SLVWD Board Meeting Summary
July 8, 2021
Mark Dolson
Highlights:
Latest District response to the City of Santa Cruz re: water rights.
Update on Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency planning.
Next Board meeting is at 6:30 PM on July 15.
Preliminaries
This was no public comment on items not on the agenda. Rick Rogers announced that Rosemary Menard, Water Director for the City of Santa Cruz, was present and available to answer questions but was not otherwise planning to speak.
New Business
Response to City of Santa Cruz Petition to Change Water Rights
District Counsel Gina Nichols reminded the Board that this issue was first discussed in March when the District became aware of petitions by the City of Santa Cruz seeking to alter their water rights in multiple ways. The District identified two issues that were important to SLVWD because of their potential implications for being able to: (1) to exercise rights to Loch Lomond water when supplies are limited, and (2) exercise Felton water rights in conjunction with revised City requirements for San Lorenzo River flow at the Big Trees gauge. In May, the District received a letter from the City’s Water Rights Council responding to its expressed concerns. The District found this response encouraging and has recently prepared a response of its own with some minor tweaks to the City’s suggestions. The purpose of the current agenda item is to enable the Board to offer informal review and comment on the District’s latest letter.
Gina further noted that the City has released its related Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and comments are due July 26th. This bears on the water rights issues but is not directly implicated in the letter. District Manager Rick Rogers added that a meeting earlier today with Rosemary led to a proposal for a face-to-face discussion which will hopefully result in a satisfactory resolution of the open issues.
Each of the five Directors offered brief comments. They were supportive of the letter and of the District’s commitment to protecting the valley’s interests. They expressed varying degrees of optimism about the potential for arriving at a mutually acceptable agreement.
Multiple members of the public offered comments. Mark Lee found Gina's letter to be well written, but he thought the District was being quite naïve as to who it was dealing with. He asked if anyone had read the City’s EIR, and nobody indicated that they had. Mark found the EIR to be grossly inadequate in that it vastly underplayed the likelihood of growth and a related water shortage. He advised the District to amend its letter to insert provisions holding the City to specific performance criteria for the years ahead. His concern was that the City would otherwise inevitably fail to comply with its agreement.
Jim Mosher agreed that it would be helpful if the Board could provide the public with some guidance (from an SLV perspective) on the EIR. He noted a fair amount of suspicion in the valley in terms of the City’s growth intentions.
Environmental Planner Carly Blanchard said she would be happy to put together a simple summary of the EIR. She noted that the City has also provided one on their web site, but other people emphasized that they were seeking a summary that reflected the SLVWD perspective.
Director Fultz asked Mark Lee and Jim Mosher if they were advocating that the District take a position against the City’s expected growth. Jim said he was just asking for guidance in interpreting the EIR and that he wanted to know if any threats to the valley were being accurately described. Mark Lee concurred, and Rick Rogers said the District’s review would look at the impact to the SLV.
Director Fultz asked if the District could complete its summary before the City’s public meetings on the 14th and the 20th of July. Rick said Gina, Carly, and himself could make this a high priority.
Beth Thomas added that it would also be helpful to think about how this could impact the SMGWA process. Other districts will pay attention to how much we're paying attention. Director Fultz noted that this issue also relates to the underlying urban/rural divide between the City and the SLV; urban areas will grow whereas the SLV cannot. President Mahood added that the District can’t tell the City what to do with their water, but it can certainly protect the interests of the valley.
Gina said the letter will be sent Friday July 9th. The next step will be to set up a meeting with the City to discuss the remaining disagreement. Rick recommended that attendees include Gina, Carly, himself, and President Mahood.
Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency (SMGWA) Update
President Mahood presented a comprehensive and detailed update on SMGWA’s development of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the Santa Margarita Groundwater Basin (she and Director Smolley are the two Board members representing SLVWD in SMGWA).
She began by explaining that “groundwater” is an underground reservoir of water filling pores and fractures in rocks and sedimentary deposits. The “water table” is the top of the groundwater zone. Groundwater availability is controlled by “porosity” (the total volume of pore space or fractures) and “permeability” (how fast the water can flow through). The “aquifer” is the body of rock that contains the groundwater, and the quality of the aquifer is determined by its porosity and permeability.
Our basin encompasses multiple aquifers: the Santa Margarita Sandstone is the highest quality; the Lompico and Butano Sandstones are of very good quality; the relatively tiny Bennet Springs marble aquifer (off of Felton Empire Road) is of good quality; and the granitic aquifer serving the Big Basin Water Company is fairly poor.
The SLV is on the Pacific Plate, and the Santa Margarita Groundwater Basin is bounded on the north by the Zayante Fault (still active) and on the west by the Ben Lomond Fault (not very active). The eastern boundary is a transitional zone separating the Santa Margarita basin from the Mid County basin. The Santa Margarita aquifer is exposed in Quail Hollow, Olympia, and Pasatiempo, whereas the Lompico aquifer is much less exposed, and the Butano is only exposed at higher elevations.
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was signed into law in 2014. It is locally driven but with state constraints. Groundwater Sustainability Agencies are public and have a lot of authority (though SMGWA has yet to wield this). The Department of Water Resources (DWR) announced basin rankings in 2019 identifying those that need to take immediate action. 21 were considered in critical overdraft (including Mid County, Pajaro Valley, and parts of Salinas Valley) because groundwater had become saline from over-pumping.
SMGWA received a $1 million grant from DWR in 2018. Work started in March, 2020 with the contracting of Montgomery and Associates and is now moving at a rapid pace. The final draft of the complete GSP is to be presented 7/22 and completed 7/29. Public comment will be gathered through 9/23. There will be a public hearing in mid-November, and final submission is due in January.
SMGWA has 11 appointed members. There are six Member Directors (two from SLVWD, two from Scotts Valley Water District (SVWD), and two County Supervisors) and five Directors representing other basin stakeholders (two private well owners, one Mt. Hermon, one City of Santa Cruz, and one City of Scotts Valley). Most decisions are made by a simple majority of Directors, but key decisions require unanimous approval of all six Member Directors.
SGMA specifies six potential undesirable results (all of which are to be avoided). SMGWA doesn’t have to worry about seawater intrusion (which is a problem in Soquel) or land subsidence (which is a problem in the Central Valley). It does have to worry about lowering groundwater levels, reduction of storage, degraded quality, and surface water depletion.
Lowering of Groundwater Levels. Hydrographs (which show the level of water in wells) show that levels have declined substantially over the past 40 years in the southern part of the basin (i.e., Scotts Valley) but not so much in the northern part. The Santa Margarita aquifer has not had much decline because it recharges very quickly (by virtue of being widely exposed on the surface), and it is highly permeable (so rainfall enters it easily). The Monterey Shale aquifer (important to private well owners) dropped about 200’ from 1980 to 1997 and then began to slightly recover. The Lompico aquifer (important to SLVWD and SVWD) dropped 215’ from 1980 to 2015 and then stabilized. Despite continued growth in population, groundwater extraction by SVWD has declined overall and even more per capita since 2000 due to conservation efforts and modern efficiency standards. Only limited data is available for the Butano aquifer (important to private well owners). The SMGWA minimum threshold has been set based on the principle of avoiding any further harm. The measurable objectives have been set somewhat higher. Emphasis is being placed on the Lompico aquifer because modeling has shown that a rise in the Lompico will also benefit the Monterey and the Butano.
Reduction of Storage. The total amount of groundwater in storage is more critical than the water level in wells, but it must be calculated from geohydrologic models based on inflow and outflow. This is “the drought you can’t see” because it all takes place beneath the ground. The Lompico aquifer is the one with the biggest decline and will be the primary focus of any resulting projects.
Degraded Quality. The quality of the groundwater in the Santa Margarita basin is naturally pretty good. Any naturally occurring iron and manganese are removed via treatment. We are below the maximum contaminant level for nitrates in all of our groundwater and surface water despite the popularity of septic tanks. Minimum thresholds are based on never letting it get worse than the legal thresholds. Measurable objectives are based on the best recent measurements.
Surface Water Depletion. This is the trickiest one to deal with. There are ponds, rivers, creeks, springs, bottoms of quarries, and wetlands. Groundwater-dependent ecosystems are difficult to assess. The question is how pumping is affecting baseflow and how priority species (e.g., fish, primarily steelhead trout) are being impacted. To help assess this, special wells are drilled purely for monitoring water levels. SMGWA has obtained a grant that will pay for the majority of the costs of installing these monitoring wells. On average, 85% of the outflow from the basin is from discharge to creeks (and 15% is from groundwater pumping). A wide range of sources contribute to inflow, but 57% is from precipitation, and 36% is from streambed recharge. Septic systems return 5%. An important related consideration is that the underlying climate models have become increasingly sophisticated, and the choice of model is quite significant. If anything, our rainfall may slightly increase, but it will be quite variable. Storage in the Lompico aquifer is destined to decrease, and this is an issue that requires attention.
All of this leads to the challenge of managing aquifer recharge. In lieu recharge is a passive method that relies upon conjunctive use of surface water in place of groundwater, allowing wells to rest so the water table rises. Active alternatives are percolation (where impounded surface water recharges the aquifer) and Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) (where treated water is injected into the deep aquifer for later recovery). SMGWA has organized potential projects into three groups: (1) ongoing baseline projects, (2) projects under current investigation, and (3) projects not currently being investigated (e.g., ASR). In the second group, they have further divided projects into three different categories based on size and impact.
Group 2, Tier 1 projects are: (1) improvements in efficient water use (e.g., using smart meters, reducing leaks, and promoting conservation), (2) conjunctive use relying upon existing SLVWD infrastructure to rest Pasatiempo wells with North System water, (3) supplementing this conjunctive use with treated water from Loch Lomond, and (4) SLVWD Olympia wellfield replenishment via an ASR project (which President Mahood dismissed as ill-conceived).
Group 2, Tier 2 projects are: (1) injecting treated effluent from Pure Water Soquel plant into SVWD wells, and (2) injecting treated water from City of Santa Cruz surface water into SVWD (and perhaps SLVWD South System) in Lompico aquifer to rest wells and provide storage for the City as a drought buffer. The modeling shows that in-lieu recharge plus Loch Lomond water should reverse the drop in the Lompico aquifer for at least many decades. The Santa Margarita aquifer is not affected. No projects are planned for the Butano aquifer, and it is projected to drop.
Most of the capital costs of these projects can probably be paid for via grants. However, there will still be other project-related costs (including land costs, legal fees, environmental studies, and other indirect costs) plus ongoing annual costs. For the three Tier 1 projects, these could total $13 million and $1.6 million. For the two Tier 2 projects, these cost estimates jump to a total of $58 million and $4.6 million. Group 2, Tier 3 projects are much more expensive and not currently receiving much attention. Even the simplest projects will take more than a year to plan.
Lastly, it might now be becoming appropriate to reconsider the structure and cost-splitting of the SMGWA. SVWD and SLVWD are currently responsible for 60% and 30% of costs. Current project cost estimates seem unrealistically low.
President Mahood ended her presentation by asking what balance SMGWA should strike between cost and getting all information possible about the interaction between surface water and shallow groundwater. She also asked for thoughts on the structure of membership in SMGWA and the allocation of administrative costs.
Director Fultz asked whether President Mahood was making a distinction between ASR and injection of wastewater into Scotts Valley wells. She said she was not. ASR is part of Managed Aquifer Recharge. These projects would require new wells, but these would only be hundreds of feet deep. Director Fultz also asked whether projects would be phased so that early measurements could inform next steps. President Mahood said this would be the case. Director Smolley added that in lieu use would come first, followed by Loch Lomond use.
Several members of the public had questions and/or comments. Cynthia Dzendzel appreciated the presentation and said she understood that ASR projects were being primarily pushed by the City of Santa Cruz. She asked if this was correct. With reference to the unknown cost of the Kirby Street treatment plant renovation, she asked about the possibility of building a new treatment plant. Nobody responded to Cynthia’s first question; Rick said the District has budgeted to start the feasibility analysis of Loch Lomond water in the 2022-2023 Fiscal Year. This will include an assessment of different treatment strategies.
Jim Mosher appreciated the presentation and had two questions. First, he found it odd that the City of Santa Cruz isn't more involved in this process. Second, he observed that passive recharge is obviously the best solution if it is sufficient, but he wondered what the odds were of this being the case. President Mahood said projects will be implemented in a rolling manner to allow for ongoing incremental assessment. Also, the best way to decrease pumping is to increase conservation. None of this will happen quickly. Some of the smaller projects may do the job for 10 or 15 years, but climate models are highly uncertain, so time will tell. The only problem with in lieu recharge is that its impact is limited by winter demand (i.e., the excess water comes at the time of the year when it is least needed). If in lieu is insufficient, the District could conceivably use injection to increase groundwater. As things stand, today, it is clear that something will need to be done, but there is no need to panic. Jim asked whether there were things that individual landowners could do to try to retain water. President Mahood said this sounded good and was worth trying, but that it was a really expensive way of recharging the aquifer for the volumes under discussion.
April Zilber said she appreciated the presentation and applauded efforts to capture the scientific data that the District will need (e.g., via monitoring wells).
Mark Lee appreciated and understood every bit of the presentation. He said he had reservations on ASR as there are exorbitant costs involved in annual operation. He emphasized that this was all related to the EIR referenced earlier in the meeting. He recommended that the District’s letter include a stipulation that the District maintain some control during the months of July and September. With regard to President Mahood’s closing question, he suggested that the District’s membership percentage should go down to 15% whereas the City's absorption of costs should increase, along with the County’s. He said the water in question will be going to the Soquel Creek ASR project. They are still projecting a 1.2 billion gallon per year deficit.
Director Ackemann said we have a lot of big questions in terms of investment and governance and the structure of SMGWA. She wanted to know kind of weight our recommendations will carry. President Mahood said she wasn’t asking anyone to make any decisions at present. She was just trying to inform everyone as to what is happening. She agreed with Jim Mosher that it was odd that the City of Santa Cruz wasn’t represented. It is strange to have a process that is largely driven by the staff of the County and the city of Santa Cruz, yet SLVWD is paying for a lot of it. She often feels that SLVWD is outgunned. She said that she and Director Smolley have worked really hard to try to defend the interests of the District, and she has become persona non grata in the process. She just wanted people to start thinking about this situation.
Director Fultz sought to clarify a statement that he made on an earlier occasion about lack of SLVWD control over the participation of President Mahood and Director Smolley on SMGWA. His argument was that they are appointed by the SLVWD Board, but they don't explicitly answer to the SLVWD Board because they have discretion in the use of their votes, and they could theoretically ignore a 3-2 vote directing them to vote in some specific way. However, he wanted to make it clear that he wasn’t accusing either of them of dereliction of duty.
Director Fultz went on to offer his own assessment. He had three “dos” and three “don’ts.” Do make it simple. Do take Scotts Valley up on their statements that they have stabilized their water use and don't need a lot of assistance. Do sell Scotts Valley excess water if they really need it. Conversely, don't do ASR. Don't create excess bureaucracy. Don't torture well owners with a complicated process. He said he continued to be concerned about statements on conservation because he wanted the District to clearly state how many gallons per day it wanted people to drop to for indoor use (or else to make it clear that the conservation focus is on outdoor use). He said he supported a phased-in approach and didn’t think any injection solutions would ever be affordable. Instead, he hoped that other technologies would arise in their place. President Mahood emphasized that the GSP does not make any actual commitment, but Director Fultz worried that an idea in the GSP could eventually morph into a project with its own momentum.
Director Henry said she was totally against injection wells, as there is no proof that they work. She also felt that more people should be involved in paying for these projects.
In a final round of public comment, Mark Lee reiterated his pleas for the District to lower its cost percentages and to put some teeth into its letter to the City in response to the EIR.
Lastly, Cynthia Dzendzel asked if anyone has considered that the District may grow (due, primarily, to further consolidations with smaller districts). Also, she suggested that well owners would value education on how to manage their wells.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 PM.