SLVWD Board Meeting Summary
March 11, 2021
Mark Dolson
Highlights:
Discussion of recently filed Santa Cruz City water rights petitions.
Next Board meeting is at 6:30 PM on March 18.
Preliminaries:
Director To's absence was unanimously approved as an “excused absence.”
There were no Communications from the public.
New Business
Reviewing and Discussing Notice of Petitions Filed by City of Santa Cruz
President Mahood introduced this agenda item with a brief overview of relevant recent developments. This issue first came to President Mahood’s attention in February when she learned that modeling for the Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency (SMGWA) was assuming only half as much water available from SLVWD for in lieu recharge (i.e., using surface water in lieu of pumping groundwater) compared to previous versions of the modeling. It was determined this was based on bypass requirements proposed in recently submitted petitions by the City of Santa Cruz to the California water board to change their water rights on the San Lorenzo River. She and Director Smolley, the other SLVWD representative on SMGWA, examined the petitions and found there were also potential problems regarding restrictions on the use of Loch Lomond water. Director Smolley brought these issues to the Board’s attention at last week’s March 4th Board meeting, and the Board learned that District Manager Rick Rogers and Legal Counsel Gina Nicholls (whose expertise specifically concerns water rights) had already taken note of this. Director Fultz requested that this be discussed at a special Board meeting prior to the March 12th deadline for protest letters – hence tonight’s meeting.
President Mahood further noted that Rosemary Menard, Water Director for the City of Santa Cruz was in attendance to answer questions. She explained that the City of Santa Cruz petitions change where water would be able to be diverted, where it would be sent, and also how it would be able to be used. These changes have been in development for more than a decade, and the general idea of all Districts updating their regional approach to water makes good sense. However, President Mahood and Director Smolley had two specific issues of concern.
Rick Rogers shared a map showing key points of interest: Loch Lomond, just northeast of Ben Lomond, is used by the City of Santa Cruz for water storage. Water is pumped up to Loch Lomond from the San Lorenzo River at the Felton Diversion Dam just north of the Big Trees entrance to Henry Cowell off of Highway 9. The Big Trees Gauge is on the river just a little south of this. The Santa Cruz Beltz Wells are in Live Oak.
Gina Nicholls expanded on President Mahood’s introduction as follows: The District received formal notice of the city’s change petition around February 10th, and Staff had been investigating the implications since. Based on that work and the concerns expressed by Directors Mahood and Smolley, Gina identified two fairly narrow areas of concern for SLVWD.
The first area of concern involves the potential implications for the District’s contractual right to obtain water from Loch Lomond. The wording of the petition suggests that this right might be limited under certain drought conditions.
The second area of concern involves the newly proposed streamflow requirements for the San Lorenzo River. The petition proposes that no diversions would be allowed in the summer, and a new higher minimum streamflow (40 cubic feet per second (CFS) vs. 20 CFS) at the Big Trees Gauge would be imposed for six months of the remaining nine months of the year. The District permit allows it to draw water from the upstream tributary at Fall Creek with less stringent restrictions, and it isn’t immediately clear how the new requirements would impact this.
Gina said the District is seeking to harmonize the city's rights with the District’s, and filing a protest is a first step to taking a closer look at this and ensuring that the District is involved. The next step after the District's protest is submitted will be a negotiation and review.
Director Fultz sought clarification on some details relating to the second area of concern. The District is already out of compliance at the Big Trees Gauge for several months per year in its exercise of its Felton water rights at the Fall Creek Diversion. He asked how much more water the City can potentially extract from the river (since it is currently taking considerably less than the maximum allowed because it has no place to store it, but this would change if the new permit adopted the proposed storage in wells at the Tait facility and the Beltz wells in the Live Oak district), and he asked how the District (which is consistently not meeting its Big Trees flow requirements at present) can achieve compliance in the future unless the City substantially increases the flow from Loch Lomond. Director Henry and President Mahood followed up with related questions.
Rosemary Menard provided responses, but these tended to be fairly general. She said the City is using about half of the 3000 acre feet per year that it is currently allowed. It isn’t asking to exceed this limit but to be allowed to take water from lower in the system. Currently, the City takes about 1700 acre feet via its Felton Permit (which allows diversion for storage in Loch Lomond). Rather than say whether the City might increase its withdrawal, she said only that the City’s commitment to the bypass flow is quite substantial; it might be using a different right, but it would still be leaving a lot of water in the system.
With regard to the increase in required streamflow from 20 CFS to 40 CFS, she said that this was driven by biological needs (i.e., to support upstream and downstream passage of fish). In her view, the real issue for SLVWD is whether the current control point on the District’s system is the right control point for the management of its right on Fall Creek. Her position was that she didn’t want to affect SLVWD, and she didn’t want SLVWD to affect the city.
President Mahood and Directors Smolley and Fultz all agreed that the District’s draft letter satisfactorily addressed their concern about the possible implications of the increased streamflow requirement. President Mahood added that the 40 CFS flow was only needed when fish are migrating, but as written it looks like it applies for the entire six months.
Cynthia Dzendzel asked if SLVWD was going to be expected to decrease its use of surface water rather than the City being required to release more water from Loch Lomond. She also wanted to know whether any of the Loch Lomond water would be diverted from the Santa Margarita aquifer. Rosemary responded to the first question by saying, “the reality of when the crunch is on is in the dry season (April through October), and this isn't a time when the city can take water out at Felton in any case.” President Mahood asked If any of this water was going to be put back into the Santa Margarita Groundwater Basin (because it looks like it will go into the Beltz Wells which are within neither the SLV watershed or the SMGW Basin). Rosemary said, “there are some opportunities and some challenges; we would want to put water into the basin if we can.”
Director Fultz offered a final comment, noting that SLVWD customers have done an outstanding job of reducing their water use (the District is 20% below the state's long-term goal of 50 gallons per day for indoor use). He said it would be great if this would be recognized by folks making decisions about this. SLVWD has shown itself to be responsible in its use of water and aggressive in reducing its use.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 PM.