SLVWD Board Meeting Summary

December 1, 2022

Mark Dolson

Highlights:

  • Santa Margarita Groundwater Sustainability Plan

  • Long Service Line Agreement

  • Leak Adjustment Appeal

  • Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation Policy

  • Next Board meeting is at 6:30 PM on December 15th.

Preliminaries

There were no actions to report from Closed Session.

There were no non-agenda-related public comments.

There was no President’s Report.

 

Unfinished Business

 

Remote Meeting Authorization Under AB 361

 

This is a routine recurring agenda item in which the Board must formally approve a resolution proclaiming an ongoing state of local emergency and authorizing remote meetings for another 30 days during the COVID-19 pandemic.   Director Smolley made the motion, and Director Ackemann seconded it.  There was no public comment, and the motion passed 5-0.

 

New Business

Santa Margarita Groundwater Sustainability Plan

The Staff recommendation underlying this agenda item was that the Board provide a resolution of support for a Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency (SMGWA) application to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) for grant funding for upcoming activities that are part of the SMGWA Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP).  The application was prepared by SMGWA staff and summarized at this meeting by Tim Carson (Program Director) and Rob Swartz (Senior Planner) of the Regional Water Management Foundation (RWMF).  The RWMF began providing support for SMGWA in 2022 and has been providing similar support for the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency since 2016.

[The SMGWA Board received a preliminary overview of the pending application at its October 27th meeting and voted 7-3 in favor of authorizing it to be completed and submitted without further Board review.   This decision was partly based on SMGWA staff concerns that there would be insufficient time for further meaningful Board review prior to the November 30th submission deadline.  Directors Mahood and Ackemann both voted in opposition at the October SMGWA meeting, with SMGWA Chair Mahood expressing a lack of confidence that the interests of SLVWD would be adequately represented.]

The State subsequently revised the submission deadline to December 16th with draft awards expected to be announced in May of 2023.   A total of $200 million is available for about 90 basins, and individual agencies can apply for between $1 and $20 million.  The funding itself can be applied to activities from 10/4/22 thru 4/30/26.  A very attractive feature of this program is that no local cost sharing is required.  Counterbalancing this, though, is the expectation that the program will be highly competitive and that the State’s rigid scoring system will likely make it more challenging for the SMGWA proposal to succeed.

Tim Carson briefly described the State’s evaluation criteria as follows:

  • Project Description (4 points)

  • Project Benefits (4 points) Each “component” will be scored separately. Some components may not be approved.

  • Project Map (2 points)

  • Benefits to Disadvantaged Communities (4 points) This is based on census data and does not favor SMGWA.

  • Benefits to Small Systems and Domestic Wells (4 points)

  • Human Right to Water (4 points)

  • Scope of Work (4 points)

  • Budget (1 point)

  • Schedule (1 point)

Rob Swartz (who has lots of relevant expertise in this area but who joined RWMF only in October) discussed some of the relevant details.  He said SMGWA, based on feedback from DWR, was adopting a basin-wide approach to improve their likely scoring.  The primary focus was on: (a) offsetting existing SMGWA cost commitments (e.g., for ongoing operation and required monitoring), and (b) moving implementation of GSP projects forward.

Rob also shared a little of his own perspective.  He said he saw recharge as a no-brainer because it takes advantage of water that enters the basin in wet periods.  He distinguished between four different forms of recharge discussed in the GSP:

  • In-Lieu Conjunctive Use.  This is very efficient and cost-effective.  SLVWD is currently doing this and seeking to expand it.

  • Injecting Purified Wastewater.  This relies upon impressive new technologies such as microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet radiation.  Mid County is already constructing wells and pursuing pilot testing for this.  The SMGWA aquifer is geologically different and its potential remains largely untested.

  • Injecting Potable Water.  This is Aquifer Storage and Recovery.

  • Stormwater Recharge.  This is being done in Scotts Valley albeit with pretty small volumes of water.

Rob said SMGWA would be the applicant and would manage funds and disperse them to participating districts.  He summarized the five “components” of the proposed SMGWA project (totaling $2.6 million in requested funding).  Since the State can elect not to fund all components, these have been listed in priority order:

  • Component 1. Grant Administration.  $200,000.

  • Component 2. Evaluate, Prioritize, and Refine GSP Projects.  $1,331,451.

    • SLVWD Loch Lomond Conjunctive Use Feasibility/Cost Estimating, Focused EIR. ($350,00).

    • Criteria Development, Bundle Development/Refinement, Outreach/Engagement. ($577,000).

    • Modeling to Assess Bundles. ($404,000).

  • Component 3. GSP Implementation Activities.  $849,000.

    • Surface Monitoring.

    • Annual Reporting.

    • Butano Formation Deep Monitoring Well (8 of 9 shallower wells in other formations are already funded).

    • Explore Long-term GSP Funding Options.

    • Non-Deminimus Extraction Metering.

  • Component 4. Private Well Assistance.  $245,000.

    • Two SLVWD Potable Water Filling Stations.

    • Identify Domestic Wells and Conduct Outreach.

Director Fultz noted that Component 2 allocated only about $350,000 to SLVWD, and he asked Rob to provide some additional detail.   Director Fultz stated that he was not in favor of continuing to flog injection wells in the SLV given its size, the geological challenges, and the relative lack of wealth of the community.  Rob said the injection wells were included in that component due to Scotts Valley’s interest in them to raise groundwater levels [and though Rob didn’t emphasize it, for Santa Cruz to use aquifer storage as source to draw on in extended droughts] and the larger interest in determining what solutions will help to meet GSP objectives.

President Mahood offered some further clarification.  She said injection well discussions have been entirely on the part of Santa Cruz and Scotts Valley, and the Santa Cruz interest is currently focused on the Scotts Valley portion of the basin.  There is nothing that commits SLVWD to getting involved in injection wells because: (1) SLVWD groundwater is in better shape than Scotts Valley, and (2) SLVWD’s conjunctive use plan should be sufficient.  She added that some of the proposed modeling will have benefits for SLVWD because it will involve the SLV part of the basin.  Also, Scotts Valley will be trying to figure out more locations and ways to do passive recharge by surface water, and SLVWD could potentially consider similar strategies.   Consequently, the SLVWD benefit would not be strictly limited to the allocated $350,000.

Director Fultz said he understood that SLVWD has been contributing about 30% of SMGWA operating expenses, so maybe the $350,000 out of $1.3 million could be seen as fair, but he knew that Scotts Valley and Santa Cruz are highly interested in injection wells, and he wasn’t excited about SLVWD ratepayers contributing anything to this direction.  SLVWD can move surface water from the north end of its system to Scotts Valley and back, and this is the fastest, least expensive, least intrusive, and most environmentally favorable way to proceed.  He suggested that SMGWA could instead experiment with inter-district conjunctive use for seven years before even thinking about injection wells.  He further urged SMGWA to focus first on addressing the Santa Cruz interference with SLVWD’s conjunctive use plans.

President Mahood asked whether the “Focused EIR” in Component 2 was for all of SLVWD’s needs (the current RFP for a focused EIR in support of intra-district conjunctive use and future EIRs to study proposed projects such as inter-district conjunctive use with Scotts Valley Water District, use of SLVWD’s Loch Lomond allocation and associated upgrade of the Kirby water treatment plant, and a new production well in Quail Hollow).  Environmental Planner Carly Blanchard said it was, though she didn’t elaborate.  Director Fultz said he didn’t think $350,000 would be sufficient to cover all of SLWD’s EIR expenses.  He didn’t think the SMGWA proposal offered SLVWD the biggest bang for the buck.

Director Smolley voiced agreement with Director Fultz.  He took particular exception to the lack of clarity surrounding the allocation of $577,000 for “Criteria Development, Bundle Development/Refinement, Outreach/Engagement,” and he worried about the possibility that Component 2 could be rejected by the State despite the strength of the SLVWD portion of it.  Both Directors Ackemann and Hill agreed with Director Fultz and voiced similar concerns.  Director Hill noted the emphasis on “paper work” (i.e., analysis) as compared to “shovel work.”

Tim Carson and Rob Swartz each responded, and each essentially said that they were simply following the agreed-upon SMGWA directions.

President Mahood said she had consistently wanted to see SMGWA putting less emphasis on consultant studying and more emphasis on actually doing projects.  Her advocacy was unsuccessful, but she noted that the SLVWD Board was now expressing similar concerns, even though she had not had any discussions with SLVWD Board members about this.  She also noted that the dollar figures were not previously available (i.e., at the SMGWA October Board meeting) but that it would have been helpful to see some more detailed breakdown of the proposed spending.  Be this as it may, though, she urged the Board to pass the resolution, as the grant would go a long way toward paying annual administrative and monitoring expenses that SMGWA can't avoid.

Director Fultz said he remained concerned that funding tends to go to activities that the relevant agencies are most excited about.  He said he had been critical because he felt that opening the GSP to options that don’t make sense for SLVWD would ultimately dilute the benefit to the SLV.   Lastly, he commented that he expected the State to drop Component 3, so he would have included these activities under Component 2.  He said he continued to be concerned about how politics were getting in the way of delivering immediate groundwater benefits to the SLV community.  The Loch Lomond solution is years away from being implementable whereas conjunctive use could have been immediately implemented if Santa Cruz had cooperated.

Director Smolley moved to adopt the resolution in the Board packet, and President Mahood seconded this.  Director Fultz said he was most comfortable with funding resolutions when they include specifics about what is being applied for.  He asked what assurances the SLVWD Board had had that there wouldn’t be further changes.

Tim said they had been working quite closely with District Staff throughout the process, and he didn’t anticipate a bait and switch scenario.  He said amounts could shift slightly but that it was in his interest to work cooperatively with Staff.  He reassured Directors Fultz and Smolley that he didn’t see any big-picture changes occurring.  Director Hill asked about including a suitable caveat in the resolution, but President Mahood pointed out that this was intended as a letter of support and needed to be worded accordingly.  She said she liked that Loch Lomond was high priority, and she wasn’t worried about substantive changes at this point.

There was one public comment.  Cynthia Dzendzel said she agreed with the Board’s comments.

The motion passed 5-0.

President Mahood thanked Tim and Rob.  She noted that they have become involved with SMGWA only relatively recently, and they didn’t deserve to be criticized for SLVWD’s problems with the City of Santa Cruz.

 

Long Service Line Agreement

District Engineer Josh Wolff introduced this agenda item.  He reported that earlier in 2022, Michael Smith applied for water service to a parcel just off Teilh Drive outside Boulder Creek at 436 Bean Avenue.  The District has no water distribution facilities at this location, and no future water mainline extensions are likely to be constructed.  Staff therefore recommends that water service be provided by a long service line agreement off a meter along Teilh.  The applicant is required to provide the District with proof of rights-of-way, and has done so.

Director Smolley asked if the District was using the most up-to-date Long Service Agreement, and Josh confirmed that it was.  Director Smolley also asked about the choice to install a 1” meter instead of 5/8” (which is what the District actually charges for).  Josh said the cost difference was negligible, and the latest policy is to install 1” meters, though this has not yet been formalized.   Director Fultz echoed Director Smolley’s questions; he advised that the best practice going forward should be to include a map and to formalize and publish the updated policy.

Director Smolley moved that the Board adopt the resolution in the packet approving the long-line service agreement.  Director Ackemann seconded.  There was no public comment.  The motion passed 5-0.

 

Leak Adjustment Notice of Appeal

District Manager Rick Rogers introduced this agenda item.  He said the Board received an email on November 4th appealing the District’s denial of a high-bill leak adjustment for Barbara Morehouse McMasters, a tenant residing at 1540 Quail Hollow Road, Ben Lomond.  The denial was based on District policy which allows an adjustment for a second leak in a given year only if it is greater than the previous leak in that year.

Barbara explained that she is merely a renter and is not financially responsible for the upkeep of the yard irrigation that broke in April or the water heater that broke in August.  The water bill comes to the owner c/o Barbara McMasters.

District Counsel Gina Nicholls explained that the District no longer bills tenants (this transition occurred when the District stopped shutting off water for delinquent bills) but that some owners have been directing bills to their tenants.  She said the owner was the account holder, and she advised the District against intervening in the relationship between owner and tenant.

Further discussion revealed that the District had mistakenly credited the tenant for the first leak in 2022 and that it would not seek to rescind this credit.  However, the District is not holding the tenant legally responsible for the second leak, and the tenant has no standing to request an appeal.  The leak is the owner’s responsibility, and it does not meet the District’s criteria for reimbursement.  The owner can request a 12-month payment plan.

President Mahood moved to deny the appeal, and this motion was seconded.  There was no public comment.  The motion passed 5-0.  

Commentary: None.

 

Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation Prevention Policy 2023

District Counsel Gina Nicholls introduced this agenda item.  She described it as very straightforward because the policy has not changed in the past year, but an annual review is still formally required.

There was no Board discussion and no public comment.  Director Smolley moved to adopt the resolution in the Board packet, and Director Ackemann seconded.  The motion passed 5-0.

 

Consent Agenda

There were no requests to pull any items, so the published minutes were accepted as is.

 

District Manager’s Report

Rick reported that a public meeting was held at the Felton Library on November 30th concerning the Felton Heights Tank project.  People attended both in person and via Zoom.  A tank location on John Erickson's property with redwood trees blocking the line of sight was favorably received by attendees.  The District is close to getting 100% support from neighbors if it can successfully work with John Erickson on this alternative site.  Rick will next reach out to John.

President Mahood commented that she thought Carly and Josh did a really good job of explaining things and helping people to calm down.  Rick added that the Felton Library meeting room worked well, resulting in a very successful hybrid meeting.  He found everyone at the library to be great to work with.

 

Department Status Reports

Director Smolley had some questions with regard to the Engineering Report.  He asked if the District had received any invoices from Sandis re: the work it is performing in support of the Bracken Brae and Forest Springs consolidation and whether the District had billed DWR for these invoices.  Josh said no invoices have yet been received.  [The following day Josh contacted Director Smolley and corrected his answer; invoices have been received from Sandis.]

Director Smolley asked for more detail on the recent activities of the GIS/CAD specialist.  Josh said the District had some short-duration projects where he pulled Westin out of the field for a day to complete requested reports.

Director Smolley asked if the Quail Hollow project was finally complete.  Josh said it remained only for the County to conduct a final walk-through.

Director Smolley also asked about a reference in the Environmental Report to a grant application regarding Big Basin Water Company.  Carly said this was a $3.5 million application that she was working on with grant-writer Susan Robinson.  She hoped to bring it to the Board in January.

Director Fultz asked if the Operations Report for November would show the District having used surface water.  Operations Director James Furtado said water was obtained from the Kirby plant but not the Lyon plant.

Director Hill asked for an update on the peer review for rebuilding the cross-country pipeline destroyed in the CZU Fire.  Rick said the District has a draft which will go to the Engineering Committee in December.  Director Smolley said Staff had asked him to perform a preliminary review, and he had recommended significant formatting changes.  Director Fultz expressed concern that he had not also received a copy as the other Director on the Committee; he said it was inappropriate for one Director to have more access to information.  He felt that this went well beyond merely conferring with the Committee Chair about the meeting agenda, and he suggested that the Board revisit this when it next reviews the Board Policy Manual.

 

Written Communications

President Mahood commented on a number of letters to the Board regarding Lake Lompico. Following the presentation from Jenni Gomez at the previous Board meeting (in which Jenni requested that the District provide electricity for an aerator), President Mahood and District Manager Rogers met with Supervisor McPherson’s assistant JM Brown (because Lake Lompico is on County property).  President Mahood said the District was willing to work with the County to enable them to establish an electrical drop if they would hold the District harmless.  JM said he would look into this.  Jenni has not asked the Board to agendize this topic.  Rick added that Jenni has withdrawn her grant application for an aeration system.  Gina then advised that this topic would need to be agendized in order to allow any further discussion.  Director Fultz said it seemed worthy of being agendized, but he saw no immediate reason to move forward on this given that the grant application had been withdrawn.

 

The open session adjourned at 8:30 PM.  The Board agreed to reconvene in Closed Session at 8:40 PM, but it did not expect any actions to be taken there, so it saw no need to report back.