Inyo Supervisors leaning toward Owens Valley Basin-wide agency

By Deb Murphy

Faced with the prospect of staggering fees levied by the California Water Resources Control Board if that agency steps in to develop groundwater sustainability in the Owens Valley Groundwater Basin, the Inyo Board of Supervisors gave Water Department head Bob Harrington a green light to begin public outreach and discussions toward a county-headed Groundwater Sustainability Agency.

The outreach/discussions do not preclude Tri Valley Groundwater Management District from forming a GSA for Mono County’s portion of the basin in Chalfant, Hammil and Benton valleys. To date, Tri Valley hasn’t decided the direction it will take.

Inyo’s GSA can also oversee that part of the Owens Valley basin that lies under Swall Meadows in Mono County.

Harrington gave the Board and a full house at Tuesday’s meeting a taste of proposed state-levied fees: The City of Bishop would be looking at $72,300 in fees for the roughly 1,800 acre-feet pumped per year; farmers growing alfalfa on 160 acres with 5 acre-feet per acre would pay $32,100.

Individual domestic wells will not be impacted by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, though they have to endure “de minimus” status defined as “too trivial or minor to merit consideration.”

GSAs have both power and flexibility. According to Harrington, GSAs can set fees and pumping limits, require monitoring, define minimums for de minimus wells as part of the plan. There is flexibility in how stakeholders have input – either as a voting board member or a non-voting participant. The range of possible public entities able to form a GSA includes water agencies, community service districts, cities with counties the default agency. In Inyo, the potential cost of managing an agency eliminates most of those possibles. According to Supervisor Matt Kingsley, the Indian Wells basin GSA, of which Inyo is a part, estimated it would take $500,000 to run the agency.

Harrington told the Board grant funding will be available to develop a GSP, but probably not for actually operating the agency itself.

While the SGMA was passed in 2014, the state is still coming out with details. Harrington said the department had recently received a 60-page list of what has to be included in the GSPs.

Another Damocles sword hanging over Inyo is the timeline for agencies to incorporate that 60-page list. Agencies have to notify the state of the intent to form a GSA and submit required materials by June 30, 2017. But that date should be backed off by 90 days, the timeline for resolving any overlapping boundary disputes with other notifying agencies.

Once a GSA is official, it has until June 30, 2020, or 2022 in the case of the Ovens Valley basin, a medium priority basin, to submit its plan that guarantees sustainability by 2042.

Harrington’s recommended timeline would begin immediately starting with meetings with other local agency staffs and identifying interested parties and beneficial users in the basin. The next step would be a series of public outreach meetings. By February, Harrington intends to define how user interests will be considered, have agreements and boundary maps developed as well as individual board approvals. By late winter of 2017, the County would hold a public hearing and submit notification materials to the DWR.

So what about the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s role? Geographically, the department manages roughly half of the entire Owens Valley basin.

SGMA exempts adjudicated districts, those whose water rights have been handed down by court order. The portion of the Owens Valley basin under land owned by LADWP is regulated by the Long Term Water Agreement but isn’t technically adjudicated. However, the County and the City lobbied Sacramento to exempt that portion of the basin from SGMA.

Harrington has maintained the agreement sets the bar higher than SGMA. The state legislation’s goals focus on chronic lowering of groundwater levels, significant reductions in groundwater storage and degradation of water quality. The agreement addresses negative environmental impacts of groundwater pumping in the valley.

Valley water-watchers see this relationship between the agreement and SGMA as a win-win. The agreement requires mitigation for negative impacts but reversing those impacts has been problematic.

According to Harrington, LADWP will still be required to submit reports to the DWR to assure it is in compliance with the agreement. Disputes between the County and LADWP over compliance usually results in a drawn-out arbitration process.

 

, , , , ,

One Response to Inyo Supervisors leaning toward Owens Valley Basin-wide agency

  1. Philip Anaya October 7, 2016 at 8:31 am #

    Our current Inyo County Board of Supervisors are certainly the best when it comes to environmental concerns in the Eastern Sierra. With the Board, Bob Harrington and the Inyo County Water Department beginning the process in the Owens Basin with the new SGMA law, it looks as though there is great hope in the Owens Valley. With LADWP as a partner in that process hope for sustainability could become a certainty . With that platitude in place and a previous incomplete hopeful comment made in the Sierra Wave by myself I would add the following regarding the LADWP and SGMA.

    Although required in the adjudicated portion of the Basin to file annual reports with the California Department of Water Resources there is no current DWR mechanism to administratively regulate the SGMA 2042 sustainability requirement with respect to the LTWA. There is also no mechanism for DWR to receive or consider alternative information and data to the annual report filed by a watermaster, currently if not mistaken, Mr. Said of the LADWP. DWR has said that the annual filing is currently meant to be helpful to the DWR understanding of the entire Basin. This could be considered akin to the fox in the hen house and with the development of the SGMA law and process there needs to be some cooperative effort made by the LTWA parties to achieve improvement . An example of improvements to the SGMA is the recently passed legislation regarding Adjudications,
    http://groundwater.ca.gov/adjudication.cfm
    The SGMA laws have to consider and respect existing adjudications such as the LTWA.
    Current SGMA requirement for sustainability by 2042 in medium and high critically endangered basins is a requirement that is not yet settled in DWR regulations for adjudicated portions of a Basin. However in new adjudications in endangered Basins the courts will have to consider SGMA conformity in their decisions.
    All this can be settled in numerous ways in the courts or in further legislation, the best being a considered voluntary stipulated agreement for the courts between LADWP and Inyo County that accepts the SGMA sustainability requirement by 2042 as a part of the LTWA. Sustainability is a fundamental issue of SGMA of it’s purpose and intent and is also a issue for the future of water in California. LADWP and Inyo County can demonstrate and give notice to the DWR that the LTWA is the appropriate process for sustainability in the adjudicated portions of the Owens Basin and additionally lay the groundwork for the cooperative management between the adjudicated and non adjudicated portions of the Owens Basin to meet the 2042 SGMA sustainability requirement . The future, the generations to come need and deserve our very best ideas and efforts and there is no way to ever wear out the idea of sustainability in everything we do.

     

Leave a Reply



KSRW · 1280 N. Main St. Suite J · Bishop, CA 93514 · 760-873-5329
Positive Projections Web Design