COUNTY OF SISKIYOU
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Building  Environmental Health  Planning
806 South Main Street∙ Yreka, California 96097
Phone: (530) 841-2100 ∙ Fax: (530) 841-4076
www.co.siskiyou.ca.us/phs
GREG PLUCKER,
DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors
Terry Barber, County Administrative Officer
Brian Morris, County Counsel
FROM:
Greg Plucker, Community Development Director
DATE:
September 25, 2015
SUBJECT:
October 6, 2015 Board Meeting
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Update
ATTACHMENTS:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and Related Legislation
Groundwater Basin Prioritization – Northern Region
2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: A Handbook to Understand
and Implement the Law
BACKGROUND
In September 2014, Governor Brown signed legislation requiring that California’s critical groundwater
resources be sustainably managed by local agencies. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)
established specific requirements for how certain groundwater basins were to be managed over the longterm. For the Board’s reference, SGMA and its related legislation are attached (Attachment #1).
Immediately after the passage of this legislation, County Counsel Morris brought this matter to the Board for
its information. Following a discussion on this matter, the Board directed the County Counsel, the Director of
Community Development, and the Natural Resource Policy Specialist to develop a plan for the County on how
to comply with the requirements of SGMA. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an update to the
Board on the SGMA and its implementation.
SGMA OVERVIEW
SGMA requires the formation, by June 30, 2017, of new Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSA’s) tasked
with assessing the conditions in their local basins and subsequently adopting locally-based Groundwater
Sustainability Plans (GSP’s) for medium- and high-priority groundwater basins designated by the California
Department of Water Resources (DWR). SGMA defines sustainable management as managing and using
groundwater in a way that can be sustained over a long period of time. Specifically, sustainable yield is defined
as the amount of groundwater that can be withdrawn annually without causing “significant and unreasonable
impacts” related to any of the following “undesirable results”: chronically lowering groundwater levels,
BUILDING
Michael Crawford, Deputy Director
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
William Navarre, Deputy Director
PLANNING
Richard Tinsman, Deputy Director
Telephone: (530) 841-2100
Fax: (530) 842-0111
Telephone: (530) 841-2100
Fax: (530) 841-4076
Telephone: (530) 842-8203
Fax: (530) 841-4076
October 13, 2015 Board Meeting
SGMA Update
Page 2 of 10
causing seawater intrusion, degrading water quality, causing land subsidence or depleting interconnected
surface water (for example, creeks, streams and rivers).
In Siskiyou County, three (Butte Valley, Shasta Valley, and Scott River Valley) of the County’s 11 basins and one
(Tulelake) of the County’s 2 sub-basins are currently designated as medium-priority basins (Attachment #2).
Please note that DWR may reprioritize basins and sub-basins in the future, which could result in the
designation of additional basins or sub-basins as medium or high priority. SGMA requires that GSP’s for
medium-priority basins subject to critical conditions be completed by January 31, 2020 and GSP’s for all other
medium-priority basins be completed by January 31, 2022. Since none of the County’s basins are considered
as being in the state of critical overdraft, all four medium priority basins in the County must have their GSP’s
completed by January 31, 2022.
The chart below includes key milestones for complying with the Act. If these milestones are not met, the State
Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) can intervene, and develop and impose an interim plan
for each basin where a GSA is not formed, or if formed, a GSP is not developed.
SMGA Milestones For Each Basin
Action
Submision of final decree and report on water usage and storage for
any adjudicated area in a basin.
GSA Formation
GSP Completion
Due Date
April 1, 2016
June 30, 2017
January 31, 2022
SUBMISSION OF FINAL DECREE AND ANNUAL REPORT FOR ADJUDICATED AREAS
Section 10720.8(a) of the Water Code specifies that certain adjudicated areas in the State are not subject to
SGMA. The Scott River Stream System is the one adjudicated area in Siskiyou County that is exempted by
statute. This area is located within the Scott River Valley basin. However, there are other parts of the Scott
River Valley basin that are located outside the Scott River Stream System adjudicated area. While exempted,
from a practical manner it is likely that the GSP for the Scott River Valley basin will have to take into account,
in some fashion, the adjudicated area in order to develop a comprehensive GSP for the Scott River Valley
basin.
Notwithstanding the above, Section 10720.8(f)(1) requires that the watermaster or a local agency of a basin
within an exempt adjudicated area shall by April 1, 2016 submit to DWR a copy of a governing final judgment,
or other judicial order or decree, and any amendments entered before April 1, 2016. “Local agency” is defined
by SGMA as a local public agency that has water supply, water management, or land use responsibilities within
a groundwater basin.
October 13, 2015 Board Meeting
SGMA Update
Page 3 of 10
Section 10720.8(f)(2) requires said watermaster or local agency submit to DWR a copy of any amendment or
other judicial order or decree within 90 days of entry by a court on or after April 1, 2016.
Section 10720.8(f)(3) requires that the same watermaster or local agency by April 1, 2016, and annually
thereafter, submit to DWR a report containing the following information (to the extent available) for the
portion of the basin subject to the adjudication:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Groundwater elevation data unless otherwise submitted pursuant to Section 10932.
Annual aggregated data identifying groundwater extraction for the preceding water year.
Surface water supply used for or available for use for groundwater recharge or in-lieu use.
Total water use.
Change in groundwater storage.
The annual report submitted to the court.
With respect to the Scott River Stream System adjudicated area, there is no watermaster monitoring the
totality of the Scott River Stream System adjudicated area within the Scott River Valley basin. As will be
discussed in more detail below, the Scott Valley Irrigation District only has jurisdiction over a part of the Scott
River Valley Basin. As such, this responsibility potentially falls to the County as there is no other water agency
which has jurisdiction over the entirety of the adjudicated area. The completion of this report is a time
sensitive issue.
FORMATION OF GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY(IES)
The SGMA requires the formation of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (or agencies) (GSA) for the mediumpriority basins in Siskiyou County by June 30, 2017. Any local public agency or a combination of local agencies
that has water supply, water management, or land use responsibilities within a groundwater basin may elect
to be a GSA through a joint powers agreement, memorandum of agreement or other legal agreement. In
addition, a federally recognized Indian tribe may voluntarily agree to participate in the preparation and
implementation of a GSP. The County will become the default GSA in any basin or portion of a basin where no
other entity steps forward by June 30, 2017. If the County declines to be the GSA, the State Water Board will
step in and assume the SGMA implementation responsibilities.
In Siskiyou County, there are several agencies that may be eligible to be a GSA or part of a GSA for a basin. For
example, the Tulelake Irrigation District’s (TID) boundaries cover the vast majority of the Tulelake Basin. In
discussing this issue with the TID, it is their intent to seek DWR approval to become the GSA for the Tulelake
Basin. With respect to the other basins in the County, no other existing eligible entities have authority over
the majority of a basin’s area. For the Butte Valley basin, the Butte Valley Irrigation District’s (BVID)
boundaries lie within the Butte Valley Basin. However, the BVID’s jurisdiction comprises less than
approximately 20% of the Butte Valley Basin. Concerning the Shasta Valley Basin, approximately 60% of the
Grenada Irrigation District’s (GID) boundary lies within the Shasta Valley Basin. However, this area only
comprises approximately 10% of the Shasta Valley Basin. The Montague Water Conservation District
(MWCD) does have a significant part of its jurisdictional area in the Shasta Valley Basin. However, this area
totals approximately 25% of the Shasta Valley Basin. With respect to the Scott River Valley Basin, the Scott
October 13, 2015 Board Meeting
SGMA Update
Page 4 of 10
Valley Irrigation District’s (SVID) boundary does lie within the Scott River Valley Basin. However, the SVID’s
jurisdictional area is less than approximately 15% of the Scott River Valley Basin. Please note that the
percentages described here are rough approximations given that GIS shape files do not exist for a number of
the districts. The intent of this discussions is to illustrate that with the exception of the TID, there does not
exist an existing eligible entity that has the jurisdictional area needed to assume the role of a GSA.
In most cases the SGMA does not delegate which local agency should be a GSA, but instead leaves that
decision to be determined at the local level. The only exception is for special act districts formed through State
law to manage groundwater in a local basin. None of the 15 special act districts are located in Siskiyou County.
If an area over a basin is not within the management area of a GSA, the local county will be presumed to be
the GSA for that area unless it opts out. Structurally, there are three overarching governance options: one
countywide GSA; a separate GSA for each basin; or a hybrid of the two. For example, an irrigation district
partially located within a basin may desire to be the GSA for its jurisdictional area. In that case, there would
be multiple plans implemented by multiple GSAs and coordinated pursuant to a single coordination
agreement that covers the entire basin.
With the exception of the TID, it is not currently know whether or not other irrigation districts with
jurisdictional area in a basin wishes to be a GSA or part of a larger governing GSA for its basin. The next step in
the GSA formation process is for a public outreach effort to determine the level of this desire from the various
irrigation districts. Subsequent to the Board’s meeting, County staff is intending to initiate this effort to
determine which eligible entities are interested in being a part of GSA for their applicable basins.
Should multiple entities wish to be involved in a GSA for a particular basin, the governance process will be
much more involved than with a single entity. Ultimately, the actual GSA formation process is fairly
straightforward once the governance issues are resolved and must include the following:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Before electing to be a GSA, and after publication of a public hearing, the local agency or
agencies shall hold a public hearing.
A local agency or combination of local agencies that elects to be the GSA shall submit a notice
of intent to DWR. The notice of intent shall include a description of the proposed boundaries of
the basin or portion of the basin that the local agency or combination of local agencies intends
to manage.
A combination of local agencies may form a GSA by using either (1) a joint powers agreement or
(2) a memorandum of agreement or other legal agreement.
Within 30 days of electing to be or forming a GSA, the GSA shall inform the DWR of its election
or formation and its intent to undertake sustainable groundwater management.
The GSA notification shall include the following information, as applicable:
a.
b.
c.
The service area boundaries, the basin the agency is managing, and the other GSAs
operating within the basin.
A copy of the resolution forming the new agency.
A copy of any new bylaws, ordinances, or new authorities adopted by the local agency.
October 13, 2015 Board Meeting
SGMA Update
Page 5 of 10
d.
e.
(6)
(7)
A list of interested parties and an explanation of how their interests will be considered
in the development and operation of the GSA and the development and implementation
of the agency’s sustainability plan.
A GIS shape file that shows its service area boundaries and the basin the GSA has
elected to manage.
Ninety (90) days following the posting of the GSA formation notice by DWR, the GSA shall be
presumed to be the exclusive GSA within the area of the basin the agency is managing as
described in the notice, provided that no other notice was submitted.
A GSA may withdraw from managing a basin by notifying the DWR in writing of its intent to
withdraw.
As noted earlier, in the event that there is an area within a basin that is not within the management area of a
GSA, the county within which that unmanaged area lies will be presumed to be the GSA for that area unless
the county notifies DWR that it will not be the GSA for that area. Again, if that should happen the State would
step in and implement the requirements of SGMA.
FORMATION OF GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN(S)
Relatively speaking, the decision and process to form the GSA for a basin, or basins, will be rather simple in
comparison to the formation of GSP’s. SGMA requires that a groundwater sustainability plan be developed
and implemented for each medium- or high-priority basin by the applicable GSA. Depending on the GSA
governance for a particular basin, a GSP may be:
(1)
(2)
(3)
A single plan covering the entire basin developed and implemented by one GSA;
A single plan covering the entire basin developed and implemented by multiple GSA’s; or
Multiple GSP’s implemented by multiple GSA’s and coordinated pursuant to a single
coordination agreement that covers the entire basin.
Notwithstanding how the GSP is configured for a particular basin, SGMA requires a specific process for
developing and submitting a GSP to DWR for review and approval. SGMA requires that prior to initiating the
development of a GSP, the GSA must make available to the public and DWR a written statement describing the
manner in which interested parties may participate in the development and implementation of the GSP. In
addition, SGMA requires that the GSA actively encourage the involvement of “diverse social, cultural, and
economic elements” of the population within the groundwater basin prior to and during the development and
implementation of the GSP. In this effort, the GSA may appoint and consult with an advisory committee
consisting of interested parties for the purposes of developing and implementing the GSP. Assuming the
County is involved in the GSA’s, staff does believe that it could be beneficial to create advisory committees for
the Shasta Valley and Butte Valley basins and utilize their services, in addition to the existing Scott Valley
Groundwater Advisory Committee, in developing the applicable GSP’s.
SGMA requires that DWR adopt regulations for evaluating a GSP by June 1, 2016 and that by January 1, 2017 it
is required to publish on its web site best management practices for the sustainable management of
October 13, 2015 Board Meeting
SGMA Update
Page 6 of 10
groundwater. While this information will be helpful in developing GSP’s, SGMA requires that at a minimum
the following information be included in any GSP:
(1)
A description of the physical setting and characteristics of the aquifer system underlying the
basin that includes the following:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Historical data, to the extent available.
Groundwater levels, groundwater quality, subsidence, and groundwater-surface water
interaction.
A general discussion of historical and projected water demands and supplies.
A map that details the area of the basin and the boundaries of the groundwater
sustainability agencies that overlie the basin that have or are developing groundwater
sustainability plans.
A map identifying existing and potential recharge areas for the basin. The map or maps
shall identify the existing recharge areas that substantially contribute to the
replenishment of the groundwater basin. The map or maps shall be provided to the
appropriate local planning agencies after adoption of the groundwater sustainability
plan.
(2)
Measurable objectives, as well as interim milestones in increments of five years, to achieve
and/or maintain basin sustainability within 20 years of the implementation of the plan.
(3)
A description of how the plan helps meet each objective and how each objective is intended to
and/or maintain sustainability for the basin for long-term beneficial uses of groundwater.
(4)
The plan may, but is not required to, address undesirable results that occurred before, and
have not been corrected by, January 1, 2015. A GSA has discretion as to whether to set
measurable objectives and the timeframes for achieving any objectives for undesirable results
that occurred before, and have not been corrected by, January 1, 2015.
(5)
A planning and implementation horizon.
(6)
In addition, the following requirements, as applicable to the basin, are to be included:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
The monitoring and management of groundwater levels within the basin.
The monitoring and management of groundwater quality, groundwater quality
degradation, inelastic land surface subsidence, and changes in surface flow and surface
water quality that directly affect groundwater levels or quality or are caused by
groundwater extraction in the basin.
Mitigation of overdraft.
How recharge areas identified in the plan substantially contribute to the replenishment
of the basin.
October 13, 2015 Board Meeting
SGMA Update
Page 7 of 10
(e)
A description of surface water supply used or available for use for groundwater recharge
or in-lieu use.
(7)
A summary of the type of monitoring sites, type of measurements, and the frequency of
monitoring for each location monitoring groundwater levels, groundwater quality, subsidence,
streamflow, precipitation, evaporation, and tidal influence. The plan shall include a summary of
monitoring information such as well depth, screened intervals, and aquifer zones monitored,
and a summary of the type of well relied on for the information, including public, irrigation,
domestic, industrial, and monitoring wells.
(8)
Monitoring protocols that are designed to detect changes in groundwater levels, groundwater
quality, inelastic surface subsidence for basins for which subsidence has been identified as a
potential problem, and flow and quality of surface water that directly affect groundwater levels
or quality or are caused by groundwater extraction in the basin. The monitoring protocols shall
be designed to generate information that promotes efficient and effective groundwater
management.
(9)
A description of the consideration given to the applicable county and city general plans and a
description of the various adopted water resources-related plans and programs within the
basin and an assessment of how the groundwater sustainability plan may affect those plans.
(10) In addition to the above mentioned requirements, a GSP is also required to include, where
applicable, the following:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
Control of saline water intrusion.
Wellhead protection areas and recharge areas.
Migration of contaminated groundwater.
A well abandonment and well destruction program.
Replenishment of groundwater extractions.
Activities implementing, opportunities for, and removing impediments to, conjunctive
use or underground storage.
Well construction policies.
Measures addressing groundwater contamination cleanup, recharge, diversions to
storage, conservation, water recycling, conveyance, and extraction projects.
Efficient water management practices, as defined in Section 10902, for the delivery of
water and water conservation methods to improve the efficiency of water use.
Efforts to develop relationships with state and federal regulatory agencies.
Processes to review land use plans and efforts to coordinate with land use planning
agencies to assess activities that potentially create risks to groundwater quality or
quantity.
Impacts on groundwater dependent ecosystems.
October 13, 2015 Board Meeting
SGMA Update
Page 8 of 10
Once a draft GSP has been developed, SGMA requires that the GSA submit the GSP to DWR for review and
approval. As part of this process, DWR is required to post the GSP on its web site and provide a public review
period for 60 days and all comments submitted to DWR must be considered in their review. SGMA requires
that DWR evaluate the GSP within two years of its submission and then issue an assessment of the plan. DWR
may then approve the GSP or recommend corrective actions to address any deficiencies that they have
identified in the GSP. Once the GSP is approved, each year prior to April 1st a GSA must submit a report to
DWR that contains the following information:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Groundwater elevation data.
Annual aggregated data identifying groundwater extraction for the preceding water year.
Surface water supply used for or available for use for groundwater recharge or in-lieu use.
Total water use.
Change in groundwater storage.
SGMA then requires DWR to at least every five years review the GSP for consistency with SGMA and how the
GSP’s goal are being achieved. As a result of these five-year reviews, DWR is required to issue an assessment
which may include recommended corrective actions to address any deficiencies identified by DWR. So while a
GSA is required to submit its report on an annual basis, DWR only has to review the report every five years.
GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
SGMA allows a GSA to adopt rules, regulations, ordinances, and resolutions in order to implement a GSP.
These provisions may include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Procedures for investigating groundwater and surface water usage.
Registration of a groundwater extraction facilities (wells).
The installation of water-measuring devices on all groundwater extraction facilities.
The establishment of reporting requirements for each water user within a basin.
Impose limitations on the location of new wells.
Impose limitations on actual water usage.
It is important to point out that none of these measures are mandated. The implementation requirements
will be dependent upon the analysis of the groundwater water balance in a particular basin and what
measures are necessary to achieve sustainability. Based on this analysis, certain requirements will
nonetheless be required to ensure that the implementation objectives of a GSP are achieved and the
necessary data is obtained to allow the required annual reporting to be completed.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The bills implementing the SGMA did not provide for direct funding to implement its requirements. Rather,
SGMA allows a GSA to implement permit fees and fees on groundwater extraction to fund the costs of a
October 13, 2015 Board Meeting
SGMA Update
Page 9 of 10
groundwater sustainability program, including, but not limited to, preparation, adoption, and amendment of a
GSP, and investigations, inspections, compliance, enforcement, and program administration. SGMA specifies
that a fee shall not be imposed on a de minimis extractor (a person who extracts, for domestic purposes, two
acre-feet or less per year) unless this class of use has been regulated in the GSP.
As previously identified, there are many technical requirements which need to be addressed to develop and
implement a GSA and subsequent GSP. These requirements are even more daunting to small (population)
rural counties that do not have in place well developed and established water agencies or programs that many
of the more populous counties already have in place. Of the 21 entities that have already applied to form a
GSA, only 5 represent a city (2) or county (3). The remaining are an assortment of irrigation districts, water
agencies, a utility commission, or a reclamation district. In these efforts, it is common to have at least one
FTE staff dedicated to managing the formation of a GSA and subsequent GSP with total staff and technical
consultant costs approaching, and in certain cases, exceeding $200,000 a year. Once formed, annual costs can
approach and exceed $100,000 a year.
The actual costs of formation and implementation is highly dependent on the complexity of the GSA and GSP.
The County is fortunate that the TID is interested in assuming the GSA and GSP responsibilities for perhaps the
most complicated basin in terms of GSA governance; the Tulelake Basin which straddles two counties.
However, until the GSA formation outreach is concluded for the other three basins in the County, the
complexity, and resultant costs, for the GSA formation will not be known. With respect to the formation of
the GSP’s for the other three basins, there is a tremendous amount of data available for the Scott River Valley
basin which is likely to help reduce the cost of its GSP formation. At the same time, the existing interest and
ligation could also be a factor that would increase the costs.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
SGMA does contain a provision which allows a local agency to submit an alternative analysis to DWR which
would avoid the formation of a GSA and the development of a GSP. The following are the three possible
alternatives:
(1)
An existing groundwater plan or other law authorizing groundwater management.
(2)
Management pursuant to an adjudication action.
(3)
An analysis of basin conditions that demonstrates that the basin has operated within its
sustainable yield over a period of at least 10 years. The submission of an alternative described
by this paragraph shall include a report prepared by a registered professional engineer or
geologist who is licensed by the state and submitted under that engineer’s or geologist’s seal.
Upon review of the alternatives, it appears that the only possible alternative to avoid the formation of a GSA
and development of a GSP for each of the basins in the County is alternative #3. While the act provides for
these alternatives, given the lack of specificity for this analysis and the broad discretion that DWR has in its
review, staff believes that the possibility of gaining such an approval to be slim at best. In addition, should the
October 13, 2015 Board Meeting
SGMA Update
Page 10 of 10
Board wish to pursue this option, this would require the expenditure of considerable resources over the next
year to even determine if any of the basins in the County would qualify for this alternative. If through the
development of a GSP such conditions do exist in any basin, then staff anticipates that the GSP’s
implementation provisions would be fairly simplistic and not onerous to implement. The Board may wish to
provide direction to staff on whether additional exploration on this possibility should be conducted.
CONCLUSION
At this time, it is necessary for the County to conduct the public outreach for the GSA formation process. Staff
anticipates that this effort will occur over the next six to nine months. Once concluded, staff will have a better
sense of the complexity of GSA formation for the three basins where an entity has not so far expressed an
interest in assuming the GSA responsibilities. This effort is anticipated to be done with existing staff. In
addition, during this time staff will also be attempting to better define the anticipated staffing needs and costs
associated with GSA formation, GSP development, and long-term GSP implementation. Upon conclusion of
this effort, staff will return to the Board with a better understanding of the potential issues and costs. At that
point in time, the Board will have the ability to consider the various issues and determine the appropriate
direction with respect to SGMA, GSA formation, and GSP development.
As previously mentioned, a critical time sensitive issue is to resolve how the report for the adjudicate area in
the Scott River Valley Stream system is going to be completed. Staff will be working on this issue over the next
several months and may return to the Board if resource issues are identified.
SUGGESTED MOTION
No motion is necessary at this time. However, staff encourages the Board to provide any initial comments or
direction on the implementation of the SGMA in the County.