/2023.
In order for the adopted GGA property-related fee to be placed on the Glenn County Tax Roll for fiscal year
2022/2023, the direct charge packet must be submitted to the Glenn County Department of Finance by August
10, 2022. The instructions packet has not yet been received from the Glenn County Department of Finance, but
is expected to be available soon. Generally, the submittal packet requirements are very similar to past
submittals which required the direct charge file and a Prop 218 Certification Form/Direct Charge Submission
Form.
On March 16, 2022, the Board approved contracting with Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group for Tax Year
2022-2023 direct charge preparation.
Attachments
Resolution No. 2022-005 Resolution Requesting the County Collect Property-Related Fees on the 2022
Tax Roll and Indemnification of the Collecting Agency
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 22
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GLENN GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-005
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE COUNTY COLLECT PROPERTY-
RELATED FEES ON THE 2022 TAX ROLL AND INDEMNIFICATION OF
THE COLLECTING AGENCY
WHEREAS, the Glenn
Glenn
adopted pursuant to section 10730 of the California Water Code; and
WHEREAS, the County has required as a condition of the collection of said charges
that the Authority warrant the legality of said fees and defend and indemnify the County
from any challenge to the legality thereof;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED Directors that:
1. The Authority requests the Auditor-Controller of the County collect the
property-related fees listed in Exhibit 1, attached hereto and incorporated
herein, on the County tax rolls.
2. The Authority warrants and certifies the fees imposed by the Authority,
which are requested to be collected by the County on the 2022/23 Secured
Property Tax bill, comply with all requirements of state law, including but
not limited to the requirements of Proposition 218 including Articles
XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution.
3. The Authority agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County,
the Board of Supervisors, the Director of Finance, its officers, agents and
employees ds,
liabilities, costs and expenses, damages, causes of action, and judgments, in
any manner arising out whether the requirements of Proposition 218 and
other state laws were met with respect to the imposition of fees by the
Authority. The Authority agrees, in the event a judgment is entered in a
court of law against any of the Indemnified Parties as a result of not
meeting the requirements of any state law, including Proposition 218, for
, the County may offset the amount of
the judgment paid by an Indemnified Party from any monies collected by
County on behalf of Authority, including property taxes, fees, or assessments.
4. The Authority authorizes its agent to attest to the direct charge levies after
verification and approval. The Authority agrees to the cost of direct
charges and to the statutory and procedural terms for collection on the tax
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 23
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Glenn Groundwater Authority
Resolution No. 2022-005
Page 2
roll.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the GLENN
th
GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY this 9 day of May, 2022.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 24
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Glenn Groundwater Authority
Resolution No. 2022-005
Page 3
CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION
We, the undersigned, hereby certify as follows:
1. That we are the Chair and Secretary of the GLENN GROUNDWATER
AUTHORITY; and
2. That the foregoing resolution, consisting of 3 pages, including this page, is a
true and correct copy of a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Glenn Groundwater
Authority, passed at the meeting of the Board of Directors held on May 9, 2022, at 225
North Tehama Street, Willows, CA 95988.
th
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have signed this certificate this 9 day of May,
2022, at Willows, California.
John Amaro
Chair of the Board of Directors
Lisa Hunter
Secretary
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 25
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
9. FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023 BUDGET
a. *Consider approval of the Fiscal Year 2022/2023 Glenn Groundwater Authority Budget.
The 2022/2023 fiscal year begins July 1, 2022. The Budget Ad Hoc Committee presented the recommended draft
budget under Item 7. The adoption of a fiscal year 2022/2023 property-related fee was considered in Item 8.
Options
1. Adopt Draft Budget as presented in Item 7.
2. Adopt Draft Budget after incorporating adjustments.
3. Provide direction to Budget Ad Hoc Committee and staff and bring the item back for consideration at
the June 14, 2022 meeting.
10. COLUSA SUBBASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILTY PLAN
a. GSP Development Grants (Proposition 1 and Proposition 68) and Project Agreements
b. Groundwater Sustainability Plan Implementation
The Proposition 1 and Proposition 68 GSP Development Grants are managed by the CGA. The invoice and
progress report to DWR covering January through March 2022 are expected to be submitted soon.
Proposition 1 Grant Funds: $1,000,000.00
Expended: $948,051.40 (through December 2021- Invoice 13)
Remaining: $51,948.60
Proposition 68 Grant Funds: $999,600.00
Expended: $641,022.60 (through December 2021- Invoice 13)
Remaining: $358,577.40
The GGA holds the agreements with Davids Engineering for two active projects. Work from these projects is
invoiced to CGA to include in the grant reimbursement requests (grant invoices). CGA reimburses the GGA after
payment from DWR is received.
Colusa Subbasin GSP Development Project
Contract Amount: $1,542,600 (new contract amount with the approval of Amendment 3 on April 11, 2022)
Expended: $1,257,610.08 (through March 2022)
Remaining: $284,989.92
Colusa Subbasin Annual Report 2022
Contract Amount: $50,000.00
Expended: $48,097.50 (through March 2022)
Remaining: $1,902.50
The Consultant Team provided a GSP Development Status Update- April 2022 Memo (attached) highlighting
work on GSP document preparation and adoption, annual report, public outreach, funding and financing
planning, Well Monitoring Pilot Program, hydrogeologic investigation, additional subsidence benchmarks, and
data management system tasks. A list of comments received on the draft GSP Annual Report and technical team
responses was also provided.
The Colusa Subbasin GSP was submitted to DWR on January 28, 2022. DWR posted the GSP on February 7, 2022
which initiated a 75-day comment period. The comment period closed April 23, 2022. Five comments were
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 26
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
received during the public comment period and one comment was received after the public comment period.
The GSP and related comment can be found on the SGMA portal at:
https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsp/preview/92
The Annual Report was submitted to DWR on April 1, 2022. No comments have been received through the
SGMA Portal. The report can be found on the SGMA portal at:
https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gspar/preview/135
Staff continues to coordinate with the Consultant Team and CGA representative on remaining tasks, for instance
the Data Management System, Well Monitoring Pilot Program, the hydrogeologic investigations task, and
subsidence benchmarks.
The Well Monitoring Pilot Program expansion continues to make progress, as discussed in the Consultant Team
memo. 13 applications were received within the solicitation period. One application was withdrawn leaving 12
applicants. Two sites are located within the GGA area and ten sites are in the CGA area. Applicants were notified
of conditional approval and site visits took place. It was determined that four wells are unsuitable and will not
move forward with the program. If replacement wells are available, site visits could be conducted to determine
suitability. For the approved sites, agreements will be executed, and installation of equipment will begin. The
equipment installation and set-up must be complete by June 30, 2022.
Attachments
Davids Engineering GSP Development Status Update Memo- April 2022 (May 4, 2022)
Comments submitted to the SGMA Portal on the Colusa Subbasin GSP
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 27
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Specialists in Agricultural Water Management
Serving Stewards of Western Water since 1993
Memorandum
To: Colusa Groundwater Authority, Glenn Groundwater Authority
From: Davids Engineering
Date: May 4, 2022
Subject: GSP Development Status UpdateApril 2022
This memorandum provides a summary of activities related to the Groundwater Sustainability Plan
(GSP) Development Project for the Colusa Subbasin during the month of April 2022. In addition to
activities occurring in April, related past and upcoming activities are discussed.
The Colusa Subbasin GSP was adopted in December 2021 and submitted to DWR in January 2022. As of
the end of April 2022, six (6) comments on the Colusa Subbasin GSP were submitted to DWR through
1
the SGMA Portal. These comments are being reviewed by the Consultant Team and GSA staff.
In late March, the Consultant Team prepared the final Annual Report with consideration of comments
received in late March. The Colusa Subbasin GSP first Annual Report was completed and submitted to
DWR by the April 1, 2022, deadline. The Consultant Team also prepared brief responses to the
comments received in March.
A presentation on the GSP and recent groundwater conditions from the first GSP Annual Report was
presented and discussed at a Colusa County Board of Supervisors meeting on April 12. This meeting was
open to and attended by members of the public. The Consultant Team is preparing outreach materials
for the GSAs to utilize in near-term outreach meetings.
Planning
In April, GSA staff and the Consultant Team continued discussions of options and examples that the
GSAs may consider for assigning costs during GSP implementation. There have been no major updates
to the funding and financing planning process since the presentation given to the Joint Boards in March
2022.
In April, the Consultant Team and GSA staff continued planning an expansion of the Well Monitoring
Pilot Program (WMPP). Following solicitation and preliminary screening of new sites in February-March,
1
Available at: https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsp/comments/92.
1772 Picasso Ave, Suite A 1 phone 530.757.6107
Davis, CA 95618-0550 www.davidsengineering.com
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 28
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
the Consultant Team and GSA staff have selected 12 potentially suitable sites to enroll in the program. In
April, GSA staff and the Consultant Team distributed provisional acceptance letters and coordinated site
visits to ascertain the conditions at each well to determine whether the site is ready for installation or
whether reconfiguration is needed. At the sites that are ready for installation, GSA staff and the
Consultant Team are coordinating next steps to sign participant agreements and install monitoring
equipment. At the sites where reconfiguration is needed, GSA staff and the Consultant Team are
coordinating discussions with well owners to plan those reconfigurations or to identify alternate wells
(irrigation or domestic) that can participate in the program. Participants will be enrolled in the program
and monitoring equipment will be installed prior to the conclusion of the grant period. The WMPP
expansion is being funded through an amendment to the grant that has supported other GSP
development work.
In April, the Consultant Team, in consultation with GSA staff, continued work on a strategic planning
document that will guide implementation of many technical studies and planning efforts identified in
the GSP that would fill data gaps and support future refinements of the GSP. This strategic planning
document, referred to as the Hydrogeologic Investigation, will provide background information on the
data gaps identified in the GSP, and then identify specific measurable actions that can be completed to
improve monitoring and address those data gaps. The Hydrogeologic Investigation will be organized to
facilitate future grant applications to fund those efforts. Development of the Hydrogeologic
Investigation is being funded through the same grant that has supported other GSP development work.
The Hydrogeologic Investigation will be completed prior to the conclusion of the grant period.
In an effort to address subsidence-related data gaps in the Colusa Subbasin, grant funding has been
allocated to install 10 additional land subsidence benchmarks in the Colusa Subbasin. In April, the
Consultant Team, in consultation with GSA staff, continued work to identify new sites and continued
planning to procure and install the new benchmarks. Planning and prioritization of new sites is
coinciding with completion of the Hydrogeologic Investigation (described above), and is expected to
focus on areas near critical infrastructure and where recent subsidence rates have increased most
significantly, including the Arbuckle-College City area in Colusa County and the Orland-Artois area in
Glenn County. Input from the GSAs, DWR, Colusa Subbasin stakeholders, and members of the public are
also being considered. Installation of the new subsidence benchmarks is anticipated to occur prior to the
conclusion of the grant period.
In April, the Consultant Team and GSA staff continued discussions of the remaining DMS work and its
synergies with the Annual Report work. To help guide future migration to a final DMS, a report
discussing different platform options, considerations, costs, and benefits will be developed prior to the
conclusion of the grant period.
1772 Picasso Ave, Suite A 2 phone 530.757.6107
Davis, CA 95618-0550 www.davidsengineering.com
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 29
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Page 30
GGA Board of DirectorsMeeting Date: May 9, 2022
Page 31
GGA Board of DirectorsMeeting Date: May 9, 2022
Page 32
GGA Board of DirectorsMeeting Date: May 9, 2022
Comments Received During the Public Comment Period
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 33
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
April 22, 2022
California Department of Water Resources
1416 9th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Colusa Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
To whom it may concern:
AquAlliance, the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, and the California Water Impact
Network (hereinafter AquAlliance) submit the following comments and questions on the Colusa
the Plan that require significant changes to the document, without which the public and
policymakers are truly left in the dark and dangerous consequences are obfuscated.
Introduction
The goal of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) is to sustainably manage
groundwater resources for long-term reliability and multiple economic, social, and environmental
benefits for current and future beneficial uses based on the best available science (Water Code
113). The people of California have a primary interest in the protection, management, and
reasonable beneficial use of the water resources of the state, both surface and underground, and in
to meet water management
goals. Proper management of groundwater resources will help protect communities, farms, and the
environment against prolonged dry periods and climate change, while preserving water supplies
for existing and potential beneficial use. Failure to manage groundwater to prevent long-term
overdraft infringes on overlying and other proprietary rights to groundwater.
established as state policy that every human being has the
right to safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking,
and sanitary purposes (WAT § 106.3(a)). State agencies, including the California Department of
DWR), the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and the State
Department of Public Health, are required to consider this state policy when revising, adopting, or
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 34
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
tğŭĻ 2 ƚŅ 19
AquAlliance Comments Colusa GSP
establishing policies, regulations, and grant criteria when those policies, regulations, and criteria
are pertinent to the uses of water (WAT § 106.3(b)). The Water Code also creates a state policy
that the use of water for domestic purposes is the highest use of water and that the next highest use
is for irrigation (WAT § 106). The Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) were created by
SGMA and are delegated by the state the authority to create and implement a Groundwater
Sustainability Plan (GSP), which makes the GSA(s) a political subdivision of the state. Therefore,
approval of any SGMA GSP created by a GSA, multiple GSAs, or a county agency, that is then
approved by DWR and the SWRCB, must be consistent with the state policies that protect and
prioritize and available supply of groundwater for all beneficial uses and
protect the Public Trust.
Implementation of the SGMA requires the creation of a GSP that provides for the development
and reporting of those data necessary to support sustainable groundwater management, including
- and long-
water balance, and other measures of sustainability, and those data necessary to resolve disputes
regarding sustainable yield, beneficial uses, and water rights. The December 2021 Colusa
1
Subbasin Final GSP fails to meet the SGMA goal of water resource sustainability and protection
of the water rights of all beneficial users and uses.
These comments on the December 2021 Colusa Subbasin Final GSP (Colusa GSP) are being
provided to support our recommendation that the California Department of Water Resources and
the State Water Resources Control Board find that the GSP is incomplete because of multiple
deficiencies and the overall failure of the document to comply with the statutory and regulatory
requirements of the SGMA and the Water Code. These comments are supplemental to
previous comments provided on the September 2021 Draft Colusa Subbasin GSP,
which are attached in Final Colusa GSP in Appendix 2B-2 (pdf pp. 606 to 662). The proposed
sustainable management criteria presented in the Colusa GSP fail to demonstrate as required by
SGMA that the goal of groundwater sustainability is achievable and will occur within 20 years of
GSP adoption to prevent: (1) chronic lowering of groundwater levels, (2) reduction of
groundwater storage, (3) degraded water quality, (4) inelastic land subsidence, and (5) depletions
of interconnected surface waters. The Final Colusa GSP fails to protect the beneficial uses for all
users of groundwater in the subbasin because of the following:
1. The final plan sets the minimum thresholds (MTs) for unreasonable results in the
management of the groundwater levels at depths that can result in 20% or more of the
domestic wells going dry for sustained periods, if not permanently.
2. The final plan without a clear explanation has reduced the number of representative
monitoring network groundwater level wells screened in the deep aquifer zone, defined by
DWR as greater than 600 feet below the ground surface (bgs), from 17 (possibly 18) in the
Draft GSP to 2 (possibly 3). The deep aquifer zone is used for agricultural production so
sustainability criteria and extensive monitoring of groundwater levels and water quality in
this zone must be included in the GSP.
1
California Groundwater basin number 5-021.52, part of the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin, as defined by
DWR Bulletin 118 (DWR, 2006) and updated in February 2019. Additional basin boundary modifications were
submitted to DWR in June 2021; however, the modifications have not been approved as of the writing of this GSP.
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 35
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
tğŭĻ 3 ƚŅ 19
AquAlliance Comments Colusa GSP
3.The final plan assumes that sustainable management of the subbasin will allow for
groundwater pumping to increase 57,000 acre-feet per year (afy) above the 1990-2015
Historical baseline with 93% of the increase going to agricultural uses.
4. The final plan assumes that sustainable management of the subbasin will result in a
decrease in net stream accretion of 90,000 afy, or 56.3% below the 1990-2015 Historical
baseline of 160,000 afy.
5. The final plan assumes that sustainable management of the subbasin results when the
future ratio of additional loss of stream flow to additional pumping is approximately 158%
(-90,000 afy / 57,000 afy = -1.579 = -158%).
6. The final plan assumes that sustainable management of the subbasin will cause 350,000
acre-feet (af) of groundwater storage to be lost in the next 50 years in addition to the
approximate 700,000 af lost as of January 2015, for a total of approximately 1 million af
since 1990, before an unreasonable result is declared.
7. The final plan sets the subbasin average margin of operational flexibility (MOF), the
difference in the depths between the management objectives (MOs) and the MTs, for the
shallow aquifer zone at a thickness that can allow a loss in groundwater storage of over 4
million acre-feet before an unreasonable result is declared
below).
8. The final plan requires without analysis or justification that before an unreasonable result
can occur the MTs for a sustainability indicator must be continuously and simultaneously
exceeded for 24 months at 25% of the representative groundwater network (RMN)
monitoring wells.
9. The final plan requirement for simultaneous, continuous exceedance of the MT at multiple
benchmarks or RMN monitoring wells can result in significant magnitudes and expansive
areas of decline in groundwater levels, groundwater storage, water quality, interconnected
surface waters, and surface elevations (subsidence) so long as one of the monitored stations
in the group cycles above and below the MT depth. In other words, there is no limit to
decline in the beneficial uses of groundwater if measurements in one of the monitoring
stations within a group is above the MT at least once every 24 months.
10. The final plan has 9 of the 12 Interconnected Surface Water (ICSW) monitoring wells
included in the 48 RMN groundwater level monitoring wells. The MOs for these 9 ICSW
wells are nearly the same as the RMN groundwater level wells. However, the MTs in all
12 ICSW wells are significantly shallower than the MTs for the RMN groundwater level
wells, even though they are at the same location. How are the GSP management actions for
preventing depletion of ICSW different from the actions to prevent the chronic lowering of
groundwater level when the groundwater level for both sustainability criteria is taken at the
same location in the same aquifer zone?
11. The final plan assumes the DWR 2070 Climate Change scenario will result in an increase
in surface water inflows to the subbasin over the Historical baseline of 968,000 afy, and an
increase in precipitation over the baseline of 48,000 afy.
12. The final plan assumes that contrary to the 2070 climate-change-induced increases in
inflow of surface water and precipitation, groundwater inflows from deep percolation of
precipitation and applied surface water will decrease from the Historical baseline by
18,000 afy and 38,000 afy, respectively.
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 36
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
tğŭĻ 4 ƚŅ 19
AquAlliance Comments Colusa GSP
13.The final plan assumes that groundwater sustainability of the subbasin will be achievedin
part because 86,000 afy of additional Central Valley Project (CVP) surface water will be
available for In-Lieu Recharge, and that a funding plan will be developed to promote the
use of CVP water instead of pumping groundwater. It fails to note that groundwater
2
recharge alters the rights to groundwater and may not be a solution acceptable to subbasin
users. It also fails to demonstrate that creating the space for recharge harms groundwater
dependent farms and residential property as well as streams and habitat for myriad species.
This has long been the plan of Glenn Colusa Irrigation District and the Bureau of
Reclamation to take over the basin and manipulate for the benefit of moneyed interests,
34
not the local people or environment., Repeating the mistakes of the Owens, San
Fernando, and San Joaquin valleys is not in the best interests of the communities,
businesses, groundwater dependent farms, and the environment.
14. The final plan fails to analyze, monitor, or consider the potential impacts to water quality
from the proposed allowable changes in groundwater levels and storage, except for one
constituent, salinity. Although the final plan calls for coordination in management of water
hat the MOs and
MTs are for all the potential contaminants of concern in the Colusa subbasin, or what and
how GSP management actions will be taken whenever a water quality impact is identified.
15. The final plan sets the rate and expanse of inelastic subsidence that appear to exceed the
current conditions while providing no current assessment of the sensitivity of local
infrastructure to subsidence. A future study is proposed to fill the infrastructure data gap,
but the Colusa S leading or funding this study, and there
is no timeline for its completion.
16. frequency of monitoring subsidence
benchmarks or monitoring critical infrastructure, but instead leaves the responsibility of
subsidence monitoring and analysis to others.
17. The final plan assumes that subsidence data collection would be grant-funded and
implemented by state and federal agencies, such as DWR or USGS (U.S. Geological
Survey), and the Sacramento Valley Subsidence Interbasin Working Group.
18. The final plan assumes that any projects to address or mitigate inelastic land subsidence
would be led, implemented, and funded by other local entities and not the Colusa Subbasin
GSAs.
2
Los Angeles v. Glendale (1943) 23 Cal.2d 68, 76-78; Los Angeles v. San Fernando (1975) 14 Cal.3d 199, 258-60;
Stevens v. Oakdale Irrigation District (1939) 13 Cal.2d 343, 352-43; Crane v. Stevinson (1936) 5 Cal. 2d 387, 398.
3
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, September 2006. Grant Assistance Agreement. "GCID shall define three hypothetical
water delivery systems from the State Water Project (Oroville), the Central Valley Project (Shasta) and the Orland
Project reservoirs sufficient to provide full and reliable surface water delivery to parties now pumping from the Lower
Tuscan Formation. The purpose of this activity is to describe and compare the performance of three alternative ways
of furnishing a substitute surface water supply to the current Lower Tuscan Formation groundwater users to eliminate
the risks to them of more aggressive pumping from the Formation and to optimize conjunctive management of the
Sacramento Valley water resources." (p. 5)
4
Id. -wide water
integrate the
(p. 6)
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 37
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
tğŭĻ 5 ƚŅ 19
AquAlliance Comments Colusa GSP
Failureto Comply with SGMA and the Water Code
The following sections provide expanded discussions on the deficiencies listed above regarding
how the Colusa GSP fails to protect the beneficial uses for all users of groundwater in the
subbasin.
a) The Colusa GSP sets the MTs for unreasonable results in the management of the groundwater
levels at depths that can result in 20% or more of the domestic wells going dry for sustained
periods, if not permanently. The MTs for groundwater levels in the 48 representative monitoring
network (RMN) wells are set at the lowest elevation, greatest depth, of either 50% of measured
historical groundwater elevation range below the historical measured low elevation, or the
elevation corresponding to the 20th percentile of domestic well depths, Table 5-1, page 5-18 (pdf
282) and Section 5.4.1.1 (pages 5-19 to 5-21, pdf 283 to 285). This effectively requires that before
a declaration that groundwater levels in the subbasin are undesirable and management actions
need to be taken, a significant number of domestic wells that are today functioning must go dry.
The requirement that the greatest depth to groundwater of either criterion is controlling
sustainability means that domestic wells in the subbasin will experience water levels far below
those that have occurred in the past. The greatest depth criterion also means that more than 20% of
the domestic wells will be allowed to go dry before the GSAs declare an undesirable result.
The attached AquAlliance Exhibits 1 and 2 are modifications of the Final and Draft Colusa GSP
Table 5-2 that lists the 48 RMN groundwater level monitoring wells, the sustainable management
criteria for each well, and the difference in depth between the two MT determination methods.
AquAlliance Exhibit 1 also lists the 12 Interconnected Surface Water monitoring wells from Table
5-3 (page 5-33, pdf 297) because 7 of these wells are also part of the 48 RMN wells. Columns are
alphabetically labeled at the top of the tables. Column I lists which MT method was used for each
th
well; (a) for 20 percentile of domestic wells, and (b) for 50% of historic range below lowest
historic level. Columns J and K give the difference in depth between chosen MT and the rejected
threshold. For example, the first well in AquAlliance Exhibit 1 lists the selected MT in Column F
th
at a depth of 136 feet below the ground surface (bgs) based on 20 percentile depths (Column I).
This is 42 feet lower than the depth for the 50% of the historic range below the historic lowest
groundwater level (Column J). So, domestic wells in the polygon controlled by this well will be
subjected to declines in groundwater that are greater than what has been historical experience, and
greater than 50% of the range below the historical low by an additional decline of 42 feet.
This GSP requirement to maximize the decline in groundwater levels is considered reasonable
by the Colusa Subbasin GSAs because it allows for a margin of operational flexibility that is
adequate to allow for increased groundwater production during drought years with recovery
during normal or wet years, accounting for uncertainty in each, Section 5.4.1.3 (page 5-23, pdf
287). The benefit from increasing production
during a drought, but it is clear that at least 20% of the domestic well producers are not likely to be
among them.
As introduced above, for those RMN groundwater level wells where the MT is set at the 50%
range below the historical low, more than 20% of the domestic wells will be allowed to go dry to
provide operational flexibility. For example, at well 21N04W12A002, CASGEM ID 25725 (fifth
well from the bottom of page 2 of AquAlliance Exhibit 1), the MT is set at a depth of 230 feet
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 38
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
tğŭĻ 6 ƚŅ 19
AquAlliance Comments Colusa GSP
th
(Column F), 132 feet below the 20percentile depth of 98 feet for domestic wells(ColumnsG
and K). This is a 135 percent increase in the depth below which 20% of the domestic wells will go
dry. Based on the CASGEM database, the depth to groundwater at this RMN well in October 2021
was approximately 206 feet, or 108 feet below the depth of 20% of the domestic wells, and yet an
additional decline in water level of 24 feet is needed before the MT depth for this well is
exceeded.
This well is one of two RMN wells closest to the City of Orland. Glenn County, as the Colusa
GSP Preface notes, has had 282 reports of problems associated with groundwater wells, with
about 65 percent of those being reports of dry wells. AquAlliance Exhibit 3 is a screen capture of
the SGMA Data Viewer showing that most of the reported dry wells in the Colusa Subbasin are
near Orland. The October 20, 2021 comment letter by the City of Orland Council on the Draft
Colusa GSP noted that 150 domestic wells had gone dry in the summer of 2021 (pdf pages 683
and 684).
b) In addition to groundwater levels having to decline below the MT depth to declare an
undesirable result, the Colusa GSP also requires that the MT must be exceeded continuously for
24 consecutive months in at least 25% of the 48 RMN groundwater level wells, i.e., 12 wells,
Table 5-1 (page 5-18, pdf 282). The reasoning given for the method of selection of these 12 or
more
below the minimum threshold. Once selected the well must be in the same subset of wells. The
implications of these additional requirements on the water supply for domestic and smaller
agricultural users will be discussed below in comment no. 3. The reasoning for selecting the 25%
well groups raises several questions:
Why is the selection of the 12 or more wells not based on how groundwater production in
the subbasin is being managed and the implementation of the sustainability projects?
What is the start date of the 24 consecutive month clock? Does it start on the earliest day
th
that any one of the 25% wells exceeds its MT, on the day the 12 well exceeds its MT, or
some other intermediate date?
th
What happens to the start date of the 24-consecutive-month clock if a 13 well, or more,
exceeds its MT? Does the start date begin anew when a well is added to the group?
How many 25% MT exceedance groups are possible, only one, up to 4, or more?
If the wells must remain in the same subset, do they remain in that 25% subset forever, or
do the wells in a 25% group change when there are fewer than 12 and the 24-month clock
stops?
Can the areas of the subbasin monitored by multiple 25% groups overlap?
What happens when the locations of the first 12 wells that exceed their MTs span the entire
subbasin and then additional MT exceedance wells are clustered around a pumping
depression?
Why does the MT exceedance need to be continuous in multiple wells for 24 months? Why
is the dewatering of a domestic and/or small agricultural well for less than 24 months
considered a beneficially sustainable practice?
Why is seasonal dewatering of domestic and/or small agricultural wells that might occur
cyclically each summer considered beneficially sustainable, and who is benefitting?
Certainly not the small landowner.
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 39
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
tğŭĻ 7 ƚŅ 19
AquAlliance Comments Colusa GSP
An additional issue with the requirement for MT exceedance for 24 consecutive months is that it
may prevent the determination of an unreasonable result from lowering of groundwater levels. The
Colusa GSP monitoring plan utilizes 8 of the 48 RMN groundwater level monitoring wells, or 17
percent, shown in Table 5-2, that have MT depths that are at or below the screened interval of the
well. This means that the chronic lowering of groundwater level sustainability criteria at these
continuously measured, and the water levels in these wells will need to be either
reported as not available or reported as being above the MT! The MT criteria in all but one of
th
these 8 wells are set at the 20 percentile domestic well depth. These 8 wells are identified by a
footnote 3 in Column F of AquAlliance Exhibit 1. AquAlliance Exhibit 4 is a modification of
Figure 4-6 in the Final Colusa GSP that identifies the locations of these 8 wells.
These 8 wells monitor the shallow aquifer zone, shallower than 200 feet, and are distributed across
the subbasin. It is likely that at least one or more all four of the required groups of 25% RMN
monitoring wells will have at least one of these 8 wells. This suggests that in the Colusa
Subbasin an undesirable result from the chronic lowering of groundwater level can never
occur, regardless of how low groundwater levels decline. As an example, AquAlliance Exhibit
5 is a modification of Figure 3A-47 (pdf page 3319) that shows the hydrographs for the
21N03W34Q002-004M cluster of wells near the City of Artois. Well 21N03W34Q004M
(CASGEM 25790) is one of the Colusa RMN wells, sixth up from the bottom in AquAlliance
Exhibit 1. Horizontal lines are added to this figure at the approximate depths of 55 feet bgs for the
management objective (MO) and 125 feet bgs for the MT, along with dashed lines
screen interval at 60 to 70 feet bgs, AquAlliance Exhibit 1 (Columns E, F and C). The
groundwater levels can be measured to confirm the MO sustainability, but whenever the level
declines below 70 feet, no measurements of shallow groundwater are available in this well.
Therefore, groundwater levels between 71 and the MT at 125 feet bgs will always be unmeasured,
which means that the monitoring group with this well can never have the groundwater level in all
25% wells lower than their respective MTs.
c) The Colusa GSP requires without analysis or justification that before an unreasonable result can
occur, the MT for a parameter must be continuously and simultaneously exceeded for 24 months
(2 years) at 25% at representative monitoring wells for chronic lowering of groundwater levels,
degradation of water quality, and depletion of interconnected surface waters, Table 5-1 (page 5-18,
pdf 282). In addition to the problem discussed above with 8 wells being screened above their MT
depths, the requirement that all wells or benchmarks in the monitoring group continuously exceed
the MT before an undesirable result can be declared creates a condition where 20% or more of the
domestic wells within the polygon around a monitoring well can be repeatedly dewatered each
summer while the subbasin is considered sustainably managed. The current design of the
sustainability criteria in the Colusa GSP require that any actions be taken to mitigate or
stop cyclic annual dewatering of domestic or agricultural wells if one or more of the RMN wells
cycles above and below the MT depth once every 24 months. What justifies minimum threshold
sustainable criteria that allow cyclic annual dewatering of domestic and shallow agricultural
wells? How could it possibly be considered a beneficially sustainable management practice?
d) The Colusa GSP finds that an undesirable result can occur only when a group of RMN
monitoring wells or benchmarks simultaneously and continuously exceeds the MT for 24 months.
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 40
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
tğŭĻ 8 ƚŅ 19
AquAlliance Comments Colusa GSP
Thiscan result in expansive areas of the subbasin experiencing significant declinesin groundwater
levels, groundwater storage, water quality, and land surface elevations (subsidence). If the
groundwater elevation at any one RMN well is above or lower for water quality than the MT for
one measurement within a 24-month period, adeclared.
This could result in cyclic declines in groundwater levels, groundwater storage, groundwater water
quality, surface water flows, and/or land elevations that allow areas of undesirable results to
become too large and too costly for the GSAs to mitigate without significant funding from the
state or federal government.
The Colusa Subbasin covers approximately 723,823 acres (page 2-1, pdf 75). The requirement that
25 percent of the RMN wells and 20% of the subsidence benchmarks must be included in a group
could result in a significant impact to the sustainability of approximately 144,765 to 180,956 acres
before any actions need to be taken to remedy the cause. Note that the acreages are approximate
averages because the Colusa GSP around each
monitoring station, give the number of acres in a polygon, or name the wells or benchmarks in the
required groups, so the actual number of acres harmed may be fewer or greater than these values.
e) The Colusa GSP, without a clear explanation, has reduced the number of wells in RMN
5
groundwater level wells screened in the deep aquifer zone, defined by DWR as greater than 600
feet below the ground surface, from 17 (possibly 18) of the 48 RMN wells in the Draft GSP down
to 2 (possibly 3) in the Final GSP. The deep aquifer zone is used for agricultural production and a
6
portion of the recharge to the deep zone comes from the overlying aquifer zones. Therefore,
sustainability criteria and extensive monitoring of deep aquifer zone groundwater levels, changes
in groundwater storage, and groundwater water quality need to be included in the GSP. The Final
GSP the total number of RMN groundwater monitoring wells, 48, but it did remove
20 of the Draft GSP wells and replaced them with 20 new wells. The well substitutions appear to
mostly remove wells monitoring the deeper aquifer zone with wells screened in shallower zones.
Both the original draft wells and the new final wells appear to be at or near the same location, just
monitoring different zones. AquAlliance Exhibits 1 and 2 list the RMN groundwater level wells
for the Final Colusa GSP and the Draft Colusa GSP, respectively. The wells in bold font in both
exhibits are those that have been changed from the draft to the final Colusa GSP. AquAlliance
Exhibits 6 and 7 are modified Figures 4-6 from the draft and final Colusa GSP, respectively, that
show the deep aquifer zone RMN groundwater level monitoring wells. For the Final Colusa GSP,
the deep aquifer zone RMN groundwater level wells are now only in the southern portion of the
subbasin. The Final Colusa GSP has no RMN groundwater level wells monitoring the deep aquifer
zone in the northern two-thirds of the subbasin.
The lack of monitoring and sustainability criteria for the deeper aquifer zone in the northern
portion of the subbasin is particularly problematic because the area has experienced continued
5
See groundwater contour maps at https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/northern-sacramento-valley-groundwater-
elevation-change-maps
6
See aquifer studies at:
https://www.countyofglenn.net/sites/default/files/Water_Advisory_Committee/StonyCreek2003ReportandAppendicies.pdf
https://www.buttecounty.net/Portals/26/Tuscan/LTAFinalReport.pdf
https://www.buttecounty.net/Portals/26/Tuscan/AnalysisofAquiferEffectsDuringLargeScaleAgriculturalPumping.pdf
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 41
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
tğŭĻ 9 ƚŅ 19
AquAlliance Comments Colusa GSP
7
declines in groundwater levels for at least 10 years.Sustainable management of the Colusa
Subbasin requires that this critically important aquifer zone be monitored.
cap or limit on the number of monitoring stations, so the 20 monitoring wells that were removed
must be returned to expand the RMN to 68 wells to monitor groundwater levels and water quality.
f) The water balance in the Colusa GSP, Chapter 3.3, assumes that future groundwater pumping
can be increased by 57,000 afy above 1990-2015 Historical baseline under the 2070 Climate
Change Scenario with 93% of the increase, 53,000 afy, going to agricultural uses. The future
condition without climate change will have a decrease in groundwater pumping of 3,000 afy with
agriculture declining 5,000 afy and managed wetlands increasing 2,000 afy. AquAlliance Exhibit
8 is a modification of the Final Colusa GSP Groundwater Budget Table 3-12 with columns added
that calculate the difference and the percentage difference between the 2070 Future Climate
Change scenario and the Historical or Current condition baselines.
The 57,000 afy increase in groundwater production (AquAlliance Exhibit 8, Row 11, Column G)
occurs with a 30,000 afy reduction in total deep percolation (Row 2, Column G). This reduction in
recharge to groundwater is the result of an 18,000 afy reduction in deep percolation from
precipitation (Row 3, Column G) and a 38,000 afy reduction from applied surface water (Row 4,
Column G), but a 25,000 afy increase from applied groundwater (Row 5, Column G). The annual
average reduction in applied surface water will apparently occur while the In-Lieu Groundwater
Recharge Projects that total 86,000 afy are being implemented, Colusa GSP Table 6.2 and Table 1
of Appendix 6A (pages 6-7 and 6-8, pdf pages 307 and 308; and pdf 3690). This raises several
questions:
Why does the groundwater water balance assume an annual average reduction in applied
surface water when the In-Lieu Groundwater Recharge Projects are intended to increase
surface water use up to 86,000 afy as a remedy for the historical groundwater storage
losses?
Why does the groundwater budget assume a reduction in deep percolation from
precipitation, when the surface water budget, Table 3-11, (pages 3-95 and 3-96, pdf 213
and 214) assumes an increase of 48,000 afy in precipitation (AquAlliance Exhibit 9, Row
6, Column G)?
Why does a 25,000 afy increase in deep percolation occur with a 57,000 afy increase in
groundwater pumping, approximately a 44% recharge? The historical average deep
percolation is 72,000 afy from 502,000 afy groundwater production, an average recharge
of approximately 14% (AquAlliance Exhibit 8, Row 5, Column B divided by Row 11,
Column B). The future additional deep percolation recharge from applied groundwater is
significantly greater than the baseline condition. What is the cause of this increase in deep
percolation with climate change?
7
See groundwater level change maps at https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/northern-sacramento-valley-groundwater-
elevation-change-maps
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 42
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
tğŭĻ 10 ƚŅ 19
AquAlliance Comments Colusa GSP
g) The water balance in the Colusa GSP assumes that with the 2070 Climate Change scenario the
management of the subbasin will result in a decrease in groundwater discharging to surface water,
a change in net stream accretion of -90,000 afy (AquAlliance Exhibit 8, Row 18, Column G), or
56.3% below the 1990-2015 baseline of 160,000 afy (Row 18, Columns H and B). The loss in net
stream accretion occurs because of an increase in seepage from streams with climate change of
47,000 afy (Row 7, Column G) and a reduction in groundwater discharging, accretion, to the
streams of 43,000 afy (Row 15, Column G). In addition, seepage from the canals is assumed to
increase 9,000 afy (Row 8, Column G). This decline in future stream flow raises several questions:
How is the increase in seepage loss of 47,000 afy from streams that occurs with an increase
in groundwater pumping of 57,000 afy considered sustainable management? his
increase in seepage be considered an undesirable result to interconnected surface waters
and an impact to the Public Trust?
The historical net stream accretion, 160,000 afy (Row 18, Column B) occurred with
groundwater pumping of 502,000 afy (Row 11, Column B), a ratio of net accretion to
pumping of approximately 32% (Row 19, Column B). With the 2070 Climate Change
scenario, the management plan will result in 70,000 afy of net stream accretion (Row 18,
Column F), a ratio of net accretion to pumping of approximately 13% (Row 19, Column F)
and a 56 percent decrease in net stream accretion, groundwater discharging to surface
waters (Row 18, Column H). Why is this reduction in net stream accretion considered a
beneficially sustainable management practice?
discharging to streams be considered an undesirable result to interconnected surface waters
and an impact to the Public Trust?
Why is an increase in groundwater pumping of 57,000 afy (Row 11, Column G) that
results in a decrease in net stream accretion of 90,000 afy (Row 18, Column G), a ratio of
additional loss of stream flow to additional pumping of approximately 158% (Row 19,
Column G) considered a beneficially sustainable management? Shou
groundwater production that
causes the flow loss be considered an undesirable result to interconnected surface waters
and an impact to the Public Trust?
h) The Colusa GSP requires that before an unreasonable result can occur in the depletion of
interconnected surface waters (ICSW), the MT for groundwater levels in 25% of the 12 ICSW
representative monitoring wells must be continuously and simultaneously exceeded for 24 months
(Table 5-1 p. 5-18, pdf 282). This requirement for continuous and simultaneous exceedance for
ICSW wells raises the same problems as with the RMN groundwater level monitoring wells (see
comments b and c above). This issue is also relevant to the issues raised by CDFW that: (1) the
monitored groundwater levels, and (2) why the ICSW sustainability criteria will protect beneficial
uses and users of surface water, and groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs) (see CDFW
comment, pdf 669 to 681).
There is also another problem with the MT values for ICSW monitoring wells. While the MO
values in 9 of the ICSW monitoring wells are nearly the same as for the MOs in the same 9 RMN
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 43
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
tğŭĻ 11 ƚŅ 19
AquAlliance Comments Colusa GSP
shallow groundwater level monitoring wells, the MTs for all of ICSW monitoring wells are
shallower than the MTs for the RMN groundwater monitoring wells even though they are at the
same location. Nine of the 12 ICSW monitoring wells are also part of the 48 RMN groundwater
level monitoring wells. The remaining 4 ICSW monitoring wells appear to be near the same
location as RMN groundwater level wells as part of a nested cluster of monitoring wells based on
the latitude and longitude listed in Table 4-2 (pages 4-7 to 4-10, pdf 237 to 240). AquAlliance
Exhibit 1 lists the ICSW wells along with their MO and MT values and the difference in depth
between the ICSW MOs and MTs in Column M. At the 2 ICSW wells the MO values are
shallower than the MO for the RMN well (last 4 wells bottom of page 1 of AquAlliance Exhibit
1). For all 12 of the ICSW wells the MTs differ from the MTs in the RMN groundwater level
wells. The fact that the some of the MOs and all the MTs at 12 ICSW groundwater level
monitoring wells differ from the RMN groundwater level monitoring wells at the same location
raises several questions.
Why and how are the GSP management actions for preventing depletion of
interconnected surface water different from the actions to prevent the chronic lowering of
groundwater level when the measurement is taken at the same location in the same
aquifer zone? For example, ICSW well 22N3W24E003 (CASGEM 25758; the last well
in AquAlliance Exhibit 1) is screened between depths of 50 and 60 feet, and has an MO
of 23 feet bgs and an MT of 36 feet bgs. The adjacent RMN well 22N3W24E002
(CASGEM 38667) is screened between depths of 130 and 180 feet, and has an MO of 55
feet bgs and an MT of 109 feet bgs. Both wells are monitoring the shallow aquifer zone,
less than 200 feet deep.
o Why are the MOs and MTs different for the same aquifer zone?
o Is there an extensive hydrogeologic layer spanning the area of the wells polygons
that separates the shallow aquifers being monitored by these two wells?
o When the groundwater levels fall below the MT depth of 36 feet, do the depletion
rates of the interconnected surface waters and length of stream depleted become
words, does the stream become disconnect from groundwater? If yes, what field
evidence will confirm this?
o
to a maximum rather than a minimum and that loss then continues even after the
8
stream becomes disconnected?
8
See these articles about how the disconnection of streams with groundwater results in maximum stream flow losses
that spread as the groundwater depression enlarges.
Brunner P., Cook P. G., and Simmons C. T., 2009, Hydrogeologic controls on disconnection between surface water
and groundwater, Water Resources Research, v. 45, W01422, pgs 1-13
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008WR006953
Brunner P., Cook P.G. and Simmons C.T., 2011, Disconnected Surface Water and Groundwater: From Theory to
Practice, Ground Water, v. 49, no. 4, pgs 460-467.
https://libra.unine.ch/Publications/Philip_Brunner/25762
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 44
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
tğŭĻ 12 ƚŅ 19
AquAlliance Comments Colusa GSP
o
pumping be considered an impact to the Public Trust?
o What management actions need to be taken when groundwater levels fall below 36
feet bgs in this well, versus actions when levels fall below 109 feet bgs?
o
water also prevent the chronic lowering of groundwater levels?
o Is having two sets of sustainability criteria for monitoring groundwater levels in the
same aquifer zone at the same location a reasonable management practice, or will it
just cause confusion about what and when actions need to be taken to protect all
beneficial uses and users?
i) The water balance in the Colusa GSP under the 2070 Climate Change scenario management
plan assumes a groundwater storage loss of 7,000 afy (AquAlliance Exhibit 8, Table 3-12, Row
17, Column F), or 350,000 af of groundwater storage loss in the next 50 years, Figure 3-49 (page
3-110, pdf 228). This loss is in addition to a storage loss from 1990 to 2015 of 700,000 afy, a
28,000 afy loss for 25 years (AquAlliance Exhibit 8, Row 17, Column B) and Figure 3-29 (p. 3-
66, pdf 184). This results in a total loss in storage at the end of the 5-year simulation period of
approximately 1 million acre-feet since 1990. The Colusa GPS also assumes that for all scenarios
the total range in storage loss in the future 50 years will be 800,000 afy (p. 3-109, pdf 227).
Although the 2070 Climate Change scenario storage loss of 7,000 afy is an improvement in
storage loss over the Historical baseline by 20,000 afy (AquAlliance Exhibit 8, Row 17, Column
G), still a continuation of the loss in storage with the negative impacts associated with declines
in groundwater level.
In Section 3.2.3, Estimate of Groundwater Storage, the Colusa GPS estimates a storage capacity of
10.3 million acre-feet (maf) for the shallow aquifer zone, the upper 200 feet of subbasin aquifer
system, using the 2006 Bulletin 118 subbasin area (lines 28 to 30, page 3-65, pdf 183). The Colusa
GSP describes the subbasin (5-21.52) as having an area of 723,823 acres (page 2-1, pdf 75). In
AquAlliance Exhibit 1, Column L shows the average of the shallow aquifer thickness between the
MO depth and the MT depth at 81.5 feet, which is the margin of
operational flexibility (MOF) in Table 5-2 (pp. 5-24 and 5-25, pdf 288 and 289). Using the
subbasin area, the assumption that shallow aquifer storage occurs within the upper 200 feet of the
aquifer, and the specific yield estimate of 7.1 percent (0.071) (lines 28 to 30, p. 3-65, pdf 183), an
average saturated thickness of the upper unconfined shallow aquifer of 198 feet is calculated.
Cook P.G., Brunner P., Simmons C.T., Lamontagne S., 2010, What is a Disconnected Stream?, Groundwater 2010,
Canberra, October 31, 2010 November 4, 2010, pgs 4.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Philip-
Brunner/publication/266251504_What_is_a_Disconnected_Stream/links/54dfa2c80cf29666378b9e57/What-is-a-
Disconnected-Stream.pdf
Fox G.A. and Durnford D.S., 2003, Unsaturated hyporheic zone flow in stream/aquifer conjunctive systems,
Advances in Water Resources, v. 26, pgs. 989-1000.
http://www.geol.lsu.edu/blanford/NATORBF/5%20Modeling%20Papers%20of%20Groundwater%20Flow%20of%20
Stream&Aquifer%20Systems/Fox%20et%20al_Water%20Resources_2003.PDF
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 45
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
tğŭĻ 13 ƚŅ 19
AquAlliance Comments Colusa GSP
The ratio of the shallow aquifer 81.5 feet of MO-MT difference to the198 feet of saturated
thickness, 0.4116, multiplied by the 10,300,000 acre-feet of total groundwater storage results in a
MO-MT storage volume of approximately 4,240,000 acre-feet. In other words, the Colusa GSP
groundwater level sustainability criterion uses a margin of operational flexibility that allows for a
total reduction in the shallow aquifer zone groundwater storage of 4.2 million acre-feet before an
9
undesirable result is triggered. This volume of allowable decline in groundwater storage raises
several questions:
As discussed above in Comment , the proposed groundwater level sustainability
criterion for 8 of the 48 RMN monitoring wells appears to prevent any declaration of an
undesirable result regardless of how much groundwater levels decline. Therefore, can an
undesirable result for reduction in groundwater storage be declared without a declaration of
an undesirable result from the decline in groundwater levels?
The MOF allows for a storage loss of approximately 4.2 million acre-feet before an
undesirable result occurs. This volume is approximately 6 times the 700,000 afy historical
storage loss that occurred from 1990 to the start of SGMA (January 2015), 12 times the
anticipated additional 350,000 af of groundwater storage loss in the 50 years after 2015,
and 5 times the maximum 800,000 afy anticipated fluctuation in groundwater storage
during the 50-year period after 2015. How may the minimum threshold sustainable criteria
possibly be considered a beneficially sustainable management practice when they create a
margin of operational flexibility with a volume that allows a loss in groundwater storage 6
times the historical loss and up to 12 times the anticipated future loss?
The 4.2 million acre-feet volume of the margin of operational flexibility and the
requirement that in a group of 25% of the RMN groundwater level wells each well must
exceed the MT depth simultaneously and continuously for 24 months before an
undesirable result is triggered suggests that an average loss in storage of 1 million acre-feet
or greater can occur in 25% of the subbasin before an undesirable result in lowered
groundwater levels occurs. This would be a volume of storage loss equivalent to the total
estimated loss from 1990 to 2070. Why is a localized groundwater storage loss of this
magnitude considered a beneficially sustainable management practice?
To calculate the MOF storage loss more accurately in the shallow aquifer zone,
information is needed on the area of each polygon in the shallow aquifer zone associated
with each of the 21 shallow wells, along with the specifics on which 12 of the 48 RMN
wells are being grouped together. Specific information on the polygon areas around the
monitoring wells and the wells within each group is lacking in the Colusa GSP.
j) An assessment of how the Colusa GSP maintains sustainability and prevents impacts to all
groundwater beneficial uses and users during periods of extended below normal water years can
be made by evaluating the average difference between the MO and MT depths (MO-MT) and the
amount of groundwater stored therein. The sustainability of the subbasin can be measured by
9
If shallow and intermediate monitoring wells in Table 5-2 are included the MO-MT difference, the thickness is
greater, 85 feet, and if all wells are included the MO-MT, the difference is 90 feet. Both increase the volume of the
margin of operational flexibility.
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 46
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
tğŭĻ 14 ƚŅ 19
AquAlliance Comments Colusa GSP
dividing estimated total MO-MT storage volume, or MOF, by the annual average change in
storage in Table 3-12, AquAlliance Exhibit 8 (Row 17). If management of the subbasin continues
under the 2000-2018 Historical condition, -28,000 afy loss in storage (Row 17, Column B), it
would take approximately 150 years to deplete the 4,240,000 af in the MOF. For the future 2070
Climate Change scenario at a -7,000 afy (Row 17, Column F), it would take approximately 600
years to deplete the total MOF volume. The number of years that it would take to deplete the MOF
suggests that the MT depths are too deep to be a valid threshold for sustainability and
protective of all beneficial uses and users, but are intended to protect only the largest groundwater
users with the deepest wells.
k) An alternative assessment of how effective the margin of operational flexibility is at achieving
sustainability would be to divide the MOF storage volume by the modeled annual rate of storage
loss during extended periods of below normal water years, i.e., droughts. The Colusa GSP Figure
3-49 (page 3-110, pdf 228) shows the estimated cumulative change in storage for different
scenarios. These drought rates of storage loss range from -90,000 afy to -168,000 afy with an
average of -134,500 afy (AquAlliance Exhibit 10). For the maximum rate of drought storage loss
of -168,000 afy under the future 2070 Climate Change scenario, depletion of the MOF volume
would take from approximately 25 years of continuous loss (e.g., 4,240,000 af / 168,000 afy =
25.29 yrs). For the minimum rate of storage loss of -90,000 afy, total depletion of the MOF would
take approximately 47 years. Using the estimated MOF storage volume for the saturated 198 feet
of shallow aquifer (see Comment No. 9), an average volume of groundwater produced from a one-
foot decline in groundwater level is approximately 52,000 acre-feet per foot (af/f) (10,300,00 af /
198 ft = 52,020 af/f). The extensive time needed to deplete the Colusa GSP MOF storage volume
before an undesirable result can occur raises several questions:
Why is the MOF storage volume set so that even at the maximum rate of annual storage
loss estimated for droughts it would take 25 continuous years of groundwater decline
before groundwater levels would exceed the MTs and an undesirable result would be
triggered?
drought rate to exceed the MTs make the standard for 24 months of continuous MT
exceedance a meaningless threshold? That is, an undesirable result would only occur after
years 27 continuous years of drought, not 2 years.
Why is the requirement that 25 continuous years of groundwater decline at the maximum
drought rate considered a sustainable management practice that protects all beneficial uses
and users as required by SGMA?
l) The sustainable management of groundwater as envisioned by SGMA likely requires that a
temporary groundwater storage surplus be maintained to meet the needs of users during droughts
and to protect the beneficial uses of streams, wildlife, and groundwater dependent ecosystem
(WAT § 10721(w)). That is, subbasin management actions should provide for storing sufficient
groundwater needed to counter the losses from a drought to protect and minimize drought impacts
to all beneficial uses and users.
groundwater levels for a reasonable number of continuous years of drought after adjusting for the
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 47
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
tğŭĻ 15 ƚŅ 19
AquAlliance Comments Colusa GSP
use a method based on anticipated loss during a drought, rather than the arbitrary method of the
Colusa GSP that set the depths far below the historical maximum, which then results in several
decades of continuous groundwater level declines and storage losses before an undesirable result
is declared?
As an example of a drought-based methodology, AquAlliance Exhibit 10 shows the annual loss in
groundwater storage that during the most recent simulated periods of drought lasting more than 3
years having an average annual loss of 134,500 afy. Using this average rate of annual drought
storage loss for 3 years, the decline in groundwater level would be of approximately 8 feet ((3 yrs
x 134,500 afy) / 52,000 af/f = 7.8 feet). Note, see Comment No. 9 for calculation of the 52,000 af/f
storage volume per foot of groundwater level decline. This suggests that the depth of the MTs
could be set at 10 feet or less below the MO depth to accommodate future periods of extended
drought without causing undesirable impacts to all beneficial uses and users, in particular wells of
domestic and small agricultural groundwater users. It should be remembered that declaration of an
undesirable result would occur only after groundwater levels decline below the MT depth. This
would allow a drought of 5 years under the Colusa GSP 24-month requirement before an
undesirable result would be declared with possibly an additional 5 feet of groundwater decline and
104,000 af of storage loss. Perhaps because of the 24-month MT exceedance requirements, the
MT depths should be set to allow only 1 year of drought storage loss with the assumption that an
additional 2 years of drought can occur before an undesirable result is declared. This would make
the sustainability management of the Colusa Subbasin groundwater levels consistent with the
Historical baseline.
m) The surface water balance in the Colusa GSP assumes the 2070 Climate Change scenario will
result in an increase in surface water inflows to the subbasin over the Historical baseline of
968,000 afy, and an increase in precipitation over the baseline of 48,000 afy (AquAlliance Exhibit
9, Rows 1 and 6, Column G). The sum of the Historical baseline inflow from other boundary
streams is 78,000 afy (Row 5, Column B), and the sum of the outflow from other boundary
streams is 56,000 afy (Row 33, Column B), a net gain of 22,000 afy for the subbasin. With the
2070 Climate Change scenario the inflow from other boundary streams is 92,000 afy (Row 5,
Column F), and the outflow from other boundary streams is 10,000 afy (Row 33, Column F), a net
gain of 82,000 afy for the subbasin. The future changes in the inflow and outflow volumes of
surface water from other boundary streams to the Colusa Subbasin raise several questions:
How will the surface water and groundwater budgets change should the expected increases
in surface water and precipitation inflows and decreases in outflows to boundary streams
not occur?
What management actions need to be taken should the expected increases in surface water
and precipitation inflows and decreases in outflows to boundary streams not occur?
What stations and sustainability thresholds are in the Colusa GSP monitoring network that
water budget assumptions and should that then trigger undesirable result(s) and
management action(s)?
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 48
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
tğŭĻ 16 ƚŅ 19
AquAlliance Comments Colusa GSP
Why does the surface water budget assume that 48,000 afy of additional precipitation will
result in a groundwater budget loss of 18,000 afy in deep percolation recharge from
precipitation (AquAlliance Exhibit 8, Row 3, Column G)?
Why is a decrease in surface water inflow to other boundary streams of 46,000 afy, or
82%, (-46,000 afy / 56,000 afy = -0.82 = -82%) (Row 33, Column G and H) not considered
an impact to interconnected surface waters, and to the adjacent subbasin(s)?
What management practices in the Colusa subbasin are causing the additional losses of
surface water to other boundary streams, and can management actions remedy these losses
to streams outside of the subbasin?
What monitoring stations exist in the Colusa GSP monitoring network that provide
measurements that identify the surface water inflows and outflows on the other boundary
streams?
n) The groundwater balance in the Colusa GSP assumes that groundwater sustainability of the
subbasin will be achieved in part because 86,000 afy of additional Central Valley Project (CVP)
surface water will be available for In-Lieu Recharge projects, and that a funding plan will be
developed and implemented that incentivizes the use of CVP water instead of pumping
groundwater. The In-Lieu Recharge projects are approximately 15 percent of the 559,000 afy
planned groundwater pumping with the 2070 Climate Change scenario (AquAlliance Exhibit 8,
Row 11, Column F). The In-Lieu Recharge raises several questions:
Why does the 2070 Climate Change groundwater budget expect a reduction in deep
percolation of applied surface water by 38,000 afy from the Historical baseline
(AquAlliance Exhibit 8, Row 4, Column G)? This seems to contradict the purpose of the
In-Lieu Recharge projects.
Will the application of 86,000 afy of In-Lieu surface water change other components of the
groundwater budget? If yes, which ones and by how much?
How much will the In-Lieu Recharge increase the average annual groundwater storage,
and will it reduce the expected 350,000 acre-feet of storage loss over the next 50 years?
Will In-Lieu Recharge reduce the expected increase in loss of surface water from stream
seepage, and decrease stream gains from accretion? If yes, where and by how much?
o) The Colusa GSP fails to analyze, monitor, or consider the potential impacts to water quality
caused by the allowable changes in groundwater levels and groundwater storage, except for one
constituent, salinity. Although the Colusa GSP calls for coordination in management of water
MOs or MTs are for
all the potential contaminants of concern in the Colusa subbasin, or what GSP management
actions will be taken whenever a water quality impact is identified.
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 49
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
tğŭĻ 17 ƚŅ 19
AquAlliance Comments Colusa GSP
What is the role of the GSAs in protecting water quality for all beneficial usesand users? In
particular, the protection of domestic water supply must be the primary concern for managing the
subbasin. SGMA empowers the GSAs with the authority to control pumping rates and locations
throughout the subbasin to protect all beneficial uses and users, an authority that other regulatory
The Colusa GSP should provide a concise description of projects and
management actions the GSAs will take to prevent degradation of the subbasin water quality for
all potential contaminants and how the GSAs will remedy any degradation that occurs.
p) The Colusa GSP sets the MO and MT rates for inelastic subsidence at 0.25 feet per 5 years, and
0.50 feet per 5 years, respectively, Table 5-1 and Sections 5.4.5.1 and 5.4.5.2 (pp. 5-18, 5-28 and
5-29, pdf pages 282, 292 and 293). The current conditions in the subbasin appear to be exceeding
these values. The latest October 2020 to October 2021 InSAR measurements of vertical
displacement, or subsidence, in the Sacramento Valley measured declines in land surface elevation
around Arbuckle and Artois (AquAlliance Exhibits 11 and 12).
The InSAR vertical displacement for one year in the Arbuckle vicinity ranged from -0.2 feet to -
0.8 feet in one year, and around Artois, -0.1 feet to -0.4 feet in one year. This subsidence exceeds
the annual average for the MT of -0.50 feet in 5 years (i.e., -0.1 feet in one year). This subsidence
covers a relatively large area, but doesan area covered by a minimum of 20% of the
subsidence benchmarks, 13 of the 63 benchmarks, as required by the subsidence MT criterion,
Table 5-1 (p. 5-18, pdf 282) - an area of approximately 144,765 acres or 20% of the 723,823-acre
subbasin. Much of the remaining subbasin area is experiencing vertical displacement ranging from
-0.1 to +0.1 feet (the gray areas). If these areas of vertical displacement are negative, then the area
of subsidence is likely large enough to trigger an undesirable result. If the negative vertical
displacement is less than -0.1 feet, then under the Colusa GSP sustainability criteria these centers
of subsidence must grow significantly before an undesirable result occurs and actions need to be
taken to prevent subsidence. The fact that the subsidence is centered around two urban areas is
apparently of no concern to the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies.
The Colusa GSP needs to provide additional information and reasoning for: (1) why the existing
subsidence isnwhy the -0.1 feet per year of InSAR vertical
why 20% of the subbasin needs to be in
significant subsidence before management actions need to be taken; (4) why subsidence impacts
need to be averaged over 5 years when other MT are based on 2 years (24 months); (5) what
critical infrastructure has already been harmed by the current areas of subsidence; (6) what amount
of additional land subsidence will cause harm to other critical infrastructures; and (7) why the MT
infrastructures and domestic structures in the subbasin can tolerate.
q) The Colusa GSP sets the MO and MT for land subsidence without providing a current
assessment of the sensitivity of local infrastructures to subsidence. The plan notes that land
subsidence can cause structural damage to wells, foundations, roads, bridges, and other
infrastructure, as well as impacting surface water flows by reducing conveyance capacity and
potentially changing flow gradients within canals, natural streams, and floodplains, Section 3.2.6
(p. 3-73, pdf 191). In the discussion of the reasoning for the MT for land subsidence of 0.5 feet per
the sensitivity of local infrastructure to land subsidence is not well
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 50
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
tğŭĻ 18 ƚŅ 19
AquAlliance Comments Colusa GSP
understood at this time, the Subbasin has extensive networks of pipelines and open canals and
drains owned by various surface water suppliers that are used to convey irrigation and drain
water. These networks are likely the existing infrastructure most sensitive to land subsidence,
Section 5.4.5.1 (page 5-28 and 5-29, pdf 292 and 293). The plan proposes a future cooperative
study to fill this data gap, Table 7-1 (page 7-4, pdf 400).
infrastructure subsidence sensitivity study as a Project and Management Action, Table 6-2 (pp. 6-7
to 6-12, pdf 307 to 312). The timeline for this infrastructure sensitivity study is apparently
sometime between 2024 and 2042 (see GPS Studies in Figure 7-2, p. 7-22, pdf 418). The Colusa
San infrastructure sensitivity study. Instead,
the plan assumes that any infrastructure subsidence se grant-funded,
though local funding sources could also be used, Section 7.1.2.15 (pp. 7-15 and 7-16, pdf 411 and
412).
The Colusa GSP assumes that the plan will manage groundwater conditions in the Subbasin to
avoid exceedance of the rate of inelastic subsidence established by the minimum threshold is
considered unlikely to cause a significant and unreasonable reduction in the viability of the use of
critical infrastructure over the planning and implementation horizon of this GSP, Section 5.4.5.1
(pp. 5-28 and 5-29, pdf 292 and 293). This assumption is made even though the MTs for the
lowering of groundwater levels allow water levels to decline significantly below the historical
depths and allow for a loss in groundwater storage that exceeds 4.2 million acre-feet, which is over
10 times the groundwater model estimated future storage loss of 350,000 af over 50 years (see
comment
The Colusa GSP needs to provide additional information and reasoning for: (1) why the
sustainability criteria for the lowering of groundwater levels that allows 4.2 million acre-feet of
groundwater storage loss inelastic land subsidence;
the lead in identifying sensitive infrastructure in the
subbasin, and (3) what management actions will be taken to remedy the damage to subbasin
infrastructure from subsidence.
r)
benchmarks or monitoring critical infrastructure, but instead leaves the responsibility of
subsidence monitoring and analysis to DWR, the Sacramento Valley Subsidence Interbasin
that data collection needs
identified by the interbasin working group would be grant-funded and implemented by state and
federal agencies, such as DWR or USGS. If projects are identified to address or mitigate inelastic
land subsidence, they would be led and implemented by local entities such as the counties,
agricultural water districts and agencies, municipalities, and other public water suppliers using a
variety of funding sources, Section 7.1.2.14 (page 7-15, pdf 411).
The Colusa GSP needs to provide additional information and reasoning for: (1) why the GSAs are
abstaining from conducting and/or funding the subsidence monitoring required by SGMA and
instead assume that this is the responsibility of other agencies; (2) what happens when the other
the task or doas frequently as required by SGMA
and the GSP
of funding necessary to mitigate the effects of inelastic land subsidence caused by groundwater
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 51
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
tğŭĻ 19 ƚŅ 19
AquAlliance Comments Colusa GSP
production in the Colusa Subbasin; and (4) what are the procedures the GSAs will use for
assigning the costs for subsidence mitigations to groundwater producers in the Colusa GSP should
the assumed funding by others not materialize; se the sinkholes that
were reported just east of Orland in the summer of 2021; (6) will individuals be placed in the
position to prove that implementation of the GSP caused subsidence?
Conclusion
For all the reasons discussed in our comments on the Colusa Subbasin draft and here on the final
GSP, the Plan fails to meet SGMA goal of water resource sustainability and protection of the
water rights of all beneficial users and uses. In accordance with legal requirements to protect the
Public Trust, the Plan also fails. It also appears that the GSP will foist the responsibility to
demonstrate damage from undesirable results on the unsuspecting public, creating an impossible
burden for all but the large water districts with deep pockets. Therefore, the Plan must be rejected
by DWR and the SWRB.
Respectfully submitted,
Carolee Krieger, President
Bill Jennings, Chairman
Barbara Vlamis, Executive Director
California Water Impact Network
California Sportfishing Protection
AquAlliance
808 Romero Canyon Road
Alliance
P.O. Box 4024
Santa Barbara, CA 93108
3536 Rainier Avenue
Chico, CA 95927
(805) 969-0824
Stockton, CA 95204
(530) 895-9420
caroleekrieger@cox.net
(209) 464-5067
barbarav@aqualliance.net
deltakeep@me.com
Jim Brobeck
Water Policy Analyst
AquAlliance
jimb@aqualliance.net
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 52
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Page 53
GGA Board of DirectorsMeeting Date: May 9, 2022
Page 54
GGA Board of DirectorsMeeting Date: May 9, 2022
Page 55
GGA Board of DirectorsMeeting Date: May 9, 2022
Page 56
GGA Board of DirectorsMeeting Date: May 9, 2022
Page 57
GGA Board of DirectorsMeeting Date: May 9, 2022
Page 58
GGA Board of DirectorsMeeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 59
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Page 60
GGA Board of DirectorsMeeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 61
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 62
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Page 63
Qfsdfou
Dvssfou-!
3181!Gvuvsf!.!
BGZ
Dvssfou-!!!!
3181!Gvuvsf!.!
Qfsdfou
Ijtupsjdbm-!
3181!Gvuvsf!.!
BGZ
Ijtupsjdbm-!
3181!Gvuvsf!.!
3181
Gvuvsf
Dibohf
Dmjnbuf!
Cbtfmjof
Dpoejujpot-!
3141
Gvuvsf
Dibohf
Dmjnbuf!
Cbtfmjof
Dpoejujpot-!
Jogmpxt
Pvugmpxt
Op
Gvuvsf
Dibohf
Dmjnbuf!
Cbtfmjof
Dpoejujpot-!!!!
-!
Dvssfou
Cbtfmjof
Dpoejujpot
3127!.!3176
-!
Ijtupsjdbm
Tjnvmbujpo2::1!.!3126
Xbufs
Esbjot Jogmpx
Pvugmpx
Tusfbnt
Joevtusjbm
Xfumboet
boe!
Bhsjdvmuvsbm
Pvugmpx*
Upubm!
Qsfdjqjubujpo
Hspvoexbufs.!
boe!
Upubm!
Tvsgbdf!
Dbobmt!
Nbobhfe!
Vscbo!
)Jogmpx!
Bqqmjfe!
Bqqmjfe!
Dpnqpofou
Tupsbhf!
jo!
Tvctvsgbdf!Xbufs!JogmpxtEffq!QfsdpmbujpoTffqbhfTvctvsgbdf!Xbufs!PvugmpxtHspvoexbufs!QvnqjohTusfbn!Hbjot!gspn!Hspvoexbufs)Tusfbn!Bddsfujpot*Dibohf!
GGA Board of DirectorsMeeting Date: May 9, 2022
GvuvsfGvuvsfGvuvsf
DvssfouDpoejujpot-!Dpoejujpot-!Dpoejujpot-!
Ijtupsjdbm3181!Gvuvsf!.!3181!Gvuvsf!.!3181!Gvuvsf!.!3181!Gvuvsf!.!
Op31413181
Dpoejujpot
DpnqpofouIjtupsjdbm-!Ijtupsjdbm-!Dvssfou-!!!!Dvssfou-!
Tjnvmbujpo-!
Dmjnbuf!Dmjnbuf!Dmjnbuf!
Cbtfmjof-!
BGZQfsdfouBGZQfsdfou
2::1!.!3126
3127!.!3176DibohfDibohfDibohf
CbtfmjofCbtfmjofCbtfmjof
Jogmpxt
Tvsgbdf!Xbufs!Jogmpxt
Tbdsbnfoup!Sjwfs!Ejwfstjpot
Tupoz!Dsffl!Ejwfstjpot
Tbdsbnfoup!Sjwfs!Jogmpxt
Puifs!Jogmpxt!gspn
Cpvoebsz!Tusfbnt
Qsfdjqjubujpo
Hspvoexbufs!Qvnqjoh
Bhsjdvmuvsbm
Vscbo!boe!Joevtusjbm
Nbobhfe!Xfumboet
Tusfbn!Hbjot!gspn!Hspvoexbufs
)Tusfbn!Bddsfujpot*
Upubm!Jogmpx
Pvugmpxt
Fwbqpusbotqjsbujpo
Bhsjdvmuvsbm
Vscbo!boe!Joevtusjbm
Nbobhfe!Xfumboet
Obujwf!Wfhfubujpo
Dbobm!Fwbqpsbujpo
Effq!Qfsdpmbujpo
Qsfdjqjubujpo
Bqqmjfe!Tvsgbdf!Xbufs
Bqqmjfe!Hspvoexbufs
Tffqbhf
Tusfbnt
Dbobmt!boe!Esbjot
Tvsgbdf!Xbufs!Pvugmpxt
Qsfdjqjubujpo!Svopgg
Bqqmjfe!Tvsgbdf!Xbufs
Sfuvso!Gmpxt
Bqqmjfe!Hspvoexbufs
Sfuvso!Gmpxt
Tbdsbnfoup!Sjwfs
Dpmvtb!Cbtjo!Esbjo
Dpmvtb!Xfjs!up!Tvuufs!Czqbtt
Puifs!Pvugmpxt!up!Cpvoebsz
Tusfbnt
Upubm!Pvugmpx
Dibohf!jo!Tupsbhf!)Jogmpx!.!Pvugmpx*
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 64
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 65
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Page 66
GGA Board of DirectorsMeeting Date: May 9, 2022
Page 67
GGA Board of DirectorsMeeting Date: May 9, 2022
April 22, 2022
Paul Gosselin Deputy Director, Sustainable Groundwater Management
California Department of Water Resources
715 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Submitted via SGMA Portal
Re: Comments on the Final Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Colusa Subbasin
Dear Deputy Director Gosselin,
Audubon California provides the comments below on the Colusa Subbasin Final Groundwater
Sustainability Plan (Final GSP) prepared by Colusa Groundwater Authority (CGA) and Glenn
Groundwater Authority (GGA), collectively referred to hereafter as the “Colusa GSAs.” The Final GSP
was prepared pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) and submitted to the
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) on January 28, 2022 and posted by DWR on February
7, 2022. Audubon California is a statewide nonprofit organization with a mission to protect birds and the
places they need. Our organization has a long history of solutions-focused work in the Central Valley in
collaboration with state and federal agencies, water districts, non-profits, and landowners.
Audubon California reviewed GSPs in high and medium priority basins as a stakeholder for the
environment with a particular focus on managed wetlands. Over 90 percent of historic wetlands in the
Central Valley have been replaced with agriculture or urban development. The remaining wetlands are a
critical component of the Pacific Flyway, supporting millions of migratory waterfowl, hundreds of
thousands of shorebirds, and state listed species like the Tricolored Blackbird. Central Valley managed
wetlands are part of California’s commitment to national and international Pacific Flyway agreements and
provide significant public trust benefits, including habitat for migratory birds, recharge of overdrafted
aquifers, carbon sequestration, and recreation opportunities for birders, hunters, and disadvantaged
communities.
Managed wetlands require specific consideration in GSPs under SGMA statute and regulations, as
detailed below. GSAs are required to identify managed wetlands as beneficial users of groundwater and
as land uses and property interests. The overall basin water budget should include managed wetlands as a
specific water use sector and the GSP is required to consider the effects of the GSP on managed wetlands
as a beneficial user or land use.
When GSPs fail to adequately consider the water needs and recharge contributions of managed wetlands,
managed wetlands are likely to receive inadequate consideration in future determinations of groundwater
allocations, risking further loss in critical wetland acreage. Less than 10 percent of historic wetlands
remain in the Central Valley and they provide outsized public trust benefits for their minimal groundwater
use.
The Colusa Subbasin contains extensive managed wetlands, primarily in three National Wildlife Refuges:
Sacramento, Delevan, and Colusa. Combined, these refuges include nearly 15,000 acres of managed
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 68
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Audubon California – Comments on Final Colusa Basin GSP
April 22, 2022
Page 2 of 5
wetlands and nearly 5,500 acres of unmanaged wetlands, grasslands, alkali meadow, vernal pools and
riparian habitats. The entire subbasin is approximately 723,823 acres.
Audubon submitted comments to the Colusa GSAs during the public release of the draft GSP, in order to
provide technical information and feedback to improve the GSP prior to final submission to DWR.
Audubon California’s comments on the Colusa GSAs’ draft GSP are included as Exhibit 1 to this letter,
annotated in red with a summary of Audubon’s understanding of the GSA’s responses to our original
comments and whether updates made to the GSP prior to submission to DWR addressed our original
comments. The Final GSP submitted by the GSA included Appendix 2B: Comment Tracking System and
Comment Availability, which noted responses to Audubon’s comments.
SGMA Requirements Related to Managed Wetlands
A primary requirement for GSAs during GSP development is the consideration of the interests of “all
beneficial uses and users of groundwater” (Water Code Section 10723.2), which includes
“\[e\]nvironmental users of groundwater” (Water Code Section 10723.2(e)).
Articulated into the SGMA regulations, the concept of beneficial uses and users of groundwater is first
represented in CCR, Title 23, Section 354.10. Notice and Communication, which directs the GSP to
“…include a summary of information relating to notification and communication by the Agency with
other agencies and interested parties including the following: (a) A description of the beneficial uses and
users of groundwater in the basin, including the land uses and property interests potentially affected by
the use of groundwater in the basin, the types of parties representing those interests, and the nature of
consultation with those parties” \[emphasis added\].
Furthermore, the SGMA regulations provide a definition that explicitly includes managed wetlands as a
beneficial user where: “’Water use sector’ refers to categories of water demand based on the general land
uses to which the water is applied, including urban, industrial, agricultural, managed wetlands, managed
recharge, and native vegetation” (CCR, Title 23, Section 351(al)) \[emphasis added\].
GSAs are then directed to include all water user sectors in the description of the GSP area and to quantify
groundwater use by these sectors in the historic, current and projected budgets \[emphasis added\]:
CCR §354.8. Description of Plan Area: Each Plan shall include a description of the geographic
areas covered, including the following information:
(a) One or more maps of the basin that depict the following, as applicable:
(4) Existing land use designations and the identification of water use sector and
water source type.
and,
CCR §354.18. Water Budget:
(b) The water budget shall quantify the following, either through direct measurements or
estimates based on data:
(3) Outflows from the groundwater system by water use sector, including
evapotranspiration, groundwater extraction, groundwater discharge to surface
water sources, and subsurface groundwater outflow.
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 69
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Audubon California – Comments on Final Colusa Basin GSP
April 22, 2022
Page 3 of 5
Given these explicit requirements, GSAs were required to identify, map, and include in water budgets the
water use associated with managed wetlands in the GSP.
Furthermore, each GSP was also required to describe “undesirable results where such included:
“Potential effects on the beneficial uses and users of groundwater, on land uses and property
interests, and other potential effects that may occur or are occurring from undesirable results”
(CCR, Title 23, Section 354.26(b)(3)) \[emphasis added\].
Relevant Criteria for Plan Evaluation
As specified within the SGMA regulations, DWR “shall evaluate a Plan that satisfies the requirements of
Subsection (a) to determine whether the Plan, either individually or in coordination with other Plans,
complies with the Act and substantially complies with the requirements of this Subchapter.” (CCR, Title
23, Section 355.4). The subchapter then lists 10 requirements to be considered by DWR during its review.
Audubon believes that four of the 10 directly relate to the comments provided by Audubon to the GSAs
during the public draft phase. These four include:
“Whether the assumptions, criteria, findings, and objectives, including the sustainability goal,
undesirable results, minimum thresholds, measurable objectives, and interim milestones are
reasonable and supported by the best available information and best available science.” CCR,
Title 23, Section 355.4(b)(1) \[emphasis added\]
“Whether the Plan identifies reasonable measures and schedules to eliminate data gaps.” CCR,
Title 23, Section 355.4(b)(2)
“Whether the interests of the beneficial uses and users of groundwater in the basin, and the land
uses and property interests potentially affected by the use of groundwater in the basin, have been
considered.” CCR, Title 23, Section 355.4(b)(4) \[emphasis added\]
“Whether the Agency has adequately responded to comments that raise credible technical or
policy issues with the Plan.” CCR, Title 23, Section 355.4(b)(10) \[emphasis added\]
Evaluation of GSP Consideration of Managed Wetlands
Given these SGMA requirements, Audubon California evaluated the Final GSP for its consideration of
managed wetlands. Following is an abbreviated summary for consideration by DWR during its review of
whether the submitted Final GSP adequately addressed this important water use sector.
Beneficial Uses and Users
Were managed wetlands identified as beneficial users of groundwater?
Yes. The Final GSP included managed wetlands as a unique water use sector, including as a
beneficial user in current and future water budgets.
Land Uses and Property Interests
Were managed wetlands identified as a land use and accurately represented in maps?
No. While Figure 2-5 and Figure 2-8 do present the location of the three National Wildlife
Refuges in the subbasin, managed wetlands do not comprise the entirety of the Refuges. Figure 3-
5 presents Watersheds and Natural Waters, and Figure 3-16 presents Groundwater Dependent
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 70
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Audubon California – Comments on Final Colusa Basin GSP
April 22, 2022
Page 4 of 5
Ecosystems, but neither of these maps adequately addresses the location of managed wetlands.
Ultimately, no map in the final plan specifically presents the location of managed wetlands as a
specified component of related environmental land uses.
Water Budget
Were managed wetlands and native vegetation identified as specific water sectors in the water
budget?
Yes, managed wetlands were included in the water budget. However, managed wetlands were not
listed as receiving the Annual Full Level 4 volumes of water guaranteed under the CVPIA. The
CVPIA Full Level 4 quantities are: Sacramento NWR = 50,000 acre-feet, Delevan NWR =
30,000 acre-feet, and Colusa NWR = 25,000 acre-feet. Instead, the Final GSP relied on historic
deliveries to these wetlands which have consistently been below the legally mandated CVPIA
Full Level 4 quantities (see details in the comment letter submitted to the Colusa GSAs attached
as Exhibit 1).
Identification of Data Gaps
Are reasonable measures and schedules identified to eliminate data gaps with respect to
managed wetlands?
No. The Colusa GSAs have indicated that the water budget used to simulate future sustainability
did not reflect Full Level 4 refuge water supplies and ancillary affects to the subbasin. But other
than noting the dynamic nature of the GSP and that the model will be updated in the future to
reflect conditions, there is not a distinct plan to address this data gap.
Best Available Information and Science
Is the GSP supported by best available information and best available science with respect to
managed wetlands?
No. As noted previously, while managed wetlands are included in the water budget, the future
water needs are not represented at appropriate levels. The Final GSP water budget effectively
forecasts the long-term violation of the CVPIA by not providing Full Level 4 quantities to
managed wetlands.
Consideration of GSP Effects on Managed Wetlands
Are the potential effects on managed wetlands, as beneficial users of groundwater, identified and
considered?
No. The GSP does not provide an analysis of the direct or indirect impacts on managed wetlands
as beneficial users when defining undesirable results, and the GSP does not provide an analysis of
the impacts of the proposed minimum thresholds nor measurable objectives. The future condition
and ecological function of managed wetlands is not addressed, meaning the potential effects on
managed wetlands were not identified or considered.
Adequate Response to Comments
Were Audubon’s comments on the publicly released draft GSP adequately addressed?
The Colusa GSAs provided responses to Audubon’s original comments, included as Appendix 2B
to the Final GSP. However, the Final GSP fails to budget managed wetlands their Full Level 4
water volumes, as required by CVPIA. A footnote acknowledging the CVPIA required volumes
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 71
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Audubon California – Comments on Final Colusa Basin GSP
April 22, 2022
Page 5 of 5
was added to the Final GSP, but the GSP still does not include the CVPIA required volumes in
the future water budget (see Exhibit 1 to this letter).
Summary and Recommendation
The Final GSP sufficiently discusses most aspects of managed wetlands as required by the SGMA
regulations. But the Final GSP failed to accurately include managed wetlands in the future water budget
by including CVPIA Full Level 4 water volumes, and the effects of the GSP on managed wetlands were
not considered.
Audubon would like to see the Colusa GSAs modify water budget tables in the Final GSP to adequately
represent these important managed habitat areas as required by the SGMA regulations, or specifically
indicate this as a data gap and include a plan for updating water budgets.
Over 90 percent of wetlands in the Central Valley were destroyed over the past 100-years, as large-scale
conversion to agriculture disconnected lands from natural river flood flows and groundwater tables. The
remaining public and private wetlands in the Central Valley are managed through timed surface water
deliveries or, in locations where surface water infrastructure is absent, through groundwater pumping.
Because managed wetlands are just a tiny fraction of their previous extent and because they are the only
remaining habitat for numerous fragile species, they need explicit consideration in GSPs and robust
protection by the State.
Thank you for your consideration of Audubon California’s comments. If you would like to discuss this
matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me at (916) 737-5707 or via email at
samantha.arthur@audubon.org.
Sincerely,
Samantha Arthur
Working Lands Program Director
Audubon California
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 72
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
November 9, 2021
Colusa Groundwater Authority
Glenn Groundwater Authority
RE: Colusa Subbasin GSP
1213 Market Street
Colusa CA 95932
Sent via email to: mfahey@countyofcolusa.com
Re: Comments on the Draft Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Colusa Subbasin
To Colusa Groundwater Authority and Glenn Groundwater Authority,
Audubon California appreciates the opportunity to provide public comment on the draft Colusa Subbasin
Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) prepared by the Colusa Groundwater Authority (CGA) and Glenn
Groundwater Authority (GGA), collectively referred to hereafter as the “Colusa GSAs.”
Audubon California is a statewide nonprofit organization with a mission to protect birds and the places
they need. Our organization has a long history of solutions-focused work in the Central Valley in
collaboration with state and federal agencies, water districts, non-profits, and landowners. Audubon is
reviewing draft GSPs as a stakeholder for the environment with a particular focus on managed wetlands.
We are commenting on draft GSPs to provide technical assistance to Groundwater Sustainability
Agencies (GSAs) to improve their GSPs prior to the deadline to submit final GSPs to the Department of
Water Resources in January 2022. Audubon would also like to identify areas of opportunity to partner
with landowners and GSAs to provide groundwater and wildlife habitat benefits in the implementation of
the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).
Over 90 percent of historic wetlands in the Central Valley have been replaced with agriculture or urban
development. Disconnected from natural water sources as a consequence of surface water diversions and
groundwater over-pumping, wetland landowners must utilize surface water deliveries or pump
groundwater to provide flooded habitat. But managed wetlands provide outsized public trust benefits for
their minor water use.
The remaining wetlands in the Central Valley are a critical component of the Pacific Flyway, supporting
millions of migratory waterfowl, hundreds of thousands of shorebirds, and state listed species like the
Tricolored Blackbird. Central Valley managed wetlands are part of California’s commitment to national
and international Pacific Flyway agreements and provide significant public trust benefits, including
habitat for migratory birds, recharge of overdrafted aquifers, carbon sequestration, and recreation
opportunities for birders, hunters, and disadvantaged communities.
As recognized by the Colusa GSAs, managed wetlands require specific consideration in GSPs under
SGMA statute and regulations, as detailed below. GSAs are required to identify managed wetlands as
beneficial users of groundwater and as land uses and property interests and should recognize this land use
consistent with other active users of surface and groundwater. The overall basin water budget must
Exhibit 1 – Annotated Update of Comment Letter on Draft GSP
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 73
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Audubon California – Comments on Draft GSP for Colusa Subbasin
November 9, 2021
Page 2 of 6
include managed wetlands as a specific water use sector and the GSP is required to consider the effects of
the GSP on managed wetlands as a beneficial user or land use.
When GSPs fail to adequately consider the water needs and recharge contributions of managed wetlands,
projects and management actions may ignore managed wetlands, their need for protection as public trust
resources, and their potential to be part of sustainability solutions. If future actions include groundwater
allocations, managed wetlands face the potential of being excluded if not recognized in the GSP, risking
further loss in critical wetland acreage.
SGMA Requirements Related to Managed Wetlands
A primary requirement for GSAs during GSP development is the consideration of the interests of “all
beneficial uses and users of groundwater” \[Water Code Section 10723.2\], which includes
“\[e\]nvironmental users of groundwater” \[Water Code Section 10723.2(e)\].
Articulated into the SGMA regulations, the concept of beneficial uses and users of groundwater is first
represented in CCR, Title 23, Section 354.10. Notice and Communication, which directs the GSP to
“…include a summary of information relating to notification and communication by the Agency with
other agencies and interested parties including the following: (a) A description of the beneficial uses and
users of groundwater in the basin, including the land uses and property interests potentially affected by
the use of groundwater in the basin, the types of parties representing those interests, and the nature of
consultation with those parties.” \[emphasis added\].
Furthermore, the SGMA regulations provide a definition that explicitly includes managed wetlands as a
beneficial user where:
“’Water use sector’ refers to categories of water demand based on the general land uses to which
the water is applied, including urban, industrial, agricultural, managed wetlands, managed
recharge, and native vegetation.” CCR, Title 23, Section 351(al) \[emphasis added\].
GSAs are then directed to include all water user sectors in the description of the GSP area and to quantify
groundwater use by these sectors in the historic, current and projected budgets \[emphasis added\]:
CCR §354.8. Description of Plan Area: Each Plan shall include a description of the geographic
areas covered, including the following information:
(a) One or more maps of the basin that depict the following, as applicable:
(4) Existing land use designations and the identification of water use sector and
water source type.
and,
CCR §354.18. Water Budget:
(b) The water budget shall quantify the following, either through direct measurements or
estimates based on data:
(3) Outflows from the groundwater system by water use sector, including
evapotranspiration, groundwater extraction, groundwater discharge to surface
water sources, and subsurface groundwater outflow.
Given these explicit requirements, GSAs are required to identify and map managed wetlands and include
their water needs in water budgets in the GSP.
Exhibit 1 – Annotated Update of Comment Letter on Draft GSP
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 74
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Audubon California – Comments on Draft GSP for Colusa Subbasin
November 9, 2021
Page 3 of 6
Furthermore, each GSP is also required to describe “undesirable results” where such included:
“Potential effects on the beneficial uses and users of groundwater, on land uses and property
interests, and other potential effects that may occur or are occurring from undesirable results.”
CCR, Title 23, Section 354.26(b)(3) \[emphasis added\]
Comment Overview
In reviewing this draft GSP, we applaud the Colusa GSAs for their proactive effort to include managed
wetlands throughout the GSP. As a result, our comments are limited and summarized as follows:
1. Identification of managed wetlands: Audubon appreciates that the GSA has identified and
specifically included managed wetlands in maps and water budgets, specifically the three primary
refuges: Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge, Delevan National Wildlife Refuge, and Colusa
National Wildlife Refuge.
Update: language identifying managed wetlands in the Draft GSP remains in Final GSP.
2. Water budget: Audubon appreciates the specific inclusion of managed wetlands into the water
budgets (e.g. Table 3-11). However, the future condition water budgets should reflect CVPIA
Full Level 4 water supplies being available and delivered to each of the three national wildlife
refuges. The use of 2013 to represent unconstrained delivery conditions (e.g. see GSP Table 3-9,
page 3-88) reflects deliveries to these refuges that are less than the CVPIA Full Level 4 mandated
quantities. Annual Full Level 4 water supplies during unconstrained conditions are as follows:
a. Sacramento NWR = 50,000 acre-feet,
b. Delevan NWR = 30,000 acre-feet, and
c. Colusa NWR = 25,000 acre-feet.
During constrained conditions, these same refuges generally are provided 75% of this quantity, as
stipulated in their water delivery agreements with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
Update: Final GSP did not address this comment or amend Table 3-11 to include the full Level 4
water supplies for the three national wildlife refuges. As discussed under the specific comments
below, the Final GSP did add a footnote reflecting this shortcoming but identifying that the
change would not be made to the water budgets.
3. Consideration of managed wetlands: Audubon appreciates that several of the listed projects
included in Table 6-2 include identified opportunities for multi-benefit projects that provide water
supply and wildlife habitat benefits.
Update: language remains in Final GSP.
Draft Groundwater Sustainability Plan Page-by-Page Comments
Additional page-by-page comments on the Colusa GSAs’ draft GSP are detailed below. We welcome any
follow up questions and look forward to seeing the issues raised below addressed in the final GSP
submission in January 2022.
Figure 2-8: Suggest modifying the color scheme or naming for the category “native” to
distinguish the refuges from other “native” areas as the refuges are distinctly different land uses
than the traditional native upland areas, for instance, in the southwestern portion of the subbasin.
Private managed wetlands and managed wetlands in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Management
Exhibit 1 – Annotated Update of Comment Letter on Draft GSP
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 75
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Audubon California – Comments on Draft GSP for Colusa Subbasin
November 9, 2021
Page 4 of 6
Areas that have federal easements are currently not identified in land use or jurisdictional maps.
Update: comment addressed. Final GSP added additional colors to Figure 2-8 to distinguish
between refuges and other native land use areas.
Table 2-3, page 2-11: Since the three national wildlife refuges are mandated to receive stipulated
quantities (though have yet to achieve them), this table should also list the CVPIA Full Level 4
quantities of: Sacramento NWR = 50,000 acre-feet, Delevan NWR = 30,000 acre-feet, and
Colusa NWR = 25,000 acre-feet. While the historic average deliveries are useful for baseline
understanding, modeling of future conditions should include the full water supplies for these three
refuges.
Update: Table 2-3 was amended to list CVPIA Full Level 4 volumes in parentheses, along with a
footnote to the table: “Annual Full Level 4 water supplies during unconstrained conditions are
shown in parentheses. During constrained conditions, these same refuges generally are provided
75% of this quantity, as stipulated in their water delivery agreements with the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation. CVPIA Full Level 4 supply quantities were not used in the projected water budgets
due to the uncertainty in those quantities actually being provided.” Table 2-3 still uses average
annual supplies under all rights and contracts, 1995 to 2004 (2006 WMP) as the primary basis for
listing Annual Surface Water Supply Volume to the three refuges. CVPIA supplies are not water
delivery agreements with the US Bureau of Reclamation, but are instead statutorily required
water deliveries.
Page 3-13, line 32/33: The term “land” should be added to the end of the sentence to result in
“federal wildlife land.”
Update: The term “land” was added.
Table 3-9, page 3-88: The future condition water supplies for the three national wildlife refuges
should reflect the CVPIA Full Level 4 water supply. Deliveries in 2013, represented as a Shasta
Non-critical year, did not result in Full Level 4 deliveries to these refuges. The CVPIA Full Level
4 quantities include a portion that is labeled “Level 2” that reflects delivery of CVP project water,
and a portion labeled “Incremental Level 4” (the difference between Full Level 4 and Level 2)
that can come from other sources. The GSP will need to make reasonable assumptions whether
the Incremental Level 2 supply will be derived from other surface water sources or from
groundwater, though either is possible.
Update: This comment was not addressed in the Final GSP, except by addition of footnote to
Table 2-3 as discussed above.
Section 3.3.3.1 Historical (Water Budget), page 3-89: Under “Agricultural Water Demand” the
following sentence is included: “For ponded land uses (rice and managed wetlands), pond depths
and pond drainage are also considered to simulate demands.” Under the “Current Conditions”
(Section 3.3.3.2) and “Future Conditions Scenarios” (Section 3.3.3.3) water budget discussions,
this same language is missing. Did these budgets recognize managed wetlands in a similar
fashion as described for the historical budget? If so, we suggest adding the same sentence to each
of the other water budget descriptions for clarity.
Update: Agricultural Water Demand section amended to read, “Agricultural irrigation demands
were estimated using C2VSimFG-Colusa, in the same manner as the historical water budget. The
same general assumptions used for simulating all crops (including rice and managed wetlands)
in the historical water budget were also used in the current conditions baseline water budget.”
GSA also responded to our comment on the draft GSP to clarify that yes, “the current and future
conditions water budgets did recognize managed wetlands in a similar fashion as described for
Exhibit 1 – Annotated Update of Comment Letter on Draft GSP
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 76
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Audubon California – Comments on Draft GSP for Colusa Subbasin
November 9, 2021
Page 5 of 6
the historical budget.” (Colusa Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Document Comment
and Response Tracking Table, page 134)
Table 3-11, page 3-96: As a result of including the CVPIA Full Level 4 water supplies for the
national wildlife refuges, the values for the various future conditions for “Sacramento River
Diversions” and “Groundwater Pumping – Managed Wetlands” as well as the
“Evapotranspiration – Managed Wetlands” may all change. The table should be updated
accordingly.
Update: This comment was not addressed in the Final GSP. Final GSP’s Table 3-11 contains the
same values as in the Draft GSP.
Table 3-12, page 3-97: Similar to the prior comment, values in this table for the future conditions
would be expected to change when the CVPIA Full Level 4 water supply quantities are
incorporated.
Update: This comment was not addressed in the Final GSP.
Section 6.5.2.3, page 6-84 to 6-86: Several demand reduction concepts are initially outlined in
this section. Audubon suggests the following be considered associated with each suggested
method:
1. Allocation: Use of groundwater by managed wetlands should not be restricted
without adequate replacement with surface water sources, especially the national
wildlife refuges. Managed wetlands in the Colusa subbasin provide invaluable
benefits to the Pacific Flyway.
Update: In the Allocation section, the sentence was added: “Allocation design may
include specific considerations for managed wetlands and other habitat uses of
water.” But the Final GSP does not indicate groundwater use by managed wetlands
should be unrestricted as the comment suggested.
2. Allocation with a market: If a market is created and managed wetlands are assigned
an allocation, such parcels should be able to participate in a market to optimize the
use of their allocations for achieving habitat objectives, but managed wetlands should
not be required to participate in a market to secure the water they need.
Update: In the Allocation with a market section, the sentence was added: “Other
market rules might consider habitat and ecosystem service benefits.” But the Final
GSP does not state that managed wetlands should not be required to participate, as
the comment suggested.
3. Land repurposing: Strategic siting of where irrigated lands are retired and others are
kept in production should consider the potential benefits to wildlife. Areas
surrounding protected areas, such as the Sacramento, Delevan and Colusa National
Wildlife Refuges, should be prioritized habitat benefits.
Update: In the Land Repurposing section, the sentence was added: “Other land
repurposing program considerations might consider strategic location of repurposed
lands considering proximity to protected areas (e.g., National Wildlife Refuges).”
4. Financial incentives: Public beneficial uses such as managed wetlands should not be
subject to financial conditions that lesson the public benefit otherwise achieved on
the lands.
Update: In the Other financial incentives section, the sentence was added: “Financial
Exhibit 1 – Annotated Update of Comment Letter on Draft GSP
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 77
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Audubon California – Comments on Draft GSP for Colusa Subbasin
November 9, 2021
Page 6 of 6
incentives could consider public benefits (e.g., habitat) separately from private
benefits (e.g., irrigation) of water use.”
Thank you for your consideration of Audubon California’s comments. If you would like to discuss this
matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me at (916) 737-5707 or via email at
samantha.arthur@audubon.org.
Sincerely,
Samantha Arthur
Working Lands Program Director
Audubon California
Exhibit 1 – Annotated Update of Comment Letter on Draft GSP
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 78
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 79
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 80
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 81
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 82
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 83
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 84
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 85
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 86
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 87
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 88
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 89
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 90
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 91
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 92
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 93
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 94
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 95
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 96
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 97
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 98
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 99
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 100
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Ipxbse-!K/L/!fu!bm/!3126/!Qbuufsot!pg!Gsftixbufs!Tqfdjft!Sjdioftt-!Foefnjtn-!boe!Wvmofsbcjmjuz!jo!Dbmjgpsojb/
QMpTPOF-!22)8*/!!Bwbjmbcmf!bu;!iuuqt;00kpvsobmt/qmpt/psh0qmptpof0bsujdmf@je>21/24820kpvsobm/qpof/1241821
Dbmjgpsojb!Efqbsunfou!pg!Gjti!boe!Xjmemjgf!CJPT;!iuuqt;00xxx/xjmemjgf/db/hpw0ebub0CJPT
Tdjfodf!gps!Dpotfswbujpo;!iuuqt;00xxx/tdjfodfgpsdpotfswbujpo/psh0qspevdut0dbmjgpsojb.gsftixbufs.tqfdjft.
ebubcbtf
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 101
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 102
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 103
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 104
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 105
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 106
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 107
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 108
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 109
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 110
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 111
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 112
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 113
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 114
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Page 115
GGA Board of DirectorsMeeting Date: May 9, 2022
Page 116
GGA Board of DirectorsMeeting Date: May 9, 2022
Page 117
GGA Board of DirectorsMeeting Date: May 9, 2022
Page 118
GGA Board of DirectorsMeeting Date: May 9, 2022
STATE OF CALIFORNIA – CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD PROTECTION BOARD
3310 El Camino Ave., Ste. 170
SACRAMENTO, CA 95821
(916) 574-0609 FAX: (916) 574-0682
April 22, 2022
Paul Gosselin, Deputy Director
Statewide Groundwater Management
California Department of Water Resources
th
1416 9 Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Lisa Hunter, Plan Manager
Colusa Groundwater AuthorityGSA
5620 Birdcage St, Ste 180
Citrus Heights, CA 95610
Subject: Comments on Colusa Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Dear Mr. Gosselinand Ms. Hunter,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the ColusaSubbasin Groundwater Sustainability
Plan (GSP), which is a joint document prepared by two Groundwater Sustainability Agencies
1
(GSAs). The GSP describes how the GSAs will reach long term groundwater sustainability by
outlining the need to reduce overdraft conditions and by identifying projects that may replace or
supplement groundwater supplies to meet current and future water demands.
The Central Valley Flood Protection Board (Board) is the State’s regulatory agency responsible
for ensuring appropriate standards are met for the construction, maintenance, and operation of
the flood control system that protects life, property, and habitat in California’s Central Valley.
The Board serves as the State coordinator between the local flood management agencies, and
the federal government, with the goal of providing the highest possible level of flood protection
to California’s Central Valley.
Encroachment Permit
As required by California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Division 1 (Title 23), Section 6,
approval by the Board is required for all proposed work or uses, including the alteration of
levees within any area for which there is an Adopted Plan of Flood Control within the Board’s
jurisdiction. In addition, Board approval is required for all proposed encroachments within a
floodway, on adjacent levees, and within any Regulated Stream identified in Title 23, Table 8.1.
Specifically, Board jurisdiction includes the levee section, the waterward area between project
1
The Colusa Subbasin GSP was prepared by the following GSAs: Colusa Groundwater Authority GSA and Glenn
Groundwater Authority GSA
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 119
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Colusa SubbasinGSP Comments
Page 2 of 5
levees, a minimum 10-foot-wide strip adjacent to the landward levee toe, the area within 30
feet from the top of bank(s) of Regulated Streams, and inside Board’s Designated Floodways.
Activities outside of these limits which could adversely affect Federal-State flood control
facilities, as determined by Board staff, are also under Board’s jurisdiction. Permits may also be
required for existing unpermitted encroachments or where it is necessary to establish the
conditions normally imposed by permitting, including where responsibility for the encroachment
has not been clearly established or ownership or uses have been changed.
Some of the proposed projects identified in the GSP may be within the Board’s jurisdiction,
thereby requiring Board approval. These projects may include, but are not limited to, Colusa
County Water District In-lieu Groundwater Recharge project, Colusa Drain Mutual Water
Company In-lieu Groundwater Recharge project, and Sycamore Slough Groundwater
Recharge Pilot Project. Please alert Board staff if you would like to schedule a pre-application
meeting to discuss any of the projects in detail and/or to determine the documentation required
to process an encroachment permit.
Federal permits, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 and Section 10
regulatory permits and Section 408 Permission, in conjunction with a Board permit, may be
required for the proposed projects. In addition to federal permits, state and local agency
permits, certification, or approvals may also be required. State approvals may include, but are
not limited to, California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Lake and Streamed Alteration
Agreement and Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Section 401 Water Quality
Certification. The project proponent must obtain these authorizations.
Subsidence Impacts to Critical Infrastructure
The Board is interested in how the GSP is addressing the sustainability indicators, specifically
subsidence, which potentially affects the integrity, functionality, and maintenance costs of
Federal-State flood control facilities that are regulated by the Board. The Federal-State flood
control facilities are considered critical infrastructure by the State and may only be modified
through approval by the Board and USACE.
The State Plan of Flood Control (SPFC)facilities located within the plan area include portions
of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project (SRFCP) and the Colusa Weir Bypass and
Sediment Basin.These facilities are operated and maintained in accordance with State
Operation and Maintenance Manuals (O&M Manuals) that are available upon request. The
O&M Manuals provide the minimum freeboard and the design profile that have been
established for these facilities. Any reduction in the freeboard or change to design profile as a
result of subsidence may lead to increased flood risk and damage to Federal-State flood
control facilities.
Board staff has reviewed the O&M Manuals for the watercourses identified above to determine
the freeboard and design flow capacity. It is imperative to ensure that subsidence that is
occurring within the planning area does not impact the levee design profiles.
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 120
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Colusa SubbasinGSP Comments
Page 3 of 5
The right bank levee of the Sacramento River within Levee District (LD) No. 1 have a freeboard
of at least 3 feet with the design flow of 160,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) forthe Sacramento
2
River.
The west levee along the Sacramento River from the north Boundary of LD No. 2 to the north
end of Princeton Warehouse have a freeboard of at least 3 feet with the design flow of 160,000
3
cfs for the Sacramento River.
The west levee along the Sacramento River from the north end of the Princeton Warehouse
downstream to the Colusa Bridge has a freeboard of at least 3 with the following design flows
4
for the Sacramento River:
160,000 cfs from Princeton downstream to a point opposite Moulton Weir,
135,000 cfs from Mouton Weir downstream to a point opposite Colusa Weir,
And 65,000 cfs from Colusa Weir downstream to the Colusa Bridge.
The west levee of the SacramentoRiver from Wilkins Slough upstream to the Colusa Bridge
5
has a freeboard of at least 3 feet with the design flow of 48,000 cfs for the Sacramento River.
The west levee of the Sacramento River from Sycamore Slough upstream to Wilkins Slough
6
has a freeboard of at least 3 feet with the design flow of 30,000 cfs for the Sacramento River.
The east leveeof the Sacramento River from the Butte Slough Outfall Gates to the Princeton-
Afton Road has a freeboard of at least 3 feet with the following design flows for the Sacramento
7
River.
48,000 cfs fromthe Butte Slough Outfall Gates to the Colusa Weir,
110,000 cfs from the Colusa Weir to Moulton Weir,
And 160,000 cfs from MoultonWeir to Princeton-Afton Road.
The Moulton Weir crestis fixed at an elevation of 77.0 and provides flood protection to
agricultural land in Butte Basin and flows during low or intermediate flood stages. It has a
8
design flow of 25,000 cfs.
2
Supplement to the Standard O&M Manual for the SRFCP Unit No. 140 West Levee of Sacramento River in LD
No. 1 (Mile 170.5 to Mile 184.7)
3
Supplement to Standard O&M Manual SRFCP Unit No. 139 West Levee of Sacramento River from North
Boundary of LD No. 2 to North End of Princeton Warehouse
4
Supplement to Standard O&M Manual SRFCP Unit No. 137 West Levee of Sacramento River from North End of
Princeton Warehouse to Colusa Bridge
5
Supplement to Standard O&M Manual SRFCP Unit No. 131 West Levee of Sacramento River from Wilkins
Slough to Colusa (Mile 117.8 to Mile 143.5)
6
Supplement to Standard O&M Manual SRFCP Unit No. 130 West Levee of Sacramento River from Sycamore
Slough to Wilkins Slough (Mile 89.98 to Mile 117.8)
7
Supplement to Standard O&M Manual SRFCP Unit No. 136 East Levee of Sacramento River from Butte Slough
Outfall Gates to Princeton-Afton Road (Mile 138.3 to Mile 164.4)
8
Supplement to Standard O&M Manual SRFCP Unit No. 154 Moulton Weir and Training Levee Sacramento
River, California
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 121
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Colusa SubbasinGSP Comments
Page 4 of 5
The distribution of flows at design flood stage at the Sacramento River and Colusa Weir are as
9
follows:
70,000 cfs through Colusa Weir into the bypass,
65,000 cfs for the Sacramento River downstream from the Colusa Weir,
And flow over the Colusa Weir begins when the Sacramento River reaches 27,000 cfs.
The levees on the left bank of the Colusa Trough Drainage Canal and westerly of the
Sacramento River, in the general area between the towns of Knights Landing and Colusa,have
a freeboard of at least 3 feet with the design flow of 20,000 cfs for theKnights Landing Ridge
Cut at the lower end of the completed project levee, which diverts flood flow from the Colusa
10
Tough Drainage Canal to the Yolo Bypass.
The GSP notes that subsidencehas been reported and measured in the Arbuckle area of
Colusa County, as well as nearOrland and Artois inGlenn County, but that most of the
subsidence measured has been elastic, meaning the aquifer materials are not permanently
compressed. If the levels of subsidence begin to affect SPFC facilities, action will be required
to resolve this. It is unlawful for any person or public agency to interfere with, obstruct the
performance, maintenance, or operation of, or otherwise take actions that may adversely affect
facilitates of the SPFC, designated floodways, or streams that are regulated by the Board (Wat.
Code Sec. 8700). Any reduction in freeboard or activities affecting the integrity, functionality or
maintenance of Federal-State flood control works is considered significant and must be
avoided.
Closing
The Board recognizes the importance of groundwater sustainability in California and
commends the GSAs on their effort in planning for a more resilient future. However, the
potential risks to public safety including increased flood risks, need to be considered when
developing proposed projects that seek to mitigate for unsustainable groundwater extraction.
The Board seeks to establish a collaborative approach with GSAs to better fulfill our regulatory
responsibilities in the new paradigm of SGMA. Board staff is available to discuss any project(s)
proposed under the GSP as it relates to flood control works.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Ruth Darling at
(916) 574-1417, or via email at Ruth.Darling@cvflood.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Ruth Darling, Program Manager
Flood Planning and Programs Branch
9
Colusa Weir Bypass and Sediment Basin O&M Manual
10
Supplement to the Standard O&M Manual SRFCP Unit No. 132 Back Levees of RD No. 108
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 122
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Colusa SubbasinGSP Comments
Page 5 of 5
ec:Lisa Hunter, Plan Manager
lhunter@countyofglenn.net
Paul Gosselin, Deputy Director
Paul.Gosselin@water.ca.gov
Portal Submission: https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsp/preview/92
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 123
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
State of California Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director
North Central Region
1701 Nimbus Road
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
www.wildlife.ca.gov
April 5, 2022
Via Electronic Mail and Online Submission
Craig Altare
Supervising Engineering Geologist
California Department of Water Resources
901 P Street, Room 213
Sacramento, CA 94236
Email: Craig.Altare@water.ca.gov
Portal Submission: https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/#gsp
Dear Mr. Altare:
Subject: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMENTS ON THE
COLUSA SUBBASIN FINAL GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) is providing comments on
the Colusa Groundwater Authority Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) and Glenn
Groundwater Authority GSA (collectively, GSAs) Colusa Subbasin Groundwater
Sustainability Plan (Final GSP) prepared pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act (SGMA) and submitted to the California Department of Water
Resources (DWR) on January 28, 2022. The Basin is designated high priority under
SGMA and must be managed under a GSP by January 31, 2022.
The Department is writing to support ecosystem preservation and enhancement in
compliance with SGMA and its implementing regulations based on Department
expertise and best available information and science.
fish and wildlife resources, the Department has jurisdiction over the conservation,
protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and the habitat necessary for
biologically sustainable populations of such species (Fish & Game Code §§ 711.7 and
1802).
Development and implementation of GSPs under SGMA represents a new era of
California groundwater management. The Department has an interest in the sustainable
management of groundwater, as many sensitive ecosystems, species, and public trust
resources depend on groundwater and interconnected surface waters (ISWs), including
ecosystems on Department-owned and managed lands within SGMA-regulated basins.
SGMA and its implementing regulations afford ecosystems and species specific
statutory and regulatory consideration, including the following as pertinent to GSPs:
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 124
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Craig Altare, Supervising Engineering Geologist
California Department of Water Resources
April 5, 2022
Page 2
GSPs must consider impacts to groundwater dependent ecosystems
(GDEs) (Water Code § 10727.4(l); see also 23 CCR § 354.16(g));
GSPs must consider the interests of all beneficial uses and users of
groundwater, including environmental users of groundwater (Water Code
§ 10723.2) and GSPs must identify and consider potential effects on all
beneficial uses and users of groundwater (23 CCR §§ 354.10(a),
354.26(b)(3), 354.28(b)(4), 354.34(b)(2), and 354.34(f)(3));
GSPs must establish sustainable management criteria that avoid
undesirable results within 20 years of the applicable statutory deadline,
including depletions of ISW that have significant and unreasonable adverse
impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water (23 CCR § 354.22 et seq.
and Water Code §§ 10721(x)(6) and 10727.2(b)) and describe monitoring
networks that can identify adverse impacts to beneficial uses of ISWs (23 CCR
§ 354.34(c)(6)(D)); and,
GSPs must account for groundwater extraction for all water use sectors,
including managed wetlands, managed recharge, and native vegetation (23 CCR
§§ 351(al) and 354.18(b)(3)).
In the context of SGMA statutes and regulations, and Public Trust Doctrine
considerations, groundwater planning should carefully consider and protect
environmental beneficial uses and users of groundwater, including fish and wildlife and
their habitats, GDEs, and ISWs.
Furthermore, the Public Trust Doctrine imposes a related but distinct obligation to
consider how groundwater management affects public trust resources, including
navigable surface waters and fisheries. Groundwater hydrologically connected to
surface waters is also subject to the Public Trust Doctrine to the extent that groundwater
extractions or diversions affect or may affect public trust uses. (Environmental Law
Foundation v. State Water Resources Control Board (2018), 26 Cal. App. 5th 844;
National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983), 33 Cal. 3d 419).
affirmative duty to take the public trust into account in the planning and allocation of
National Audubon
Society, supra, 33 Cal. 3d at 446). Accordingly, groundwater plans should consider
potential impacts to and appropriate protections for ISWs and their tributaries, and ISWs
that support fisheries, including the level of groundwater contribution to those waters.
The Department is providing comments and recommendations on the Colusa Subbasin
Final GSP (Attachment A) to address prior comments on the Draft GSP, submitted on
October 20, 2021 (Attachment B), that have not been fully addressed in the Final GSP.
The prior comments that have not been fully addressed are restated in
Attachment A with updated page citations to pertinent sections of the Final GSP. Where
prior comments, the Department has
provided additional context in italicized text.
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 125
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Craig Altare, Supervising Engineering Geologist
California Department of Water Resources
April 5, 2022
Page 3
Among other comments detailed in Attachment A, the Department appreciates the
GSAs integration of request for additional detail on the quantity and
timing of ISW depletions and recommends that future updates to the Final GSP
establish more protective management criteria.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Colusa
Subbasin Final GSP. If you have any further questions, please contact Briana Seapy at
briana.seapy@wildlife.ca.gov or 916-508-3345.
Sincerely,
Kevin Thomas
Regional Manager, North Central Region
Enclosures (Attachments A, B, C)
ec: California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Joshua Grover, Branch Chief
Water Branch
Joshua.Grover@wildlife.ca.gov
Robert Holmes, Environmental Program Manager
Statewide Water Planning Program
Robert.Holmes@wildlife.ca.gov
Angela Murvine, Statewide SGMA Coordinator
Groundwater Program
Angela.Murvine@wildlife.ca.gov
Briana Seapy, Water Program Supervisor
North Central Region
Briana.Seapy@wildlife.ca.gov
Colusa Subbasin
Lisa Hunter (County of Glenn GSA - Corning)
lhunter@countyofglenn.net
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 126
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Craig Altare, Supervising Engineering Geologist
California Department of Water Resources
April 5, 2022
Page 4
California Department of Water Resources
Brandon Davison, Colusa Subbasin SGMA Point of Contact
Northern Region Office
Brandon.Davison@water.ca.gov
National Marine Fisheries Service
Rick Rogers, Fish Biologist
West Coast Region
Rick.Rogers@noaa.gov
State Water Resources Control Board
Natalie Stork, Chief
Groundwater Management Program
Natalie.Stork@waterboards.ca.gov
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 127
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Craig Altare, Supervising Engineering Geologist
California Department of Water Resources
April 5, 2022
Page 5
Attachment A
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMENTS ON THE FINAL COLUSA
SUBBASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
COMMENT #1 Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (3.2.8 Groundwater Dependent
Ecosystems; starting page 3-81): Groundwater dependent ecosystem (GDE)
identification, required by 23 CCR § 354.16(g), is based on methods that risk exclusion
of ecosystems that may depend on groundwater.
a. Issues:
i. GDE Scoring Criteria
Communities Commonly Associated with Groundwater dataset. It is unclear how
the rankings are utilized throughout the remainder of the GSP to assess
monitoring networks, management criteria, or potential projects. Accordingly, the
ranking system has no apparent actionable groundwater management relevance.
ii. Depth to Groundwater Threshold: The GSP relies on a groundwater level
threshold of 30-feet below the ground surface (bgs) to screen potential GDEs
within the subbasin. However, mature Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) can access
groundwater up to 80 feet bgs (Howard 1992, Lewis & Burgy 1964). The use of a
30-foot threshold may incorrectly result in Valley Oak communities receiving a
GSP-
iii. GDEs Near Surface Water: The GSP assesses whether potential GDE areas
are located near surface waters or irrigated cropland, or both. The GSP
considers potential GDE areas within 150 feet of surface waters, within 150 feet
of irrigated rice paddies, and within 50 feet of other irrigated croplands to have
access to surface water; and therefore, the GSP assigns these areas a score of
-82); however, this narrow definition of a GDE
which vegetation and ISW may rely on both surface water and groundwater
across seasons and years. Furthermore, this GDE definition contradicts an
-5,
page 3-81). Particular
already been determined to be located in areas with depths to groundwater of
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 128
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Craig Altare, Supervising Engineering Geologist
California Department of Water Resources
April 5, 2022
Page 6
less than 30 feet, proximity to potential surface waters is insufficient evidence to
GDEs.
iv. Data Gaps: The GSP states that there is potential for GDEs to be present in
the uplands west of Orland and west of Arbuckle, but that groundwater level data
exis-36, page 3-82). Rather than waiting an indeterminate amount
of time to gather data to prove groundwater dependence of potential GDE areas
and leaving the potential GDEs unclassified in the interim, the GSP should
conservatively consider these areas to be GDEs until sufficient data is collected
that proves otherwise.
v. Special Status Species: SGMA defines GDEs as ecological communities or
species that depend on groundwater emerging from aquifers or on groundwater
occurring near the ground surface \[23 CCR § 351 (m)\]. The GSP does not
identify or discuss species that may be present within the subbasin that rely on
groundwater, groundwater dependent ecosystems, or interconnected surface
waters
b. Recommendations:
i. GDE Scoring Criteria: The GSP should clarify how the ranking system is
meaningfully used in relationship to groundwater management criteria.
Specifically, the GSP should clarify what GDE areas are retained for further
analysis in the plan as environmental beneficial users of groundwater and how
likely GDEs may be impacted by management criteria, including identification of
potential undesirable results.
ii. Depth to Groundwater Threshold: The Department recommends the GSP
update the methodology for classifying GDEs to reflect accurate maximum
potential rooting depth for Valley Oak communities. For areas of Valley Oak
within the subbasin, the Department recommends the GSP apply a threshold of
80 feet bgs as the maximum depth at which the potential GDE could access
groundwater. The Department accepts the use of a 30-foot threshold for other
potential GDE areas within the subbasin that do not contain Valley Oak.
iii. GDEs Near Surface Water: The Department recommends that the GSP err on
the side of inclusivity of potential GDEs until there is site specific evidence that
the overlying ecosystem has no significant dependence on groundwater across
seasons and water year types.
iv. Data Gaps: The GSP should conservatively assume that potential GDEs
located in areas with poor groundwater level data availability are groundwater
dependent, until such time that data is collected that demonstrates otherwise.
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 129
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Craig Altare, Supervising Engineering Geologist
California Department of Water Resources
April 5, 2022
Page 7
v. Special Status Species: The Department recommends the GSP include a list
of special status species that may be present within the Colusa Subbasin and an
also include a spatial assessment of special status species within the subbasin to
characterize which surface waters or GDE areas provide these species habitat or
forage; this level of GDE-species-relationship assessment enables GSAs to
prioritize GDE monitoring and management decisions
Ecosystems: The GSAs state:
GDE Scoring Criteria: Comment addressed. The text in Section 3.2.8 has been revised
to clarify that preliminary screening of the potential GDEs within the Colusa Subbasin
was conducted to help prioritize areas for further mapping, evaluation and monitoring of
GDEs during implementation of the Colusa Subbasin GSP. The preliminary screening
supported the assessment of data gaps, evaluation of existing monitoring networks,
which could potentially be used for GDE monitoring, and development of PMAs. The
GSAs will seek to work with resource agencies, stakeholders, beneficial users and the
public to refine the understanding of GDEs in the Colusa Subbasin, fill data gaps and
develop PMAs with consideration of GDEs.
Depth to Groundwater Threshold: Comment acknowledged. The GDEs analysis will be
refined during GSP implementation. Additional clarification has been added to the GSP
Chapter 3 to acknowledge that significant data gaps exist for the precise locations and
characteristics of GDEs in the Colusa Subbasin. It is noted that the prioritization, or
"scoring," of GDEs is intended as a step toward identifying GDEs using the information
available at the time of GSP development. This "scoring" is not seen as a final call on
the classification of GDEs, but rather a prioritization for future work to better identify and
expand monitoring of potential GDEs. Section 4.2.5.4 has been revised to state that the
ISW monitoring network wells may be useful for monitoring groundwater levels near
GDEs; however, a dedicated network of shallow monitoring wells will be developed
specifically for GDE monitoring during implementation of the GSP. As described in the
GSP Chapter 7, the GSAs have proposed a study to investigate expansion of the
shallow groundwater level monitoring network for GDEs during GSP implementation.
Among other goals, this study is planned to help close data gaps related to identification
of GDEs. The prioritization will be refined in this study and will be factored into decisions
for the placement of new monitoring sites to improve the understanding and protection
of GDEs.
GDEs Near Surface Water: Comment acknowledged. Please see the response to
comment 308. It is noted that the GDE "scoring" is not seen as a final call on the
classification of GDEs, but rather a prioritization for future work to better identify and
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 130
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Craig Altare, Supervising Engineering Geologist
California Department of Water Resources
April 5, 2022
Page 8
expand monitoring of potential GDEs. The prioritization will be refined during GSP
implementation and will be factored into decisions for the placement of new monitoring
sites to improve the understanding and protection of GDEs (see GSP Chapter 7)
Data Gaps: Comment acknowledged. Please see the response to comment 308. It is
noted that the GDE "scoring" is not seen as a final call on the classification of GDEs, but
rather a prioritization for future work to better identify and expand monitoring of potential
GDEs. The GSAs are not discounting that these western areas are GDEs. During GSP
implementation, the GSAs are planning to refine the GDE assessment, and have
proposed studies to investigate the western boundary of the Subbasin and expand
shallow groundwater monitoring to close data gaps in areas where potential GDEs exist.
Please see Section 7.1.2 for additional information about these studies.
Special Status Species: Comment addressed. A reference to TNC's analysis of
freshwater species located in the Colusa Subbasin has been added to Section 3.2.8 of
the GSP (based on analysis of the California Freshwater Species Database version
2.0.9 within the Subbasin boundary). We have also added more text to acknowledge
data gaps regarding which of these species are found within GDEs, and references to
GSP studies in Chapter 7 to help close those data gaps and expand understanding of
GDEs in the Subbasin.
:
The Department appreciates the updates and additions to Section 3.2.8 to clarify the
intent of the GDE screening as a tool for prioritizing future GDE characterization and
monitoring efforts. However, there is still a lack of clarity connecting the identified GDE
sthe installation of additional
shallow groundwater wells. If the GDE screening is to be an effective prioritization tool,
the Department recommends explicitly
monitoring actions. The GSP does not incorporate the D
updates to the GDE screening methodology related to the rooting depth of Valley Oaks
and potential GDE areas located near surface water sources. While the GSAs state that
the initial screening is not a final determination of a poten
dependence, incorrectly categorizing the level of likelihood that an area is a GDE early
in the process risks excluding areas of Valley Oak or GDEs near surface water from
further study and monitoring based on unsupported initial assumptions. In early stages
of GDE screening, subject to uncertainty as additional data is collected, the GSAs
should err on the side of inclusivity until such time as site specific data is collected that
shows an area as not-groundwater dependent. Additionally, though the GSP now
references the California Freshwater Species Database, the GSP lists only the number
of species within the subbasin. The Department recommends utilizing other available
sources of information, including the California Natural Diversity Database, to assess
species presence within the subbasin. Tying species presence to the locations of likely
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 131
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Craig Altare, Supervising Engineering Geologist
California Department of Water Resources
April 5, 2022
Page 9
GDE areas that may support those species will augment the existing GDE screening as
a prioritization tool for future monitoring efforts.
COMMENT #2 Monitoring Networks (4.2.5.4 Representative Surface Water Depletion
Monitoring Network; starting page 4-33): The GSP should include additional details
related to the plans to improve the monitoring network for GDEs and ISW within the
subbasin.
a. Issues:
i. The GSP states that the ISW representative monitoring network will also be
used to monitor GDEs. The GSP does not present any information or figures to
support its assertion that the ISW monitoring sites are located sufficiently near to
GDEs to assess shallow groundwater levels in those areas. While the
plan to install up to an additional 10 shallow monitoring wells, the GSP does not
provide details on planned locations or timelines for installation of these
additional monitoring locations.
b. Recommendations:
i. The GSP should include additional detail related to the anticipated timeline for
installation of additional wells to further refine ISW and GDE characterization and
management. The Department recommends that the GSP assess the locations
of special status species within the subbasin to determine which GDE areas
likely provide priority habitat. GDE areas and ISW that support special status
species or are most at risk of negative impacts due to groundwater pumping
should be prioritized for monitoring to inform management actions (See
Comment #2(v)).
:
The GSAs state: Comment addressed. Section 4.2.5.4 has been revised to state that
the ISW monitoring network wells may be useful for monitoring groundwater levels near
GDEs; however, a dedicated network of shallow monitoring wells will be developed
specifically for GDE monitoring during implementation of the GSP. The development of
a dedicated groundwater dependent ecosystem monitoring network consisting of
shallow monitoring wells is discussed in Chapter 6.5.2.9 Potential Management Actions
and Chapter 7.1.2.1 GSP Studies. Although the GSAs used the best available scientific
data and information to assess potential GDEs within the Colusa Subbasin, significant
data gaps exist in the understanding of the GDEs and the associated species. The
GSAs will seek to work with resource agencies, stakeholders, beneficial users and the
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 132
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Craig Altare, Supervising Engineering Geologist
California Department of Water Resources
April 5, 2022
Page 10
public to refine the understanding of GDEs in the Colusa Subbasin, fill data gaps and
develop PMAs with consideration of GDEs.
:
The above comment remains relevant. The Department appreciates the revision to the
GSP to include a project to develop a subset of monitoring wells selected specifically to
assess impacts to GDEs. Though Table 6-54 states that the project is expected to be
implemented, Project 6.5.2.9 is listed as a Potential Project and therefore will only be
Department recommends the GSAs commit to implementation of this project ahead of
the first 5-year plan update.
COMMENT #3 Sustainable Management Criteria (5.3.6 Depletion of Interconnected
Surface Water, 5.4.6 Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water; starting pages 5-15
and 5-30): Interconnected surface water sustainable management criteria (SMC) may
not protect against undesirable results for fish and wildlife beneficial uses and users.
a. Issues:
i. Minimum Thresholds: Minimum thresholds (MTs) for ISW are set at 10 feet
below the measured historical low for each representative monitoring well. The
GSP states that establishing MTs below the historic lows is necessary to provide
a sufficient margin of operational flexibility during GSP implementation, and that
no undesirable results were observed at the historic low; however, the GSP does
not include sufficient analysis or discussion to support this claim. In 2015, the
second of back-to-back critically dry water years in the Sacramento Valley which
resulted in recent historical low groundwater levels, vegetated and aquatic GDEs
experienced adverse impacts including stressed or dying riparian vegetation,
poor instream habitat availability, and increased water temperatures (DFW
2019). It is unclear what, if any, studies or analyses were completed to assess
whether environmental users within the subbasin experienced undesirable
results at the historical low groundwater levels, or what metrics the GSP would
evaluate to determine the presence of an undesirable result for GDEs or ISW in
the event of additional groundwater decline beyond the historic low as the MTs
allow. The ISW SMC are also referenced as protective of GDE beneficial users of
groundwater according to the GSP, but the supporting discussion focuses on
groundwater gradients and associated depletions. No analysis is presented that
characterizes whether the established MTs are sufficient to maintain water levels
that have historically been shallow enough to support GDEs, or if the MTs would
permit groundwater levels to fall below root zones, removing groundwater as an
available water source to some GDEs. If MTs are not protective of GDE access
to groundwater supplies, significant impacts to environmental beneficial users of
groundwater will likely be experienced before MTs are reached. Furthermore, the
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 133
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Craig Altare, Supervising Engineering Geologist
California Department of Water Resources
April 5, 2022
Page 11
GSP reports annual net values for streamflow depletion from the modeled
baseline conditions, baseline conditions with climate change, and baseline
conditions with climate change and project scenarios. However, the annual
analysis does not provide sufficient detail on the timing of depletions to
adequately assess potential impacts to environmental users (See Comment #1).
The GSP compares modeled annual depletions to total annual flow in these river
systems, and uses this annual normalization to characterize groundwater
contributions to ISW as nominal. This coarse annual comparison does not take
into account how groundwater contributions to river base flows are often
proportionately greater in dry years or during annual low-flow seasons, or how
groundwater contributions play a key role in maintaining water quality and
temperatures. Properly contextualizing groundwater contributions to surface
water is especially important to understanding potential impacts of groundwater
depletion on surface waters and their ecosystems, particularly when the GSP
states that streamflow accretion is expected to decrease by 38.3% with climate
change impacts (line 5, page 6-3).
ii. Undesirable Results: The GSP requires 25% of ISW representative monitoring
wells in the subbasin to fall below their MTs for 24 consecutive months before
identifying an undesirable result to GDEs or ISW. While environmental users are
adapted to sustain short-term lowering of groundwater levels during dry periods,
environmental users may not be able to sustain extended periods of reduced
groundwater access that would result from allowing groundwater levels to fall to
historic lows for 24 months. By the time an undesirable result is declared, and
management actions are triggered in response to the undesirable result,
environmental groundwater users will have already experienced significant stress
and potentially irreversible mortality.
b. Recommendations:
i. Minimum Thresholds: The Department recommends the GSP reselect
minimum thresholds that would better protect environmental uses and users of
groundwater, rather than enabling declines in groundwater levels over the
implementation horizon beyond the historic low. Additional analyses of the
specific impacts of the established thresholds on GDE and ISW beneficial users
of groundwater should be included.
ii. Undesirable Results: The Department recommends the GSP reconsider the
24-month duration of groundwater levels below MTs required to constitute an
undesirable result, recognizing that extended durations of groundwater
inaccessibility for environmental users will likely lead to adverse impacts that
cannot be easily reversed when groundwater levels recover. At a minimum, the
Department recommends identifying physical triggers (e.g., declining Normalized
Difference Vegetation Index signals) and associated management actions (e.g.,
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 134
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Craig Altare, Supervising Engineering Geologist
California Department of Water Resources
April 5, 2022
Page 12
demand reduction) to enable the GSAs to identify and mitigate localized patterns
of lowering groundwater or depleted ISW and associated negative impacts
before the second year of MT exceedances yields more significant and
undesirable impacts. These interim action triggers will help preempt irreversible
losses and undesirable results for environmental users.
:
The GSAs state:
Minimum Thresholds: Comment acknowledged. The sustainable management criteria
understanding that significant data gaps exist in the understanding of stream aquifer
interactions in the Colusa Subbasin. Additional studies, more refined numerical models,
and additional monitoring will be needed to address these data gaps and uncertainties.
Additionally, the GSAs acknowledge that the sustainability thresholds will need to be
reviewed and evaluated, and potentially refined, as additional data and information
becomes available. The GSAs will seek to work with stakeholders, beneficial users, the
public and GSAs representing adjacent subbasins during this process.
Undesirable Results: Comment acknowledged. The GSAs will conduct local
management of the Colusa Subbasin based on measurable objectives and interim
milestones with the goal of avoiding exceedances of minimum thresholds and triggering
of undesirable results. The GSAs will conduct this local management with consideration
of all beneficial users and will seek to work with resource agencies, stakeholders,
beneficial users, the public and GSAs representing adjacent subbasins to avoid
exceeding minimum thresholds and incurring undesirable results.
:
The above comment remains relevant. The Department appreciates the GSAs
acknowledgement of data gaps related to the characterization of stream aquifer
interactions, and the need to collect additional data to refine understanding of the
subbasin. However, the Department continues to emphasize that the GSAs should
reselect more conservative MOs and MTs that do not allow for continued groundwater
level declines to ensure that environmental users of groundwater do not suffer
potentially irreversible impacts during the time-period necessary for the GSAs to
address the existing data gaps and refine the current sustainable management criteria.
The Department also continues to recommend that the GSP reconsider the 24-month
duration requirement for groundwater levels below MTs to constitute an undesirable
result, as sustained low groundwater elevations likely lead to adverse and potentially
irreversible impacts to environmental users.
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 135
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Craig Altare, Supervising Engineering Geologist
California Department of Water Resources
April 5, 2022
Page 13
COMMENT #4 Projects and Management Actions (6.5.2.3 Long-term Demand
Management Action, 6.5.2.4 Strategic Temporary Land Idling for Drought and Localized
Short-Term Groundwater Management; starting page 6-86): The GSP should include
additional metrics and timelines related to the implementation of demand management
within the subbasin.
a. Issues:
i. - and long-
identified PMAs. As the other PMAs focus largely on implementing recharge
projects that may be costly, rely on securing additional surface water supplies,
and/or require potentially lengthy permitting processes, demand management
may be necessary in instances where a quick response to undesirable results
within the subbasin is needed. Though the GSP identifies various demand
management strategies, the GSP states that these management actions are in
b. Recommendations:
i. The Department recommends detailing specific timelines and metrics that
would trigger the implementation of the identified demand management
scenarios should recharge projects encounter delays or fail to produce the
anticipated groundwater benefits to the subbasin
In Response to the Depa:
The GSAs state: Comment acknowledged. It is noted that the decisions pertaining to
demand management involve major public policy questions that will require evaluations
of conditions in a public, stakeholder driven process. The GSP acknowledges a non-
exhaustive list of events that may trigger demand management in Section 6.5.2.3. The
precise decisions for whether and how demand management would be applied will be
determined by the GSA boards through a stakeholder-driven process during GSP
implementation. If demand management is pursued, the establishment of
implementation metrics and timelines should be considered.
:
The above comment remains relevant.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, though the Colusa Subbasin Final GSP addresses several of the
characterizes existing data gaps and associated planned
actions, the Department continues to recommend improvements to the Final GSP
consideration of GDEs and environmental beneficial uses and users of groundwater and
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 136
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Craig Altare, Supervising Engineering Geologist
California Department of Water Resources
April 5, 2022
Page 14
interconnected surface water, including fish and wildlife and their habitats. The
Department recommends that DWR carefully consider the above comments when
assessing whether the Final GSP is likely to achieve the sustainability goal for the Basin
as required under SGMA statutes and regulations.
comments, recommendations, and other available information concerning the Final
GDEs and environmental beneficial uses and users when
determining whether (1) to require the GSA to correct deficiencies in the Final GSP prior
to the applicable statutory deadline; or (2) to determine that the Final GSP is inadequate
due to incompleteness or significant deficiencies based on one or more criteria
identified in SGMA regulations that have not been corrected prior to the applicable
statutory deadline (23 CCR §§ 355.2(e) and 355.4(b)).The
indicate that the Final GSP contains the following discrepancies that may materially
affect the ability of the GSA to achieve the sustainability goal for the Basin, and thus
may warrant corrections to the Final GSP:
1. The assumptions, criteria, findings, and objectives, including the sustainability
goal, undesirable results, minimum thresholds, measurable objectives, and
interim milestones are not reasonable and/or not supported by the best available
information and best available science (23 CCR § 355.4(b)(1)). (See Comment
#1, 3)
2. The GSP does not identify reasonable measures and schedules to eliminate data
gaps. (23 CCR § 355.4(b)(2)) (See Comment #2)
3. The interests of the beneficial uses and users of groundwater in the basin, and
the land uses and property interests potentially affected by the use of
groundwater in the basin, have not been considered. (23 CCR § 355.4(b)(4))
(See Comment #1, 3)
4. The projects and management actions are not feasible and/or not likely to
prevent undesirable results and ensure that the basin is operated within its
sustainable yield. (23 CCR § 355.4(b)(5)) (See Comment #4)
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 137
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Attachment B
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS ON THE COLUSA SUBBASIN DRAFT GROUNDWATER
SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 138
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
State of California Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director
North Central Region/Region 2
1701 Nimbus Road
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
www.wildlife.ca.gov
(916) 358-2900
October 26, 2021
Mary Fahey
Lisa Hunter
Colusa Subbasin
1213 Market Street
Colusa, CA 95932
mfahey@countyofcolusa.com
lhunter@countyofglenn.net
Subject: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMENTS ON THE
COLUSA SUBBASIN DRAFT GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Dear Ms. Fahey and Ms. Hunter:
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) appreciates the opportunity
to provide comments on the Colusa Subbasin Draft Groundwater Sustainability Plan
(GSP) prepared by the Colusa Groundwater Authority Groundwater Sustainability
Agency (GSA) and Glenn Groundwater Authority GSA pursuant to the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The Basin is designated as high priority under
SGMA and must be managed under a GSP by January 31, 2022.
The Department is writing to support ecosystem preservation and enhancement in
compliance with SGMA and its implementing regulations based on Department
fish and wildlife resources, the Department has jurisdiction over the conservation,
protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and the habitat necessary for
biologically sustainable populations of such species (Fish & Game Code §§ 711.7 and
1802).
Development and implementation of GSPs under SGMA represents a new era of
California groundwater management. The Department has an interest in the sustainable
management of groundwater, as many sensitive ecosystems, species, and public trust
resources depend on groundwater and interconnected surface waters (ISWs), including
ecosystems on Department-owned and managed lands within SGMA-regulated basins.
SGMA and its implementing regulations afford ecosystems and species specific
statutory and regulatory consideration, including the following as pertinent to GSPs:
GSPs must consider impacts to groundwater dependent ecosystems
(GDEs) (Water Code § 10727.4(l); see also 23 CCR § 354.16(g));
GSPs must consider the interests of all beneficial uses and users of
groundwater, including environmental users of groundwater (Water Code §
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 139
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Colusa Subbasin
October 26, 2021
Page 2 of 12
10723.2) and GSPs must identify and consider potential effects on all
beneficial uses and users of groundwater (23 CCR §§ 354.10(a),
354.26(b)(3), 354.28(b)(4), 354.34(b)(2), and 354.34(f)(3));
GSPs must establish sustainable management criteria that avoid
undesirable results within 20 years of the applicable statutory deadline,
including depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant
and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water
(23 CCR § 354.22 et seq. and Water Code §§ 10721(x)(6) and 10727.2(b)) and
describe monitoring networks that can identify adverse impacts to beneficial uses
of interconnected surface waters (23 CCR § 354.34(c)(6)(D)); and
GSPs must account for groundwater extraction for all water use sectors,
including managed wetlands, managed recharge, and native vegetation (23 CCR
§§ 351(al) and 354.18(b)(3)).
Furthermore, the Public Trust Doctrine imposes a related but distinct obligation to
consider how groundwater management affects public trust resources, including
navigable surface waters and fisheries. Groundwater hydrologically connected to
surface waters is also subject to the Public Trust Doctrine to the extent that groundwater
extractions or diversions affect or may affect public trust uses. (Environmental Law
Foundation v. State Water Resources Control Board (2018), 26 Cal. App. 5th 844;
National Audubon Society v. Superior Court
affirmative duty to take the public trust into account in the planning and allocation of
National Audubon
Society, supra, 33 Cal. 3d at 446.) Accordingly, groundwater plans should consider
potential impacts to and appropriate protections for ISWs and their tributaries, and ISWs
that support fisheries, including the level of groundwater contribution to those waters.
In the context of SGMA statutes and regulations, and Public Trust Doctrine
considerations, groundwater planning should carefully consider and protect
environmental beneficial uses and users of groundwater, including fish and wildlife and
their habitats, GDEs, and ISWs.
The Department recognizes and appreciates the effort of the GSAs to characterize
current and projected groundwater conditions through detailed modeling. However, the
Department believes the GSP could improve its considerations of environmental users
of groundwater and establish more protective management criteria. The Department is
providing additional comments and recommendations in Attachment A.
If have any questions related to the Departments comments and/or recommendations
on the Colusa Subbasin Draft GSP please contact Bridget Gibbons, Environmental
Scientist, at bridget.gibbons@wildlife.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Kevin Thomas
Regional Manager, North Central Region
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 140
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Colusa Subbasin
October 26, 2021
Page 3 of 12
Enclosures (Attachments A, B)
ec: California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Joshua Grover, Branch Chief
Water Branch
Joshua.Grover@wildlife.ca.gov
Robert Holmes, Environmental Program Manager
Statewide Water Planning Program
Robert.Holmes@wildlife.ca.gov
Angela Murvine, Statewide SGMA Coordinator
Groundwater Program
Angela.Murvine@wildlife.ca.gov
Jennifer Garcia, Environmental Program Manager
North Central Region
Jennifer.Garcia@wildlife.ca.gov
Briana Seapy, Water Program Supervisor
North Central Region
Briana.Seapy@wildlife.ca.gov
Bridget Gibbons, Environmental Scientist
North Central Region
Bridget.Gibbons@wildlife.ca.gov
California Department of Water Resources
Craig Altare, Supervising Engineering Geologist
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program
Craig.Altare@water.ca.gov
Brandon Davison, Colusa Subbasin SGMA Point of Contact
Northern Region Office
Brandon.Davison@water.ca.gov
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies
Colusa Groundwater Authority
mfahey@countyofcolusa.com
Glenn Groundwater Authority
lhunter@countyofglenn.net
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 141
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Colusa Subbasin
October 26, 2021
Page 4 of 12
National Marine Fisheries Service
Rick Rogers, Fish Biologist
West Coast Region
Rick.Rogers@noaa.gov
State Water Resources Control Board
Natalie Stork, Chief
Groundwater Management Program
Natalie.Stork@waterboards.ca.gov
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 142
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Colusa Subbasin
October 26, 2021
Page 5 of 12
Attachment A
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMENTS ON THE COLUSA SUBBASIN
DRAFT GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
follows:
1. Comment #1 Interconnected Surface Water Systems (3.2.7 Interconnected
Surface Waters; starting page 3-77): The GSP does not include sufficient detail
describing the timing of depletions of interconnected surface water (ISW).
ğ͵ Issue: Though the GSP discusses annual gains and losses from
interconnected surface waters in the subbasin and summarizes net gains
by water year type (Table 3-6, page 3-79), the GSP does not include
sufficient detail on the timing of depletions as required by 23 CCR §
354.16(f). In order to adequately assess ISW that may be gaining or losing
at different times of the year, it is preferential to present net gain/loss
values by month, rather than by year. Quantifying depletions by month for
each reach will facilitate evaluation of impacts or benefits to environmental
beneficial users that rely on surface waters during specific portions of the
year.
Ĭ͵ Recommendation: The Department recommends including net gains or
losses to interconnected surface waters by month, rather than by year.
2. Comment #2 Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (3.2.8 Groundwater
Dependent Ecosystems; starting page 3-82): Groundwater dependent ecosystem
(GDE) identification, required by 23 CCR § 354.16(g), is based on methods that
risk exclusion of ecosystems that may depend on groundwater.
ğ͵ Issues:
i. GDE Scoring Criteria:
o potential GDE areas
within the Natural Communities Commonly Associated with
Groundwater dataset. It is unclear how the rankings are utilized
throughout the remainder of the GSP to assess monitoring
networks, management criteria, or potential projects. Accordingly,
the ranking system has no apparent actionable groundwater
management relevance.
ii. Depth to Groundwater Threshold: The GSP relies on a groundwater
level threshold of 30-feet below the ground surface (bgs) to screen
potential GDEs within the subbasin. However, mature Valley Oak
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 143
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Colusa Subbasin
October 26, 2021
Page 6 of 12
(Quercus lobata) can access groundwater up to 80 feet bgs
(Howard 1992, Lewis & Burgy 1964). The use of a 30-foot threshold
may incorrectly result in Valley Oak communities receiving a GSP-
imposed score of 1, indicating that they are least likely to be a
GDE.
iii. GDEs Near Surface Water: The GSP assesses whether potential
GDE areas are located near surface waters or irrigated cropland, or
both. The GSP considers potential GDE areas within 150 feet of
surface waters, within 150 feet of irrigated rice paddies, and within
50 feet of other irrigated croplands to have access to surface water;
and therefore, the GSP assigns these areas a score of 2 or 3,
indicating they are less likely to be groundwater dependent. The
wholly dependent on groundwate-83); however,
this narrow definition
opportunistic approach to accessing water in which vegetation and
ISW may rely on both surface water and groundwater across
seasons and years. Furthermore, this GDE definition contradicts an
earlier description of GDEs within the GSP, in which the plan states
GDE species and/or communities on groundwater for all or a
portion of line 3, page 3-82). Particularly as the
GDE areas receiving scores of 2 or 3 have already been
determined to be located in areas with depths to groundwater of
less than 30 feet, proximity to potential surface waters is insufficient
evidence to categorize them as less likely to be GDEs.
iv. Data Gaps: The GSP states that there is potential for GDEs to be
present in the uplands west of Orland and west of Arbuckle, but
that groundwater level data is lacking in these areas and there is
(line 26, page
3-83). Rather than waiting an indeterminate amount of time to
gather data to prove groundwater dependence of potential GDE
areas and leaving the potential GDEs unclassified in the interim,
the GSP should conservatively consider these areas to be GDEs
until sufficient data is collected that proves otherwise.
v. Special Status Species: SGMA defines GDEs as ecological
communities or species that depend on groundwater emerging from
aquifers or on groundwater occurring near the ground surface \[23
CCR § 351 (m)\]. The GSP does not identify or discuss species that
may be present within the subbasin that rely on groundwater,
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 144
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Colusa Subbasin
October 26, 2021
Page 7 of 12
groundwater dependent ecosystems, or interconnected surface
waters.
Ĭ͵ Recommendations:
i. GDE Scoring Criteria: The GSP should clarify how the ranking
system is meaningfully used in relationship to groundwater
management criteria. Specifically, the GSP should clarify what GDE
areas are retained for further analysis in the plan as environmental
beneficial users of groundwater and how likely GDEs may be
impacted by management criteria, including identification of
potential undesirable results.
ii. Depth to Groundwater Threshold: The Department recommends
the GSP update the methodology for classifying GDEs to reflect
accurate maximum potential rooting depth for Valley Oak
communities. For areas of Valley Oak within the subbasin, the
Department recommends the GSP apply a threshold of 80 feet bgs
as the maximum depth at which the potential GDE could access
groundwater. The Department accepts the use of a 30-foot
threshold for other potential GDE areas within the subbasin that do
not contain Valley Oak.
iii. GDEs Near Surface Water: The Department recommends that the
GSP err on the side of inclusivity of potential GDEs until there is
site specific evidence that the overlying ecosystem has no
significant dependence on groundwater across seasons and water
year types.
iv. Data Gaps: The GSP should conservatively assume that potential
GDEs located in areas with poor groundwater level data availability
are groundwater dependent, until such time that data is collected
that demonstrates otherwise.
v. Special Status Species: The Department recommends the GSP
include a list of special status species that may be present within
the Colusa
groundwater dependence. The GSP should also include a spatial
assessment of special status species within the subbasin to
characterize which surface waters or GDE areas provide these
species habitat or forage; this level of GDE-species-relationship
assessment enables GSAs to prioritize GDE monitoring and
management decisions.
3. Comment #3 Monitoring Networks (4.2.5.4 Representative Surface Water
Depletion Monitoring Network; starting page 4-33): The GSP should include
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 145
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Colusa Subbasin
October 26, 2021
Page 8 of 12
additional details related to the plans to improve the monitoring network for GDEs
and ISW within the subbasin.
ğ͵ Issue: The GSP states that the ISW representative monitoring network will
also be used to monitor GDEs. The GSP does not present any information
or figures to support its assertion that the ISW monitoring sites are located
sufficiently near to GDEs to assess shallow groundwater levels in those
areas. While the
data gaps related to the characterization of GDEs and ISW within the
subbasin and the to install up to an additional 10
shallow monitoring wells, the GSP does not provide details on planned
locations or timelines for installation of these additional monitoring
locations.
Ĭ͵ Recommendation: The GSP should include additional detail related to the
anticipated timeline for installation of additional wells to further refine ISW
and GDE characterization and management. The Department
recommends that the GSP assess the locations of special status species
within the subbasin to determine which GDE areas likely provide priority
habitat. GDE areas and ISW that support special status species or are
most at risk of negative impacts due to groundwater pumping should be
prioritized for monitoring to inform management actions (See Comment
#2(v)).
4. Comment #4 Sustainable Management Criteria (5.3.6 Depletion of
Interconnected Surface Water, 5.4.6 Depletions of Interconnected Surface
Water; starting pages 5-15 and 5-30): Interconnected surface water sustainable
management criteria (SMC) may not protect against undesirable results for fish
and wildlife beneficial uses and users.
ğ͵ Issues:
i. Minimum Thresholds: Minimum thresholds (MTs) for ISW are set at
10 feet below the measured historical low for each representative
monitoring well. The GSP states that establishing MTs below the
historic lows is necessary to provide a sufficient margin of
operational flexibility during GSP implementation, and that no
undesirable results were observed at the historic low; however, the
GSP does not include sufficient analysis or discussion to support
this claim. In 2015, the second of back-to-back critically dry water
years in the Sacramento Valley which resulted in recent historical
low groundwater levels, vegetated and aquatic GDEs experienced
adverse impacts including stressed or dying riparian vegetation,
poor instream habitat availability, and increased water
temperatures (DFW 2019). It is unclear what, if any, studies or
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 146
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Colusa Subbasin
October 26, 2021
Page 9 of 12
analyses were completed to assess whether environmental users
within the subbasin experienced undesirable results at the historical
low groundwater levels, or what metrics the GSP would evaluate to
determine the presence of an undesirable result for GDEs or ISW in
the event of additional groundwater decline beyond the historic low
as the MTs allow. The ISW SMC are also referenced as protective
of GDE beneficial users of groundwater according to the GSP, but
the supporting discussion focuses on groundwater gradients and
associated depletions. No analysis is presented that characterizes
whether the established MTs are sufficient to maintain water levels
that have historically been shallow enough to support GDEs, or if
the MTs would permit groundwater levels to fall below root zones,
removing groundwater as an available water source to some GDEs.
If MTs are not protective of GDE access to groundwater supplies,
significant impacts to environmental beneficial users of
groundwater will likely be experienced before MTs are reached.
Furthermore, the GSP reports annual net values for streamflow
depletion from the modeled baseline conditions, baseline conditions
with climate change, and baseline conditions with climate change
and project scenarios. However, the annual analysis does not
provide sufficient detail on the timing of depletions to adequately
assess potential impacts to environmental users (See Comment
#1). The GSP compares modeled annual depletions to total annual
flow in these river systems, and uses this annual normalization to
characterize groundwater contributions to ISW as nominal. This
coarse annual comparison does not take into account how
groundwater contributions to river base flows are often
proportionately greater in dry years or during annual low-flow
seasons, or how groundwater contributions play a key role in
maintaining water quality and temperatures. Properly
contextualizing groundwater contributions to surface water is
especially important to understanding potential impacts of
groundwater depletion on surface waters and their ecosystems,
particularly when the GSP states that streamflow accretion is
expected to decrease by 38.3% with climate change impacts (line
9, page 6-2).
ii. Undesirable Results: The GSP requires 25% of ISW representative
monitoring wells in the subbasin to fall below their MTs for 24
consecutive months before identifying an undesirable result to
GDEs or ISW. While environmental users are adapted to sustain
short-term lowering of groundwater levels during dry periods,
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 147
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Colusa Subbasin
October 26, 2021
Page 10 of 12
environmental users may not be able to sustain extended periods
of reduced groundwater access that would result from allowing
groundwater levels to fall to historic lows for 24 months. By the time
an undesirable result is declared, and management actions are
triggered in response to the undesirable result, environmental
groundwater users will have already experienced significant stress
and potentially irreversible mortality.
Ĭ͵ Recommendations:
i. Minimum Thresholds: The Department recommends the GSP
reselect minimum thresholds that would better protect
environmental uses and users of groundwater, rather than enabling
declines in groundwater levels over the implementation horizon
beyond the historic low. Additional analyses of the specific impacts
of the established thresholds on GDE and ISW beneficial users of
groundwater should be included.
ii. Undesirable Results: The Department recommends the GSP
reconsider the 24-month duration of groundwater levels below MTs
required to constitute an undesirable result, recognizing that
extended durations of groundwater inaccessibility for environmental
users will likely lead to adverse impacts that cannot be easily
reversed when groundwater levels recover. At a minimum, the
Department recommends identifying physical triggers (e.g.,
declining Normalized Difference Vegetation Index signals) and
associated management actions (e.g., demand reduction) to enable
the GSAs to identify and mitigate localized patterns of lowering
groundwater or depleted ISW and associated negative impacts
before the second year of MT exceedances yields more significant
and undesirable impacts. These interim action triggers will help
preempt irreversible losses and undesirable results for
environmental users.
5. Comment #5 Projects and Management Actions (PMAs) (6.5.2.3 Long-term
Demand Management Action, 6.5.2.4 Strategic Temporary Land Idling for
Drought and Localized Short-Term Groundwater Management; starting page 6-
84): The GSP should include additional metrics and timelines related to the
implementation of demand management within the subbasin.
ğ͵ Issue: -
and long-term demand management actions that will serve as a
to the other identified PMAs. As the other PMAs focus largely
on implementing recharge projects that may be costly, rely on securing
additional surface water supplies, and/or require potentially lengthy
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 148
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Colusa Subbasin
October 26, 2021
Page 11 of 12
permitting processes, demand management may be necessary in
instances where a quick response to undesirable results within the
subbasin is needed. Though the GSP identifies various demand
management strategies, the GSP states that these management actions
g
determined.
Ĭ͵ Recommendation: The Department recommends detailing specific
timelines and metrics that would trigger the implementation of the
identified demand management scenarios should recharge projects
encounter delays or fail to produce the anticipated groundwater benefits to
the subbasin.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, though the draft GSP provides detailed characterization of subbasin
groundwater conditions, the GSP lacks a robust analysis of potential impacts to
environmental beneficial users and should establish more protective management
criteria. The Department recommends that the Colusa Subbasin GSAs address the
above comments before GSP submission to DWR to best prepare for the following
regulatory criteria for plan evaluation:
1. The assumptions, criteria, findings, and objectives, including the sustainability
goal, undesirable results, minimum thresholds, measurable objectives, and
interim milestones are not reasonable and/or not supported by the best available
information and best available science (23 CCR § 355.4(b)(1)). (See Comment
#1, 2, 4)
2. The GSP does not identify reasonable measures and schedules to eliminate data
gaps. (23 CCR § 355.4(b)(2)) (See Comment #3)
3. The interests of the beneficial uses and users of groundwater in the basin, and
the land uses and property interests potentially affected by the use of
groundwater in the basin, have not been considered. (23 CCR § 355.4(b)(4))
(See Comment #1, 2, 4)
4. The projects and management actions are not feasible and/or not likely to
prevent undesirable results and ensure that the basin is operated within its
sustainable yield. (23 CCR § 355.4(b)(5)) (See Comment #4)
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 149
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Colusa Subbasin
October 26, 2021
Page 12 of 12
Attachment B
LITERATURE CITED
Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019. Statewide Drought Response: Stressor
Monitoring.
Howard, Janet L. 1992. Quercus lobata. In: Fire Effects Information System. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire
Sciences Laboratory.
Lewis, D.C. & Burgy, R. H. 1964. The Relationship between Oak Tree Roots and
Groundwater in Fractured Rock as Determined by Tritium Tracing. Journal of
Geophysical Research. 69(12):2579-2588.
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 150
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Attachment C
LITERATURE CITED
Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019. Statewide Drought Response: Stressor
Monitoring.
Howard, Janet L. 1992. Quercus lobata. In: Fire Effects Information System. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire
Sciences Laboratory.
Lewis, D.C. & Burgy, R. H. 1964. The Relationship between Oak Tree Roots and
Groundwater in Fractured Rock as Determined by Tritium Tracing. Journal of
Geophysical Research. 69(12):2579-2588.
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 151
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Comments Received After the Public Comment Period
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 152
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Pacific Gold Agriculture, LLC
P.O. Box 29, Colusa, California 95932
April 29, 2022
Paul Gosselin
Deputy Director, Sustainable Groundwater Management Office
California Department of Water Resources
Sacramento, California
Re: Comments on the Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Colusa Subbasin,
Dear Deputy Director Gosselin,
I have been an active Stakeholder in the development of the Colusa Subbasin GSP and I have also commented on the
Butte, Sutter and Yolo GSPs when these Plans were all in draft stages of completion. I believe my comments are
important to supplement those already submitted because of my understanding of how the GSP was developed by
the consultants and other stakeholders for the Colusa Subbbasin GSP process and my perspective as an farmer in the
Colusa Subbasin. We are a orchard management company solely owned by our family and we continue to own and
manage a farm that has been continuously owned since 1860. I believe that our perspective as an active stakeholder,
and my 50 years of farm management experience may bring a unique and hopefully worthy perspective to the
Department of Water Resources as you review the Colusa Subbasin GSP.
1. I urge the DWR to consider the unique geological setting for the Colusa Subbasin as a subduction zone
bounded by the Willows fault and interconnected to the Sutter Buttes and Sacramento River. Perhaps
consider what that may mean regarding the potential for future subsidence that may be caused by future
earthquakes and extreme flood events especially as we draw the aquifer down to levels never seen in the
geologic time or at least in the Cenozoic Era. The intersection of the volcanic formations relating to the
Sutter Buttes Rampart and the likely subduction boundary of the Pacific and North American Plates along the
Willows Fault would seem to present heightened risk for subsidence but also for undesirable redox outcomes
since the Sutter Buttes Rampart is surrounded by anoxic ancient sea water which is understood to be causing
the desorption of arsenic and other trace metals by the hydrochemical process of reduction due to the
elevated Ph solution but also likely movement along the Willows Fault especially south of the Sutter Buttes
along the general decline of the topography of the Sacramento Valley. I would note the work of Stephen
Springhorn in his 2005 graphic Analysis and Hydrogeologic Characterization of
Cenozoic Strata in the Sacramento Valley Near the Sutter Buttes
colleagues at the USGS in -Fill Aqufers of the Southwestern
United States: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah, 1993-
discusses the observation of how arsenic translocates along fault lines near Alburqurque New Mexico and
discusses a predictive model which would explain the relationship between the desorption of arsenic from
the volcanic metal oxidesof the Sutter Buttes Rampart and the presence or arsenic contamination above
MCL levels in groundwater wells in Grimes, Meridian, Yuba City and Robbins.
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 153
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
2. I urge the DWR to release the BFW contour map that was presented as a Posterboard at the US Geological
Society Meeting in May of 2013. This research by Stephen Springhorn suggests that the upconing of salt
water observed by the DWR in the Sacramento Valley
and upward vertical gradients in deep aquifers in the Sacramento Valleyserious adverse
eath areas of prolonged groundwater pumping in
the Sacramento Valley. This research is consistent with observations
documented in the September 1952 Publication
Yuba Counties Investigations regarding observations of upconing of salt water due to overpumping near the
Robbins area almost 100 years ago. As you know the Colusa Subbasin GSP was based on the assumed BFW
countours of Olmstead and Davis in 1961 which can not be relied upon for portions of Colusa County and
the area relating to the Sutter Buttes Rampart. This is an extremely important issue now because wells are
being drilled deeper and deeper and water quality is not being monitored while water quaniity is the desired
objective. There is a report of a 1000 ft well drilled near Arbuckle that was capped because it was salt water
the obvious concern is that other deep wells are not being capped because the water quality is not so
egregious and perhaps the low water quality water is being mixed with fresh surface water suppies. The
major concern is that the Subbasin has groundwater levels that never have been so low in geologic time and
the intermix of high Ph anoxic salt water and deeper and deeper oxygen infiltration is a never ending breeding
ground for Redox, related biotic responses, and the desorption of trace metals like iron, manganese and
arsenic. I should note that the City of Colusa just published a notice for recent violations of iron and
manganese MCL levels in its public supply and there are wells known to be abandoned for arsenic in the past
within City limits. Regarding the relationship between redox conditions resulting in the desorption of
manganese and arsenic it seems that the work of Dr Samantha Ying at UC Riverside is very much relevant
since the public supply system of the City of Colusa has experience contamination from both trace metals.
3. It is extremely important that you read and consider
the History of Colusa County by Will S. Green which was published in 1880. Will S. Green describes a
phenomenon akin to the historical volcanic ash catastrophe at Pompei Italy concerning the geographic area
bucke d LƓ ķźŭŭźƓŭ ǞĻƌƌƭ ƷŷĻƩĻ źƷ źƭ Ɠƚ
ǒƓĭƚƒƒƚƓ ƷŷźƓŭ Ʒƚ ŅźƓķ ĬƚƓĻƭ ğƓķ ƷźƒĬĻƩ ğƷ ğ ķĻƦƷŷ ƚŅ ƭĻǝĻƓƷǤΏŅźǝĻ ƚƩ ğ ŷǒƓķƩĻķ ŅĻĻƷ͵ One man took up
most of the skeleton of a deer, and another found chunks of coals lying around as though a camp-fire had
The question is what type of event during the geologic period where deer, timber
and possibly camp fires could have coexisted on the foothills south of Arbuckle which would result in these
artifacts being found by digging wells to my knowledge it seems like ash from a sudden volcanoe perhaps
the same volcanoe which caused the flow of Cache Creek to reverse from flowing into the Pacific Ocean to
the Sacramento River. This event also caused the creation of Clear Lake. In my opinion this is a very
important historical observation by someone who was probably the most sophisticated expert on hydrology
in the Sacramento Valley prior to 1880. What does this potential unique stratification mean for future
subsidence, sink holes and the veracity of the hydrologic model for this part of the Subbasin? What doe this
potential stratification mean for the resilliance of the critical infrastructure of I-5 and the Tehama-Colusa
Canal especially with groundwater levels at all geologic time lows and the potential for future earthquakes
and extreme precipitation events in the Arbuckle Dunnigan area?
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 154
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
4. Regarding Subsidence I would also suggest that you read
126 of the book by George Basye published in 2011 Battling the Sacramento River: A History of Reclamation
District 108 paragraph hes states that District 108 may determine that a reliable groundwater
suppy may be available but subsidence of the overlying
ground elevation. Significant ground level su
boundary where growers are entirely dependent on groundwater.
influential attorneys in recent Sacramento Valley history. He makes the clear connection between
overpumping and subsidence.
5. Another historical reference is the 1891 publication by J-Its- History Traced
From A State of Nature Through The Early Period Of Setllement
book in combination with the Will S. Green History give a comprehensive inventory of the hydrology of the
Colusa Subbasin mostly before the onset of Reclamation which started in 1871. I would suggest studying
the two maps in both books since each book has a map constructed uniquely for each publication and
attempt to capture all the streams, creeks and sloughs that were part of the Sacramento Valley watershed
and estuary prior to Reclamation. For some reason the Will S. Green map doe not denote Cheney Slough
north of Colusa but it is a good inventory of all the hydrologic features including Funks Slough near Maxwell,
Deep Slough west of Williams, Sycamore Slough and Dry Slough south of Colusa and Wilkins Slough south of
Grimes. Cheney Slough, Sycamore Slough, and Wilkins Slough all were directly tributary to and from the
Sacramento River and really represented and estuary that fed the tulies of the Upper Basin north of Colusa
and the Lower Basin south of Colusa. The obvious observation is that most of the Valley floor was flooded
or seasonally flooded during all of the relevant geologic time prior to Reclamation. What this means for
subsidence and Redox potential is an open question but most if not all of the groundwater aquifer must
have been anoxic prior to Reclamation on the west side of the Sacramento River. Another source for a map
with historical perspective is the map on Page 5 of Basyeis entitled Reclamation District
No. 108 - 1870 to 1902 and dated 1922 . Ba
. Swamp Lands definitely describe an estuary with anoxic groundwater. Also interesting
observation to note is that Lower Sycamore Slough drained the are described as the Lower Basin that started
south of Upper Sycamore Slough near Grand Island and extened all the way from the Colusa and Yolo County
Border.
6. Finaly, The 1880 and 1891 Maps included in the Green and Rogers books importantly reference what was
known at the connected the various sloughs with the Upper and Lower Basins and the
Sacramento River forming estuary system before Reclamation. .
eleton Map, Showing the Natural Overflow of Flood Waters of the Sacramento River , And The
scussion and description which is
informative to the estuary ecosystem, wetlands, anoxic groundwater conditions and potential for
subsidence due to Reclamation and overpumping that existed for the period of geologic time prior to
Reclamation.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Ben King
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 155
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
11. DISCUSSION ON AGREEMENT WITH DAVIDS ENGINEERING, INC. TO PROVIDE ON-CALL TECHNICAL
CONSULTING SERVICES
As the Colusa Subbasin shifts to GSP Implementation, it may be useful to consider retaining a technical
consultant to provide on-call technical support on an as-needed basis. Davids Engineering, Inc. has been the
lead technical consultant during GSP Development. Upon request, Davids Engineering provided the attached
draft agreement template.
Attachments
Task Order Agreement for Professional Engineering Services
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 156
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
{ĻƩǝźƓŭ {ƷĻǞğƩķƭ ƚŅ ĻƭƷĻƩƓ ğƷĻƩ {źƓĭĻ ЊВВЌ
To: <Contact name>
<Contact title>
<Client Name>
From: <Person>
Davids Engineering, Inc.
<Date>
D ate:
Project name: <Project Name>
Project #: <ClientNumber.ProjectNumber>
1 Scope of Services
The services to be performed by Davids Engineering, Inc. (CONSULTANT) for (CLIENT) under this
AGREEMENT are described by written task orders made pursuant to and referencing this AGREEMENT. A
sample task order form is shown in Attachment A, but other forms may be used as mutually agreed
between CONSULTANT and CLIENT.
2 Compensation
CLIENT will compensate CONSULTANT on the basis of labor plus direct expenses. Compensation will not
exceed the estimated budgets specified by task orders without prior written authorization by CLIENT.
CONSULTANT labor will be charged according to the hourly rates listed in Attachment B. Direct expenses
will be billed without markup. Vehicle and equipment usage will be charged at the rates indicated in
Attachment C.
3 Other Terms
Services covered by this AGREEMENT will be performed in accordance with the PROVISIONS and any
attachments or schedules, incorporated herein by reference. This AGREEMENT is binding, represents the
entire agreement of CLIENT and CONSULTANT concerning the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all
prior agreements and understandings and may only be changed by written amendment executed by
both parties.
Task Order Agreement 1 of 8 12/17/2021
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 157
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
4 Task Order Agreement Signatures
Approved for CLIENT Accepted for Davids Engineering, Inc.
Signed: ________________________________ Signed: __________________________________
Name:_________________________________Name: ___________________________________
Title: __________________________________ Title: ____________________________________
Date: __________________________________ Date: ____________________________________
5 Provisions
1. Authorization to Proceed
Authorization for CONSULTANT to proceed with the work 5. Standard of Care
described in subsequent written task orders will be The standard of care applicable to CONSULTANT services
concurrent with the execution of said task orders as will be the degree of skill and diligence normally employed
described in this AGREEMENT. by professional engineers or consultants performing the
same or similar services at the time CONSULTANT's services
2. Labor Rates are performed.
6. Insurance
for work performed on the PDuring the term of this AGREEMENT, CONSULTANT shall
employees of the indicated labor classifications. These
rates are subject to annual calendar year adjustments and insurance as required by California law and comprehensive
include all allowances for salary, overheads, and fee, but do automobile insurance and general liability insurance that
not include allowances for Direct Expenses. provide protection for claims which may arise out of
3. Direct Expenses amount of such comprehensive automobile and general
liability insurance coverages shall be not less than a single
and charges incurred for the PROJECT including, but not limit coverage applying to bodily and personal injury liability
limited to: (1) the direct costs of transportation, meals and and property damage of $1,000,000 each occurrence and
lodging, mail, sub-contractors and outside services; special $2,000,000 annual aggregate. CONSULTANT will maintain
CLIENT-approved PROJECT-specific insurance, letters of professional errors and omissions insurance of $1,000,000
credit, bonds, and equipment and supplies; (2) each occurrence and $1,000,000 annual aggregate during
CONSULTANT's current standard rate charges for direct use the term of this AGREEMENT.
of CONSULTANT's vehicles, computing systems, printing
and reproduction services. 7. Termination
This AGREEMENT may be terminated by CLIENT for
4. Cost Opinions convenience on 30 days' written notice. CONSULTANT may
Any cost opinions or PROJECT economic evaluations terminate this AGREEMENT only upon the breach of same
provided by CONSULTANT will be on a basis of experience by CLIENT. If either party defaults in the performance of
and judgment, but, since CONSULTANT has no control over this AGREEMENT or materially breaches any of its
market conditions or bidding procedures, CONSULTANT PROVISIONS, the non-breaching party may terminate this
cannot warrant that bids, ultimate construction cost, or agreement by giving written notification to the breaching
PROJECT economics will not vary from these opinions. party. Termination will take effect immediately on receipt
of notice by the breaching party, or five business days after
mailing of notice, whichever occurs first. For purposes of
Task Order Agreement 2 of 8 12/17/2021
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 158
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
this PROVISION, material breach of the AGREEMENT work's progress. CLIENT specifically agrees that this
indemnification agreement includes indemnity for any
CONSULTANT any compensation due as provided for in claims, damages or liability for injuries (including death)
breach of any representation or agreement contained in
this AGREEMENT. On termination, CONSULTANT will 10. Relationship of the Parties
immediately cease performing any further services under It is mutually understood and expressly agreed that the
this AGREEMENT, and will be paid for all work performed obligations under this AGREEMENT are of an independent
up to the termination date plus termination expenses such contractor, and not as an employee of CLIENT. Accordingly,
as, but not limited to, reassignment of personnel, CONSULTANT will not be eligible for any of CLIENT's
subcontract termination costs, and related closeout costs. employee benefits, and CLIENT will have no duty to make
If no notice of termination is given, relationships and any deduction or withholding from the consulting fees or
obligations created by this AGREEMENT will be terminated reimbursements.
upon completion of all applicable requirements of this
AGREEMENT. 11. No Third Party Beneficiaries
This AGREEMENT gives no rights or benefits to anyone
8. Payment to CONSULTANT other than CLIENT and CONSULTANT and has no third party
Monthly invoices will be issued by CONSULTANT for all work
performed under this AGREEMENT. Invoices are due and the AGREEMENT, and not by any other contract or
payable on receipt. Interest at a rate of 1 percent per AGREEMENT that may be associated with the Project.
month, or that permitted by law if lesser, will be charged on
all past-due amounts starting 45 days after date of invoice. 12. Assignments
Payments will first be credited to interest and then to This is a bilateral personal services AGREEMENT. Neither
principal. In the event of a disputed or contested billing, party shall have the power to or will assign any of the duties
only that portion so contested will be withheld from or rights or any claim arising out of or related to this
payment, and the undisputed portion will be paid. CLIENT AGREEMENT, whether arising in tort, contract or otherwise,
will exercise reasonableness in contesting any bill or portion without the written consent of the other party. Any
thereof. unauthorized assignment is void and unenforceable. These
conditions and the entire AGREEMENT are binding on the
9. Indemnity heirs, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto.
CONSULTANT shall indemnify (but not defend) CLIENT and
its directors, officers, agents, and employees for and against 13. Force Majeure
liability or loss, including litigation costs and expenses and Neither CONSULTANT nor CLIENT shall be liable to the other
attorney fees, to the extent caused by the negligence or for damages or delay in performing under this AGREEMENT,
willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, or its agents, or for the direct or indirect costs resulting from such delay,
employees, or subcontractors, or of other persons for arising out of labor strikes, riot, public disturbances, war,
whom CONSULTANT is legally responsible, in connection fire, accidents, extraordinary weather conditions or natural
with this AGREEMENT or the prosecution of work under it, catastrophes, or any other cause beyond the control of
except for liability or loss arising from CLIENT's willful either party.
misconduct or negligence. Indemnity shall extend to
liability or loss occurring after completion of the work, as 14. AGREEMENT Not Exclusive
well as during the work's progress. CONSULTANT This AGREEMENT is understood and agreed not to be
specifically agrees that this indemnification agreement exclusive as both CLIENT and CONSULTANT reserve the
includes indemnity for any claims, damages or liability for right to enter into arrangements for consulting services
injuries (including death) incurred or sustained by with others.
s own employees.
15. Limitation of Liability/Waiver of Consequential
CLIENT shall indemnify CONSULTANT and its directors, Damages
officers, agents, and employees for and against liability or To the maximum extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT's
loss, including litigation costs and expenses and attorney liability to CLIENT and all other consultants, contractors and
fees, to the extent caused by the negligence or willful subcontractors on the PROJECT arising from CONSULTANT's
misconduct of CLIENT, or its agents, employees, or negligent acts, errors and omissions or breach of this
subcontractors, or of other persons for whom CLIENT is AGREEMENT shall be limited, such that the total aggregate
legally responsible, in connection with this AGREEMENT or liability of CONSULTANT to all those named shall not exceed
the prosecution of work under it, except for liability or loss CONSULTANT's total compensation received from CLIENT
onduct or for the services rendered under this AGREEMENT. CLIENT
negligence. Indemnity shall extend to liability or loss agrees that in no instance shall CONSULTANT be
occurring after completion of the work, as well as during the responsible, in whole or in part, for the negligent errors or
Task Order Agreement 3 of 8 12/17/2021
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 159
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
omissions of any other party, including other consultants or toxic substances ("Hazardous Materials") in any form. To
contractors. This limitation shall apply regardless of the the fullest extent permitted by law, CLIENT shall indemnify,
cause of action or legal theory asserted. CLIENT and defend and hold harmless CONSULTANT from and against
CONSULTANT waive punitive and consequential damages any claim, defense costs, damages or liability which in any
for claims, disputes or other matters in question arising out way arises out of the presence, alleged presence of, or
of or relating to this AGREEMENT, including, without alleged exposure to Hazardous Materials.
limitation, rental expenses, indirect loss or damage of any
kind, losses of use, income, profit, financing, business and 19. Sole Corporate Remedy
reputation, and additional financing costs. It is intended by the parties to this AGREEMENT that
16. Rights in Result of Services
officers, directors or principals to any personal legal
this AGREEMENT shall be, upon full payment of the exposure for the risks associated with this PROJECT.
amounts owed to CONSULTANT hereunder, the property of Therefore, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary
CLIENT, including all documents (including without
limitation, all writings, drawings, blueprints, pictures, sole and exclusive remedy, any claim, demand or suit
recordings, computer or machine readable data, and all shall be directed and/or asserted only against Davids
copies or reproductions thereof) which describe or relate to Engineering, Inc, a California corporation, and not against
the services performed or to be performed pursuant to this
AGREEMENT or the results thereof, and shall be delivered principals.
to CLIENT upon request, except for one copy, which may be
retained by CO 20. Notices
shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless CONSULTANT Any notices required to be given under this AGREEMENT by
from and against any claims, liabilities or losses, including either party to the other may be effected by personal
delivery in writing or by mail, registered or certified,
of the use of the results or products postage prepaid with return receipt requested. Mailed
services other than on the PROJECT. notices must be addressed to the parties at the addresses
appearing on the first page of this AGREEMENT, but either
party may change the address by giving written notice in
CONSULTANT is experienced and qualified to perform the accordance with this PROVISION. Notices delivered
Services and is authorized to do business in the State of personally will be deemed communicated as of actual
California. CONSULTANT has, and shall maintain at all times receipt; mailed notices will be deemed communicated as of
it is performing the Services, sufficient facilities, expertise, the day of receipt or the fifth day after mailing, whichever
staff, assets and other resources to perform its duties under occurs first.
this AGREEMENT. CONSULTANT holds, and shall maintain at
all times it is performing the Services, all licenses, permits 21. Governing Law/Venue
or other certifications necessary to perform its duties under This AGREEMENT will be governed by and construed in
this AGREEMENT. CONSULTANT is in compliance with and accordance with the laws of the State of California. Venue
shall continue to comply with all laws that apply to it, for any dispute shall be in the county where the PROJECT is
subject to the right of reasonable contest. CONSULTANT is located.
a corporation, duly organized, validly existing and in good
standing under the laws of the State of California, and has 22. SEVERABILITY
the full right, power and authority to enter into this If any provision of this AGREEMENT is held to be invalid or
AGREEMENT and to perform all of the obligations and unenforceable for any reason, the remaining provisions
liabilities of CONSULTANT required to be performed shall continue to be valid and enforceable. If a court finds
hereunder. that any provision of this AGREEMENT is invalid or
unenforceable, but that by limiting such provision, it would
18. Hazardous Materials become valid and enforceable, then such provision shall be
CONSULTANT shall have no duty to identify, discover, deemed to be written, construed, and enforced as so
handle, remove or remediate any hazardous materials or limited.
Task Order Agreement 4 of 8 12/17/2021
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 160
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
To: <Contact name>
<Contact title>
<Client name>
From: <Name>
Davids Engineering, Inc.
Date: <Date>
Project name: <Project name>
Project #: <ClientNumber.ProjectNumber>
Task name: <Task name>
Task order #: <Task order number>
1 Scope of Services
CONSULTANT will provide ongoing support to CLIENT as it relates to groundwater management, surface
water management, infrastructure modernization, system efficiency studies, and other items as directed
by the CLIENT. Specific tasks will be determined and agreed upon through ongoing coordination
between CONSULTANT and CLIENT.
2 Budget
The estimated budget to perform the services associated with this Task Order will not exceed $XX,XXX
without prior written approval from CLIENT.
3 Schedule
To be determined and agreed upon through coordination between CONSULTANT and CLIENT.
Task Order Agreement 5 of 8 12/17/2021
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 161
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
4 Task Order Signatures
Approved for CLIENT Accepted for Davids Engineering, Inc.
Signed: ________________________________ Signed: __________________________________
Name:_________________________________Name: ___________________________________
Title: __________________________________ Title: ____________________________________
Date: __________________________________ Date: ____________________________________
Task Order Agreement 6 of 8 12/17/2021
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 162
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
2022 Rate Schedule
Labor Rates (Effective January 1, 2022)
11
Labor Classification Hourly Rate Labor Classification Hourly Rate
Engineering Team Technical Team
Senior Principal Engineer $246 Supervising Technician $163
Principal Engineer $233 Senior Technician $150
Supervising Engineer $213 Associate Technician II $142
Senior Engineer $195 Associate Technician I $134
Associate Engineer II $186 Staff Technician II $126
Associate Engineer I $175 Staff Technician I $116
Staff Engineer II $164 Assistant Technician II $99
Staff Engineer I $151 Assistant Technician I $85
Assistant Engineer II $129 Intern Team
Assistant Engineer I $111 Intern II $72
Data Science Team Intern I $50
3
$192 Client Intern $28
Supervising Data Scientist
$176 Support Team
Senior Data Scientist
Associate Data Scientist II $167 Senior Project Assistant $105
Associate Data Scientist I $158 Associate Project Assistant $94
Staff Data Scientist II $148 Staff Project Assistant $81
Staff Data Scientist I $136 Other
2
Assistant Scientist II$116 Expert Witness Market Rate
2
Assistant Scientist I $100 Strategic Advisor Market Rate
Notes:
1
Labor and equipment rates are subject to revision at the beginning of each calendar year.
2
Market rates subject to negotiation.
3
DE team member working under direct client supervision.
Task Order Agreement 7 of 8 12/17/2021
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 163
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Vehicle, Equipment, and Material Rates (Effective January 1, 2022)
1
Item Rate
Current IRS Mileage ($ / mile) $0.56
Field Vehicle (4 x 4) ($ / mile) $1.00
Meals ($ / person / day) $40.00
Hotel ($ / person / day) $120.00
SonTek RiverSurveyor Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) ($ / day) $285.00
EMLID Real Time Kinematic (RTK) Survey ($ / day) $175.00
Fuji Portaflow Transit Time ($ / day) $75.00
SonTek FlowTracker Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter (ADV) ($ / day) $100.00
Pressure Transducer ($ / month) $75.00
Color Plotter ($ / square foot) $7.00
Monitoring and control equipment and materials ($ / item) Unit Costs
Notes:
1
Labor and equipment rates are subject to revision at the beginning of each calendar year.
Task Order Agreement 8 of 8 12/17/2021
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 164
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
12. DISCUSSION ON WATER CONSERVATION CAMPAIGN
At the March 16, 2022 meeting, the Board requested a discussion item to consider supporting or developing a
water conservation campaignor another method of encouragingor requiring water conservation, particularly in
areas experiencing significant groundwater level declines. This could include an educational or awareness
campaign or specific groundwater extraction limitation requirements.
13. * APPROVE LETTER OF SUPPORT: CITY OF ORLAND DOMESTIC WELL AND GROUNDSWATER STORAGE TANK
PROJECT
The Northern Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management (NSV IRWM) Group has advocated for
the inclusion of the City of Orland Domestic Well and Ground Storage Tank Project (Project) for funding through
the Sacramento River Funding Area (SRFA) Disadvantaged Community and Tribal Involvement (DACTI) grant
application of the Urban and Multi-benefit Drought Relief Program. The NSV IRWM share of this grant
opportunity is approximately $800,000. The application was submitted by the April 15, 2022 deadline. Upon
initial review of the application, DWR has indicated a Letter of Support is required from the local GSA.
The Project will replace a drinking water well and a storage tank. The replacement well will replenish capacity
lost from the Division of Drinking Water's order to discontinue the supply of a domestic well that detected E.
Coli Coliform contamination. The storage tank will meet the California Water Works Standards for needed
storage volume and meet the current California Building Code for structural design standards. This project will
also allow for the City to continue to provide water to County residents that are currently suffering through
water insecurity due to the drought.
Information about the grant program is available online at: https://water.ca.gov/Water-
Basics/Drought/urbanmultibenefitdrought
Attachments
City of Orland Domestic Well and Groundwater Storage Tank Project application
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 165
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
FORM
10pages
1. C
2.
3. P
confidential
https://support.google.com/maps/answer/18539?hl=en&co=GENIE.Platform%3DDesktop
39.747443-122.204939
4.
add
5.
fromies
drought
6.
a.
b.
c.
7.
https://gis.wate
-With-
Us/Grants-And-Loans/IRWM-Grant-Programs/Plan-Review-
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 166
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
https://water.ca.gov/Work-With-Us/Grants-And-Loans/IRWM-Grant-Programs.A
.
-
8. .
Quan
Units:Othergpm
9. Describ
Other
10.
the
,this
system
11.
s
tasks
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 167
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
12. 1?
13.
15)
078,000 78,000
(a)
00 0
(b)
0450,000 450,000
(c)
Documentation
800,0002,650,000 3,450,000
(d)Implementation
800,0003,178,000 3,978,000
14.
mustcontinueevendeplete
15.
funding
phases.
16.
17. Has
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 168
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
2022.
18. andNEPA
ith
established
19.
-
tank..
20.
Categories
(a)
9/1/202112/1/2024
(b)
1/1/19091/1/1909
(c)
9/1/202112/1/2022
(d)
1/1/20236/1/2024
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 169
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
14. RECEIVE RECOMMENDATION FROM RECHARGE AD HOC COMMITTEE TO ENGAGE THE SERVICES OF A
TECHNICAL CONSULTANT TO PLAN AND DEVELOP RECHARGE PROJECT(S)
The GGA Recharge Pilot Project Ad Hoc Committee was formed on October 11, 2021 and has met three times to
discuss potential recharge projects and related items. The committee has provided regular updates at Board
meetings. The attached report provides additional detail and recommendation from the committee.
Attachments
GGA Recharge Pilot Project Ad Hoc Committee Report
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 170
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Members:
Meetings:
Discuss potential recharge projects and bring recommendations to the GGA Board.
Discussion:
The ad hoc committee has met several times discussing potential recharge projects, general areas of
interest (3), prioritized project areas (4), project needs, opportunities, and challenges. Several items
have come from these meetings that would require additional research, some of which would be site
specific. Examples include legal issues, water availability (water types, rights, and restrictions), and
studies, tasks, and next steps. It will also be important to review the projects list in the GSP to update
(or add) any projects that move forward.
The committee has engaged with Orland Unit Water Users Association to begin a conversation about a
potential partnership to accomplish recharge. The committee also identified the importance of DWR
Northern Region input and coordination.
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 171
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
The committee prioritized four areas to focus efforts on recharge project development:
a. Van Tol/Vereschagin
b. Cal Olive
c. Jasper
d. Oliveras
Three of the prioritized areas have conducted recharge studies in the past as part of the Stony Creek Fan
project. All four sites have nearby monitoring wells which will likely be suitable for monitoring project
results.
The committee recommends hiring a technical consultant to further develop recharge project planning
and implementation including funding needs. Davids Engineering and West Yost are familiar with the
area and the Colusa Subbasin GSP, have participated in the Stony Creek Fan studies or similar projects in
the area, and/or provided technical review of the projects. The Stony Creek Fan study provides a solid
foundation for future projects.
Recommendation:
The committee recommends the Board pursue engaging the services of a technical consultant(s), Davids
Engineering and West Yost Associates, to further develop planning and implementation of recharge
projects based on the prioritized list.
Attachments:
Maps of potential recharge areas
Vina Stakeholder Advisory Committee letter re: Legal Implications of Potential Projects and
Management Actions
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 172
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 173
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 174
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Vina Groundwater Sustainability Agency
419!Ofmtpo!Bwfovf-!Pspwjmmf-!Dbmjgpsojb!:6:76
)641*!663.46:3!!WjobHTBAhnbjm/dpn!
!
December 18, 2020
To: Vina Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SHAC)
From: Paul Gosselin, Vina GSA Administrator
Valerie Kincaid, Vina Legal Counsel
Re: Legal Implications of Potential Projects and Management Actions
The Vina SHAC voiced concerns about the ability to proceed with identifying potential Projects and
Management Actions (PMA) without a greater understanding of the legal implications, particularly those
involving recharge. Legal implications are one of many considerations whether a PMA is suitable for
inclusion in a GSP. Since there are not specific proposed projects, the discussion of legal implications
and other considerations are hypothetical. However, the general discussion of legal implications may
identify aspects of potential projects requiring limitations that the Vina GSA Board may need to impose
through management actions. The SHAC may identify and recommend management actions that would
allow for projects to proceed consistent with the Vina GSP and without harming the basin or
groundwater uses. Management actions could involve establishing rules, ordinances, policies and
procedures governing projects.
Currently, there are no specific projects proposed in the Vina subbasin. Evaluating the acceptability of a
PMA must be based on the specific project scope, design and intent. However, management actions
could be identified through an evaluation of potential characteristics of projects that have negative
aspects or are inconsistent with the GSP. For the purposes of this discussion paper, potential projects
involve those that result in increased groundwater in the basin. Recharge, conservation and recycling
projects could result in increased groundwater in the basin that could be put to beneficial use by the
project proponent. Refer to the glossary of potential PMAs.
The following are questions concerning potential legal implications of potential projects. If there are
other questions, please let me know prior to the January meeting.
1. Does a project proponent gain water rights over recharged groundwater?
Yes. A project proponent maintains the right to water that is recharged whether it results from
recharge projects or groundwater demand reduction projects (e.g., conservation, recycling). If a
project uses or obtains a surface water supply and recharges into the aquifer, the project
proponent would have a legal right to the recharged water. Water does not legally become
abandoned by the project proponent. (Los Angeles v. Glendale (1943) 23 Cal.2d 68, 76-78; Los
Angeles v. San Fernando (1975) 14 Cal.3d 199, 258-60; Stevens v. Oakdale Irrigation District
(1939) 13 Cal.2d 343, 352-43; Crane v. Stevinson (1936) 5 Cal. 2d 387, 398.) Abandonment
occurs when there is no evidence the recharger intended to account for recharged water and
later extract that water and put it to beneficial use. The recharger is only allowed to extract the
amount of water that recharged to the basin. Therefore, usually, when extracting recharged
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 175
CITY OF CHICO DURHAM IRRIGATION DISTRICT COUNTY OF BUTTE
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
practices and technical components of the subbasin/recharge.
A recharge project could result in recharged water becoming supply. A
project proponent could agree to certain terms of recharge, for example, a leave behind of a
certain percent of the total recharge. Alternatively, the GSA may consider an ordinance or other
enforcement mechanism that requires some portion of recharged water to be water dedicated to
supply. The recharging party or agency adopting any sort of ordinance
would need to be cautious that the agreement/ordinance would not result in exposure to
forfeiture for the recharging party (as recharge without later extraction and application to
beneficial use is not itself a beneficial use of water).
2. What rights could a project proponent exercise over recharged water?
If a project includes the application for a new right to recharge water, it would need to obtain a
water right permit from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) through a surface
water right application and a supplemental groundwater recharge form. The water right permit
application would need to identify meet.
Recharging groundwater is not considered a beneficial use, however, meeting the sustainable
management criteria in a GSP may be determined to be a beneficial use. The amount of
recharged water that could be put to future use would be determined from project specific
analysis and would be included in the water right permit. Depending upon the water source and
the intent of the project, it may be eligible for a streamlined water right permit process
established by the SWRCB to facilitate Flood Managed Aquifer Recharge (Flood MAR) and
other GSP programs.
If a water right holder diverts surface water pursuant to an existing right, the diversion of that
water makes it the possession of the diverter. Recharging the water into an aquifer changes the
location or storage of diverted surface water, but it does not change the ownership. For this
reason, recharged water remains the possession of the diverter/recharger and the
diverter/recharger may exercise full control over that water unless it can be established that the
diverter/recharger abandoned the recharged water or it is subject to reasonable losses.
3. Could a project affect groundwater users rights to pump groundwater or have it limited?
Not directly. Overlying groundwater rights are held by landowners whose land overly the
groundwater aquifer. (Pasadena v. Alhambra (1949) 33 Cal.2d 908, 925.) An overlying water
right is not quantified, but allows the water right holder to divert as much water as is reasonable
to support beneficial uses on the overlying land. (Katz v. Walkinshaw (1902) 141 Cal. 116;
Pasadena, at 925.) These rights are appurtenant to land and cannot be sold or otherwise
detached from the land.
However, recharge projects could decrease the amount of water that has previously been
abandoned. In this situation, there would be a decrease in native groundwater supplies
available for groundwater right holders. Groundwater users would not lose their right to divert
groundwater to support beneficial uses on the overlying land, but lower groundwater elevations
may increase cost or make it impracticable. It is also possible that recharge projects may
underestimate the amount of water that migrates or is
recharger to extract more water than is reasonable, which could result in decreasing the amount
of water available for overlying groundwater users.
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 176
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
4. For managed recharge projects, does it matter what the source of the water is or if it comes from
another basin?
No, the source of the water only matters to the extent that it affects ownership. The water source
could come from high storm flows, surface water held by the project proponent or surface water
supply held by another agency. So long as the water was diverted pursuant to a valid water right
prior to recharge, the recharged water would be owned by the diverter.
There has been discussion and interest of having local surface water supplies be used for
recharge projects (e.g., in-lieu, recharge basins) in groundwater dependent areas. Surface water
sources would come from outside the Vina subbasin. The legal right to surface water that is
imported and recharged into an aquifer is held by the project proponent (importer). (Los Angeles
v. San Fernando (1975) 14 Cal.3d 199, 245-55; Water Code 7075.)
In-lieu recharge occurs when a groundwater right holder does not extract groundwater due to an
situation is water that the groundwater holder had a right to extract, but did not, due to the
alternate supply. The amount of in lieu recharge would depend on the amount of water available
to the groundwater right holder and the amount of groundwater that remained in the ground (not
pumped). For example, if an overlying water right holder had the right to pump 100 acre feet
and they only pumped 20 because they purchased 80 acre feet of surface water, they would
have a right to the 80 acre feet of in lieu recharge. (Water Code 1005.1)
5. Could the owner of a surface water lose their ownership/water right by making their water available
to a project proponent?
Not if they are careful. As noted above, recharge is not a beneficial use of water. (Water Code,
1242.) Therefore, if a surface water right holder diverted surface water and recharged that water
into the aquifer without any intent to later extract it and put it to beneficial use for a period of 5
consecutive years, the surface water right could be subject to forfeiture. More likely, the surface
water right holder would sell or transfer the surface water through a contract to a project
proponent. The transfer of water is a beneficial use. (Water Code, 1745.07.) Water sale/transfer
arrangements are not unique and have not resulted in losing ownership or water rights. The
owner of a surface water supply would only lose their ownership/water right through a permanent
sale and filing of a change in water rights with the SWRCB.
6. How would projects affect groundwater users, the environment (streams, GDEs, all species), and
water quality (surface and groundwater)?
Recharge projects have the potential to affect groundwater users, groundwater quality and/or
environmental beneficial uses. Recharge projects will be subject to environmental evaluation
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Prior to project approval, the project
proponent would be required to identify and evaluate the impacts of the proposed project on the
environment hydrology, housing, traffic, agriculture, etc. However, CEQA does not require that
projects consider or comply with GSPs. The exception is that general plan updates and zoning
ordinances must consider the applicable GSP.
7. Could a project be available for out-of-basin export?
Potentially. Depending upon the project scope, it could intend to export recharge water out-of-
basin.
8. Could a project in the Vina subbasin benefit users downslope subbasins?
Potentially. The Vina and the other subbasins in the Northern Sacramento Valley are
interconnected to certain degrees. Depending upon the scope and location of a project, the
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 177
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
benefits could extend beyond the Vina subbasin. As part of the project design, the benefit of the
project would be analyzed and monitored.
Potential Management Actions
Management actions would allow the Vina GSA to protect the Vina subbasin and the implementation of
the GSP from negative implications from artificial recharge projects through enactment of rules,
ordinances and/or policies.
1. Require any recharge project, in lieu project or other project that affects the sustainable
management criteria in the GSP be subject to review and approval by the Vina GSA Board for
consistency with the GSP.
2. Evaluate ordinances or policies that the GSA may adopt to ensure recharge projects are
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 178
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
15. DISCUSSION ON EXECUTIVE ORDER N-7-22 AND WELL PERMIT ACKNOWLEDGMENT RESPONSE
On March 28, 2022, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-7-22 which included well permitting
requirements during this drought emergency (Action 9). DWR shared a Fact Sheet on April 5 to help agencies
navigate the new requirements and outlined DWR resources that may be useful.
On April 11, 2022, Counsel provided an overview of the Executive Order as it relates to the GSA and reviewed
the draft Well Permit Acknowledgment form. The form has been revised based on comments received during
the meeting.
Davids Engineering, Inc. has reached out to ask if it might be useful to develop technical methodologies to
evaluate proposed new wells to support the GSA in complying with this requirement.
Discussion will take place on any new developments or clarifications and further discuss how best to address this
new requirement.
Attachments
Executive Order N-7-22
DWR Fact Sheet: Drought Well Permitting Requirements
Draft Well Permit Acknowledgement (Revised 5/5/22)
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 179
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 180
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 181
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 182
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 183
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 184
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 185
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Updated: April 4, 2022
5ƩƚǒŭŷƷ Ļƌƌ tĻƩƒźƷƷźƓŭ wĻƨǒźƩĻƒĻƓƷƭ
Drought Executive Order N-7-22
On March 28, 2022 Governor Newsom issued Drought Executive Order N-7-22 that included
new well permitting requirements for local agencies to prepare for and lessen the effects of
drought conditions (Action 9).
Well Permitting Authority and Excerpt of Action 9 from Drought
Executive Order N-7-22:
Groundwater Management Oversight
In California, regulatory authority over well
9. To protect health, safety, and the
construction, alteration, and destruction
environment during this drought emergency,
a county, city, or other public agency shall
activities resides with local agencies (cities,
not:
counties, or water agencies), who have the
authority to adopt a local well ordinance. Well
a. Approve a permit for a new groundwater
well or for alteration of an existing well in a
permits are administered and enforced by local
basin subject to the Sustainable
agencies (or local enforcing agencies, LEAs),
Groundwater Management Act and classified
often the Department of Environmental Health
as medium- or high-priority without first
within a given county.
obtaining written verification from a
Groundwater Sustainability Agency
managing the basin or area of the basin
With the enactment of the Sustainable
where the well is proposed to be located that
Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in
groundwater extraction by the proposed well
2014, local public agencies called
would not be inconsistent with any
sustainable groundwater management
groundwater sustainability agencies or GSAs
program established in any applicable
formed to provide specific oversight and
Groundwater Sustainability Plan adopted by
management of groundwater resources, and to
that Groundwater Sustainability Agency and
achieve sustainable groundwater management
would not decrease the likelihood of
achieving a sustainability goal for the basin
within 20 years through the development and
covered by such a plan; or
implementation of groundwater sustainability
plans (GSPs) and associated projects and
b. Issue a permit for a new groundwater well
or for alteration of an existing well without first
management actions. The local GSAs are
determining that extraction of groundwater
required to include in their GSPs a discussion
from the proposed well is (1) not likely to
of how they will coordinate these efforts with
interfere with the production and functioning
local land use authorities, including local well
of existing nearby wells, and (2) not likely to
cause subsidence that would adversely
permitting agencies.
impact or damage nearby infrastructure.
Drought Well Permitting Requirements
This paragraph shall not apply to permits for
Local well ordinances authorize the conditions
wells that will provide less than two acre-feet
for agencies to issue a well permit or permit
per year of groundwater for individual
domestic users, or that will exclusively
modification. Given the record drought
provide groundwater to public water supply
conditions the state has faced over the last
systems as defined in section 116275 of the
three years, Drought Executive Order N-7-22
Health and Safety Code.
requires additional actions be taken by local
well permitting agencies prior to issuing a well
permit.
For more information about the States Drought Response and Assistance, please visit drought.ca.gov.
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 186
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Page Ћ of Ћ
Local well permitting agencies retain existing well permitting authorities, including reviewing and
administering well permits. Under the Executive Order Action 9, local well permitting agencies
must take the following steps during the well permitting process for wells intending to extract
groundwater:
1. Consultation with the GSA If the proposed well would be in a high or medium priority
groundwater basin, the well permitting agency must consult with the GSA and receive
written verification from the GSA that the proposed well location is generally consistent
(not inconsistent) with the applicable GSP and will not decrease the likelihood of
achieving the sustainability goals that the GSAs have developed under SGMA.
2. Permit Evaluation For every well permit application, the local well permitting agency
must determine before issuing a well permit that extraction of groundwater from the
proposed well is not likely to interfere with the production and functioning of existing
nearby wells and is not likely to cause subsidence that would adversely impact or
damage nearby infrastructure.
These requirements do not apply to wells that pump less than 2 acre-feet per year (de minimus
users) and wells that exclusively provide groundwater to public water supply systems as defined
in section 116275 of the Health and Safety Code.
State Resources Available to Local Agencies
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) provides technical and other support
services to local agencies to support decision-making. The following resources are available to
help local agencies navigate the well permitting requirements in this Drought Executive Order:
To find the groundwater basins subject to SGMA and classified as medium or high
priority: Basin Prioritization Dashboard
To find the Groundwater Sustainability Agency managing the applicable basin or area
of the basin: GSA Map Viewer
To find the Groundwater Sustainability Plan adopted by the local Groundwater
Sustainability Agency: GSP Map Viewer
To view existing nearby wells (domestic, irrigation, public supply and reported dry
wells): Well Infrastructure
To view groundwater levels and trends: California Groundwater
Levels
To view subsidence data and nearby infrastructure: California
Subsidence Data
For more information or questions, please contact DWRs Sustainable Groundwater
Management Office at: SGMPS@water.ca.gov.
For more information about the States Drought Response and Assistance, please visit drought.ca.gov.
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 187
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
GLENN GROUNDWATER AYTHORITY COMPLIANCE WITH EXECUTIVE ORDER N-7-22
Pursuant to Executive Order N-7-22, the Glenn Groundwater Authority (GGA) provides the following
acknowledgment, which if executed by a well applicant, would allow the GGA to conclude that the well
permit would not be inconsistent with the existing groundwater sustainability plan.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
_____ I acknowledge that the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act requires that a groundwater
sustainability agency manage groundwater in the Colusa Subbasin and the GGA is the agency with
groundwater management authority over the land subject to Permit # xxx.
______ I acknowledge that the GGA has the authority to limit, regulate and/or suspend extractions
within its jurisdiction including extractions from any well permitted pursuant to Permit #XXXX.
______I acknowledge that a well permit issued by the County does not guarantee the extraction of any
specific amount of water now or in the future.
_____ I acknowledge that the GGA GSP includes specific groundwater requirements through minimum
thresholds and measurable objectives and agree that my groundwater use will comply with these
requirements.
_____ I acknowledge the GGA cannot guarantee the maintenance of any defined water level or level of
water quality in the Kern subbasin.
___ I acknowledge the GGA is not responsible for or otherwise liable for any costs, investments or
payments related to any groundwater well permitted pursuant to Permit #xxxx, including pumping fees,
extraction limits, costs related to well failure, well deepening, increased maintenance, replacement, or
operational costs.
___I agree to hold the GGA harmless and indemnify the GGA for any liability stemming from or related
to the County issuing a well Permit #xxxx, any use restrictions imposed upon such well, and from any
claim or cause of action alleged against the GGA relating to or resulting from the use or operation of
such well.
By acknowledging and initialing the above provisions, \[WELL APPLICANT\] agrees the above
ACKNOWLEDGMENT will be incorporated into the terms and conditions of any well permit issued
pursuant to Permit #xxxx.
________________________ ___________________
Name of WELL APPLICANT Date
________________________
Signature of WELL APPLICANT
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 188
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Received by:
___________________ _____________
Signature of GGA Date
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 189
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
16. COMMITTEE UPDATES
a. 2022/2023 Budget Ad Hoc Committee
b.Executive Committee
i. CGA/GGA Joint Executive Committee
c. Multi-Benefit Recharge Pilot Project Ad Hoc Committee
d. Recharge Pilot Project Ad Hoc Committee
e. Technical Advisory Committee
f. Water Well Drilling Permits and Standards Ad Hoc Committee
Glide Water District has appointed a new Director, Matt Deadmond. Mr. Deadmond and Alternate Director,
Leslie Nerli have requested that Mr. Deadmond take the place of Ms. Nerli on all committees. This would include
the 2022/2023 Budget Ad Hoc Committee, the Recharge Pilot Project Ad Hoc Committee, and the Technical
Advisory Committee.
The 2022/2023 Budget Ad Hoc Committee met April 25, 2022 and provided a report and recommendation
during Item 7. The need for an additional meeting is contingent on the actions or direction provided during
Items 7, 8, and 9.
The GGA Executive Committee last met January 27, 2021. The CGA/GGA Joint Executive Committee met January
28, 2022. The next GGA Executive Committee meeting is scheduled for May 25, 2022. The committee has no
additional items to report.
The Multi-Benefit Recharge Pilot Project Ad Hoc Committee last met on June 28, 2021 and provided a
recommendation to the GGA Board on July 12, 2021. The committee has no additional items to report.
The Recharge Pilot Project Ad Hoc Committee last met April 5, 2022. The Committee provided a report and
recommendation during Item 14. The next meeting has not been scheduled.
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) last met jointly with the Colusa Groundwater Authority (CGA)
Technical Advisory Committee on March 11, 2022. Presentations were given on the GSP Sustainable
Management Criteria and the Colusa Subbasin Annual Report. The next CGA/GGA Joint TAC meeting is
scheduled for May 13, 2022.
Full page slides of TAC presentations and other meeting materials are available on the GGA website at:
https://www.countyofglenn.net/dept/planning-community-development-services/water-resources/glenn-
groundwater-authority/gga
The Water Well Drilling Permits and Standards Ad Hoc Committee met April 7, 2022 and provided a
recommendation to the GGA Board on April 11, 2022. The next meeting has not been scheduled.
17. CLOSED SESSION
§54956.9 Conference with Legal Counsel Anticipated or significant exposure to litigation
regarding tax refund claims and challenges to previously adopted property related fees.
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 190
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
18. CLOSED SESSION
Conference with Legal Counsel Existing Litigation
Aqualliance, California Water Impact Network, and California Sportfishing Alliance vs. Colusa Groundwater
Authority, Glenn Groundwater Authority
Colusa County Superior Court - Case Number CV24584
19. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
20. MEMBER REPORTS AND COMMENTS
Members of the GGA Board are encouraged to share information, reports, comments, and suggest future
agenda items. Action cannot be taken on items brought up under this item.
21. NEXT MEETING
The next regular meeting is scheduled for June 14, 2022 at 1:30 p.m.
22. ADJOURN
The meeting will be adjourned.
*Indicates Action Item
GGA Board of DirectorsPage 191
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Glenn Groundwater Authority
Groundwater Sustainability Agency
225 N. Tehama Street, Willows, CA 95988 530.934.6540
Meeting Minutes
Glenn Groundwater Authority Board of Directors
May 9, 2022 1:30 p.m.
LOCATION: 225 N. Tehama Street, Willows, CA 95988
The meeting was also conducted via teleconference; accessible via telephone, computer, smartphone or tablet.
nd
Director Members Present: Alternate/2 Alternate Directors Agency Representing:
X X
Grant Carmon Tom Arnold County of Glenn
X
Bruce Roundy Pete Carr City of Orland
nd
Ed Vonasek (2) City of Orland
X X
Gary Hansen (Vice Chair) Evan Markey City of Willows
X Matt Deadmond Leslie Nerli Glide Water District
X X
John Amaro (Chair) Thad Bettner Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District
X X
Charles Schonauer Emil Cavagnolo Orland-Artois Water District
X
Randy Hansen Wade Danley Kanawha Water District
nd
Michael Alves (2) Kanawha Water District
X
Mark Lohse Seth Fiack Monroeville Water District
X
Gary Enos Lance Boyd Princeton-Codora-Glenn Irrigation District/
Provident Irrigation District
Others in attendance:
Lisa Hunter (GGA/Glenn County), Valerie Kincaid (GGA Counsel), Ashlee Veneman (Glenn County staff/clerk), Donald Bills
(CGA TAC), Brandon Davison (DWR), Jaime Lely (landowner), Ben King (CGA TAC), Jenny Scheer (Water and Land Solutions),
Denise Carter (Colusa County/CGA), Grant Davids (Davids Engineering), Arne Gustafson, Heather Ellingson, Carel Lely, Holly
Dawley (GCID), Tavis Beynon (Cal Water), Jim Brobeck, Lisa Humphreys (Glenn County Farm Bureau), Gina Nicholls
(Nossaman, LLP), Holly (last name not available), Del (last name not available).
1.CALL TO ORDER
Chair Amaro called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. and the pledge of allegiance was recited.
2.ROLL CALL
Roll call was taken as indicated above.
3.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. * Approval of meeting minutes from April 11, 2022
b. *Approval of special meeting minutes from April 26, 2022
Chair Amaro invited comments or revisions on the aforementioned meeting minutes. No comments were
heard.
On motion by Director Carmon, seconded by Director Randy Hansen, the meeting minutes of the April 11,
2022 meeting were unanimously approved as presented.
On motion by Director Enos, seconded by Director Schonauer, the meeting minutes of the April 26, 2022
special meeting were unanimously approved as presented.
4.PERIOD OF PUBLIC COMMENT
Ben King announced that the Colusa Basin Drainage District has a new general manager and raised concerns
relating to potential conflicts of interest. He then encouraged the Board to consider projects that would
benefit the County, such as a project in the Willow Creek area.
5.STAFF UPDATES
Glenn Groundwater Authority (GGA) Program Manager, Lisa Hunter, stated all significant updates are
presented in the meeting packet and there are no additional updates.
6.FINANCIAL REPORT
a. *Review and accept Monthly Activities Report.
b. *Review and consider approval of claims.
No discussion was held on item 6.a.
On motion by Director Gary Hansen, seconded by Director Schonauer, it was unanimously ordered to accept
the Monthly Activities Report as presented.
No discussion was held on Item 6.b.
On motion by Director Roundy, seconded by Director Carmon, it was unanimously ordered to approve the
claims as presented.
7.BUDGET AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT
a. Receive report and recommendation from Budget Ad Hoc Committee
Director Carmon stated he and Directors Gary Hansen and Nerli met recently to prepare the next fiscal
currently in deficit but the remaining balance from previous years will assist with
this. He indicated the recommended yearly per acre cost remains the same ($1.50 per acre).
Director Gary Hansen stated the budget has been simplified from last year, as the committee was trying to
be conscious of the severe drought and other economic factors. He shared that the salaries and wages
budget increased by $50,000 to account for more part time help; legal contract services were raised from
$100,000 to $120,000 and professional services raised from $20,000 to $35,000.
Director Carmon stated he has had discussions with the County Administrator Officer, who is finalizing the
next fiscal year budget and plans to include the part time employee position requested by the GGA, but the
County requests the GGA share 50% of the costs for the training of the new employee. It was agreed this
item be placed on a future agenda for consideration.
Directors Gary Hansen and Arnold thanked the staff and committee for their hard work.
Ben King encouraged the Board to do price comparisons for the professional services and legal services
costs. He further encouraged the Board to consider consolidating some services with the Colusa
Groundwater Authority (CGA) and other regional GSAs. He also noted that state SGMA grant funding may
be going away.
2
Chair Amaro stated the GGA is very mindful of the cost considerations and is always looking for
opportunities to cost share with the CGA.
8.GLENN GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY OPERATIONS FEE
a. *Adopt the Glenn Groundwater Authority Operations Fee per acre for Fiscal Year 2022/2023
b. *Adopt Resolution 2022-005 Authorizing the County to Collect Property-Related Fees on the County Tax
Roll and Indemnification of the Collecting Agency
c. *Authorize the Program Manager to complete or direct the completion of all tasks necessary for the
completion of the submittal packet to the Glenn County Department of Finance.
Chair Amaro introduced item 8.a.
Landowner Jaime Lely spoke to her concerns that the per acre operations fee is not equitable and asked for
clarification on planning phase versus implementation phase (administrative and project fees) charges.
GGA Counsel, Valerie Kincaid, responded that the GGA is operating under the current Proposition 218 fee
study executed in 2019, and further noted that after GSPs are submitted to the Department of Water
Resources, GSAs have more funding authority and are able to charge for more including implementation.
Ms. Lely stated she believes the amount being charged exceeds the cost of service and provided an
example of her property fees (rangeland) versus irrigated acreage fees, further stating the fee should be
based upon irrigated versus non-irrigated land. She also stated the agricultural well moratorium and the
Ms. Kincaid stated the
GGA is considering other fee alternatives and that irrigated versus non-irrigated land is only one of several
factors to consider when composing the fee schedule. The issues are very complicated and the GGA
remains committed to continue looking at those issues and try to take the most defensible and practical
approach to being the GSA. She thanked Ms. Lely for her comments and noted the importance of feedback
while considering the next round of fee studies. She reiterated that the existing action is based on the
existing 218.
On motion by Director Roundy, seconded by Director Randy Hansen, it was unanimously ordered to adopt the
Glenn Groundwater Authority Operations Fee per acre for Fiscal Year 2022/2023 as recommended.
On motion by Director Gary Hansen, seconded by Director Roundy, it was unanimously ordered to adopt
Resolution 2022-005 Authorizing the County to Collect Property-Related Fees on the County Tax Roll and
Indemnification of the Collecting Agency.
On motion by Director Roundy, seconded by Director Carmon, it was unanimously ordered to authorize the
Program Manager to complete or direct the completion of all tasks necessary for the completion of the
submittal packet to the Glenn County Department of Finance.
Director Roundy asked when the next Request for Proposal (RFP) is set to be released to reassess the
Proposition 218 fee, whereby Ms. Kincaid stated the GGA is in year 3 of 5 of the current contract.
Discussion ensued.
Ms. Hunter stated she would bring forth an agenda item at a future meeting to discuss the next RFP and
the process.
3
9.FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023 BUDGET
a. *Consider approval of the Fiscal Year 2022/2023 Glenn Groundwater Authority Budget.
Chair Amaro introduced the item. No further discussion was heard.
On motion by Director Schonauer, seconded by Director Roundy, it was unanimously ordered to approve the
Fiscal Year 2022/2023 Glenn Groundwater Authority Budget as presented.
10. COLUSA SUBBASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILTY PLAN
a. GSP Development Grants (Proposition 1 and Proposition 68) and Project Agreements
b. Groundwater Sustainability Plan Implementation
Relating to item 10.a, Ms. Hunter stated an invoice will be submitted to the Department of Water Resources
(DWR) for the period from January through March 2022 and there are no updated expended numbers on
the grant as invoicing has not been completed. She further stated the annual report budget is almost
complete.
In relation to item 10.b, Ms. Hunter stated the Well Monitoring Pilot Program has completed the site visits
and is currently working with the landowners to continue the process. Ms. Hunter noted that the program
would like to continue looking for more suitable well sites and move forward as new sites are identified, as
they currently have not reached their target number and the grant funding has a short timeline remaining.
No opposition was heard.
Director Carmon stated a representative from DWR announced at the recent Northern Sacramento Valley
Integrated Regional Water Management meeting that approximately $200 million in grant funding may
become available for project and management areas in relation to GSP implementation.
Ms. Kincaid stated the most severely impacted basins were granted money with little to no competition but
the next round of funding will be competitive.
Ms. Hunter noted the GSP public comments that were available in the meeting packet.
11. DISCUSSION ON AGREEMENT WITH DAVIDS ENGINEERING, INC. TO PROVIDE ON-CALL TECHNICAL CONSULTING
SERVICES
Ms. Hunter stated that with the GSP moving from the planning to the implementation phase, the Board may
wish to consider having a consultant on hand to confer with for technical support.
Directors Schonauer and Gary Hansen spoke in favor of having an on-call agreement.
Director Lohse asked how the agreement would be executed, whereby Ms. Hunter stated there would be an
overarching contract with the consultant and each GGA request or job would produce an independent task
order to approve and execute.
Ben King encouraged the Board to shop for other consultants and perform price comparisons.
Ms. Hunter stated the intended relationship with the consultant would be for small works, such as map
requests or information clarification, and not for large projects.
4
Jenny Scheer asked if the GGA anticipates project proponents to share in the implementation phases of GGA
projects, whereby Ms. Kincaid stated the GGA is not a project approval agency and the project proponents
may consult with the GSA for consistency with the GSP but they may use their own consultants and project
plan. Discussion ensued regarding projects and management actions.
Grant Davids stated they have several similar agreements with other clients and if there were any larger
projects anticipated, they would expect a competitive process. Mr. Davids also stated Davids Engineering is a
firm with two locations and twenty employees and is not just a family operated and owned business.
There was general concurrence to bring the item back to a future board meeting as an action item.
12. DISCUSSION ON WATER CONSERVATION CAMPAIGN
Ms. Hunter reviewed the aforesaid matter, opening the discussion if the GGA should enact a water
conservation campaign due to the drought conditions, as other agencies are.
Director Roundy stated the City of Orland has enacted Stage 2 of their water conservation and shortage
contingency plan, which encourages conservation through service charges and watering constraints.
Director Gary Hansen said Cal-Water will enact a similar campaign in the Willows vicinity, whereby Director
Markey confirmed there would be a public hearing on Wednesday, May 11 to enact Stage 2 of the Cal-Water
plan to take effect May 22, 2022 restricting irrigating certain days of the week. Director Markey further
stated water budgets may come into effect if Stage 3 is reached.
Director Carmon spoke in favor of a public campaign with recommendations and watering guidelines.
Chair Amaro suggested providing a report at the public Drought Task Force meetings, whereby Director
Carmon stated the next meeting is May 12 and there has been less public participation at the last few
meetings.
Director Enos stated this would be a good opportunity to celebrate conservation successes as well as what
the agency has accomplished.
Director Roundy spoke in favor of the campaign and that it could present an opportunity to discuss
upcoming projects whereby discussion ensued.
Ms. Hunter stated the campaign could also aid in familiarizing the public with the GGA, and will be bringing
this to the next agenda with potential topics and materials to be disseminated.
13. *APPROVE LETTER OF SUPPORT: CITY OF ORLAND DOMESTIC WELL AND GROUNDWATER STORAGE TANK
PROJECT
Director Roundy stated the City of Orland would greatly appreciate the support of the Board.
Director Carmon stated DWR has indicated they would like a letter of support from the GSA to move
forward with the $800,000 grant award for the project.
On motion by Director Carmon, seconded by Director Roundy, it was unanimously ordered to approve a Letter
of Support to the City of Orland for the benefit of the Domestic Well and Groundwater Storage Tank Project.
5
14. RECEIVE RECOMMENDATION FROM RECHARGE AD HOC COMMITTEE TO ENGAGE THE SERVICES OF A
TECHNICAL CONSULTANT TO PLAN AND DEVELOP RECHARGE PROJECT(S).
Director Schonauer reviewed the four sites the committee identified as potential sites for the project but
that the committee has not placed any priority on a specific site. Director Schonauer noted the limitations
the drought has caused and the lack of available water for the project.
Chair Amaro asked if anyone has contacted the site landowners, whereby Director Schonauer stated they
have not made contact with any landowners as there is no guarantee there is water available for the project
but that overall, there has been a positive show of interest.
project should funding and the needed resources become available. Director Roundy asked if there is
currently a CEQA exemption for recharge projects through executive order, whereby Ms. Kincaid confirmed
there is.
Director Schonauer stated a consultant may be needed due to the level of involvement and the need for
technical information. Discussion ensued and upd
flow management.
Ms. Hunter stated the committee may bring forth a Request for Proposal for a consultant, as the project
may be complicated and the consultant could outline and prioritize the potential sites. Director Enos asked if
an on-call technical consultant was hired as referenced earlier, if this could be included in those services,
whereby Ms. Hunter stated it possibly could.
Ben King spoke to his experience with water recharge in Kern County and suggested the Board look at what
other areas are doing.
The consensus of the Board was to not purchase water for the project and to explore the possibility of using
water flow from Black Butte Lake depending on possible discussions with the Army Corp/Bureau of
Reclamation. Director Schonauer stated the committee would schedule another meeting soon to discuss this
in depth.
15. DISCUSSION ON EXECUTIVE ORDER N-7-22 AND WELL PERMIT ACKNOWLEDGMENT RESPONSE
GGA Counsel, Valerie Kincaid, reviewed the aforesaid matter, stating the Executive Order was passed in
encouragement from DWR for agencies to pause before issuing well permits too fast. Ms. Kincaid further
stated the next step is to discuss this approach with the County. A revised draft was included in the meeting
packet.
Chair Amaro stated the acknowledgment acts as a checklist for well permit applicants and complies with the
Ms. Kincaid stated there has not been a uniform approach from all Counties. If the County has any
comments, this item will be brought back to a future agenda.
16. COMMITTEE UPDATES
a. 2022/2023 Budget Ad Hoc Committee
b. Executive Committee
6
i. CGA/GGA Joint Executive Committee
c. Multi-Benefit Recharge Pilot Project Ad Hoc Committee
d.Recharge Pilot Project Ad Hoc Committee
e. Technical Advisory Committee
f. Water Well Drilling Permits and Standards Ad Hoc Committee.
Chair Amaro introduced the item stating the Budget Ad Hoc Committee has already provided their report,
the Executive Committee has no updates, the Recharge Pilot Project Ad Hoc Committee will be scheduling a
meeting soon, and there are no other committee updates.
Ms. Hunter noted that Director Deadmond would be replacing Director Nerli on all of her represented
committees to which the Board showed no objections.
17. CLOSED SESSION
9 Conference with Legal Counsel Anticipated or significant exposure to litigation
regarding tax refund claims and challenges to previously adopted property related fees.
18. CLOSED SESSION
Conference with Legal Counsel Existing Litigation
Aqualliance, California Water Impact Network, and California Sportfishing Alliance vs. Colusa Groundwater
Authority, Glenn Groundwater Authority
Colusa County Superior Court - Case Number CV24584
No public comments were presented or heard for agenda items 17 and 18.
The Board adjourned to closed session at 3:21 p.m.
19. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
The Board returned from closed session at 3:50 p.m.; the Board provided direction to counsel.
20. MEMBER REPORTS AND COMMENTS
Ms. Hunter shared that a Land IQ presentation would be given at the Corning Sub-basin GSA meeting on
May 11, 2022 meeting and encouraged those that are interested to attend.
Director Carmon stated the Drought Task Force meeting is scheduled for May 12 and GCID is scheduled to
give a presentation.
21. NEXT MEETING
The next regular meeting is scheduled for June 14, 2022 at 1:30 p.m.
22. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 3:53 p.m.
7