Agenda packet — Los Banos City Council, July 6, 2022 (part 3 of 7)

4.3.4 Sustainable Yield
Under SGMA, sustainable yield is defined as “the maximum quantity of water, calculated over a base period representative of long-term conditions in the basin and including any temporary surplus, that can be withdrawn annually from a groundwater supply without causing an undesirable result.” (CWC 10721(w)). Sustainable yield estimates for the Upper Aquifer and Lower Aquifer have been developed in a coordinated fashion for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin by the Delta-Mendota Technical Working Group and approved by the Delta-Mendota Coordination Committee.

Upper Aquifer Sustainable Yield Estimate
Methodologies for calculating Upper Aquifer sustainable yield were discussed by both the Delta-Mendota Coordination Committee and an ad-hoc Technical Working Group of the Coordination Committee.

During a workshop dedicated to this effort, several basic concepts and principles were discussed to calculate the Upper Aquifer sustainable yield estimate. Consideration was given to several potential options with increasing detail, including a combination of the following: total Subbasin Upper Aquifer pumping volumes, total Subbasin Upper Aquifer change in storage, and Subbasin Upper Aquifer subsurface inflows and outflows. Inflow from certain neighboring subbasins, based on groundwater flow direction, as well as subsurface inflow from the Coast Range at existing gradients (as part of the inflow to the Northern & Central Delta-Mendota Region GSP area) was considered. Outflow to neighboring subbasins at existing gradients was also considered in certain applicable areas along the Delta-Mendota Subbasin boundary based on groundwater flow characteristics.

An overarching goal of this Subbasin is to maintain a balanced water budget by managing groundwater extractions (pumping). Therefore, the Upper Aquifer sustainable yield was estimated using the change in storage from the historic water budget (WY2003-2012). Based on these considerations, the following formula was selected for estimating Upper Aquifer sustainable yield utilizing the consolidated historic water budget components:

Upper Aquifer Sustainable Yield = (Pumping + Change in Storage) + (Subsurface Outflow – Subsurface Inflow)
Given existing Subbasin data gaps and uncertainties associated with the data used to develop the water budgets and this estimate, it was also decided that a +/- 10% factor should be applied to determine a range for the Upper Aquifer sustainable yield value. The +/- 10% factor is applied based on the percentage difference between the values from change in storage Subbasin contour mapping for the historic water budget period and the reported changes in storage from the Subbasin consolidated historic water budgets (WY2003-2012) for the Upper Aquifer.

The formula for determining Upper Aquifer sustainable yield was applied to the following compiled Delta-Mendota Subbasin projected water budgets (WY2014-2070):
 Projected Baseline values with Climate Change Factors  Projected Baseline values with Climate Change Factors and Projects and Management Actions
This analysis resulted in an Upper Aquifer Sustainable Yield estimate ranging from 325,000 acre-feet to of 480,000403,000 acre-feet, demonstrating the Subbasin’s Upper Aquifer sustainable yield estimated without implementing any projects and management actions (low end of range) and how the Subbasin’s 486
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-164
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
Upper Aquifer sustainable yield will be impacted by implementing planned projects and management actions (high end of range).
487
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-165
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
The Upper Aquifer sustainable yield values, derived from calculations using the best available but limited data, are is considered to be a preliminary estimations only and will be updated to an anticipated higher level of accuracy in future GSP updates. The intention of the Delta-Mendota Subbasin GSAs, following GSP submission in 2020, is to increase subbasin-wide data collection efforts. Improved data, modeling results, and understanding of subsurface flows will allow the GSAs and each GSP Group to improve estimated sustainable yield values for future GSP updates. The GSP Groups are in the process of developing GSP implementation guidelines that will address future data collection efforts and other GSP implementation activities.

The Upper Aquifer sustainable yield calculated range reflects the principle that the GSAs within the Delta-Mendota Subbasin reserve the right to claim or retain some portion of subbasin outflow generated by the lowering of groundwater levels from neighboring subbasins and the equitable portion of sources of recharge shared between two subbasins, by physical or non-physical means, in the future if the DeltaMendota Subbasin GSAs determine that doing so will improve Subbasin sustainability or will prevent undesirable results due to the chronic lowering of groundwater levels. Furthermore, intra-basin coordination during GSP development, followed by continuing inter-basin coordination discussions and data collection after GSP adoption, will allow the GSAs to further refine these determinations.

Lower Aquifer Sustainable Yield Estimate
Currently, within the Delta-Mendota Subbasin, the distribution of known Lower Aquifer water level data and extraction volume data are not sufficient to allow for an accurate calculation of Lower Aquifer sustainable yield utilizing the same methodology as for the Upper Aquifer. Following discussions by both the Coordination Committee and the ad-hoc Technical Working Group of the Coordination Committee, a consensus was reached to establish a Lower Aquifer sustainable yield estimate for the Subbasin by evaluating studies previously conducted in adjoining subbasinsbased on a projection of existing subsidence rates as measured along the DMC with the minimum threshold established for inelastic land subsidence.

In the original 2020 submittal, the calculation for the Lower Aquifer sustainable yield was based on the following. The Westlands Water District GSA recently conducted a study using groundwater modeling, in conjunction with the Westside GSP development, to estimate sustainable yield for the Westside Subbasin.

Based on an analysis of available data and an initial assumption of Lower Aquifer sustainable yield equivalent to approximately 0.35 acre-feet per acre within the Westside Subbasin (Westlands Water District GSA, Groundwater Management Strategy Concepts presentation to the WWD Board on October 16, 2018), the GSA estimates a sustainable yield of 230,000 to 250,000 acre-feet, with historic conditions suggesting a range from 250,000 to 300,000 acre-feet (Westlands Water District GSA, Westside Subbasin’s Groundwater Model Forecast and Augmentation Strategies presentation to the WWD Board on April 3, 2019). Using Westlands Water District GSA’s analysis, the Delta-Mendota Coordination Committee recommended a slightly more conservative sustainable yield value of one-third (0.33) an acrefoot per acre for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin. Using this more conservative value, the estimated Lower Aquifer sustainable yield is approximately 250,000 acre-feet per year over the approximately 750,000- acre subbasin. It should be noted that sustainable management of the Lower Aquifer is governed by significant and unreasonable subsidence rather than sustainable yield. The distribution of sustainable yield is not uniform throughout the Subbasin, and it will be the responsibility of each GSA in the Subbasin to manage Lower Aquifer pumping to prevent significant and unreasonable subsidence.

Acknowledging that land subsidence is occurring at localized areas in the Subbasin, the DMCC refined the Lower Aquifer sustainable yield calculation, adjusting the value from 250,000 AF to 101,000 AF, based on observed extractions from the Lower Aquifer during WY2015. This refinement is consistent 488
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-166
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
with the common definitions established across the Subbasin for all SMCs. It is important to note that subsidence will be the primary factor influencing the allowable volume of groundwater that can be extracted from the Lower Aquifer without incurring significant and unreasonable impacts on beneficial uses and users. As such, this number will be updated as data gaps are filled, particularly using the Proposition (Prop) 68 grant-funded well inventory and subsidence study and the results of the Airborne Electromagnetic (AEM) survey recently completed by DWR. Furthermore, the Subbasin will investigate the feasibility to recharge the Lower Aquifer as a means of reducing subsidence and managing future Lower Aquifer sustainable yield.

Since DWR classified the Delta-Mendota Subbasin as a critically-overdraft subbasin due to subsidence issues, the more conservative acre-foot per acre value for a Lower Aquifer sustainable yield estimation is considered valid as a starting point for the Subbasin. Lower Aquifer groundwater extractions may be managed to a stricter criterion in some areas in order to reduce or eliminate the potential for future inelastic land subsidence on critical infrastructure.

489
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-167
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
The Lower Aquifer sustainable yield estimate will be refined in the future based on data collected and compiled for the Subbasin. This current sustainable yield approximation highlights the importance of an accepted Subbasin-level subsidence monitoring program concurrent with improved estimates of subCorcoran Clay groundwater extractions. 490
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-168
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022

5. SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT CRITERIA
As required by Subarticle 3. Sustainable Management Criteria of the GSP regulations, the GSPs must include a sustainability goal and definitions of undesirable results, in addition to defining what is considered to be significant and unreasonable and establishing minimum thresholds, measurable objectives and 5-year interim goals. Given the variability of conditions within the Delta-Mendota Subbasin, a subbasin-wide sustainability goal and definitions of undesirable results were developed at the subbasin-level, while the definitions of significant and unreasonable, minimum thresholds, measurable objectives and 5-year interim goals were established at the GSP Plan area-level.

This section describes the coordinated sustainability goal and definition of undesirable results at a subbasin-level and the sustainable management criteria at a GSP-level. Sustainable management criteria developed by each GSP Group were further compared and coordinated between neighboring GSP Groups to avoid conflicts, particularly in setting numeric minimum thresholds, measurable objectives, and interim milestones at boundary locations. The sustainable management criteria for each GSP Group for each applicable sustainability indicator are presented herein.

5.1 Coordinated Assumptions and Data
All common coordinated assumptions and data agreed upon and implemented by each GSP Group in developing their respective sustainable management criteria for each applicable sustainability indicator are presented in Technical Memoranda 4 (Assumptions for Delta-Mendota Subbasin Management Areas, Sustainability Indicators, and GSP Documentation), which is included in Appendix B of this Common Chapter.

During preparation of the January 2020 GSP, Once each GSP Group drafted their respective sustainable management criteria for each applicable sustainability indicator and then met , the Delta-Mendota Subbasin Technical Working Group requested that all GSP Groups meet with their neighboring GSP Groups to coordinate minimum thresholds and measurable objectives to avoid conflicts and ensure each GSP Group would not negatively impact their neighboring GSP Groups from achieving sustainability.

These coordination meetings took place between April and August of 2019.In the CIL received on January 21, 2022, DWR stated that “The GSPs have not established common definitions of undesirable results in the Subbasin.” nor did they comply with the Emergency GSP Regulations in establishing common definitions and methodologies for SMC. In response, subsequent to receipt of the CIL, the Technical Working Group and Coordination Committee met to develop, at a subbasin level, singular coordinated definitions and methods for establishing SMC for each applicable sustainability indicator.

5.2 Coordinated Sustainability Goal and Undesirable Results The sustainability goal for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin was established to succinctly state the objectives and desired conditions of the Subbasin that culminates in the absence of undesirable results by 2040. The sustainability goal for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin is as follows and was approved by the Delta-Mendota Subbasin Coordination Committee during the June 10, 2019 meeting:

The Delta-Mendota Subbasin will manage groundwater resources for the benefit of all users of groundwater in a manner that allows for operational flexibility, ensures resource availability under drought conditions, and does not negatively impact surface water diversion and conveyance and delivery capabilities. This goal will be achieved through the implementation of the proposed projects and management actions to reach identified measurable objectives and milestones through the 491
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-169
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
implementation of the GSP(s), and through continued coordination with neighboring subbasins to ensure the absence of undesirable results by 2040.

The following definitions of “undesirable results” were agreed upon during the 20222 revision of this Common Chapter for the following applicable sustainability indicators:
 Chronic lowering of groundwater levelslevels - Chronic changes in groundwater levels that diminish access to groundwater, causing significant and unreasonable impacts to beneficial uses and users of groundwaterSignificant and unreasonable chronic change in in water levels, as defined by each GSP Group, that has an impact on the beneficial users of groundwater in the Subbasin through either intra- and/or inter-basin actions.  Reduction in groundwater storagestorage - A chronic decrease in groundwater storage that causes a significant and unreasonable impact to the beneficial uses and users of groundwaterSignificant and unreasonable chronic decrease in groundwater storage, as defined by each GSP Group, that has an impact on the beneficial users of groundwater in the Subbasin through either intra- and/or inter-basin actions.  Degraded water qualityquality - Degradation of groundwater quality as a result of groundwater management activities that causes significant and unreasonable impacts to beneficial uses and users of groundwaterSignificant and unreasonable degradation of groundwater quality, as defined by each GSP Group, that has an impact on the beneficial users of groundwater in the Subbasin through either intra- and/or inter-basin actions and/or activities.
 Land subsidencesubsidence - Changes in ground surface elevation that cause damage to critical infrastructure, including significant and unreasonable reductions of conveyance capacity, impacts to natural resource areas, or conditions that threaten public health and safetyChanges in ground surface elevation that cause damage to critical infrastructure that would cause significant and unreasonable reductions of conveyance capacity, damage to personal property, impacts to natural resources or create conditions that threaten public health and safety.
 Depletions of interconnected surface waterwater - Depletions of interconnected surface water as a direct result of groundwater pumping that cause significant and unreasonable impacts on natural resources or downstream beneficial uses and usersDepletions of interconnected surface water, as defined by each GSP Group, that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on the beneficial uses of surface water.

5.3 GSP-Level Sustainable Management Criteria
In the original 2020 GSP submittals for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin, each For more information on the development of the sustainable management criteria and information used to support the established sustainable management criteria for the individual GSP Groups, refer to the individual GSPs. Each GSP Group defined what is was considered significant and unreasonable in their Plan Area for each applicable sustainability indicators, in addition to establishing minimum thresholds, measurable objectives and 5- year interim goals for their Plan Area, .
492
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-170
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
Each GSP Group developed their sustainable management criteria consistent with GSP Regulations Article 5. Plan Contents, Subarticle 3. Sustainable Management Criteria (§ 354.2 through 354.30).

DWR’s Draft Best Management Practices for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater Sustainable Management Criteria BMP (2017) document was also used when and where applicable at the discretion of each GSP Group.

Subsequent to this submittal, the Technical Working Group and Coordination Committee met to develop consistent definitions and methodologies for establishing numeric metrics for each applicable sustainability indicator. These revised SMC are discussed in the next section.

5.4 Delta-Mendota Subbasin Sustainable Management Criteria The sustainable management criteria for each sustainability indicator contains the following components:
the subbasin-wide definitions of an undesirable result, GSP-level definition and of significant and unreasonable, sustainability goals, 5-year interim goals, minimum thresholds (MTs), and measurable objectives (MOs), and five-year interim milestones (IMs). Separate tables show the sustainable management criteria for chronic lowering of groundwater levels (Table CC-14), reduction in groundwater storage (Table CC-15), degraded water quality, (Table CC-16), land subsidence, (Table CC-17), and depletions of interconnected surface water (Table CC-18) wwith details corresponding to the individual GSP Groupsmaps showing representative monitoring sites with corresponding numeric MTs and MOs, and a table summarizing the MTs and MOs by representative monitoring location. The established sustainable management criteria were developed through detailed analysis and consideration of conditions unique to each GSP Group, where more detail may be necessary to support the decisions made by each GSP Group. For greater detail regarding the development of the sustainable management criteria for each GSP Group, refer to the sustainable management criteria section or chapter contained in each individual GSP.

5.4.1 Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels
Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels is arguably the most fundamental Sustainability Indicator, as it directly and indirectly influences several other Sustainability Indicators, such as Reduction of Groundwater Storage, Land Subsidence, and Degraded Water Quality. The Subbasin GSAs are committed to maintaining groundwater levels above historic low conditions in order to avoid undesirable results to beneficial uses and users of groundwater and to prevent further decrease of groundwater levels due to groundwater management actions performed within the Subbasin.

The GSAs developed SMCs for Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels using readily available historic records of groundwater level data for 61 of the 75 Representative Monitoring Sites (RMS). The MTs and MOs were developed for each RMS using common data and coordinated assumptions, as detailed in Table CC-16, and are consistent with the requirement of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations (23 CCR) § 354.28(c) to consider trends in historic groundwater levels, water year type, projected water use in the Basin, and relationship with other sustainability indicators. The equivalent process was used in both the Upper Aquifer and Lower Aquifer within the Subbasin.

The MT is currently established as a fixed elevation at each RMS, equivalent to the historic seasonal low prior to the end of WY2016, based on available groundwater level data. The MO is to maintain water levels at or above the Water Year 2015 seasonal high at more than 50% of RMS in a GSP area. The GSAs will conduct a minimum of bi-annual groundwater level monitoring to track progress towards sustainability at the 75 RMS.
493
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-171
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
Per the definition of Undesirable Results for Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels, the exceedance of a MT at a single RMS is not indicative of an Undesirable Result; rather, the exceedance of MTs at 50% or more RMS within a GSP area is considered to cause significant and unreasonable impacts to locallyspecific beneficial uses and users of groundwater, namely the increased costs associated with modifying wells to access groundwater, securing alternative sources, or required mitigation of groundwater dependent ecosystems. To account for future year-to-year variations in hydrology, compliance will be assessed by comparing a four-year rolling average of groundwater level measurements to the fixed MT at each RMS within a GSP area.

In addition to the SMCs developed as part of this GSP, the GSAs will continue to coordinate to develop shorter-term (“acute”) groundwater level thresholds in the five-year GSP update that will be submitted in 2025. These thresholds will be set at levels that avoid short-term undesirable results, particularly for domestic water users, groundwater dependent ecosystems, and interconnected surface waters and subsidence when present. Each year, both the historic seasonal low MT value and the acute groundwater elevation thresholds will apply, whichever is more protective. 494
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-172
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
Table CC-14: Delta-Mendota Subbasin SMC for Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels 495
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-173
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
GSP Group Aliso Water District
Farmers
Water
District
Fresno
County
Grasslan
d
N
or
th
er
n
&
Ce
nt
ra
l
De
lta
-
M
en
do
ta
S
a
n
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
R
i
v
e
r
E
x
c
h
a
n
g
e
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
Definition of
Undesirable Results
Significant and unreasonable chronic change in in water levels, as defined by each GSP Group, that has an impact on the beneficial users of groundwater in the Subbasin through either intra- and/or inter-basin actions
496
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-174
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
Definition of
Significant and
Unreasonable
Aliso is not currently
experiencing significant and
unreasonable effects of
reduction in water levels or
aquifer storage in the Upper
Aquifer. Significant and
unreasonable effects would be
accelerated rates of subsidence
as productive layers in the
Upper Aquifer above the
Corcoran Clay are depleted,
especially in areas with deep
or composite wells.

Accelerated rates of
subsidence may occur If 30%
of the wells in the
Mmonitoring Zzone exceed
the min174escripimum
threshold value on a 4-year
consecutive average under
normal or average year
conditions.

Groundw
ater
elevation
s
dropping
below
historic
lows
(2015-
2016)
Groundw
ater
elevation
s
dropping
below
historic
lows
(2015-
2016)
Lowering
of
groundwa
ter levels
would
lead to
increased
costs
associated
with
higher
total lift,
lowering
pumps,
need to
drill
deeper
wells or
costs
securing
alternative
water
sources.

Impacts to
habitat
would
require
mitigation
,
including
alternative
water
supplies
and
habitat
restoratio
n.

Gr
ou
nd
wa
ter
ele
va
tio
ns
dr
op
pi
ng
be
lo
w
th
e
Mi
ni
m
u
m
Th
res
ho
ld
cri
ter
ia
at
40 %
of
re
pr
es
en
tat
iv
e
m
on
ito
rin
g
lo
cat
io
ns
co
nc
urr
en
T
h
e
S
a
n
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
R
i
v
e
r
E
x
c
h
a
n
g
e
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
(
S
J
R
E
C
)
G
S
P
G
r
o
u
p
h
a
497
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-175
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
tly
ov
er
a
gi
ve
n
wa
ter
ye
ar
res
ult
in
g
in
sh
all
o
w
do
m
est
ic
we
lls
go
in
g
dr
y
in
th
e
sa
m
e
su
br
eg
io
n
zo
ne
as
th
e
re
pr
es
en
tat
iv
e
s
a
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
n
t
h
e
a
q
u
i
f
e
r
a
n
d
i
s
u
n
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
c
a
u
s
e
S
i
g
n
i
f
498
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-176
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
m
on
ito
rin
g
po
int
s
in
vi
ol
ati
on
,
hi
gh
er
pu
m
pi
ng
co
sts
,
an
d/
or
th
e
ne
ed
to
m
od
ify
we
lls
to
ob
tai
n
gr
ou
nd
wa
ter
.
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
/
o
r
U
n
r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
l
o
w
e
r
i
n
g
o
f
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
l
e
v
e
l
s
.

T
r
i
499
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-177
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
g
g
e
r
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
t
o
r
e
c
o
v
e
r
a
q
u
i
f
e
r
w
a
t
e
r
l
e
v
e
l
s
b
e
f
500
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-178
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
o
r
e
n
e
a
r
i
n
g
a
n
U
n
d
e
s
i
r
a
b
l
e
R
e
s
u
l
t
.

C
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
,
a
n
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
i
o
501
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-179
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
n
o
f
2 5
%
b
e
l
o
w
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
l
o
w
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
e
a
i
s
u
s
e
d
t
o
i
n
d
502
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-180
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
i
c
a
t
e
a
n
U
n
d
e
s
i
r
a
b
l
e
R
e
s
u
l
t
w
h
i
c
h
w
i
l
l
b
e
r
e
f
i
n
e
d
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
a
n
n
u
a
503
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-181
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
l
u
p
d
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
o
t
h
e
r
G
S
P
G
r
o
u
p
s
.
504
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-182
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
Sustainability Goal
for Sustainability
Criterion
To maintain the historic
hydrological cycle and expand
access to surface water during
flood years for replenishment
of the Upper Aquifer.

Maintain
seasonal
highs
and
lows.

Prevent
trend of
decreasin
g
groundw
ater
levels.

Maintain
seasonal
highs
and
lows.

Prevent
trend of
decreasin
g
groundw
ater
levels.

Maintain
water
levels and
storage
sufficient
to meet
operationa
l storage
in each
the Upper
Aquifer
and
Lower
Aquifer.

M
ai
nt
ai
n
wa
ter
le
ve
ls
su
ffi
cie
nt
to
m
eet
op
er
ati
on
al
sto
ra
ge
as
we
ll
as
3-
ye
ar
dr
ou
gh
t
bu
ffe
r
sto
ra
ge.

M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
w
a
t
e
r
l
e
v
e
l
s
t
o
m
e
e
t
d
e
m
a
n
d
o
f
t
h
e
b
e
n
e
f
i
c
i
a
l
505
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-183
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
u
s
e
r
s
.
506
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-184
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
5-Year Interim
Goals
Year 5: Maintain groundwater
elevations comparable to
historic hydrologic highs and
lows
Year 10: Maintain
groundwater elevations
comparable to historic
hydrologic highs and lows
Year 15: Maintain
groundwater elevations
comparable to historic
hydrologic highs and lows
Year 5:
<
Minimu
m
Threshol
d
Year 10:
<
Minimu
m
Threshol
d
Year 15:
<
Minimu
m
Threshol
d
Year 5:
<
Minimu
m
Threshol
d
Year 10:
<
Minimu
m
Threshol
d
Year 15:
<
Minimu
m
Threshol
d
Year 5:

WSE >
Measurabl
e
Objective
Year 10:

WSE >
Measurabl
e
Objective
Year 15:

WSE >
Measurabl
e
Objective
Ye
ar
5:

M
ai
nt
ai
n
gr
ou
nd
wa
ter
ele
va
tio
ns
co
m
pa
ra
bl
e
to
20 12
thr
ou
gh
20 17
hy
dr
ol
og
ic
hi
gh
s
an
d
lo
ws
Ye
ar
10 :

M
ai
nt
ai
n
gr
ou
Y
e
a
r
5 :

M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
w
a
t
e
r
l
e
v
e
l
s
,
S
J
R
E
C
G
S
P
G
r
o
u
p
i
s
s
u
s
t
a
i
507
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-185
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
nd
wa
ter
ele
va
tio
ns
co
m
pa
ra
bl
e
to
20 12
thr
ou
gh
20 17
hy
dr
ol
og
ic
hi
gh
s
an
d
lo
ws
Ye
ar
15 :

M
ai
nt
ai
n
gr
ou
nd
wa
ter
ele
va
tio
ns
co
m
pa
n
a
b
l
e
.

Y
e
a
r
1 0
:

M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
w
a
t
e
r
l
e
v
e
l
s
,
S
J
R
E
C
G
S
P
G
r
o
u
p
i
508
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-186
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
ra
bl
e
to
20 12
thr
ou
gh
20 17
hy
dr
ol
og
ic
hi
gh
s
an
d
lo
ws
s
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
.

Y
e
a
r
1 5
:

M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
w
a
t
e
r
l
e
v
e
l
s
,
S
J
R
E
C
G
S
509
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-187
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
P
G
r
o
u
p
i
s
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
.
510
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-188
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
Minimum
Threshold
The minimum threshold is to
provide a 100-foot of buffer
from the top of the Corcoran
Clay to the top of the water
table
Upper
Aquifer
Season
Low >
126 feet
below
ground
surface
(ft bgs)
Season
High >
57 ft bgs
Lower
Aquifer
Season
Low
>213 ft
bgs
Season
High >
185 ft
bgs
Upper
Aquifer
Season
Low >
63 feet
below
ground
surface
(ft bgs)
Season
High >
55 ft bgs
Lower
Aquifer
Season
Low
>213 ft
bgs
Season
High >
185 ft
bgs
Upper
Aquifer:
20%
lowered
water
elevation
from
recent
historic
low (set at
each
monitorin
g site).

Lower
Aquifer:

Lower
aquifer
representa
tive
monitorin
g wells
have been
identified
for the
monitorin
g
network.

However,
no historic
data
exists.

The
Grassland
Plan Area
participan
ts will
monitor
the site
and with
the
gathered
data,
intend to
establish
meaningf
ul interim
goals,
measurabl
e
objectives
, and
minimum
thresholds
U
pp
er
A
qu
ife
r:

H
yd
rol
og
ic
lo
w
Lo
we
r
A
qu
ife
r:
95 %
of
his
tor
ic
lo
w
T
h
e
S
J
R
E
C
G
S
P
G
r
o
u
p
i
s
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
.

T
h
e
S
J
R
E
C
G
S
P
G
r
o
u
p
i
s
u
n
l
i
k
e
511
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-189
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
in future
GSP
Updates.
l
y
t
o
c
a
u
s
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
o
v
e
r
d
r
a
f
t
.

A
s
a
r
e
s
u
l
t
o
f
t
h
i
s
a
n
d
h
i
s
t
o
r
512
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-190
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
i
c
a
l
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
t
r
i
g
g
e
r
l
e
v
e
l
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
513
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-191
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
s
h
e
d
f
o
r
a
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
s
i
t
e
i
n
e
a
c
h
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
e
a
.

I
f
w
a
t
e
r
514
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-192
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
l
e
v
e
l
s
d
r
o
p
b
e
l
o
w
t
h
e
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
t
r
i
g
g
e
r
l
e
v
e
l
,
n
o
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
o
515
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-193
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
f
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
a
r
e
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
.

T
h
i
s
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
h
a
s
516
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-194
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
b
e
e
n
i
n
p
l
a
c
e
f
o
r
p
a
r
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n
f
o
r
y
e
a
r
s
a
n
d
h
a
s
p
r
o
v
e
n
e
f
517
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-195
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
t
o
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
a
h
e
a
l
t
h
y
a
q
u
i
f
e
r
.

518
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-196
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
Measurable
Objective
The measurable objective is
site specific and tied to water
levels in long term
hydrographs. The average rate
in decline in each well was
projected out until 2040 when
water levels should begin to
stabilize over the long term.

Maintain
seasonal
highs
and lows
above
minimu
m
thresho
196escri
pt196lds.

Upper
Aquifer:

Recent
historic
low (set at
each
monitorin
g site
Lower
Aquifer:

Lower
aquifer
representa
tive
monitorin
g wells
have been
identified
for the
monitorin
g
network.

However,
no historic
data
exists.

Bo
th
A
qu
ife
rs:

Se
as
on
al
his
tor
ic
hi
gh
av
er
ag
e,
Sp
rin
g
20 12
or
Sp
rin
g
20 17
,
w
hi
ch
ev
er
ele
va
tio
n
is
lo
we
st
or
w
he
re
da
ta
ex
ist
s.

O
p
e
r
a
t
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
l
e
v
e
l
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
r
o
o
t
z
o
n
e
a
n
d
519
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-197
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
t
h
e
M
i
n
i
m
u
m
T
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
.

Table CC-16: Delta-Mendota Subbasin SMC
for Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels
Definition of
Undesirable Results
Chronic changes in groundwater levels that diminish access to groundwater, causing significant and unreasonable impacts to beneficial uses and users of groundwater.

Definition of
Significant and
Unreasonable
Significant and unreasonable impacts to beneficial uses and users of groundwater are substantially increased costs associated with higher total pumping lift, lowering pumps, drilling deeper wells, or otherwise modifying wells to access groundwater, securing alternative water sources, or required mitigation of groundwater dependent ecosystems.

Significant and unreasonable is quantitatively defined as exceeding the MT at more than 50% of representative monitoring sites by aquifer in a GSP area.

Sustainability Goal Maintain groundwater levels that are comparable to existing conditions (historic low conditions as of Water Year 2016) in order to continue meeting the demand of beneficial uses and users of groundwater and prevent a trend of decreasing groundwater levels.

The Delta-Mendota Subbasin will continue successful and ongoing coordination with neighboring Subbasins to address chronic lowering of groundwater levels caused by pumping outside of the Subbasin.

Minimum Threshold The groundwater elevation indicating a chronic lowering of groundwater levels that may lead to undesirable results is an elevation that is lower than the historical seasonal low. The historic seasonal low is a fixed elevation at each site, based on available groundwater level data prior to the end of Water Year 2016. To account for future year-to-year variations in hydrology, compliance with the fixed historic seasonal low threshold will be compared with a 4-year rolling average of annual groundwater level measurements.

Shorter-term (“acute”) groundwater elevation thresholds will also be established at each representative monitoring site by 2025 using a 520
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-198
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
coordinated methodology. Acute thresholds will be established at levels that are intended to avoid short-term undesirable results, particularly for domestic water wells, groundwater dependent ecosystems, and interconnected surface waters where present in the Upper Aquifer, and for subsidence in the Lower Aquifer. Each year, both the historic seasonal low and the acute groundwater elevation thresholds will apply, whichever is more protective. Groundwater levels are measured as water surface elevation (WSE). Each GSP area includes multiple representative monitoring sites (RMS) to which the minimum threshold applies. See Table CC-17 for numeric MTs.

For any RMS without data prior to Water Year 2016, MTs and acute thresholds will be established using the aforementioned methodologies and the data resulting from the first five years of monitoring following Water Year 2016 or following construction of the well.

Measurable Objective Maintain seasonal high groundwater levels at an elevation that is at or above the Water Year 2015 seasonal high at more than 50% of representative monitoring sites in a GSP area. The Water Year 2015 seasonal high is a fixed elevation at each site, based on available groundwater level data. If data are unavailable for Water Year 2015 at a representative monitoring site, either a Water Year 2014 or Water Year 2016 Seasonal High will be used. To account for future year-to-year variations in hydrology, compliance with the fixed seasonal high threshold will be compared with a 4-year rolling average of annual groundwater level measurements. Groundwater levels are measured as water surface elevation (WSE). Each GSP area includes multiple representative monitoring sites (RMS) to which the measurable objective applies. See Table CC-17 for numeric MOs.

For any RMS without data prior to Water Year 2016, Measurable Objectives will be established using the aforementioned methodology and the data resulting from the first five years of monitoring following Water Year 2016 or following the construction of the well. 5-Year Interim
Milestones Year 5: Gather data and complete the establishment of seasonal low and seasonal high elevations at representative monitoring sites in the Lower Aquifer for the Grassland GSP area. Develop a coordinated methodology and complete the establishment of acute groundwater elevation thresholds. Identify chronic lowering of groundwater levels caused by pumping outside the Subbasin.

Year 10: Maintain groundwater levels at MOs. Where chronic lowering of groundwater levels is caused by pumping outside of the Subbasin, seek remedies in coordination with the Department of Water Resources and neighboring GSAs.

Year 15: Maintain groundwater levels at MOs. Where chronic lowering of groundwater levels is caused by pumping outside of the Subbasin, seek remedies in coordination with the Department of Water Resources and neighboring GSAs.
521
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-199
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
The numeric MTs and MOs by RMS are shown below in Figure CC-65 for the Upper Aquifer and Figure CC-66 for the Lower Aquifer, with the numeric SMC tabulated in Table CC-17.

Table CC-17: Numeric SMC for the Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels DMS ID GSP Region Principal Aquifer
Minimum
Threshold (ft
above MSL,
NAVD88)
Measurable
Objective (ft
above MSL,
NAVD88)
09‐001 Aliso Water District Upper 40.5 114.3
09‐002 Aliso Water District Upper (Composite) ‐4.0 17.1 09‐003 Aliso Water District Upper 37.4 52.9
09‐004 Aliso Water District Upper 37.7 51.9
10‐001 Farmers Water District Upper 34.0 102.7
12‐001 Fresno County Upper 98.2 103.2
13‐001 Fresno County Upper 109.4 120.5
13‐003 Fresno County Upper 48.6 116.1
13‐004 Fresno County Lower ‐59.0 ‐27.0
11‐001 Grassland Lower TBD TBD
11‐002 Grassland Lower TBD TBD
11‐003 Grassland Lower TBD TBD
11‐004 Grassland Lower TBD TBD
11‐005 Grassland Lower TBD TBD
11‐006 Grassland Lower TBD TBD
11‐007 Grassland Upper 79.9 91.1
11‐008 Grassland Upper 82.3 93.2
11‐009 Grassland Upper 63.4 77.3
11‐013 Grassland Upper 76.8 80.4
11‐014 Grassland Upper 68.1 80.7
11‐015 Grassland Upper 72.8 75.7
11‐016 Grassland Upper 83.1 92.8
11‐017 Grassland Upper 90.2 116.6
11‐019 Grassland Upper 27.0 27.0
19‐003 Grassland Upper 90.5 91.8
01‐001 NCDM Lower ‐44.9 ‐13.4
01‐002 NCDM Lower ‐36.1 ‐18.9
01‐003 NCDM Lower ‐21.8 62.3
01‐004 NCDM Upper 158.9 161.8
01‐005 NCDM Upper 110.6 179.6
01‐006 NCDM Lower 77.1 94.0
01‐007 NCDM Lower 12.3 56.7
01‐008 NCDM Lower ‐44.9 2.4
522
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-200
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
DMS ID GSP Region Principal Aquifer
Minimum
Threshold (ft
above MSL,
NAVD88)
Measurable
Objective (ft
above MSL,
NAVD88)
02‐002 NCDM Lower ‐18.3 33.7
02‐009 NCDM Upper ‐6.2 29.8
03‐001 NCDM Upper 30.7 46.7
03‐002 NCDM Upper 7.7 67.2
03‐003 NCDM Upper TBD TBD
04‐001 NCDM Lower ‐17.6 ‐3.6
06‐001 NCDM Lower ‐52.3 16.1
06‐002 NCDM Upper 31.5 44.6
06‐003 NCDM Lower ‐9.1 18.5
06‐004 NCDM Upper 14.8 30.5
07‐002 NCDM Lower 1.6 10.8
07‐003 NCDM Upper 62.5 89.9
07‐005 NCDM Lower ‐84.7 ‐41.8
07‐007 NCDM Lower ‐53.4 ‐26.6
07‐008 NCDM Lower ‐63.0 ‐47.0
07‐009 NCDM Upper 49.3 73.9
07‐010 NCDM Upper 64.0 96.2
07‐012 NCDM Upper TBD TBD
07‐014 NCDM Lower ‐133.5 ‐47.2
07‐015 NCDM Lower ‐147.0 ‐65.0
07‐016 NCDM Lower ‐2.4 74.6
07‐017 NCDM Upper TBD TBD
07‐018 NCDM Upper TBD TBD
07‐028 NCDM Lower ‐88.2 ‐64.8
07‐029 NCDM Upper TBD TBD
07‐030 NCDM Lower TBD TBD
07‐031 NCDM Lower TBD TBD
07‐032 NCDM Lower TBD TBD
07‐035 NCDM Upper ‐99.8 95.2
08‐002 NCDM Upper 50.7 83.7
14‐001 SJREC Upper 24.0 48.5
14‐002 SJREC Upper 96.5 125.7
14‐003 SJREC Upper 81.3 92.2
14‐004 SJREC Upper 78.7 92.6
14‐005 SJREC Upper 92.2 106.2
14‐006 SJREC Upper 76.7 98.2
14‐007 SJREC Upper 73.5 98.5
14‐008 SJREC Upper 70.5 98.5
523
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-201
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
DMS ID GSP Region Principal Aquifer
Minimum
Threshold (ft
above MSL,
NAVD88)
Measurable
Objective (ft
above MSL,
NAVD88)
14‐019 SJREC Lower ‐48.8 35.0
14‐020 SJREC Lower 38.1 57.4
14‐021 SJREC Lower ‐33.0 14.8
23‐001 SJREC Upper 102.3 120.2
T–D ‐ Numeric SMC to be determined after five years of data have been collected for this representative monitoring site.
524
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-202
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
Figure CC-65: Groundwater Level Representative Monitoring Locations with SMC – Upper Aquifer 525
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-203
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
Figure CC-66: Groundwater Level Representative Monitoring Locations with SMC – Lower Aquifer 526
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-204
June 2022
Common Chapter June 2022

5.4.2 Reduction in Groundwater Storage
The GSAs intend to maintain groundwater storage at volumes that will continue to meet the demands of beneficial uses and users of groundwater, provide a three-year drought buffer, and minimize reductions in groundwater storage during extended dry periods. Further, the GSAs will coordinate with neighboring subbasins to address reductions in groundwater storage caused by pumping outside of the Subbasin. The SMCs were developed using common data and coordinated assumptions, as detailed in Table CC-18 and will be monitored a minimum of bi-annually as detailed for Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels in Section 5.4.1 (Table CC-16) and consistent Land Subsidence monitoring as detailed in Section 5.4.4 (Table CC-21).

Pursuant to 23 CCR § 354.28(d), the MTs for Reduction of Groundwater Storage may be set by using groundwater levels as a proxy if it is demonstrated that a correlation exists between the two metrics. It is logical to link these two Sustainability Indicators for the Upper Aquifer, as the amount of groundwater in storage is directly, if not linearly, related to groundwater levels. As such, in the Upper Aquifer, it is not necessary to set a unique MT for Reduction of Groundwater Storage, and the MTs for Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels are used as a proxy for the Reduction of Groundwater Storage Sustainability Indicator. Similarly, the MOs for Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels serves as a proxy for Reduction of Groundwater Storage. Because the SMCs established for Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels are designed to maintain groundwater levels above historic low conditions, they are protective of the Reduction of Groundwater Storage Sustainability indicator and local beneficial uses and users of the Upper Aquifer, as the SMCs maintain sufficient water storage to maintain beneficial uses, including the conjunctive use of groundwater.

In the Lower Aquifer, the physical reduction in groundwater storage is caused by inelastic land subsidence, as detailed in Section 5.4.4 (Table CC-21). As such, the SMCs set for Land Subsidence (which are designed to reduce subsidence caused by groundwater extraction in the Subbasin, with no additional subsidence after 2040) are reasonably protective and used as a tool to calculate the Reduction of Groundwater Storage Sustainability Indicator SMCs in the Lower Aquifer1. 1 The most significant subsidence in the Subbasin observed between from 2014-2018 was a 0.6 foot decline at Check 18 of the Delta-Mendota Canal. During those same years, the water budget calculation estimated what the change in storage was in the Lower Aquifer. Given the apparent relationship between the loss in groundwater storage and the observed subsidence, the projected allowable additional subsidence (i.e., two feet by 2040) was converted to a groundwater storage volume in the Lower Aquifer and used as the SMC. 527
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-205
June 2022
Common Chapter June 2022
Table CC-18: Delta-Mendota Subbasin SMC
for Reduction in Groundwater Storage
Definition of
Undesirable Results A chronic decrease in groundwater storage that causes a significant and unreasonable impact to the beneficial uses and users of groundwater.

Definition of
Significant and
Unreasonable
A significant and unreasonable impact to beneficial uses and users of groundwater is insufficient water storage to maintain beneficial uses and natural resource areas in the Subbasin, including the conjunctive use of groundwater.

Sustainability Goal Maintain historic groundwater storage volumes in order to continue meeting the demand of beneficial uses and users of groundwater and to provide a 3- year drought buffer. Minimize reductions in groundwater storage during extended dry periods. Work with neighboring Subbasins to address reduction in groundwater storage caused by pumping outside of the Subbasin.

Minimum Threshold For the Upper Aquifer, as a reasonable proxy for an individual groundwater storage threshold, maintain groundwater levels in accordance with the minimum threshold set for Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels.

For the Lower Aquifer, correlate the SMCs for inelastic land subsidence with the reduction in groundwater storage that would cause undesirable results, estimated to be 1.1 million acre-feet of storage loss by 2040 attributable to groundwater extraction in the Subbasin.

Measurable Objective For the Upper Aquifer, maintain groundwater levels in accordance with the measurable objectives set for Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels.

For the Lower Aquifer, minimize loss of groundwater storage caused by inelastic land subsidence.
5-Year Interim
Milestones Year 5: Maintain groundwater levels in accordance with the measurable objectives. Identify reduction in groundwater storage caused by pumping outside the Subbasin.

Year 10: Maintain groundwater levels in accordance with the measurable objectives. Where reduction in groundwater storage is caused by pumping outside of the Subbasin, seek remedies in coordination with the Department of Water Resources and neighboring GSAs.

Year 15: Maintain groundwater levels in accordance with the measurable objectives. Where reduction in groundwater storage is caused by pumping outside of the Subbasin, seek remedies in coordination with the Department of Water Resources and neighboring GSAs.

5.4.3 Degraded Groundwater Quality
The GSP groups within the Delta-Mendota Subbasin are committed to preventing the migration or elevated concentrations of constituents of concern due to groundwater management activities. The primary constituent of concern in the Subbasin is salinity, frequently reported as total dissolved solids (TDS).
528
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-206
June 2022
Common Chapter June 2022
For drinking water, California has three secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) standards for TDS, all based on aesthetic considerations such as taste and odor, not public health concerns. These are 500 mg/L (recommended limit), 1,000 mg/L (upper limit), and 1,500 mg/L (short-term limit). To reflect the Subbasin’s designation as a Municipal (MUN) beneficial use, as established in the Central Valley Water Control Plans (often referred to as Basin Plans), the Subbasin has selected the upper limit of 1,000 mg/L as the Minimum Threshold.

The Delta-Mendota GSAs also recognize that a Salt Control Program for the San Joaquin Valley was recently developed through the collaborative CV-SALTS Program and was adopted into the Central Valley Basin Plans to address the long-term problem of salt accumulation in the Valley. The program recognizes that salt accumulation and water uses vary widely across the Valley. The program approach is intended to protect beneficial uses by maintaining water quality that meets applicable objectives, allow some salt accumulation in areas where salt can be stored without impairing beneficial uses of water, and, through long-term management, restore water quality where reasonable, feasible, and practicable.

A Prioritization and Optimization (P&O) Study planning process is now underway to identify potential requirements that will protect beneficial uses, improve salt management, and restore water quality where possible. During the next ten years (Phase 1), the P&O Study will: characterize the salt conditions and trends in the Valley; identify salt management needs and mechanisms; evaluate the feasibility of potential solutions; prepare an implementation plan; and review and recommend revising salinity regulations as necessary. 1
The minimum thresholds and measurable objectives for groundwater quality incorporate these standards and objectives for salinity. The minimum threshold is therefore set as 1,000 mg/L TDS, and the measurable objective is a concentration less than 1,000 mg/L TDS with acknowledgement that salinity standards are still being developed by water quality experts and regulatory agencies in the Central Valley, and thus may need to be revised in the future. Additionally, groundwater is frequently blended with other water supplies to reduce TDS concentrations to meet the salinity sensitivity of a particular beneficial use.

For any representative monitoring site that currently exceeds the TDS thresholds set forth above, the existing regulatory water quality compliance and remediation programs will apply. These include, but are not limited to, the CV-SALTS Salt Control Program, the County Drought Plan requirements for State Small Water Systems and Domestic Wells (SB 552), the Safe and Affordable Funding for Equity and Resilience (SAFER) program, and the Bureau of Reclamation’s Refuge Water Supply Program. For any future exceedance of the TDS thresholds at representative monitoring sites that do not currently exceed the objectives, the applicable GSP group is required to coordinate and publish an assessment of the effect of groundwater management activities on the documented exceedance, and propose timely actions to manage groundwater differently in order to avoid exacerbating the exceedance.

The sustainable management criteria also incorporate by reference the specific requirements for preventing the migration of contaminants adopted by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board in Cleanup and Abatement Orders for individual contaminated sites.2 1 See https://www.cvsalinity.org/salt-program/;
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/sacsjr_201805.pdf 2 E.g. the Cleanup and Abatement Order R5-2018-0033 for the Spreckels facility:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/fresno/r5-2018-0033.pdf 529
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-207
June 2022
Common Chapter June 2022
Table CC-19: Delta-Mendota Subbasin SMC
for Degraded Groundwater Quality
Definition of
Undesirable Results
Degradation of groundwater quality as a result of groundwater management activities that causes significant and unreasonable impacts to beneficial uses and users of groundwater.

Definition of
Significant and
Unreasonable
Significant and unreasonable impacts to beneficial uses and users of groundwater as a result of groundwater management activities are the migration of contaminant plumes or elevated concentrations of constituents of concern that reduce groundwater availability, and the degradation of surface water quality as a result of groundwater migration that substantially impair an existing beneficial use. Significant and unreasonable is quantitatively defined as exceeding the MT at more than 50% of representative monitoring sites by aquifer in a GSP area where current groundwater quality (as established in the Subbasins GSPs) does not exceed 1,000 mg/L TDS.

Sustainability Goal Minimize further impairment of water supplies resulting from groundwater management activities that cause the migration or concentration of contaminant plumes or the increased rate of movement or concentrations of constituents of concern. Coordinate with and support compliance with existing regulatory groundwater quality orders and objectives for drinking water, agricultural irrigation, and managed wetlands. Work with neighboring Subbasins to address existing or potential impairments of groundwater quality in the Subbasin caused by groundwater management activities outside the Subbasin.

Minimum Threshold The minimum threshold for salinity is 1,000 mg/L TDS. For representative monitoring sites that currently exceed the minimum threshold, existing regulatory water quality compliance and remediation programs will apply, including but not limited to, the CV-SALTS Salt Control Program, the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program, the County Drought Plan requirements for State Small Water Systems and Domestic Wells (SB 552), and the Safe and Affordable Funding for Equity and Resilience (SAFER) program. For any RMS without data prior to the end of Water Year 2016, current (ambient) groundwater quality will be established using data collected during the first five years of monitoring following Water Year 2016 or following construction of the well.

For representative monitoring sites that do not currently exceed the minimum threshold, but are found to exceed minimum thresholds in the future, the applicable GSP group will conduct and publish an assessment of the effect of groundwater management activities on the documented exceedance, and propose timely actions to manage groundwater differently, if needed, to avoid exacerbating the exceedance. The applicable GSP group will also coordinate with the appropriate regulatory program to address the impact. 530
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-208
June 2022
Common Chapter June 2022
Table CC-19: Delta-Mendota Subbasin SMC
for Degraded Groundwater Quality
Measurable Objective The measurable objective for salinity will be concentrations less than 1,000 mg/L TDS.

Each GSP group will participate in, provide data for, and track and report on compliance with orders and objectives adopted by the State and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Boards and similar regulatory agencies, in coordination with the Central Valley Groundwater Monitoring Collaborative. 5-Year Interim
Milestones Year 5: Maintain salinity consistent with measurable objectives. Participate in, provide data for, and track and report on compliance with orders and objectives adopted by the State Water Resources and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Boards and similar regulatory agencies, in coordination with the Central Valley Groundwater Monitoring Collaborative. Develop correlation between groundwater quality and groundwater levels in order to establish methodology for the use of groundwater levels as a proxy for groundwater quality.

Year 10: Maintain water quality consistent with measurable objectives.

Continue monitoring and publishing groundwater quality data, and tracking and reporting on compliance with regulatory orders and objectives. Where water quality impairments are caused by activities outside the Subbasin, seek remedies in coordination with the Department of Water Resources and neighboring GSAs.

Utilizing the methodology developed by the Year 5 Interim Milestone, develop minimum thresholds and measurable objectives for groundwater quality that utilize groundwater elevations as a proxy for monitoring.

Year 15: Maintain water quality consistent with measurable objectives.

The numeric MTs and MOs by RMS are shown below in Figure CC-67 for the Upper Aquifer and Figure CC-68 for the Lower Aquifer, with the numeric SMC tabulated in Table CC-20.

Table CC-20: Numeric SMC for Degraded Groundwater Quality DMS ID GSP Region
Principal Aquifer Minimum Threshold
(TDS in mg/L)
Measurable
Objective
(TDS in mg/L)
09‐002 Aliso Water District Upper 1,000 < 1,000
09‐003 Aliso Water District Upper 1,000 < 1,000
09‐005 Aliso Water District Upper 1,000 < 1,000
09‐196 Aliso Water District Upper 1,000 < 1,000
10‐001 Farmers Water District Upper 1,000 < 1,000
10‐005 Farmers Water District Upper 1,000 < 1,000
12‐002 Fresno County Upper N/A N/A
12‐003 Fresno County Upper N/A N/A
531
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-209
June 2022
Common Chapter June 2022
DMS ID GSP Region
Principal Aquifer Minimum Threshold
(TDS in mg/L)
Measurable
Objective
(TDS in mg/L)
12‐004 Fresno County Upper N/A N/A
12‐005 Fresno County Upper N/A N/A
12‐006 Fresno County Upper 1,000 < 1,000
12‐007 Fresno County Upper N/A N/A
13‐006 Fresno County Upper N/A N/A
13‐007 Fresno County Upper N/A N/A
13‐008 Fresno County Upper N/A N/A
11‐010 Grassland Lower TBD TBD
11‐011 Grassland Lower 1,000 < 1,000
11‐012 Grassland Lower 1,000 < 1,000
11‐021 Grassland Upper N/A N/A
19‐002 Grassland Upper 1,000 < 1,000
19‐004 Grassland Upper N/A N/A
01‐001 NCDM Lower 1,000 < 1,000
01‐002 NCDM Lower 1,000 < 1,000
01‐003 NCDM Lower N/A N/A
01‐004 NCDM Upper 1,000 < 1,000
01‐006 NCDM Lower 1,000 < 1,000
01‐007 NCDM Lower 1,000 < 1,000
01‐008 NCDM Lower 1,000 < 1,000
01‐018 NCDM Upper (assumed) 1,000 < 1,000
02‐002 NCDM Lower 1,000 < 1,000
02‐009 NCDM Upper 1,000 < 1,000
03‐001 NCDM Upper N/A N/A
03‐003 NCDM Upper N/A N/A
03‐007 NCDM Upper 1,000 < 1,000
04‐001 NCDM Lower 1,000 < 1,000
06‐001 NCDM Lower 1,000 < 1,000
06‐002 NCDM Upper 1,000 < 1,000
06‐003 NCDM Lower 1,000 < 1,000
06‐004 NCDM Upper N/A N/A
07‐002 NCDM Lower 1,000 < 1,000
07‐003 NCDM Upper 1,000 < 1,000
07‐007 NCDM Lower 1,000 < 1,000
07‐008 NCDM Lower N/A N/A
07‐012 NCDM Upper N/A N/A
07‐014 NCDM Lower 1,000 < 1,000
07‐015 NCDM Lower 1,000 < 1,000
07‐016 NCDM Lower 1,000 < 1,000
532
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-210
June 2022
Common Chapter June 2022
DMS ID GSP Region
Principal Aquifer Minimum Threshold
(TDS in mg/L)
Measurable
Objective
(TDS in mg/L)
07‐017 NCDM Upper 1,000 < 1,000
07‐018 NCDM Upper N/A N/A
07‐028 NCDM Lower N/A N/A
07‐029 NCDM Upper N/A N/A
07‐030 NCDM Lower N/A N/A
07‐031 NCDM Lower N/A N/A
07‐032 NCDM Lower N/A N/A
07‐033 NCDM Upper 1,000 < 1,000
07‐034 NCDM Lower (assumed) N/A N/A
07‐035 NCDM Upper N/A N/A
08‐002 NCDM Upper N/A N/A
14‐001 SJREC Upper 1,000 < 1,000
14‐002 SJREC Upper 1,000 < 1,000
14‐003 SJREC Upper N/A N/A
14‐004 SJREC Upper 1,000 < 1,000
14‐005 SJREC Upper N/A N/A
14‐006 SJREC Upper 1,000 < 1,000
14‐007 SJREC Upper N/A N/A
14‐008 SJREC Upper 1,000 < 1,000
14‐019 SJREC Lower 1,000 < 1,000
14‐020 SJREC Lower 1,000 < 1,000
14‐021 SJREC Lower N/A N/A
23‐001 SJREC Upper 1,000 < 1,000
Notes:

1. Current TDS concentration is defined as prior to the end of WY 2016.

2. N/A ‐ Current groundwater quality exceeds 1,000 mg/L TDS.

3. TBD ‐ Numeric SMC to be determined after five years of data have been collected for this representative monitoring site.
533
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-211
June 2022
Common Chapter June 2022
Figure CC-67: Groundwater Quality Representative Monitoring Locations with SMC – Upper Aquifer 534
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-212
June 2022
Common Chapter June 2022
Figure CC-68: Groundwater Quality Representative Monitoring Locations with SMC – Lower Aquifer 535
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability
Revised Common ChapterDelta-Mendota Subbasin
Groundwater Sustainability Plan
CC-213
June 2022CC-213
Common Chapter June 2022

5.4.4 Inelastic Land Subsidence
The Subbasin GSAs are committed to ramping down the amount of allowable subsidence caused by groundwater extraction in the Subbasin and eliminating additional subsidence within the Subbasin by 2040. Further, the GSAs will coordinate with neighboring subbasins to address inelastic land subsidence caused by groundwater management activities that occur outside of the Subbasin.

The SMCs for Land Subsidence were coordinated at the Subbasin level and are designed to be protective of critical infrastructure, including significant and unreasonable reductions of conveyance capacity (i.e., structural damage that creates an unmanageable reduction of design capacity), impacts to natural resource areas (i.e., unmitigated decreases in the ability to irrigate or drain these areas by gravity), or conditions that threaten public health and safety (i.e., unmitigated reduction of freeboard that allows for flooding, or unmitigated damage to roads and bridges). The Subbasin-wide MT is set to prevent subsidence that exceeds the corrective design standards or established triggers for critical infrastructure, including the Delta-Mendota Canal and California Aqueduct. At the RMS, the MT is defined as two feet of additional inelastic subsidence by 2040 attributable to groundwater extraction within the Subbasin. The MO is set at no additional subsidence after 2040 based on groundwater extractions within the Delta-Mendota Subbasin.

The GSAs further developed Interim Milestones (IMs) to periodically reduce the amount of allowable subsidence and meet the MO by 2040. The IMs allow for no more than 1.0 foot of additional subsidence by 2025, 0.5 feet of additional subsidence by 2030 (1.5 feet of cumulative subsidence), 0.25 feet of additional subsidence by 2035 (1.75 feet of cumulative subsidence), and 0.25 feet of additional subsidence by 2040 (2.0 feet of cumulative subsidence). The SMCs were defined at 45 RMS in the Subbasin, and the GSAs will conduct monitoring to track progress towards sustainability. Additionally, as part of the 5-year update to the GSPs, the Subbasin Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model (HCM) will be reviewed and revised to incorporate new data, including Airborne Electromagnetic (AEM) survey data provided by DWR and data/results from the Subsidence Study prepared using Prop 68 grant funding.

Additionally, the GSAs will continue work with USBR on revisions to the CVHM2 model for simulating groundwater extraction-subsidence interactions, to re-evaluate inelastic land subsidence SMC to consider new data and studies, and to assess allowable land subsidence on a Subbasin and localized (subbasin subarea) basis.

Table CC-21: Delta-Mendota Subbasin SMC
for Inelastic Land Subsidence
Definition of
Undesirable Results
Changes in ground surface elevation that cause damage to critical infrastructure, including significant and unreasonable reductions of conveyance capacity, impacts to natural resource areas, or conditions that threaten public health and safety.

Definition of
Significant and
Unreasonable
Significant and unreasonable damage to conveyance capacity from inelastic land subsidence is structural damage that creates an unmitigated and unmanageable reduction of design capacity or freeboard.

Significant and unreasonable impacts to natural resource areas from inelastic land subsidence are unmitigated decreases in the ability to flood or drain such areas by gravity.

Significant and unreasonable threats to public health and safety from inelastic 536
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability
Revised Common ChapterDelta-Mendota Subbasin
Groundwater Sustainability Plan
CC-214
June 2022CC-214
Common Chapter June 2022
Table CC-21: Delta-Mendota Subbasin SMC
for Inelastic Land Subsidence
land subsidence are those that cause an unmitigated reduction of freeboard that allows for flooding, or unmitigated damage to roads and bridges.

Sustainability Goal Minimize inelastic land subsidence by ramping down allowable subsidence caused by groundwater extraction in the Subbasin, with no additional subsidence after 2040. Work with neighboring Subbasins to address inelastic land subsidence caused by groundwater extraction outside of the Subbasin.

Minimum Threshold At representative monitoring sites, the change in ground surface elevation that would cause undesirable results is up to 2 feet of additional inelastic land subsidence attributable to groundwater extraction in the Subbasin. Prevent subsidence caused by groundwater extractions in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin that exceeds corrective design standards or established triggers for critical infrastructure including the Delta-Mendota Canal, California Aqueduct, and roads and bridges.

Measurable Objective Minimize inelastic land subsidence attributable to groundwater extraction within the Subbasin, with no additional subsidence after 2040. 5-Year Interim
Milestones Year 5: Interim goal of no more than 1 foot of additional inelastic land subsidence attributable to groundwater extraction in the Subbasin during the first 5-year period of SGMA implementation. Review and revise Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model (HCM) to incorporate new data. Re-evaluate inelastic land subsidence SMC to consider new data and studies and to assess allowable land subsidence on a Subbasin and localized (subbasin subarea) basis. Gather data and complete the selection or establishment of representative monitoring sites (RMS) for land subsidence, with particular attention to the locations of critical infrastructure in the Subbasin, and in coordination with the Bureau of Reclamation and Department of Water Resources. Determine the relative proportion of subsidence caused by groundwater extraction within and outside the Subbasin for each RMS. Where subsidence is caused by pumping outside the Subbasin, seek remedies in coordination with the Department of Water Resources and neighboring GSAs.

Year 10: Interim goal of no more than 0.5 feet of additional inelastic land subsidence attributable to groundwater extraction in the Subbasin during the second 5-year period of SGMA implementation, for a cumulative total of 1.5 feet in the first 10 years. Where subsidence is caused by groundwater extraction outside the Subbasin, seek remedies in coordination with the Department of Water Resources and neighboring GSAs. Continue work to improve understanding of interconnection between groundwater extractions and land subsidence, utilizing model simulations and/or data collection and analysis.

Year 15: Interim goal of no more than 0.25 feet of additional inelastic land subsidence attributable to groundwater extraction in the Subbasin during the third 5-year period of SGMA implementation, for a cumulative total of 1.75 feet in the first 15 years. Where subsidence is caused by groundwater extraction outside the Subbasin, seek remedies in coordination with the Department of Water Resources and neighboring GSAs. Continue work to improve understanding of interconnection between groundwater extractions and land subsidence, utilizing model simulations and/or data collection and analysis. 537
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability
Revised Common ChapterDelta-Mendota Subbasin
Groundwater Sustainability Plan
CC-215
June 2022CC-215
Common Chapter June 2022
538
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability
Revised Common ChapterDelta-Mendota Subbasin
Groundwater Sustainability Plan
CC-216
June 2022CC-216
Common Chapter June 2022
The numeric MTs and MOs by RMS are shown below in Figure CC-69, with the numeric SMC tabulated in Table CC-22.

Table CC-22: Numeric SMC for Inelastic Land Subsidence
DMS ID GSP Region
Minimum Threshold (Inelastic
Land Subsidence in ft
Attributable to Groundwater
Extraction)
Measurable Objective (Inelastic
Land Subsidence in ft
Attributable to Groundwater
Extraction)
09‐006 Aliso Water District 2 0
09‐007 Aliso Water District 2 0
09‐008 Aliso Water District 2 0
10‐008 Farmers Water District 2 0
12‐010 Fresno County 2 0
13‐010 Fresno County 2 0
11‐018 Grassland 2 0
11‐019 Grassland 2 0
11‐020 Grassland 2 0
01‐009 NCDM 2 0
01‐010 NCDM 2 0
01‐011 NCDM 2 0
01‐012 NCDM 2 0
01‐013 NCDM 2 0
01‐014 NCDM 2 0
01‐015 NCDM 2 0
01‐016 NCDM 2 0
01‐017 NCDM 2 0
02‐003 NCDM 2 0
02‐004 NCDM 2 0
02‐005 NCDM 2 0
02‐006 NCDM 2 0
02‐007 NCDM 2 0
02‐008 NCDM 2 0
03‐004 NCDM 2 0
03‐005 NCDM 2 0
03‐006 NCDM 2 0
04‐003 NCDM 2 0
04‐004 NCDM 2 0
04‐005 NCDM 2 0
06‐006 NCDM 2 0
07‐019 NCDM 2 0
07‐020 NCDM 2 0
539
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability
Revised Common ChapterDelta-Mendota Subbasin
Groundwater Sustainability Plan
CC-217
June 2022CC-217
Common Chapter June 2022
DMS ID GSP Region
Minimum Threshold (Inelastic
Land Subsidence in ft
Attributable to Groundwater
Extraction)
Measurable Objective (Inelastic
Land Subsidence in ft
Attributable to Groundwater
Extraction)
07‐021 NCDM 2 0
07‐022 NCDM 2 0
07‐023 NCDM 2 0
07‐024 NCDM 2 0
07‐025 NCDM 2 0
07‐026 NCDM 2 0
07‐027 NCDM 2 0
14‐014 SJREC 2 0
14‐015 SJREC 2 0
14‐016 SJREC 2 0
14‐017 SJREC 2 0
14‐018 SJREC 2 0
540
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-218
June 2022
Common Chapter June 2022
Figure CC-69: Land Subsidence Representative Monitoring Locations with SMC 541
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-219
June 2022
Common Chapter June 2022

5.4.5 Depletion of Interconnected Surface Water
The GSAs are committed to managing groundwater within the Subbasin to maintain interconnected surface waters comparable to existing conditions and prevent a trend of increasing interconnected surface water losses from the San Joaquin River. The GSAs will coordinate with neighboring subbasins to address interconnected surface water losses caused by groundwater management activities that occur outside of the Subbasin.

Presently, the Depletion of Interconnected Surface Water Sustainability Indicator is identified as a data gap within the Subbasin. Until the GSAs are able to collect the additional data necessary to set quantitative SMCs for this Sustainability Indicator, the SMCs for Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels serve as a proxy in the Upper Aquifer, pursuant to 23 CCR §354.28(d). Because the SMCs established for Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels are designed to maintain groundwater levels above historic low conditions, they are understood to be protective of the Depletion of Interconnected Surface Water Sustainability indicator and local natural resources and downstream beneficial uses and users. The RMS locations and frequency are consistent with that detailed in Section 6.

The GSAs plan to establish an Interconnected Surface Water monitoring network and develop SMCs as detailed in Table CC-18. By 2025, the GSAs anticipate completing an Interconnected Surface Water monitoring network that includes nine existing sites in the San Joaquin River Restoration Program and additional sites funded by the SGMA Implementation Grant award. The additional RMS will focus on the Northern & Central Delta-Mendota and Grassland GSP areas along the San Joaquin River. By 2030, the GSAs anticipate being able to gather and analyze data from these new RMS to estimate the influence of groundwater levels on gains and losses observed on the San Joaquin River. At this point, the Subbasin GSAs will establish Interconnected Surface Water SMCs as a rate or volume of surface water depletions that have adverse impacts on beneficial uses and users and may lead to undesirable results.

Table CC-23: Delta-Mendota Subbasin SMC
for Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water
Definition of
Undesirable Results
Depletions of interconnected surface water as a direct result of groundwater pumping that cause significant and unreasonable impacts on natural resources or downstream beneficial uses and users.

Definition of
Significant and
Unreasonable
Significant and unreasonable impacts on natural resources or downstream beneficial uses and users of groundwater are a reduction in available surface water supplies for natural resource areas, and reductions in downstream water availability as a result of increased streamflow depletions along the San Joaquin River when compared to similar historic water year types.

Sustainability Goal Maintain interconnected surface waters comparable to existing conditions (historic low conditions as of Water Year 2016) in order to prevent a trend of increasing interconnected surface water losses from the San Joaquin River.

Work with neighboring Subbasins to address increased interconnected surface water losses caused by pumping outside of the Subbasin.

Minimum Threshold Interconnected Surface Water is an identified data gap in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin. As an interim minimum threshold, use the Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Level Minimum Threshold as a proxy for impacts to interconnected surface waters (see below).

The groundwater elevation indicating a chronic lowering of groundwater levels that may lead to undesirable results is an elevation that is lower than the 542
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-220
June 2022
Common Chapter June 2022
Table CC-23: Delta-Mendota Subbasin SMC
for Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water
historical seasonal low. The historic seasonal low is a fixed elevation at each site, based on available groundwater level data prior to the end of Water Year 2016. To account for future year-to-year variations in hydrology, compliance with the fixed historic seasonal low threshold will be compared with a 4-year rolling average of annual groundwater level measurements. Groundwater levels are measured as water surface elevation (WSE). Each GSP area includes multiple representative monitoring sites (RMS) to which the minimum threshold applies.

For any RMS without data prior to Water Year 2016, Minimum Thresholds and acute thresholds will be established using the aforementioned methodologies and the data resulting from the first five years of monitoring following Water Year 2016 or following construction of the well.

Measurable Objective Interconnected Surface Water is an identified data gap in the Subbasin. As an interim measurable objective, use the Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Level Measurable Objective as a proxy for interconnected surface waters (see below).

Maintain seasonal high groundwater levels at an elevation that is at or above the Water Year 2015 seasonal high at representative monitoring sites in a GSP area.

The Water Year 2015 seasonal high is a fixed elevation at each site, based on available groundwater level data. If data are unavailable for Water Year 2015 at a representative monitoring site, either a Water Year 2014 or Water Year 2016 Seasonal High will be used. To account for future year-to-year variations in hydrology, compliance with the fixed seasonal high threshold will be compared with a 4-year rolling average of annual groundwater level measurements.

Groundwater levels are measured as water surface elevation (WSE). Each GSP area includes multiple representative monitoring sites (RMS) to which the measurable objective applies.

For any RMS without data prior to Water Year 2016, Measurable Objectives will be established using the aforementioned methodology and the data resulting from the first five years of monitoring following Water Year 2016 or following the construction of the well.
5-Year Interim
Milestones Year 5: Fill data gaps, establish, and manage groundwater use to avoid the rate or volume of surface water depletions that have adverse impacts on beneficial uses and users and may lead to undesirable results.

The Subbasin will complete a monitoring network of Interconnected Surface Water sites that will include six existing sites and datasets. GSP groups will complete the monitoring network with additional sites installed with SGMA Implementation Grant funding awarded to the Subbasin. The existing nine sites are part of the San Joaquin River Restoration Program and are located along the San Joaquin River at the southern end of the Subbasin. These nine sites, and the associated datasets, will continue to be utilized by the Subbasin as part of its monitoring network. Additional representative monitoring network sites for Interconnected Surface Water will focus on the Northern & Central DeltaMendota and Grassland GSP areas along the San Joaquin River.

Year 10: Gather and analyze data from Subbasin’s established representative monitoring network sites. Also gather and analyze available data in cooperation with neighboring subbasins, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s San Joaquin River Restoration Program, the U.S. Geological Survey, and DWR’s California 543
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-221
June 2022
Common Chapter June 2022
Table CC-23: Delta-Mendota Subbasin SMC
for Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water
Data Exchange Center (CDEC), to estimate the influence of groundwater on gains and losses in the San Joaquin River. Establish minimum thresholds and measurable objectives as a rate or volume of surface water depletions that have adverse impacts on beneficial uses and users and may lead to undesirable results.

Year 15: Monitor and maintain interconnected surface waters in accordance with revised minimum thresholds and measurable objectives. Where increased interconnected surface water losses are caused by pumping outside of the Subbasin, seek remedies in coordination with the Department of Water Resources and neighboring GSAs.

The RMN for this sustainability indicator is shown below in Figure CC-70. Please see Table CC-17 for the numeric SMC associated with the Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels. 544
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-222
June 2022
Common Chapter June 2022
Figure CC-70: Interconnected Surface Water Representative Monitoring Locations with SMC 545
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-223
June 2022
Common Chapter June 2022

546
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-224
June 2022
Common Chapter June 2022
Table CC-15: Delta-Mendota Subbasin SMC for Reduction in Groundwater Storage 547
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-225
June 2022
Common Chapter June 2022
GSP Group Aliso Water District
Farmers
Water
District
Fresno
County Grassland
Northern &
Central DeltaMendota
San Joaquin River
Exchange Contractors
Definition of Undesirable
Results
Significant and unreasonable chronic decrease in groundwater storage, as defined by each GSP Group, that has an impact on the beneficial users of groundwater in the Subbasin through either intra- and/or inter-basin actions Definition of Significant
and Unreasonable
Aliso is not currently
experiencing significant and
unreasonable effects of
reduction in water levels or
aquifer storage in the Upper
Aquifer. Significant and
unreasonable effects would
be accelerated rates of
subsidence as productive
layers in the Upper Aquifer
above the Corcoran Clay are
depleted, especially in areas
with deep or composite
wells. Accelerated rates of
subsidence may occur if
30% of the wells in the
Mmonitoring Zzone exceed
the min225escripimum
threshold value on a 4-year
consecutive average under
normal or average year
conditions.

Depletion of
storage
greater than
the 2012-
2016 period.

Depletion of
storage
greater than
the 2012-
2016.

Insufficient water
storage to develop
necessary water to
maintain critical
habitat. Reduction
in storage would
lead to increased
costs associated
with higher total
lift, lowering
pumps, need to
drill deeper wells
or costs securing
alternative water
sources. Impacts
to habitat would
require mitigation,
including
alternative water
supplies and
habitat
restoration.

If water levels are
managed to meet
the Minimum
Thresholds, the
Northern &
Central DeltaMendota Region
GSP Group does
not anticipate
long-term
reductions in
storage. And,
through
coordination with
other GSP Groups
in the Subbasin,
additional
projects and/or
management
actions will be
implemented to
prevent the longterm decline in
storage.

The San Joaquin River
Exchange Contractors
(SJREC) GSP Group has a
positive impact on the
aquifer and is unlikely to
cause Significant and/or
Unreasonable reduction of
groundwater storage.

Triggers have been
established to recover
aquifer water levels before
nearing an Undesirable
Result. Currently, an
approximation of 25%
below historic low water
levels for each management
area coupled with a
determined storage
coefficient, is used to
indicate an Undesirable
Result which will be refined
based on annual updates
and integration with other
GSP Groups.

Sustainability Goal for
Sustainability Criterion
To expand access to
surface water during flood
years for replenishment of
the Upper Aquifer by
working with neighbors in
both Delta-Mendota and
Madera subbasins where
overdraft is occurring.

Minimize
storage
change
during
extended
dry periods.

Minimize
storage
change
during
extended dry
periods.

Maintain water
levels and storage
sufficient to meet
operational
demand.

Maintain water
levels sufficient to
meet operational
storage as well as
3-year drought
buffer storage.

Maintain historic water
storage to meet demand of
the beneficial users.
5-Year Interim Goals Year 5: Maintain
groundwater elevations
comparable to historic
hydrologic highs and lows
Year 10: Maintain
groundwater elevations
comparable to historic
hydrologic highs and lows
Year 15: Maintain
groundwater elevations
comparable to historic
hydrologic highs and lows
Year 5: <
Minimum
Threshold
Year 10: <
Minimum
Threshold
Year 15: <
Minimum
Threshold
Year 5: <
Minimum
Threshold
Year 10: <
Minimum
Threshold
Year 15: <
Minimum
Threshold
Year 5: WSE >
Measurable
Objective
Year 10: WSE >
Measurable
Objective
Year 15: WSE >
Measurable
Objective
Year 5: Maintain
groundwater
elevations
comparable to
2012 through
2017 hydrologic
highs and lows
Year 10: Maintain
groundwater
elevations
comparable to
2012 through
2017 hydrologic
highs and lows
Year 15: Maintain
groundwater
elevations
comparable to
2012 through
2017 hydrologic
highs and lows
Year 5: Maintain current
water levels, SJREC GSP
Group is sustainable
Year 10: Maintain current
water levels, SJREC GSP
Group is sustainable
Year 15: Maintain current
water levels, SJREC GSP
Group is sustainable
548
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-226
June 2022
Common Chapter June 2022
GSP Group Aliso Water District
Farmers
Water
District
Fresno
County Grassland
Northern &
Central DeltaMendota
San Joaquin River
Exchange Contractors
Minimum Threshold The minimum threshold is
to provide a 100-foot of
buffer from the top of the
Corcoran Clay to the top of
the water table.

Upper
Aquifer
Storage
Loss of
>12,000
acre-feet
(AF) from
over
extended
dry period
Lower
Aquifer
Storage
Loss of
>4600 AF
over
extended
dry period
Upper
Aquifer
Storage Loss
of >90,000
acre-feet
(AF) over
extended dry
period
Lower
Aquifer
Storage Loss
of >55,000
AF over
extended dry
period
Upper Aquifer:
20% lowered water
elevation from
recent historic low
(set at each
monitoring site).

Lower Aquifer:

Lower aquifer
representative
monitoring wells
have been
identified for the
monitoring
network. However,
no historic data
exists. The
Grassland Plan
Area participants
will monitor the
site and with the
gathered data,
intend to establish
meaningful interim
goals, measurable
objectives, and
minimum
thresholds in
future GSP
Updates.

Upper Aquifer:

Hydrologic low
Lower Aquifer:
95% of historic
low
The SJREC GSP Group is
sustainable. The SJREC
GSP Group is unlikely to
cause groundwater
overdraft. As a result of
this and historical
groundwater management,
trigger levels have been
established for a
representative site in each
management area. If water
levels drop below the
established trigger level, no
transfers of groundwater
outside the area are
allowed. This management
has been in place for parts
of the Subbasin for years
and has proven effective to
preserve a healthy aquifer.

Measurable Objective The measurable objective is
site specific and tied to
water levels in long term
hydrographs. The average
rate in decline in each well
was projected out until 2040
when water levels should
begin to stabilize over the
long term.

Long term
average
change of 0
AF/year
Long term
average
change of 0
AF/year
Upper Aquifer:

Recent historic
low (set at each
monitoring site).

Lower Aquifer:

Four lower aquifer
representative
monitoring sites
have been
identified at a
multi-completion
well. However, no
historic data
exists. The
Grassland Plan
Area participants
will monitor the
site and with the
gathered data,
intend to establish
meaningful interim
goals, measurable
objectives, and
minimum
thresholds in
future GSP
Updates.

Both Aquifers:

Seasonal historic
high average,
Spring 2012 or
Spring 2017,
whichever
elevation is
lowest or where
data exists.

Operate groundwater levels
between the effective root
zone and the Minimum
Threshold which will
maintain groundwater
storage.

549
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-227
June 2022
Common Chapter June 2022
Table CC-16: Delta-Mendota Subbasin SMC for Degraded Water Quality 550
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-228
June 2022
Common Chapter June 2022
GSP Group Aliso Water District Farmers Water District Fresno County Grassland Northern & Central Delta-Mendota
San Joaquin
River Exchange
Contractors
Definition of
Undesirable
Results
Significant and unreasonable degradation of groundwater quality, as defined by each GSP Group, that has an impact on the beneficial users of groundwater in the Subbasin through either intra- and/or inter-basin actions and/or activities Definition of
Significant and
Unreasonable
Aliso is not
experiencing any
significant and
unreasonable
impacts of water
quality. Significant
and unreasonable is
defined as a
reduction in crop
production due to
water quality issues
and if 30% of the
wells exceed the
minimum threshold
value on a 4-year
consecutive average
without treatment.
(1) Continued migration
of the Steffens plume
(elevated Total
dissolved solids [TDS])
in Upper Aquifer both
within Management
Area A and towards
Farmers Water District.
(2) Unreasonable rates
of migration of
groundwater in the
Upper Aquifer with
naturally-occurring
elevated
concentrations of total
dissolved solids in
Management Area B.
(3) Potential effects on
the beneficial uses of
groundwater include
agricultural and
domestic uses.
(4) Degraded water
quality in the Fresno
Slough effect beneficial
users of surface water
(1) Impairment of
groundwater quality from
the migration of the
Steffens Plume from
Fresno Coun’ty's
Management Area A.

Impacts from the Steffens
plume impacts Farmers
Water District’s ability to
utilize groundwater for
adjacent use and
discharge into the
Mendota Pool.
(2) Potential effects on the
beneficial users of
groundwater include
water quality levels that
impact crops and drinking
water standards for
domestic uses.
(3) Degraded water quality
in the Fresno Slough
effecting beneficial users
of surface water.

Degradation of
groundwater
quality resulting
in reduced ability
to develop and
manage
groundwater for
habitat
productivity.
(1) Exceedance of
maximum
contaminant levels
(MCLs) or water
quality objectives
(WQOs) for irrigation
in public water
systems for three (3)
consecutive
sampling events in
non-drought years or
the additional
degradation of
current groundwater
quality where current
groundwater quality
exceeds the MCLs or
WQOs for irrigation.
(2) Water quality
degradation due to
recharge projects
that exceeds 20% of
the aquifer’s
assimilative capacity
for one or more
constituents without
justification of a
greater public benefit
achieved
Migration of
contamination
plume that
makes the water
unusable for
beneficial use
Sustainability
Goal for
Sustainability
Criterion
Maintain Current
Water Quality
Contain the Spreckels
Plume and maintain
historical rates of
saline front migration
Prevent further
degradation of
groundwater quality from
the Steffens Plume
migrating from Fresno
County Management Area
A
Maintain
groundwater
quality suitable
for habitat
Maintain existing
water quality in all
aquifers
Monitor existing
groundwater
contamination
sites and
engage to
ensure cleanup
and abatement
orders are
consistent with
the San Joaquin
River Exchange
Contractors
(SJREC) GSP
Group. Work
with upslope
drainage area to
reduce the
migration of
saline water into
the SJREC GSP
Group
5-Year Interim
Goals
Year 5: Maintain
groundwater
elevations
comparable to
historic hydrologic
highs and lows
Year 10: Maintain
groundwater
elevations
comparable to
historic hydrologic
highs and lows
Year 15: Maintain
groundwater
elevations
comparable to
historic hydrologic
highs and lows
Year 5: Average annual
rate of degradation of
30 milligrams per liter
(mg/L) TDS for saline
front
Year 10: Average
annual rate of
degradation of 30 mg/L
TDS for saline front
Year 15: Average
annual rate of
degradation of 30 mg/L
TDS for saline front
Spreckels Steffens
plume dependent on
Central Valley Regional
Water Quality Control
Board (CV-RWQCB)
Cleanup and
Abatement Order (CAO)
actions.

Year 5: 1000 milligrams
per liter (mg/L) total
dissolved solids (TDS)
Year 10: 800 mg/L TDS
Year 15: 700 mg/L TDS
Year 5: <
Measurable
Objective
Year 10: <
Measurable
Objective
Year 15: <
Measurable
Objective
Year 5: Maintain
2003-2017
groundwater quality
range
Year 10: Maintain
2003-2017
groundwater quality
range
Year 15: Maintain
2003-2017
groundwater quality
range
Continue
mitigation
efforts on the
migration of
saline water
from upslope
drainage.
551
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-229
June 2022
Common Chapter June 2022
GSP Group Aliso Water District Farmers Water District Fresno County Grassland Northern & Central Delta-Mendota
San Joaquin
River Exchange
Contractors
Minimum
Threshold
Electrical
Conductivity (EC–) -

4.5 deciSiemens per
meter (dS/m)*
Chlorine (Cl–) - 13.3
milliequivalents per
liter (meq/L)*
NO3-–N - 30
milligrams per liter
(mg/L)**
Average annual rate of
degradation of 60 mg/L
TDS for saline front.

Threshold for Steffens
plume determined by
CV-RWQCB.

TDS concentration of 1100
mg/L
Production
Wellhead
thresholds: Total
dissolved solids
(TDS) 2,500
milligrams per
liter (mg/L) in
both aquifers
NO3 – 10 mg/L as N
(Primary MCL)
TDS – 1,000 mg/L
(Secondary MCL)
Boron – 0.7 mg/L
(WQO for irrigation)
or current
groundwater quality
where it exceeds
MCLs or WQOs for
irrigation as of
December 2018
The minimum
threshold is
defined as the
amount of poorquality
groundwater
that is greater
than what can
be successfully
managed
through the
management
actions
Measurable
Objective
E–C - 0.75-1.0 dS/m,
based on JM Lord
and FAO 100% yield
for grapes and
almonds.

C–l - 3.0 meq/L, based
on JM Lord minimum
recommendations
NO3-N - >5 mg/L,
based on FAO
Section 5.1, sensitive
crop tolerance
Average annual rate of
degradation of 20 mg/L
TDS for saline front.

Measurable objective
for Steffens plume will
be determined by CVRWQCB as part of a
CAO.

TDS concentration
equivalent to background
concentrations
(approximately 500 mg/L,
depending on Cleanup
and Abatement Order
[CAO] from Central Valley
Regional Water Quality
Control Board [CVRWQCB] for Steffens
Plume).

Upper Aquifer:

Production
Wellhead
thresholds: 20%
increase from
max historic
electrical
conductivity (EC)
concentration
Lower Aquifer:

Lower aquifer
representative
water quality
monitoring sites
have been
identified;
however, no
historic data
exists. The
Grassland Plan
Area participants
will monitor the
site and with the
gathered data,
intend to
establish
meaningful
interim goals and
measurable
objectives in
future GSP
Updates.
2003-2017
groundwater quality
range conditions by
GSP sub-region
Mitigate impacts
of the migration
of saline
groundwater
from lands
upslope of the

SJREC GSP
* Based on Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 50% yield for grapes ** Based on FAO Section 5.1 typical crop tolerance
552
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-230
June 2022
Common Chapter June 2022
Table CC-17: Delta-Mendota Subbasin SMC for Land Subsidence GSP Group Aliso Water District Farmers Water District Fresno County Grassland Definition of Undesirable
Results
Changes in ground surface elevation that cause damage to critical infrastructure that would cause significant and unreasonable reductions of conve conditions that threaten public health and safety
Definition of Significant
and Unreasonable
Aliso is not currently experiencing any significant and unreasonable effects of subsidence. Significant and
unreasonable impacts are assumed to occur when the levees within the District have subsided to an elevation causing impacts to the water carrying capacity of the San Joaquin River and Chowchilla Bypass beyond their design flow rates, causing significant and unreasonable flooding or crop
damage.

Damage to infrastructure and loss
of conveyance capacity in
neighboring Groundwater
Sustainability Agencies (GSAs).

Damage to
infrastructure, loss
of conveyance
capacity, and
potential inability to
flood or drain by
gravity and
associated habitat
impacts.

Damage to infrastruct
permanent loss of
conveyance capacity be
mitigation, and poten
inability to flood or dra
gravity and associat
habitat impacts.

Sustainability Goal for
Sustainability Criterion
Expand access to surface water during flood years for
replenishment of the Upper Aquifer by working with neighbors in both the Delta-Mendota and Madera subbasins where
subsidence is occurring.

No contribution to lower aquifer
compaction.

No contribution to
lower aquifer
compaction.

No permanent reductio
conveyance and abilit
manage habitat.
5-Year Interim Goals Interim goals established at 0.5-feet of additional subsidence per 5-year interim goal period.

Year 5: -0.0088 ft
Year 10: -0.0065 ft
Year 15: -0.0043 ft
Year 5: at
Fordel-Ext: -0.015 ft
P304-PBO: -0.084 ft
Year 10: at
Fordel-Ext: -0.013 ft
P304-PBO: -0.068 ft
Year 15: at
Fordel-Ext: -0.011 ft
P304-PBO: -0.0065 ft
The Grassland Plan ar
not causing subsidence
will work with neighbo
achieve Subbasin-wi
sustainability.

Year 5: > Measurab
Objective
Year 10: > Measurab
Objective
Year 15: > Measurab
Objective
Minimum Threshold The minimum threshold is set to not exceed the current rate of subsidence of 0.2 feet/year or 4.0 feet total by 2040
-0.011 ft Target additional
subsidence at two
subsidence
monitoring points:
- Fordel-Ext: -0.017 ft
- P304-PBO: -0.1 ft
The minimum thresho
not to exceed, on aver
the historic annual ave
rate of subsidence fr
December 2011 to Dece
2015 as defined at ea
representative subside
monitoring site:
- Point 108: -0.1
- Point 152: -0.1
- Point 137: -0.1
Measurable Objective The Measurable Objective is set to be the more restrictive of the two Significant and Unreasonable scenarios. It is assumed that significant impacts will cause flooding and crop damage will be ½1/2 of the current design minimum freeboard of 4 feet
(therefore 2 feet).
-0.002 ft Target additional
subsidence at two
subsidence
monitoring points:
- Fordel-Ext: -0.0086
ft
- P304-PBO: -0.036 ft
The measurable object
not to exceed, on aver
the historic annual ave
rate of subsidence fr
December 2011 to Dece
2018, defined at eac
respective site:
- Point 108: -0.08 ft/y
- Point 152: -0.1 ft/y
- Point 137: -0.11 ft/y

553
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-231
June 2022
Common Chapter June 2022
Table CC-18: Delta-Mendota Subbasin SMC for Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water 554
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-232
June 2022
Common Chapter June 2022
GSP Group Aliso Water District Farmers Water
District Fresno County Grassland Northern & Central Delta-Mendota San Joaquin River
Exchange
Contractors
Definition of Undesirable
Results
Depletions of interconnected surface water, as defined by each GSP Group, that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on the beneficial uses of surface water
Definition of Significant
and Unreasonable
Aliso Water District
groundwater pumping
does not influence
surface water
depletion. Landowners
within the District are
limited by the
Herminghaus
Agreement and similar
pumping restrictions
along the San Joaquin
River that prevent
pumping from above
the A-Clay.

Additionally, the
primary aquifer, where
groundwater pumping
occurs, is
disconnected from
surface water source.

A significant and
unreasonable result
would be a reduction in
water availability to
downstream beneficial
users beyond what
was experienced in
similar water years in
recent history as a
result of groundwater
extractions.
(1) San Joaquin
River Restoration
Project (SJRRP)
operations and
groundwater
extractions from
the Upper Aquifer
that will influence
stream depletion
along San
Joaquin River
(2) Water level
measurements
along the San
Joaquin River in
the shallow zone
of the Upper
Aquifer to
determine degree
of vertical
gradient
(3) Potential
degradation to
groundwater
dependent
ecosystems
(GDEs) along San
Joaquin River
primarily
dependent on
SJRRP
operations of San
Joaquin River
flows since
groundwater
pumping
expected to
remain stable
and consistent
with historical
(pre-SJRRP)
levels
Decrease in
surface water
stage in
Mendota Pool
from Bureau of
Reclamation
and Central
California
Irrigation
District (CCID)
operations that
impact
groundwater
dependent
ecosystems
(GDEs) and
operations in
Mendota
Wildlife Area.

The Grassland
Plan Area
groundwater
pumping does not
influence surface
water depletion.

Reduction of
interconnected
surface water
bodies and
associated
groundwater
dependent
ecosystems
(GDEs), requiring
reduction in
groundwater
pumping (no
management
activities have
depleted
interconnected
surface water in
the Grassland Plan
Area within the
Historic Period). A
significant and
unreasonable
undesirable result
would regard
impaired habitat
directly associated
with
interconnected
surface waters.

Where
interconnected
stretches of surface
water are identified,
an X%* increase in
depletions of surface
water as a result of
groundwater
pumping.
*The percent
increase in
depletions is to be
determined from
monitoring data
collected between
2020 and 2025 and
associated analyses
of these data.

When groundwater
extraction directly
decreases streamflow
in losing stretch of
the San Joaquin
River.

Sustainability Goal for
Sustainability Criterion
Similar reductions in
water availability to
downstream beneficial
users as was
experienced in similar
water years in recent
history as a result of
groundwater
extractions.

Minimize
downward
gradient in the
San Joaquin
River
Maintain stage
in Mendota
Pool between

12.75 and 13
feet.

No reduction in
interconnected
surface water
bodies or
associated GDEs
due to GGSA
pumping.

No loss of productive
agriculture due to an
inability to pump
groundwater.

Mitigate observed
reductions of
interconnected
surface and
groundwater due to
pumping in the San
Joaquin River
Exchange
Contractors (SJREC)
GSP Group area.
5-Year Interim Goals Not Applicable Year 5: gradient
of -1.1
Year 10: gradient
of -0.99
Year 15: gradient
of -0.83
All gradients
measured at
monitoring site
SJRRP-09-55,
55b
Year 5:

Mendota Pool
staff gage
reading of 7.4 ft
Year 10:

Mendota Pool
staff gage
reading of 9.1 ft
Year 15:

Mendota Pool
staff gage
reading of 11.3
ft
Year 5: WSE >
Measurable
Objective (Upper
Aquifer)
Year 10: WSE >
Measurable
Objective (Upper
Aquifer)
Year 15: WSE >
Measurable
Objective (Upper
Aquifer)
Year 5: Establish
Minimum Threshold
and Measurable
Objective for this
parameter
Year 10: To be
determined (TBD) in
2025 GSP update
based on additional
data analysis
Year 15: TBD in 2025
GSP update based
on additional data
analysis
Year 5: Mitigate
depleted
interconnected
surface water in the
San Joaquin River
Year 10: Mitigate
depleted
interconnected
surface water in the
San Joaquin River
Year 15: Mitigate
depleted
interconnected
surface water in the
San Joaquin River
555
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-233
June 2022
Common Chapter June 2022
GSP Group Aliso Water District Farmers Water
District Fresno County Grassland Northern & Central Delta-Mendota San Joaquin River
Exchange
Contractors
Minimum Threshold Not Applicable
Similar reductions in
water availability to
downstream beneficial
users as was
experienced in similar
water years in recent
history as a result of
groundwater
extractions.

Gradient of -1.3
at monitoring site
SJRRP-09-55,
55b
Mendota Pool
staff gage
reading of 5.4 ft
20% lowered water
elevation from
recent historic low
(set at each
monitoring site).

An X%* increasIe in
surface water
depletions along
interconnected
stretches of surface
water as a result of
groundwater
pumping.
*The percent
increase in
depletions is to be
determined from
monitoring data
collected between
2020 and 2025 and
associated analyses
of these data.

Observed increase in
seepage from the San
Joaquin River due to
groundwater
extractions in the
SJREC GSP Group
area. The SJREC plan
to work with the
counties to restrict
perforating wells
above the first
encountered
restrictive clay layer
(near the San Joaquin
River) to prevent
induced seepage
similar to the
established
operations defined in
the Herminghaus
Agreement on Reach
2 of the San Joaquin
River.

Measurable Objective Not Applicable.

Similar reductions in
water availability to
downstream beneficial
users as was
experienced in similar
water years in recent
history as a result of
groundwater
extractions.

Gradient of -0.67
at monitoring site
SJRRP-09-55,
55b
Mendota Pool
staff gage
reading of 13.5
ft
Recent historic
low (set at each
monitoring site).

No increased
depletions of surface
water as a result of
groundwater
pumping.

Same as Minimum
Threshold
556
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-234
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022

6. SUBBASIN MONITORING PROGRAM
As required by Subarticle 4. Monitoring Networks of the GSP regulations, the GSPs must include a monitoring network for each sustainability indicator, in addition to describing the monitoring protocols and data management to be followed in implementing the GSP monitoring program. Given the variability of conditions within the Delta-Mendota Subbasin, each GSP Group initially developed their individual monitoring networks, in coordination with their neighboring GSP Groups, such that the subbasin-wide monitoring program is simply a compilation of those coordinated individual monitoring networks. These representative monitoring networks were then re-evaluated as part of the update to the Subbasin GSP in 2022. Please see the individual GSPs for further discussion as to how the monitoring networks were developed.

The subbasin-wide monitoring networks presented herein are the representative monitoring networks for each of the applicable sustainability indicators, as defined according to the GSP Regulations § 354.36, Representative Monitoring. It is at the representative monitoring sites where each GSP Group has defined minimum thresholds, measurable objectives, and interim milestones to evaluate progress in achieving the Subbasin’s sustainability goal by 2040. Data collected at the representative monitoring locations may be augmented with additional data, as available and appropriate, from other locations and/or publiclyavailable datasets, in evaluating Subbasin conditions on an annual basis.

6.1.1 Coordinated Assumptions and Data
As previously noted, the required monitoring networks were initially developed at the GSP-level in order to appropriately capture the variability of hydrogeologic and water quality conditions in the DeltaMendota Subbasin, and then re-evaluated at the Subbasin level to confirm that the monitoring networks meet the necessary requirements. All common coordinated assumptions agreed upon and implemented by each GSP Group in developing their respective monitoring networks are presented in Technical Memorandum 5 (Assumptions for Delta-Mendota Subbasin Monitoring Network) which is included in Appendix B of this Common Chapter.

6.1.2 Coordinated Monitoring Activities
All Delta-Mendota Subbasin GSP Groups have agreed to utilize the following monitoring protocols, data management, and roles and responsibilities for implementing and reporting from their respective monitoring plans under SGMA to ensure consistency in data collection, analysis and management allowing for subbasin-wide evaluation of groundwater conditions relative to the Subbasin sustainability goal, as defined and agreed upon by all GSP Groups.

Monitoring Protocols
Each GSP Group will utilize agreed-upon protocols, which may be the same as, or equal to, data collection protocols (i.e., industry standards and best management practices) to ensure the collection of comparable data using comparable methods. Additionally, the following minimum monitoring frequency for each applicable sustainability indicator was agreed upon by each GSP Group during the joint DeltaMendota Subbasin Coordination Committee and Technical Working Group meeting on June 18, 2019:
 Chronic lowering of groundwater levels/reduction in groundwater storagestorage - Twice per year, with seasonal high groundwater elevation data collected between February and April, and seasonal low groundwater elevation data collected between September and October. All measurements will be collected to a tenth of a foot. 557
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-235
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
 Degraded water quality – Once per year during irrigation season, typically between May and July.
 Depletions of interconnected surface water – Twice per year in conjunction with groundwater level monitoring.
 Subsidence – Publicly available subsidence data will be used along with locally-collected data. At a minimum, three data points will be collected within the first five years of GSP implementation, with a baseline value from 2019 or a date prior to that.

For non-monitored data to be reported as part of the annual reports (e.g., groundwater extractions, surface water deliveries), actual metered data will be used where such data exists, and when direct data do not exist, estimated quantities will be calculated based on existing indirect data (e.g., electrical usage, crop demand, ET) and/or other industry best practices. Additionally, where available and applicable, public datasets will be used to augment monitoring data collected by the Subbasin and analyzed on an annual basis.

Data Management
Each GSP Group will be responsible for conducting quality control reviews of data collected from the monitoring networks. As described in the Coordination Agreement, each GSP Group will exchange and share collected data in order to facilitate analysis and reporting at the Subbasin level. The Coordinated Data Management System (DMS) will be the primary vehicle by which data are shared amongst the GSP Groups, and it will be the responsibility of each GSP Group to conduct a quality control review of data entered into the DMS.

Roles and Responsibilities
It will be the responsibility of each GSP Group, and the GSAs included in that group, to conduct the monitoring program as agreed upon at the Subbasin level, for reviewing the data collected, and for ensuring that these data are available at the Subbasin level. Figure CC-71Figure CC-65 shows the general flow of data collected from the Delta-Mendota monitoring programs.

Figure CC-72Figure CC-66 shows the roles and responsibilities of each GSA and GSP Group in the collecting, processing and reporting of data from the GSP monitoring networks. Additionally, it is the responsibility of each GSP Group, including their respective GSAs, to maintain the monitoring network and, as appropriate, revise and/or expand the monitoring networks to fill identified data gaps. Please see the individual GSPs for further information regarding data gaps and the GSAs plans for addressing those gaps.
558
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-236
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
Figure CC-7165: Data Flow in Delta-Mendota Subbasin
559
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-237
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
Figure CC-7266: Delta-Mendota Monitoring and Data Management Roles and Responsibilities 560
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-238
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022

6.1.3 GSP-Level Monitoring Networks
For more information on the individual GSP monitoring networks for each applicable sustainability indicator, including how the networks were developed, please refer to the individual GSPs. The monitoring networks for each applicable sustainability indicator for each GSP Group were developed in accordance with the GSP Regulations Article 5. Plan Contents, Subarticle 4. Monitoring Networks (§ 354.21 – 354.40). DWR’s Best Management Practices for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater Monitoring Protocols, Standards, and Sites BMP (2016b) and Monitoring Networks and Identification of Data Gaps BMP (2016a) documents were used when and where applicable at the discretion of each GSP group in developing monitoring networks and monitoring protocols.

6.1.4 Delta-Mendota Subbasin Monitoring Networks
The subbasin-level monitoring networks are a compilation of the representative monitoring networks developed by each individual GSP Group and reviewed and modified at the Subbasin level for consistency and appropriate coverage. The monitoring network for the chronic lowering of groundwater sustainability indicator is comprised of two parts, the Upper Aquifer (Figure CC-73Figure CC-67) and Lower Aquifer (Figure CC-74Figure CC-68). The monitoring networks for the reduction in groundwater storage for the Upper Aquifer and Lower Aquifer are the same as those utilized for the chronic lowering of groundwater levels. The monitoring network for the degraded water quality sustainability indicator is also comprised of two parts, the Upper Aquifer (Figure CC-75Figure CC-69) and Lower Aquifer (Figure CC-76Figure CC-70). Data gaps (areas without wells of known construction) are shown for the Upper Aquifer and Lower Aquifer for the chronic lowering of groundwater and degraded water quality sustainability indicator. The interconnected surface water monitoring network for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin is shown in Figure CC-77Figure CC-71, and the monitoring network for land subsidence for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin is shown in Figure CC-78Figure CC-72.

The Delta-Mendota Subbasin representative monitoring networks will be periodically reviewed and revised, as appropriate, by the GSP Groups responsible for maintaining them and coordinated at the Subbasin level. Revised monitoring networks will be included in the five-year updates to the GSPs. 561
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-239
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
Figure CC-7367: Upper Aquifer Groundwater Level Monitoring Network 562
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-240
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
Figure CC-7468: Lower Aquifer Groundwater Level Monitoring Network 563
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-241
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
Figure CC-7569: Upper Aquifer Groundwater Quality Monitoring Network 564
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-242
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
Figure CC-7670: Lower Aquifer Groundwater Quality Monitoring Network 565
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-243
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
Figure CC-7771: Interconnected Surface Water Monitoring Network 566
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-244
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
Figure CC-7872: Land Surface Elevation Monitoring Network 567
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-245
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022

7. SUBBASIN DATA COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT
As required in §352.6, Data Management System of the GSP regulations, each GSA is required to develop and maintain a data management system (DMS) that is capable of storing and reporting information relevant to the development or implementation of the GSP(s). Additionally, per §354.4, Reporting Monitoring Data to the Department, all monitoring data is to be stored in a DMS with copies of the monitoring data included in the annual report and submitted electronically on forms provided by DWR. Recognizing that GSP implementation, including annual reporting, will require some efforts at the subbasin level, the 23 GSAs overlying the Delta-Mendota Subbasin have chosen to develop a coordinated DMS that can be utilized by each GSP Group for management of their data but which will allow for the required compendium of data sets for preparation of Subbasin annual reports. The coordinated DMS will also provide a generic framework that can be used by any GSP Group or GSA in the Subbasin for individual data management while allowing for consistent formatting and the simplified uploading of compiled datasets into the Subbasin-wide coordinated DMS.

The individual GSP Groups have also developed and will maintain separate data storage processes or DMSs. Each separate DMS developed for each GSP will store information related to implementation of each individual GSP, monitoring network data and monitoring sites requirements, and water budget data requirements. Each system will be capable of reporting all pertinent information to the respective GSA and/or GSP Group, and ultimately to the Coordination Committee. After providing the Coordination Committee with data from the individual GSPs, the Subbasin Plan Manager and Coordination Committee will ensure the data are stored and managed in a coordinated manner throughout the Subbasin and reported to DWR on an annual basis.

Other goals of the DMS focus around improving data collection/aggregation processes, creating data standards, gaining efficiencies in reporting and improving data sharing with stakeholders. The DMS is designed to aggregate data through import processes by GSP to support data visualization and annual report generation.

Underlying the web application is a relationship database used to store the information aggregated from GSPs across primary data types identified to support monitoring and Annual Report development. Those data types include groundwater extractions, surface water deliveries, groundwater storage, groundwater elevations, groundwater quality, interconnected surface water and land subsidence. The web application functionality includes an embedded GIS viewer, screens to view tables of time series data, and charting capabilities for hydrographs. The embedded GIS viewer contains functionality to store map layers such as reference data, GSA/GSP boundaries and derived information such as water level contours.

Section 6.1.2 describes the process by which monitoring data are collected by each GSP Group and processed for inclusion in the Coordinated DMS. In order to be able to track data by location in the Subbasin, each monitoring locations in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin is assigned a unique identifier in the DMS. The number system is in a format of ##-####, where the first two digits indicates which GSA the monitoring location is associated with, the subsequent four digits indicate which specific monitoring 568
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-246
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
location in that GSA area. As shown in Figure CC-72Figure CC-66, the general methodology agreed upon for data import and management is as follows:
 Each GSA collects their respective data per agreed-upon monitoring protocols and transmits it to the GSA Representative.
 Each GSA Representative then compiles the data and conducts a quality control check.  The GSA Representative then transmits the compiled data set to the GSP Lead or Representative, who then aggregates the data from all GSAs and conducts a second quality control check.  The GSP Lead or Representative then uploads the data set into the DMS using import wizards designed specifically for this process.
 The Subbasin Plan Manager then uses the data in the DMS to compile information as required for the annual report.

Compiled data sets from the DMS are then augmented with required maps generated externally to produce the required annual report. Mapping prepared outside the DMS are subsequently imported into the DMS as GIS files to ensure all data are kept in one place and to allow for access by GSAs and other Subbasin stakeholders.

The DMS will be maintained by the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, while acting as the Plan Manager, with a contract with the software vendor for hosting, maintenance and future maintenance.

Each GSP will pay a maintenance fee for the continued hosting and support of the Subbasin coordinated DMS.

The Coordinated DMS as described herein may be supplemented by additional DMS developed and maintained by each GSP Group in the Subbasin. The reader is referred to each of the six Subbasin GSPs for specific information relative to data collection and management in each GSP Plan area. 569
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-247
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022

8. STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH
California Code of Regulations, Title 23, §354.10 identifies the requirements for notice and communication information presented in a GSP, which includes:
 A summary of information relating to notification and communication by the GSAs with other agencies and interested parties;
 A description of the beneficial uses and users of groundwater in the basin, including the land uses and property interests potentially affected by the use of groundwater in the basin, the types of parties representing those interests, and the nature of consultation with those parties;  A list of public meetings at which the GSP was discussed or considered by the GSAs;  Comments regarding the GSP received by the GSAs and a summary of any responses by the GSAs;
 A communication section of the GSP that includes an explanation of the GSAs’ decision-making process, identification of opportunities for public engagement, a discussion of how public input and response was used, a description of how the GSAs encouraged the active involvement of diverse social, cultural and economic elements of the population within the basin, and the methods used by the GSAs to inform the public about progress implementing the GSP, including the status of projects and actions.

In meeting these requirements, outreach and educational activities were conducted at the Subbasin, GSP and GSA level throughout the GSP development process. This section describes the noticing and outreach conducted at the Delta-Mendota Subbasin level for GSP development. Please refer to each individual Subbasin GSP for specific details regarding noticing and communication, and descriptions of the beneficial uses and users of groundwater at the GSP and GSA level. Information regarding Subbasin coordination and committees can be found in Section 2, Delta-Mendota Subbasin Governance, of this document.

8.1 Situation Assessment and Communications Plan
To assist in GSA formation and GSP development, agencies in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin sought and received Facilitation Support Services funding from DWR in August 2016. Under this funding, a neutral, third-party facilitation team conducted a situation assessment on behalf of the Subbasin GSAs. The purpose of the assessment was to understand how stakeholders perceived the status of the Subbasin’s groundwater resources and identify potential barriers to the successful development of the GSPs.

The facilitationThe facilitation team, with input from local agencies, identified 30 stakeholders representing diverse interests and beneficial users in the Subbasin, together with disadvantaged communities, agricultural well owners, government and land use agencies, and environmental and ecosystem interests. From February 2017 to May 2017, the facilitators conducted over 30 phone and inperson interviews with stakeholders. The facilitators recorded the interview responses and summarized the results in a presentation made to the GSA representatives.

The assessment results were used to inform the development of the Delta-Mendota Subbasin Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Communications Plan (Communications Plan), which is provided with this document as Appendix E. The Communications Plan identifies near- and long-term outreach and 570
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-248
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
engagement strategies, tactics, and tools for stakeholder engagement in GSP development and implementation. The Subbasin GSAs used the Communications Plan as a framework for conducting the stakeholder outreach and engagement activities described in this document.

The Delta-Mendota Subbasin is home to a large Hispanic or Latino population with many using Spanish as their primary language. As such, public noticing, educational materials and other outreach efforts were developed and presented in both English and Spanish throughout the GSP development process.

8.2 Public Noticing and Information
The Delta-Mendota Subbasin GSAs developed and used several coordinated tools, in addition to their own resources to inform members of the public about GSP development activities and promote opportunities for public engagement. These tools are described below.  Website: The Subbasin website – www.deltamendota.org – is the primary location for information related to SGMA implementation in the Subbasin. Information provided on the website includes: an overview of SGMA, a description of each of the GSP groups, contact information for each of the GSAs, and upcoming workshops and public meetings. The website also serves as a repository for outreach collateral, workshop materials, and meeting packets and minutes for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin Coordination Committee, Technical Working Group, and Communications Working Group (described below), and provides links to the individual GSP websites maintained by each GSP Group.
 Delta-Mendota Subbasin Newsletter: The Delta-Mendota Subbasin Newsletter is distributed on a monthly basis and serves as an informational tool to keep interested parties, beneficial users, and members of the general public informed about the development and status of the GSPs.

Newsletter topics include Subbasin-wide activities, general announcements, upcoming meetings and workshops, and past and upcoming GSP development activities. Copies of the newsletters are archived on the Subbasin website.
 Informational Materials: GSAs in the Subbasin developed a suite of materials in English and Spanish to educate and inform members of the public about SGMA and topics covered in the GSP. These materials include bilingual presentations, fact sheets, handouts, frequently asked questions, and videos. Copies of the materials are available on the Subbasin website. GSA representatives distributed these materials before and during meetings, workshops, and other outreach activities.

8.3 List of Public Meetings Where the GSPs were Discussed Each GSP Group for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin has conducted individual outreach efforts relative to their own GSP Plan area in addition to those same efforts at the subbasin-level. Please refer to each of the individual GSPs for this information. Below is a list of the coordinated public workshops and meetings where the GSPs were discussed. These include meetings of the Delta-Mendota Subbasin Coordination Committee, the two Subbasin Working Groups and coordinated public workshops. All meetings were publicly noticed and held from June 2017 through July 2019. Meeting agenda, minutes and handouts are available on the Delta-Mendota Subbasin website at www.deltamendota.org. 571
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-249
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
Delta-Mendota Coordination Committee Meetings
The Delta-Mendota Subbasin Coordination Committee meets on the second Monday of each month at 9:30 am at the SLDMWA Administration Offices located at 842 6th Street, Los Banos, California. These meetings are noticed as required under the Brown Act and are open to the public.

In addition to the monthly meetings, a special meeting of the Coordination Committee was held on March 8, 2019 to discuss sustainable yield estimation methodologies.

Delta-Mendota Technical Working Group Meetings
The Delta-Mendota Technical Working Group meets on the third Tuesday of each month at 10:00 am at the SLDMWA Administration Offices located at 842 6th Street, Los Banos, California. These meetings are noticed as required under the Brown Act and are open to the public.

In addition to the monthly meetings, several special meetings of the Technical Working Group were held to discuss specific topics. These additional meetings were as follows:
 August 24, 2018 and September 19, 2018 meetings to discuss Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems
 August 8, 2018, October 30, 2018 and December 19, 2018 meetings to discuss water budgets Delta-Mendota Communication Working Group Meetings
The Delta-Mendota Communications Working Group meets on the fourth Tuesday of each month at 1:00 pm. These meetings typically conducted via conference call. Meeting information for this working group is available on the Delta-Mendota Subbasin website.

Coordinated Public Workshops
Coordinated public workshops were held for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin shown in the table below. All workshops were advertised and conducted in both English and Spanish.

Table CC-2419: Coordinated Public Workshops
Date Location, Venue Topic
Spring 2018 Workshops
May 14, 2018 Los Banos, San Luis & Delta Mendota
Water Authority
 Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act overview
 Delta-Mendota Subbasin overview
 Opportunities for engagement
May 16, 2018 Patterson, Hammon Senior Center
May 17, 2018 Mendota, Mendota Library
Fall 2018 Workshops
October 22, 2018 Firebaugh, Firebaugh Middle School  GSP development and implementation process
 Data collection
 Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model
 Numerical and analytical models
 Water budgets
October 24, 2018 Los Banos, College Greens Building
October 25, 2018 Patterson, Hammon Senior Center
Winter 2019 Workshops
February 19, 2019 Los Banos, College Greens Building
572
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-250
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
Date Location, Venue Topic
February 20, 2019 Patterson, Patterson City Hall  Historic and current water budgets  Sustainability criteria
 Undesirable results
 Projects and management actions
March 4, 2019 Santa Nella, Romero Elementary
School
Spring 2019 Workshops
May 20, 2019 Patterson, Patterson City Hall  Projected water budgets  Sustainable yield
 Groundwater monitoring networks
 Projects and management actions
May 21, 2019 Los Banos, College Greens Building
May 22, 2019 Santa Nella, Romero Elementary
School
May 23, 2019 Mendota, Mendota Library
Please see Appendix F for summaries of the coordinated public workshops, and Appendix G for example promotional materials for the public workshops.

8.4 Comments Regarding the GSPs
Key components of the six Subbasin GSPs were presented at the public workshops conducted throughout the GSP development process. Appendix F contains summaries of the coordinated public workshops, including comments received from and feedback provided to workshop participants. Additionally, each of the GSP Groups in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin are individually responsible for the public review of their plans and for addressing any public comments received. Please see the individual GSPs for additional information regarding plan review.

8.5 Subbasin Decision Making Process
The Delta-Mendota Subbasin Coordination Agreement outlines the responsibilities of all Subbasin parties, including decision making protocols and voting structure. These are further discussed in Chapter 2 of this document.

During the GSP development process, the Technical Working Group was charged with coordinating implementation of the required technical elements of the GSP (e.g., water budgets, monitoring networks), and to provide recommendations to the Delta-Mendota Subbasin Coordination Committee. Similarly, the Communications Working Group was charged with implementing the Subbasin Communications Plan and with providing recommendations for workshops and other outreach activities to the Coordination Committee. The Coordination Committee took actions and approved recommendations and work products and provided direction to both working groups and other ad hoc committees.

In general, the coordinated decision-making process included developing agendas for each meeting of the Delta-Mendota Subbasin Coordination Committee and for each Working Group meeting. The agendas were developed in concert with the Technical and Communications Working Groups, and the respective representatives of each GSP Group. Agenda items were either educational, informational, or required direction or decision. Meeting agendas, meetings minutes and handouts have been posted on the DeltaMendota Subbasin website for public access.

8.6 Opportunities for Public Engagement and How Public Input was Used Community input was encouraged and received at all meetings of the Coordination Committee, Technical Working Group, Communications Working Group meetings and at the public workshops. The Subbasin 573
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-251
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
GSPs (and therefore, this Common Chapter) was shaped by community input, Working Group input, and Coordination Committee direction and decisions.

8.6.1 Opportunities for Public Engagement
Regular opportunities for public engagement were available throughout GSP development. The Coordination Committee, Technical and Communications Working Groups, and individual GSA staff encouraged public input throughout the development of the GSPs as described below. A list of stakeholder and community organizations contacted as part of the Subbasin coordinated outreach efforts is included in Appendix H.

Meetings and Direct Engagement
Open meetings and public workshops were held as described in Section 8.1. In addition, GSA staff made direct contact with community representatives to encourage their participation in the GSP development process. GSA representatives provided their contact information by phone, email, or mail both online (on the Subbasin website) and at workshops for stakeholder questions and comments.

Targeted Stakeholder Engagement
The Subbasin GSAs also conducted targeted outreach and engagement to hard-to-reach communities, interested parties, and stakeholders that were previously underrepresented in other engagement activities.

This included outreach to the following stakeholder types:
 Agricultural Interests: Agricultural stakeholders in the Subbasin include agricultural well operators, growers, ranchers, farmworkers, and agricultural landowners. Strong agricultural representation exists within the leadership of the GSAs. To augment direct outreach being conducted by individuals GSAs, Subbasin representatives also coordinated closely with local county farm bureaus to disseminate information related to GSP development and public workshops.
 School Districts: Schools districts are considered for both beneficial users of groundwater (for drinking water), as well communication channels to disseminate information about SGMA and GSP development. GSA representatives directly contacted local school districts to notify them of the public workshops. Some schools also help distributed informational materials and workshop flyers to their students and parents.
 Industrial Interests: There are many industrial interested in the Subbasin, including packaging and processing plants, mining industries, and other similar facilities that use groundwater in some fashion. The GSP Groups have identified these interests within their respective Plan areas and have disseminated information related to GSP development during individual outreach efforts.  Environmental/Conservation Interests: Environmental and conservation interests in the Subbasin have been contacted and communicated with during GSP development. Specific related interest groups contacted during GSP development include The Nature Conservancy, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Audubon, and various sportsman clubs and wetland managers.
574
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-252
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
 Disadvantaged Communities: The GSAs followed best practices identified in Collaborating for Success: Stakeholder Engagement for Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Implementation (Community Water Center, 2015) and other guidance documents to engage disadvantaged and severely disadvantaged communities. This included holding meetings in disadvantaged communities; holding meetings in the evening at known local venues, such as schools, civic centers, and community centers; translating fact sheets, meeting materials, and presentations into other languages; and providing interpreting services at all public workshops.  Other Interests: Other potential groundwater users in the Subbasin (or those with groundwaterrelated interests) contacted during GSP development included the various counties in which the Delta-Mendota Subbasin lie and/or are adjoining (including San Joaquin County and San Benito County), Caltrans, the DWR State Water Project Division of Operations and Maintenance, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Geological Survey and the San Joaquin River Restoration Program.

The Reader should refer to each individual GSP for a more complete descriptioncomplete description of GSP-specific meetings and direct engagement.

GSP Section Review and Comment Periods
Each GSP Group was responsible for coordinating the individual review of their GSP. Please see each GSP for additional information as to their specific public review process. This Common Chapter to the six Delta-Mendota Subbasin GSPs was posted on the Subbasin’s website (www.deltamendota.org) following submittal of the Subbasin GSPs.

8.6.2 How Public Input and Response was Used in the Development of the GSP Each GSP Group was responsible for coordinating the individual review of their GSP and for determining how to incorporate public input and responses into their respective plans. Public input to the GSPs was solicited through the GSP development process through a number of means, including coordinated public workshops, Board of Directors presentations, City Council presentations, and growers’ meetings. Please see the individual GSPs for more information regarding GSP-specific outreach efforts and how stakeholder and public input was received and factored into the GSPs.

8.7 Revisions to Common Chapter and Subbasin GSPs
As previously noted in this document, the Delta-Mendota Subbasin received a Consultation Initiation Letter on January 21, 2022 from DWR. The CIL identified four potential deficiencies across the six Subbasin GSPs which may preclude DWR’s approval, as well as potential corrective actions to address each potential deficiency. The CIL thus initiated consultation between DWR, the Basin Manager, Plan Managers, and the Subbasin’s 23 Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) on February 18, 2022 regarding the amount of time needed to address the potential deficiencies and corrective actions.

Subsequent meetings were held on March 7, March 30, April 19, May 24, and June 20 2022 to discuss the Subbasin’s proposed approach to addressing the identified deficiencies.

The four deficiencies identified in DWR’s CIL are summarized as follows:

Potential Deficiency 1: The GSPs do not use the same data and methodologies. 575
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-253
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
Potential Deficiency 2: The GSPs have not established common definitions of undesirable results in the Subbasin.

Potential Deficiency 3: The GSPs in the Subbasin have not set sustainable management criteria in accordance with GSP regulations.

Potential Deficiency 4: The management areas established in the Plan have not sufficiently addressed the requirements specified in 23 CCR §354.20.

This revised Common Chapter, and associated revisions to the six Subbasin GSPs, have been prepared in response to the deficiencies identified in the CIL based on direction provided by the Delta-Mendota Subbasin Coordination Committee, the Delta-Mendota Technical Working Group, the Subbasin GSAs and DWR. It is intended to document how the deficiencies identified in the CIL were addressed in the revised GSPs and associated Common Chapter, and where those revisions are addressed in the Common Chapter.

A Notice of Intent to Adopt the revised Common Chapter and six Subbasin GSPs (known as the Amended Groundwater Sustainability Plan) was distributed on March 15, 2022. Public meetings for the adoption of the Common Chapter and Subbasin GSPs were held in June and July of 2022; please see the Subbasin’s website (www.deltamendota.org) for the respective dates for each GSAs meeting and adoption.
576
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-254
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022

9. REFERENCES
AECOM. 2011. Groundwater Management Plan for the Northern Agencies in the Delta-Mendota Canal Service Area.
https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/lgagrant/docs/applications/City%20of%20Patterson%20(201209870076 )/Att03_LGA12_CityofPatterson_GWMP_2of2.pdf. Accessed on July 25, 2018.

Belitz, K. and F.J. Heimes. 1990. Character and Evolution of Ground-Water flow Flow System in the Central Part of the Western San Joaquin Valley, California. USGS Water Supply Paper 2348.

Bertoldi, G.L., R.H. Johnston, and K. D. Evenson. 1991. Ground water in the Central Valley, California – A Summary Report. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1401-A.

Borchers, J.W. and M. Carpenter. April 2014. Land Subsidence from Groundwater Use in California. https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/waterplan/docs/cwpu2013/Final/vol4/groundwater/13Land_Subsidence_ Groundwater_Use.pdf. Accessed on October 1, 2018.

California Assembly. 2014. Assembly Bill No. 1471. Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2014. Approved by Governor, filed with Secretary of State in August 2014.

California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Survey. Various dates. Faults shapefiles. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/#datalist. Accessed on June 19, 2018.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2013. California Lakes shapefile. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/GIS/Clearinghouse. Accessed on August 2, 2018.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. California Streams shapefile. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/GIS/Clearinghouse. Accessed on August 2, 2018.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 1965. San Joaquin Valley Drainage Investigation – San Joaquin Master Drain. Department of Water Resources Bulletin No.127.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 1981. Water Well Standards: State of California, Bulletin 74-81. https://www.water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/GroundwaterManagement/Wells/Files/Bulletin-74-81-Water-Well-Standards-State-of-California-December1981.pdf?la=en&hash=7B64FA212D189E07BE9B1FA909B5C8FECDA20D68. Accessed on August 2, 2018.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 1991. California Well Standards, Bulletin 74-90. https://www.water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/pubs/groundwater/water_well_standards__bulletin_74- 90_/ca_well_standards_bulletin74-90_1991.pdf. Accessed on August 2, 2018.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 1998. The California Water Plan Update, Volumes 1 and 2. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2003. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118 – Update 2003. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/GroundwaterManagement/Bulletin-118/Files/Statewide-Reports/Bulletin_118_Update_2003.pdf. Accessed on July 9, 2018.
577
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-255
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2006. San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin DeltaMendota Subbasin, DWR Bulletin 118. http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/basindescriptions/5-22.07.pdf. Accessed on July 9, 2018.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2010. Lines of Equal Elevation of Water in Wells, Unconfined Aquifer, San Joaquin Valley, Spring 2010.
https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/pubs/groundwater/lines_of_equal_elevation_of_water_in_wells_unconfi ned_aquifer_san_joaquin_valley_spring_2008/sjv2008spr_unc_elev_color.pdf. Accessed on August 29, 2018.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2009. California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) database. https://www.casgem.water.ca.gov. Accessed on various dates.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2016a. Best Management Practices for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater: Monitoring Networks and Identification of Data Gaps. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/GroundwaterManagement/Sustainable-Groundwater-Management/Best-Management-Practices-and-GuidanceDocuments/Files/BMP-2-Monitoring-Networks-and-Identification-of-Data-Gaps.pdf. Accessed on June 21, 2019.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2016b. Best Management Practices for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater: Monitoring Protocols, Standards, and Sites. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/GroundwaterManagement/Sustainable-Groundwater-Management/Best-Management-Practices-and-GuidanceDocuments/Files/BMP-1-Monitoring-Protocols-Standards-and-Sites.pdf. Accessed on June 21, 2019.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2016c. Best Management Practices for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater: Water Budget BMP. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWRWebsite/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Sustainable-Groundwater-Management/BestManagement-Practices-and-Guidance-Documents/Files/BMP-4-Water-Budget.pdf. Accessed on June 21, 2019.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2016. Water Districts shapefile. https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/water-districts. Accessed on March 31, 2016.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). June 2017. California Aqueduct Subsidence Study. https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/groundwater/docs/Aqueduct_Subsidence_Study-FINAL-2017.pdf.

Accessed on October 1, 2018.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2017. DRAFT Best Management Practices for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater: Sustainable Management Criteria BMP. https://water.ca.gov/- /media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Sustainable-GroundwaterManagement/Best-Management-Practices-and-Guidance-Documents/Files/BMP-6-SustainableManagement-Criteria-DRAFT.pdf. Accessed on June 21, 2019.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). May 2018. Evaluation of the Effect of Subsidence on Flow Capacity in the Chowchilla and Eastside Bypasses, and Reach 4A of the San Joaquin River.

Received via personal communication with Alexis R. Phillips-Dowell (DWR) on September 11, 2018. 578
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-256
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). July 2018. Water Data Library database. http://wdl.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/. Accessed on various dates.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2018a. Disadvantaged Communities Mapping Tool. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/dacs/. Accessed on July 17, 2017.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2018b. Economically Distressed Areas Mapping Tool. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/edas/. Accessed on July 17, 2017.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2018c. Natural Communities Commonly Associated with Groundwater (NCCAG) dataset. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/NCDatasetViewer/#. Accessed on August 13, 2018.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2019. CA Bulletin 118 Groundwater Basins shapefile. https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/ca-bulletin-118-groundwater-basins. Accessed on May 10, 2019.

California Natural Resources Agency. June 2018. NASA JPL InSAR Subsidence Data. https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/nasa-jpl-insar-subsidence. Accessed on August 2, 2019.

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 1977. San Joaquin Valley Interagency Drainage Program Environmental Assessment – Phase I. Prepared for the California State Water Resources Control Board by Environmental Impact Planning Corporation.

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2011. CV-SALTS Lower San Joaquin River Committee, April 28, 2011 Meeting Materials, Agenda Item 4 – Problem Statement. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/salinity/lower_sanjoaquin_river_committee/a dministrative_materials/#contracts. Accessed on September 28, 2018.

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). n.d (a). State Intervention – The State Back Stop, Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/gmp/docs/intervention/intervention_fs.pdf.

Accessed on August 3, 2018.

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). n.d (b). What is a Public Water System?. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/waterpartnerships/what _is_a_public_water_sys.pdf. Accessed in August 3, 2018.

Caltrans. 2017. Caltrans Adjusted County Boundaries shapefile. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/gis/datalibrary/Metadata/Counties.html. Accessed on August 2, 2018.

Caltrans. 2018. California National Highway System shapefile. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/gis/datalibrary/Metadata/NHS.html. Accessed on May 20, 2019.

Corwin, D.L. 2012. Field-scale monitoring of the long-term impact and sustainability of drainage water reuse on the west side of California’s San Joaquin Valley. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, Vol. 14, 1576.

Croft, M. G. 1972. Subsurface geology of the Late Tertiary and Quarternary water-bearing deposits of the southern part of the San Joaquin Valley, California: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1999-H. 579
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-257
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
Davis, G.H. and J. F. Poland. 1957. Ground-water conditions in the Mendota- Huron Area Fresno and Kings Counties, California. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper No. 1360-G.

Davis, G. H., J.H. Green, S.H. Olmstead, and D.W. Brown. 1959. Ground water conditions and storage capacity in the San Joaquin Valley, California. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper No. 1469, 287 p.

Davis, G.H., B.E. Lofgren, S. Mack. 1964. Use of ground-water reservoirs for storage of surface water in the San Joaquin Valley California. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1618.

East Stanislaus Regional Water Management Group. 2017. East Stanislaus Region Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update – Public Draft. http://www.eaststanirwm.org/documents/2017-esirwmppublicdraft.pdf. Accessed on July 26, 2018.

Farr, Tom G., Cathleen E. Jones, and Zhen Lieu. 2017. Progress Report: Subsidence in California, March 2015 – September 2016. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology. https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/waterconditions/docs/2017/JPL%20subsidence%20report%20final%20f or%20public%20dec%202016.pdf. Accessed on November 29, 2018.

Farrar, C.D., and G.L. Bertoldi. 1988. Region 4, Central Valley and Pacific Coast Ranges, in Back, William, Rosenshein, J.S., and Seaber, P.R., eds., Hydrogeology: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Geology of North America, v. O-2, p. 59–67.

Faunt, C., R.T. Hanson, K. Belitz, W. Schmid, S. Predmore, D. L. Rewis, and K. McPherson. 2009.

Groundwater availability of the Central Valley Aquifer, California. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1766. http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1766/. Accessed on August 29, 2018.

Faunt, C.C., K. Belitz., and R.T. Hanson. 2010. Development of a three-dimensional model of sedimentary texture in valley-fill deposits of Central Valley, California, USA: U.S. Geological Survey, Hydrogeology Journal, Vol. 18, 625.

Faunt, C.C., M. Sneed, J. Traum, and J.T. Brandt. 2015. Water availability and land subsidence in the Central Valley, California, USA. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10040-015-1339- x.pdf. Accessed on October 10, 2018.

Fio, J.L. 1994. Calculation of a water budget and delineation of contributing sources to drainflows in the Western San Joaquin Valley, California. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 94-45.

Foss, F.D., and R. Blaisdell. 1968. Stratigraphy of the West Side Southern San Joaquin Valley. http://www.sanjoaquingeologicalsociety.org/wp-content/abstracts/1968_Foss_Blaisdell.pdf. Accessed on July 9, 2018.

Galloway, D.L., and F.S. Riley. 1999. San Joaquin Valley, California—Largest human alteration of the Earth’s surface: in Galloway, D.L., Jones, D.R., and Ingebritsen, S.E., eds., Land Subsidence in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1182, p. 23–34.

Galloway, D.L., D.R. Jones, and S.E. Ingebritsen. 1999. Land subsidence in the United States. U.S.

Geological Survey Circular 1182, 175 p.

Hotchkiss, W.R. 1972. Generalized subsurface geology of water-bearing deposits, northern San Joaquin Valley, California. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr73119. Accessed on October 24, 2018. 580
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-258
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
Hotchkiss, W.R. and G.O. Balding. 1971.Geology, hydrology, and water quality of the Tracy-Dos Palo area, San Joaquin Valley, California. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 72-169. 107 p.

Ireland, R.L. 1986. Land subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley, California, as of 1983. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 85–4196, 50 p.

Ireland R.L., J.F. Poland, and F.S. Riley. 1984. Land subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley, California, as of 1980. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 437-I, 93 p.

Jacob, C.E. 1940. On the flow of water in an elastic artesian aquifer. American Geophysical Union Trans., pt. 2, p. 574-586.

Jennings, C.W. and R.G. Strand. 1958. Geological Atlas of California – Santa Cruz Quadrangle.

California Geological Survey, Geologic Atlas of California Map No. 020, 1:250,000 scale.

Mendenhall, W.C., R.B. Dole, and H. Stabler. 1916. Ground water in the San Joaquin Valley, California.

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 398, 310 p.

Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers (LSCE). 2011. State of California Well Completion Report, Well No. E0132267. Received via personal communication on October 12, 2018.

Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers (LSCE), Davids Engineering, and Larry Walker Associates.

March 2015. Western San Joaquin River Watershed Groundwater Quality Assessment Report. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/irrigated_lands/water_quality/coalitions_sub mittals/westside_sjr/ground_water/2015_0316_westside_gar.pdf. Accessed on July 9, 2018.

Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers (LSCE). July 2016. Grassland Drainage Area Groundwater Quality Assessment Report.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/irrigated_lands/water_quality/coalitions_sub mittals/grass and/ground_water/2016_0728_gda_gar.pdf. Accessed on July 9, 2018.

Madera Regional Water Management Group. 2014. Madera Integrated Regional Water Management Plan – Final Draft.
https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/irwm/grants/docs/PlanReviewProcess/Madera_IRWMP/Madera%20IR WMP.pdf. Accessed on July 26, 2018.

McBain & Trush, Inc. 2002. San Joaquin River Restoration Study Background Report, prepared for Friant Water Users Authority, Lindsay, CA, and Natural Resources Defense Council. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/bay_delta_plan/water_qual ity_control_planning/docs/sjrf_spprtinfo/mcbainandtrush_2002.pdf. Accessed on October 1, 2018.

Mosley, J. Natural Resources Specialist/GIS Coordinator, Bureau of Indian Affairs Pacific Region.

Personal Communication on January 26, 2017.

National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2009. Part 630 Hydrology National Engineering Handbook, Chapter 7 Hydrologic Soil Groups.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_goals/search.shtml. Accessed on August 13, 2018.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2015. Soil Survey Manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail//?cid=nrcs142p2_054253. Accessed on August 13, 2018. 581
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-259
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
Ogden, G. R. 1988. Agricultural Land Use and Wildlife in the San Joaquin Valley, 1769-1930: An Overview. SOLO Heritage Research. San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program, U.S. Department of Interior.

Sacramento, California.

Page, R.W. 1973. Base of fresh groundwater (approximately 2,000 micromhos) in the San Joaquin Valley, California: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-489, 1 sheet, scale 1:500,000. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1971/0223/plate-1.pdf. Accessed on October 25, 2018.

Poland, J.F., B.E Lofgren, R.L. Ireland, and A.G. Pugh. 1975. Land subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley, California, as of 1972: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 437-H, 78 p.

Rohde, M.M., S. Matsumoto, J. Howard, S. Liu, L. Riege, and E.J. Remson (The Nature Conservancy). 2018. Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act:

Guidance for Preparing Groundwater Sustainability Plans. https://www.scienceforconservation.org/assets/downloads/GDEsUnderSGMA.pdf. Accessed on October 1, 2018.

San Joaquin River Restoration Program. Subsidence monitoring database. http://www.restoresjr.net/science/subsidence-monitoring/. Accessed on September 13, 2018.

San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority. 2019. Westside-San Joaquin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan.
https://www.ci.patterson.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/4868/WSJ_IRWMP_2019_Final_w_appendices?bi dId=. Accessed on June 21, 2019.

San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority (SLDMWA). n.d (a). SLDMWA Member Agencies shapefile. Received via personal communication on August 7, 2018.

San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority (SLDMWA). n.d (b). Delta-Mendota Canal Check Points coordinates. Received via personal communication on August 7, 2018.

Schmidt, K.D. & Associates (KDSA). 1997a. Groundwater Flows in the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Service Area. Prepared for SJREC, Los Banos, California, 46p.

Schmidt, K.D. & Associates (KDSA). 1997b. Groundwater Conditions in and near the Central California Irrigation District. Los Banos, California. 89 p.

Schmidt, K.D. & Associates (KDSA). September 2015. Groundwater Overdraft in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin. Fresno, California.

Sneed, M., J. Brandt, and M. Solt. 2013. Land subsidence along the Delta-Mendota Canal in the northern part of the San Joaquin Valley, California, 2003-10: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2013-5142, 87 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20135142. Accessed on September 28, 2018.

Sneed, M. and J.T. Brandt. 2015. Land subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley, California, USA, 2007- 2014. https://www.proc-iahs.net/372/23/2015/piahs-372-23-2015.pdf. Accessed on October 10, 2018.

Snyder, R.L., M. Orang, K. Bali and S. Eching. 2000. Basic Irrigation Scheduling (BIS). University of California, Davis. 10p.
582
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-260
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
Snyder, R.L., K. Bali. 2008. Irrigation scheduling of alfalfa using evapotranspiration. Proceedings, 2008 California Alfalfa & Forage Symposium and Western Seed Conference, San Diego, CA, 2-4 December 2008.

State of California. 2015. Senior Water Rights Curtailed in Delta, San Joaquin & Sacramento Watersheds. http://www.drought.ca.gov/topstory/top-story-37.html. Accessed on April 2, 2019.

Strathouse, S. M. and Sposito, G. 1980. Geologic nitrogen may pose hazard. California Agriculture, August-September 1980.

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture.

Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed on June 19, 2018.

Sullivan, P.J., G. Sposito, S.M. Strathouse, and C.L. Hansen. 1979. Geologic nitrogen and the occurrence of high nitrate soils in western San Joaquin Valley, California. Hilgardia, Vol. 47, No. 2, 15-49 p.

Swanson, A.A.. 1998. Land subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley, updated to 1995, in Borchers, J.W., ed., Land subsidence case studies and current research: Proceedings of the Dr. Joseph F. Poland Symposium on Land Subsidence, Sacramento, Calif., October 4–5, 1995, Association of Engineering Geologists, Special Publication no. 8, p. 75–79.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2014. Groundwater and Stream Interaction in California’s Central Valley: Insights for Sustainable Groundwater Management. https://www.scienceforconservation.org/assets/downloads/GroundwaterStreamInteraction_2016.pdf.

Accessed on October 1, 2018.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2018. Identifying Environmental Surface Water Users - Freshwater Species List for Each Groundwater Basin dataset. https://groundwaterresourcehub.org/gdetools/environmental-surface-water-beneficiaries/. Accessed on June 20, 2019.

UNAVCO. 2019. UNAVCO’s Monitoring Network Map database. https://www.unavco.org/instrumentation/networks/map/map.html#/. Accessed on August 10, 2018.

United State Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 2002. USBR computed full natural flows from 1906-2002.

United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 2018. Delta-Mendota Canal Non-Project Water Pump-in Program Monitoring Plan. https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/includes/documentShow.php?Doc_ID=32784.

Accessed on October 25, 2018.

United States Census Bureau. 2017. Population Estimates Program. www.census.gov/quickfacts.

Accessed on November 16, 2018.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2000. Water resources data for California, 1910-2000 for various gaging stations within the San Joaquin Valley.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2012. Central Valley Spatial Database, Corcoran Clay Depth, Extent, and Thickness shapefiles. https://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/central-valley/central-valley-spatialdatabase.html. Accessed on August 13, 2018.

United States Geological Survey (USGS), California Water Science Center (CWSC). March 20, 2017.

Delta-Mendota Canal: Evaluation of Groundwater Conditions & Land Subsidence. https://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/central-valley/delta-mendota-canal.html. Accessed on October 1, 2018. 583
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-261
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2018. National Elevation Dataset, Ground Surface Elevation shapefile. https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/advanced-viewer/. Accessed on June 19, 2018.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). n.d. National Hydrograph Dataset. https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/basic/?basemap=b1&category=nhd&title=NHD%20View. Accessed on August 13, 2018.

University of California, Davis (UCD) Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources. n.d. Soil Resource Lab. Soil Agricultural Groundwater Banking Index (SAGBI). https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/sagbi/. Accessed on April 20, 2018.

Wagner, D.L., Bortugno, E.J., and Mc Junkin, R.D. 1991. Geologic Map of the San Francisco – San Jose Quadrangle. California Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map No. 5A, 1:250,000 scale.

584
Draft Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Sustainability PlanRevised Common Chapter
CC-262
June 2022
Common Chapter August 2019June 2022
This page intentionally left blank.
585
For the Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan August 2019
Common Chapter -
Appendices

FARMERS

WATER DISTRICT
586
Common Chapter for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Appendix A - Coordination
Agreement
Appendix A
587
Coordination Agreement – Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 1 of 28

DELTA-MENDOTA SUBBASIN COORDINATION AGREEMENT
THIS DELTA-MENDOTA SUBBASIN COORDINATION AGREEMENT is made effective as of , 2018 by and among the groundwater sustainability agencies within the Delta-Mendota Subbasin (each a “Party” and collectively the “Parties”) and is made with reference to the following facts:

WHEREAS, On September 16, 2014, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Senate Bills 1168 and 1319 and Assembly Bill 1739, known collectively as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”);
WHEREAS, SGMA requires all groundwater subbasins designated as high or medium priority by the California Department of Water Resources (“DWR”) to manage groundwater in a sustainable manner;
WHEREAS, the Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin Number 5-22.07, DWR Bulletin 118) within the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin (“Subbasin”), has been designated as a high-priority basin by DWR;
WHEREAS, the Delta-Mendota Subbasin includes multiple groundwater sustainability agencies that intend to manage the Subbasin through the development and implementation of multiple different groundwater sustainability plans (“GSP”); WHEREAS, SGMA allows local agencies to engage in the sustainable management of groundwater, but requires groundwater sustainability agencies in all basins that are managed by more than one groundwater sustainability plan to enter into a coordination agreement to coordinate the multiple groundwater sustainability plans to sustainably manage the Subbasin pursuant to SGMA;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of SGMA, and the California Code of Regulations, and in recognition of the need to sustainably manage the groundwater within the DeltaMendota Subbasin, the Parties desire to enter into this Agreement between their individual groundwater sustainability agencies;
WHEREAS, in order to efficiently coordinate among the large number of groundwater sustainability agencies (“GSA”) in the Subbasin, the Parties intend to organize themselves into “GSP Groups” and to be represented by the “GSP Group Representatives,” on terms December 12
588
Coordination Agreement – Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 2 of 28 to be developed and implemented by separate Agreements between each GSP Group and the Parties within such GSP Group; and
WHEREAS, this Coordination Agreement is being executed before the respective GSPs have been prepared, and the Parties anticipate attaching and incorporating technical reports covering such additional required information before submittal of this Agreement to DWR with the Parties’ respective GSPs without separate amendment being required.

THEREFORE, in consideration of the facts recited above and of the covenants, terms and conditions set forth herein, the Parties agree as follows:

SECTION 1 – PURPOSE

1.1 Compliance with SGMA
In subbasins with multiple GSPs, SGMA requires the GSPs to be coordinated through a coordination agreement. The purpose of this Coordination Agreement including the anticipated attachment and incorporation of technical reports to be developed after the initial execution of this Agreement, is to comply with that SGMA requirement and ensure that the multiple GSPs within the Subbasin are developed and implemented utilizing the same methodologies and assumptions, that the elements of the GSPs are appropriately coordinated to support sustainable management, and to ultimately set forth the information necessary to show how the multiple GSPs in the Subbasin will achieve the sustainability goal, as determined for the Subbasin in compliance with SGMA and its associated regulations.

1.2 Description of Criteria & Function
An additional purpose of this Coordination Agreement is to describe the criteria for establishing the responsibilities of each Party for meeting the terms of this Coordination Agreement, the procedure for the exchange of information between the Parties, and procedures for resolving conflicts between the Parties. The goal of the coordination is to ensure that the Subbasin GSPs utilize the same data and methodologies, including but not limited to, groundwater elevation data, groundwater extraction data, surface water supply, total water use, changes in groundwater storage, water budgets, and sustainable yield during their development as required by SGMA and associated regulations. Additionally, this Coordination Agreement sets out the process for identifying a Plan Manager. 589
Coordination Agreement – Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 3 of 28 SECTION 2 – DEFINITIONS

2.1 “Coordinated Plan Expenses” shall mean any expenses incurred by the Secretary and the Plan Manager for purposes of developing and implementing the Coordination Agreement.

2.2 “Coordination Agreement” shall mean this Coordination Agreement.

2.3 “Coordination Committee” shall mean the committee of GSP Group Representatives established pursuant to this Coordination Agreement.

2.4 “Group Contact” shall mean one Party designated on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein as responsible to supply notices and to circulate information and invoices for its respective Exhibit “A” GSP Group, as said Exhibit may be updated from time to time.

2.5 “GSA” shall mean a groundwater sustainability agency established in accordance with SGMA and its associated regulations, and “GSAs” shall mean more than one such groundwater sustainability agency. Each Party is a GSA.

2.6 “GSP” shall mean a groundwater sustainability plan as defined by SGMA and its regulations, and “GSPs” shall mean more than one such plan.

2.7 “GSP Group” shall mean a grouping of Parties, stakeholders, and interested parties developing an individual GSP within the Subbasin, as shown in Exhibit “A,” who are combined for purposes of representation and voting on the Coordination Committee and for purposes of sharing Coordinated Plan Expenses as set forth in this Coordination Agreement.

2.8 “GSP Group Alternate Representative,” “Alternate Representative,” or “Alternate” and their plural forms shall mean an alternate member of the Coordination Committee selected to represent the GSP Groups in accordance with Exhibit “A” and Section 5.1.2-5.1.4 of this Coordination Agreement who shall serve in the absence of the respective GSP Group Representative and shall be entitled to cast the vote for the absent GSP Representative.

2.9 “GSP Group Representative” or “Representative” and their plural forms as appropriate shall mean a member or members of the Coordination Committee selected to represent the GSP Groups in accordance with Exhibit “A” and Section 5.1.2 – 5.1.4 this Coordination Agreement.

2.10 “Participation Percentages” shall mean that percentage of Coordinated Plan Expenses allocated to each GSP Group as described on Exhibit “A” to this Coordination Agreement, which is attached and incorporated by reference herein, as updated from time to time. 590
Coordination Agreement – Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 4 of 28

2.11 “Party” or “Parties” shall mean a Groundwater Sustainability Agency or in the plural, two or more Groundwater Sustainability Agencies within the Delta-Mendota Subbasin.

2.12 “Plan Manager” shall mean an entity or individual, appointed at the pleasure of the Coordination Committee, or as provided in section 4.1.2 of this Coordination Agreement, to perform the role of the Plan Manager to serve as the point of contact to DWR as set forth in Section 5.2.3 of this Coordination Agreement.

2.13 “Seasonal High” shall mean the highest annualstatic groundwater elevation associated with stable aquifer conditions following a period of lowest annual groundwater demand.

2.14 “Seasonal Low” shall mean the lowest annual static groundwater elevation associated with a period of stable aquifer conditions following a period of highest annual groundwater demand.

2.15 “San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority” or “SLDMWA” shall mean the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, a California joint powers agency.

2.16 “SGMA” shall mean the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, as amended from time to time, commencing at Water Code section 10720, together with its implementing regulations applicable to Groundwater Sustainability Plans, set forth at California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Division 2, Chapter 1.5, Subchapter 2.

2.17 “SGMA Definitions” shall mean those SGMA-specific definitions provided by statute or regulation and attached in the Appendix to this Coordination Agreement; in the event of any inconsistency between a term defined in this Section and a SGMA-specific definition, the definition contained in this Coordination Agreement shall prevail.

2.18 “Subbasin” shall mean the Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin Number 5-22.07, DWR Bulletin 118) within the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin.

2.19 “Technical Memoranda” shall mean the memoranda prepared by the Coordination Committee that include the data and methodologies for assumptions described in Water Code section 10727.6 to prepare coordinated plans. Individually, the memoranda shall be referred to as a “Technical Memorandum.”

2.20 “Water Year” shall mean the period from October 1 through the following September 30 as defined by SGMA.

2.21 “Water Year Type” shall mean the classification provided by DWR to assess the amount of annual precipitation in a basin and as defined by SGMA. 591
Coordination Agreement – Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 5 of 28 SECTION 3 – GENERAL GUIDELINES

3.1 Responsibilities of the Parties

3.1.1 Obligation to Coordinate
The Parties to this Coordination Agreement agree to work collaboratively to meet the objectives of SGMA and this Coordination Agreement. Each Party to this Coordination Agreement is a GSA and acknowledges that it is bound by the terms of this Coordination Agreement as an individual Party.

3.1.2 Obligations Outside of Coordination Agreement Regarding GSP Groups a) Representation and Voting. Each Party understands its participation, as more fully set forth in Section 5 of this Coordination Agreement, is based on representation through and by its GSP Group Representative(s). It is the responsibility and obligation of each Party under this Coordination Agreement to develop its own arrangements for how its respective GSP Group Representative and Alternate Representative are selected and how required actions of GSAs within the GSP Group under its respective GSP are identified and implemented.
b) The Coordination Committee and its members shall have no requirement to recognize a voting status or other decisional authority of any Party to this Coordination Agreement other than through the designated GSP Group Representative(s). For purposes of this Coordination Agreement, it is assumed that GSP Group Representatives have been authorized by the Parties in their GSP Groups to participate as described herein. c) By signing this Coordination Agreement, each Party commits to provide documentation to the Secretary and the Coordination Committee of the authorization of its GSP Group Representative(s). Provided, that the Secretary shall not be obligated to evaluate or provide an opinion on the legal sufficiency of the documentation. d) It is the responsibility and obligation of each Party under this Coordination Agreement that is included on Exhibit “A” as part of a multi-party GSP Group to provide documentation to the Secretary and to the Coordination Committee establishing that such GSP Group has a binding agreement or mechanism assuring that the GSP Group will pay its Participation Percentage set forth on Exhibit “A,” as said Exhibit “A” may be modified from time to time. Provided, that the Secretary shall not be obligated to evaluate or provide an opinion on the legal sufficiency of the documentation.
592
Coordination Agreement – Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 6 of 28

3.1.3 Non-Entity Status
The Parties acknowledge and agree that this Coordination Agreement does not create a legal entity with power to sue or be sued, to enter into contract, or to enjoy the benefits or accept the obligations of a legal entity.

3.1.4 Implementation of Individual GSPs
This Coordination Agreement does not otherwise affect each Party’s responsibility to implement the terms of its respective GSP in accordance with SGMA. Rather, this Coordination Agreement is the mechanism through which the Parties will coordinate their respective GSPs to the extent necessary to ensure that such GSP coordination complies with SGMA.

3.2 Adjudicated or Alternate Plans in the Subbasin
As of the date of this Coordination Agreement, there are no portions of the Subbasin that have been adjudicated or approved to submit an alternative plan as defined by SGMA.

SECTION 4 – ROLE OF SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY

4.1 Agreement to Serve
By executing this Agreement, and not as a Party, the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority agrees to carry out the functions described in this Section 4 and its subparts consistent with the terms of this Section and under the direction and supervision of the Coordination Committee, subject to the reimbursement and the termination provisions contained in this Section.

4.1.1 Secretary
The SLDMWA agrees to perform the obligations of the Secretary described in this Coordination Agreement, by delegation to one or more of its employees or to a consultant under contract to the SLDMWA.

4.1.2 Plan Manager
The SLDMWA agrees to perform the obligations of the Plan Manager described in this Coordination Agreement, by delegation to one or more of its employees or to a consultant under contract to the SLDMWA.
593
Coordination Agreement – Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 7 of 28

4.2 Reimbursement of SLDMWA
The commitment of the SLDMWA to perform the designated functions under this Section is contingent upon the execution and performance of a separate cost sharing agreement between the SLDMWA and the Parties.

4.3 Termination of SLDMWA’s Services
Either the Parties acting through the Coordination Committee or the SLDMWA at any time may terminate the services being provided by the SLDMWA under this Coordination Agreement upon thirty (30) days’ written notice, if from the SLDMWA, to the Coordination Committee and each GSP Group Representative; and if from the Coordination Committee, to the SLDMWA and each GSP Group Representative.

SECTION 5 – RESPONSIBILITIES FOR KEY FUNCTIONS

5.1 Coordination Committee

5.1.1 The Parties agree to establish a Coordination Committee to provide the forum for the Parties to accomplish the coordination obligation of SGMA pursuant to this Coordination Agreement.

5.1.2 The Coordination Committee will consist of the GSP Group Representatives identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, as said Exhibit “A” may be modified from time to time pursuant to Section 13 of this Agreement.

Each GSP Group Representative shall have one Alternate Representative authorized to vote in the absence of the GSP Group Representative.

5.1.3 Individuals serving as GSP Group Representatives and Alternate Representatives shall be selected by each respective GSP Group in the discretion of the respective GSP Group, and such appointments shall be effective upon providing written notice to the Secretary and to each Group Contact listed on Exhibit “A”.

5.1.4 The Coordination Committee will recognize each GSP Group Representative and GSP Group Alternate Representative until such time as the Group Contact provides written notice of removal and replacement to the Secretary and to every other Group Contact designated on Exhibit “A.” Each GSP Group or GSP Subgroup shall promptly fill any vacancy created by the removal of such Representative or Alternate Representative so that each GSP 594
Coordination Agreement – Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 8 of 28 Group shall have the number of validly designated Representatives and Alternate Representatives specified on Exhibit “A”.

5.1.5. Minutes of the Coordination Committee will be prepared and maintained as set forth in Section 5.5.4.

5.2 Coordination Committee Officers
The Officers of the Coordination Committee will include a Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Secretary, and Plan Manager. Except where the Parties have named such Officers pursuant to Section 4 of this Coordination Agreement, Officers shall be selected at the initial meeting of the Committee or as soon thereafter as reasonably can be accomplished.

5.2.1 Chairperson and Vice Chairperson
a) A GSP Group Representative shall serve as Chairperson. The Vice Chairperson, who shall also be a GSP Group Representative, shall serve in the absence of the Chairperson. In the absence of both the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson, a meeting may be led by an Acting Chairperson selected on an ad hoc basis. b) The positions of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall rotate among the GSP Groups on an annual basis according to alphabetical order, with the first rotation beginning on the date the first Chairperson is selected. The schedule for rotation among the GSP Groups will be set at the first meeting after the Chairperson is appointed and reviewed and adjusted annually. A GSP Group Representative may waive designation as Chairperson.

In such a case the Chairperson office would rotate to the next designated entity.

5.2.2 Secretary
The Coordination Committee shall select a Secretary to carry out the functions described in this subsection, to serve at the pleasure of the Coordination Committee. The Secretary shall be a public agency who may be, but need not be a Party to this Coordination Agreement. The San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority is hereby designated as the initial Secretary, to serve at the pleasure of the Coordination Committee.
a) The Secretary shall select an appointee to implement the Secretary’s responsibilities under this Coordination Agreement, for example, to coordinate meetings; prepare agendas; circulate notices and agendas; provide written notice to all Parties that the Coordination Committee has made a recommendation requiring approval by the Parties; prepare and maintain minutes of meetings of the Coordination Committee; receive notices on 595
Coordination Agreement – Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 9 of 28 behalf of the Coordination Committee and call to the Coordination Committee’s attention the need for responding; and provide such other assistance in coordination as may be appropriate. b) The Secretary shall assume primary responsibility for Brown Act compliance, including without limitation, the responsibility to: prepare an agenda and notice, publicly post, and distribute agendas to all GSP Group or Subgroup Representatives, the Parties, and any other interested persons who requests, in writing, such notices. The Agenda shall be of adequate detail to inform the public and the parties of the meeting and the matters to be transacted or discussed, and shall be posted in a public location and distributed to each of the parties to this Coordination Agreement at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to every regular meeting and at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to every special meeting.

5.2.3 Plan Manager
If the SLDMWA ceases to serve as Plan Manager as agreed under Section 4.1.2 of this coordination Agreement, then the Coordination Committee shall name a successor Plan Manager, who may be a consultant hired by the Secretary pursuant to the Coordination Agreement, the representative of an entity that has been selected as Secretary, or a public agency serving as or participating in a GSA that is a Party to this Coordination Agreement, and who shall serve as the point of contact for DWR as specified by SGMA. The San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority is hereby designated as the initial Plan Manager, to serve at the pleasure of the Coordination Committee.
a) The Plan Manager shall carry out the duties of a “plan manager” as provided in Title 23, division 2, Chapter 1.5, Subchapter 2, California Code of Regulations. b) The Plan Manager has no authority to make policy decisions or represent the Coordination Committee without the specific direction of the Coordination Committee.

The Plan Manager is obligated to disclose all substantive communications he/she transmits and receives in his/her capacity as Plan Manager to the Coordination Committee.

5.3 Coordination Committee Authorized Actions and Limitations

5.3.1 Authorized Actions
The Coordination Committee is authorized to act upon the following enumerated items:
a) The Coordination Committee shall review, and consistent with the requirements of SGMA, approve the Technical Memoranda described in Sections 8-12 of this Coordination Agreement.
596
Coordination Agreement – Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 10 of 28 b) Once GSP Plans have been submitted to and approved by DWR, the Coordination Committee shall be responsible for ongoing review and updating of the Technical Memoranda as needed; assuring submittal of annual reports; providing five-year assessments and recommending any needed revisions to the Coordination Agreement; and providing review and assistance with coordinated projects and programs. c) The Coordination Committee shall review and approve work plans, and in accordance with the budgetary requirements of the respective Parties, approve annual estimates of Coordinated Plan Expenses presented by the Secretary and any updates to such estimates; provided, that such estimates or updates with supporting documentation shall be circulated to all Parties for comment at least thirty (30) days in advance of the meeting at which the Coordination Committee will consider approval of the annual estimate. d) Pursuant to Section 13, the Coordination Committee is authorized to approve changes to Exhibit “A” to this Coordination Agreement and to recommend amendments to terms of this Coordination Agreement.
e) The Coordination Committee shall assign work to subcommittees and workgroups as needed, provide guidance and feedback and ensure that subcommittees and workgroups prepare work products in a timely manner.
f) The Coordination Committee shall direct the Plan Manager in the performance of its duties under SGMA.
g) The Coordination Committee shall provide direction to its Officers concerning other administrative and ministerial issues necessary for the fulfillment of the above-enumerated tasks.

5.3.2 Limitations
When the terms of this Coordination Agreement or applicable law require the approval of a Party, that approval shall be required and evidenced as indicated in Section 6 of this Agreement.

5.4 Subcommittees and Workgroups
The Coordination Committee may appoint subcommittees, workgroups, or otherwise direct staff made available by the Parties. Such subcommittees or workgroups may include qualified individuals possessing the knowledge and expertise to advance the goals of the Coordination 597
Coordination Agreement – Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 11 of 28 Agreement on the topics being addressed by the subcommittee, whether or not such individuals are GSP Group Representatives or Alternate Representatives.

5.4.1 Work of Subcommittees and Workgroups
Tasks assigned to subcommittees, workgroups, or staff made available by the Parties may include developing technical data, supporting information, and/or recommendations on matters including, but not limited to:
a) Developing a process to update the Coordination Committee on the activities of the respective Parties, including the development, planning, financing, environmental review, permitting, implementation, and long-term monitoring of the multiple GSPs in the Subbasin;
b) Subject to the oversight of the Coordination Committee, scheduling meetings of the subcommittee or workgroup as necessary to coordinate development and implementation of the Technical Memoranda and Coordination Agreement. Attendance at these meetings may be augmented to include staff or consultants of all Parties to ensure that the appropriate expertise is available;
c) Determining common methodologies for GSP development; d) Developing a Subbasin-wide monitoring network;
e) Preparing a coordinated water budget;
f) Developing a coordinated data management system;
g) Providing an explanation of how the respective GSPs implemented together satisfy the requirements of SGMA and are in substantial compliance with SGMA; and
h) Such other tasks as may be referred by the Coordination Committee from time to time.

5.4.2 Subcommittee Voting
One GSP Group Representative or Alternate Representative shall vote on behalf of the GSP Group at the subcommittee level; if no GSP Group Representative or Alternate Representative is present, one individual working on a subcommittee on behalf of the Parties in a GSP Group shall vote on behalf of the GSP Group. Subcommittees shall report voting results and provide 598
Coordination Agreement – Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 12 of 28 information to the Coordination Committee but shall not be entitled to make determinations or determinations that are binding on the Parties.

5.5 Coordination Committee Meetings

5.5.1 Timing and Notice
The Chairperson of the Coordination Committee, any two GSP Group Representatives, or the Secretary may call meetings of the Coordination Committee as needed to carry out the activities described in this Coordination Agreement. The Coordination Committee may, but is not required to, set a date for regular meetings for the purposes described in this Coordination Agreement. All Coordination Committee Meetings shall be held in compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Section 54950 et seq.).

5.5.2 Quorum
A majority of the GSP Group Representative(s) from every GSP Group listed on Exhibit “A” shall constitute a quorum of the Coordination Committee for purposes of holding a Coordination Committee meeting; provided, that the GSP Group Representative(s) from every GSP Group listed on Exhibit “A” must be present at a meeting for any Coordination Committee vote on a matter described in section 5.3.1 a) through 5.3 d) and 5.3.1 f) to take place. The GSP Group Alternate Representative(s) of each GSP Group shall be counted towards a quorum and as the voting representative(s) in the absence of the GSP Group Representative for which the GSP Group Alternate has been appointed. If less than a quorum is present, the GSP Group Representatives and Alternate Representatives may hear reports and discuss items on the agenda, but no action may be taken.

5.5.3 Open Attendance
Members of the public, stakeholders, and representatives of the Parties who are not appointed as GSP Group Representatives may attend all meetings and shall be provided with an opportunity to comment on matters on the meeting agenda, but shall have no vote.

5.5.4 Minutes
The Secretary’s appointee shall keep and prepare minutes of all Coordination Committee meetings. Notes of subcommittee and workgroup meetings shall be kept by the Secretary’s appointee or an assistant to the appointee. All minutes and subcommittee and workgroup meeting notes shall be maintained by the Secretary as Coordination Agreement records and shall be available to the Parties and the public upon request. 599
Coordination Agreement – Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 13 of 28

5.6 Voting by Coordination Committee

5.6.1. Each GSP Group Representative shall be entitled to one vote at the Coordination Committee. It shall be up to the Parties in each GSP Group to determine how the GSP Group vote(s) will be cast.

5.6.2 Except as set forth in Section 5.6.3, the unanimous vote of the GSP Representatives from all GSP Groups is required on all items upon which the Coordination Committee is authorized to act as identified in Section 5.3.1 a) through 5.3.1 d) and 5.3.1 f); the vote of a majority of a quorum shall be required for all other matters on which the Coordination Committee is authorized to act.

5.6.3 Voting Procedures to Address Lack of Unanimity
When it appears likely that the Coordination Committee will not be able to come to unanimous decision on any matter upon for which a unanimous decision is required, upon a majority vote of a quorum of the Coordination Committee, the matter may be subjected to the following additional procedures.
a) Straw Polls
Straw poll votes may be taken for the purpose of refining ideas and providing guidance to the Coordination Committee, subcommittees, or both.
b) Provisional Voting
Provisional votes may occur prior to final votes. This will be done when an initial vote is needed to refine a proposal but the GSP Group Representatives wish to consult with their respective GSP Group(s) before making a final vote.
c) A vote shall be delayed if any GSP Group Representative declares its intention to propose an alternative or modified recommended action, to be proposed at the next meeting, or as soon thereafter as the GSP Group Representative can obtain any further information or clarifying direction from its GSP Group or governing body, or both, as needed to proposed its alternative or modified recommended action. d) If the process outlined in subsection 5.6.3(c) fails to result in a unanimous vote, any GSP Group Representative not voting in favor of the recommended action may request that the vote be delayed so that the Coordination Committee can obtain further information on the recommended action (for example, by directing a subcommittee established under this 600
Coordination Agreement – Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 14 of 28 Coordination Agreement), so the GSP Group Representative can obtain clarifying direction from its GSP Group or governing body, or both, as needed.
e) Each of the Parties acknowledges the limited time provided by SGMA to complete the GSP preparation process, and agrees to make its best efforts to cooperate through the Coordinating Committee in coming to require a unanimous vote.

SECTION 6 – APPROVAL BY INDIVIDUAL PARTIES

6.1 Where law or this Coordination Agreement require separate written approval by each of the Parties, such approval shall be evidenced in writing by providing the resolution, Motion, or Minutes of their respective Boards of Directors to the Secretary of the Coordination Committee.

SECTION 7 – EXCHANGE OF DATA AND INFORMATION

7.1 Exchange ofInformation
The Parties acknowledge and recognize pursuant to this Coordination Agreement that the Parties may need to exchange information amongst and between the Parties.

7.2 Procedure for Exchange of Information

7.2.1 The Parties shall exchange public and non-privileged information through collaboration and/or informal requests made at the Coordination Committee level or through subcommittees designated by the Coordination Committee. However, to the extent it is necessary to make a written requestfor information to another Party, each Party shall designate a representative to respond to information requests and provide the name and contact information of the designee to the Coordination Committee. Requests may be communicated in writing and transmitted in person or by mail, facsimile machine, or other electronic means to the appropriate representative as named in this Coordination Agreement. The designated representative shall respond in a reasonably timely manner.

7.2.2 Nothing in this Coordination Agreement shall be construed to prohibit any Party from voluntarily exchanging information with any other Party by any other mechanism separate from the Coordination Committee.

7.2.3 The Parties agree that each GSP Group shall provide the data required to develop the Subbasin-wide coordinated water budget but unless required by law, will not be required to provide individual well or parcel-level information in order to preserve 601
Coordination Agreement – Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 15 of 28 confidentiality of individuals to the extent authorized by law, including but not limited to Water Code Section 10730.8, subdivision (b).

7.2.4 To the extent that a court order, subpoena, or the California Public Records Act is applicable to a Party, such Party in responding to a request made pursuant to that Act for release of information exchanged from another Party shall notify each other Party in writing of its proposed release of information in order to provide the other Parties with the opportunity to seek a court order preventing such release of information.

SECTION 8 – METHODOLOGIES AND ASSUMPTIONS

8.1 SGMA Coordination Requirements
Pursuant to SGMA, this Coordination Agreement must ensure that the individual GSPs utilize the same data and methodologies for developing assumptions used to determine: 1) groundwater elevation; 2) groundwater extraction data; 3) surface water supply; 4) total water use; 5) changes in groundwater storage; 6) water budgets; and 7) sustainable yield.

8.2 Pre-GSP Coordination
Prior to the individual development of GSPs, the Parties agree to develop agreed-upon methodologies and assumptions for 1) groundwater elevation; 2) groundwater extraction data; 3) surface water supply; 4) total water use; 5) changes in groundwater storage; 6) water budgets; and 7) sustainable yield. This development may be facilitated through the Coordination Committee’s delegation to a sub-committee or workgroup of the technical staff provided by some or all of the Parties. The basis upon which the methodologies and assumptions will be developed includes existing data/information, best management practices, and/or best modeled or projected data available and may include consultation with the DWR as appropriate.

8.3 Technical Memoranda Required
The data and methodologies for assumptions described in Water Code section 10727.6 and title 23, California Code of Regulations, section 357.4 to prepare coordinated plans shall be set forth in Technical Memoranda prepared by the Coordination Committee for each of the elements discussed in Sections 9, 10, 11, and 12 of this Coordination Agreement. The Technical Memoranda shall be subject to the unanimous approval of the Coordination Committee and once approved, shall be attached to and incorporated by reference into this Coordination Agreement without 602
Coordination Agreement – Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 16 of 28 formal amendment of the Coordination Agreement being required. The Parties agree that they shall not submit this Coordination Agreement to DWR until the Technical Memoranda described herein have been added to the Coordination Agreement. The Technical Memoranda created pursuant to this Agreement shall be utilized by the Parties during the development and implementation of their GSPs in order to assure coordination of the GSPs in compliance with SGMA.

SECTION 9 – MONITORING NETWORK

9.1 In accordance with SGMA, the Parties hereby agree to coordinate the development and maintenance of a monitoring network at a Subbasin level through the coordination of the respective monitoring networks established pursuant to the GSPs in which each of the Parties hereto are participating. The Subbasin monitoring network description shall include monitoring objectives, protocols, and data reporting requirements specific to enumerated sustainability indicators. Each GSP Group’s network shall facilitate the collection of data in order to characterize groundwater and related surface water conditions in the Subbasin and evaluate changing conditions that occur from implementation of the individual GSPs. Each Party’s GSP will describe the monitoring network’s objectives for the Subbasin, including an explanation of network development and implementation to monitor groundwater and related surface conditions, and the interconnection of surface water and groundwater.

9.2 Each GSP Group shall provide the Coordination Committee all relevant data and information for their respective representative monitoring sites established in accordance with Title 23, California Code of Regulations, section 354.36, as amended from time to time.

SECTION 10 – COORDINATED WATER BUDGET

10.1 In accordance with SGMA, the Parties hereby agree to prepare a single coordinated water budget for the Subbasin as described in this subsection for use in the respective GSP in which each of the Parties hereto are participating. The water budget will provide an estimate of the total annual volume of groundwater and surface water entering and leaving the Subbasin, including historical, current and projected water budget conditions, and the change in the volume of water stored and the safe yield for differing aquifers.

10.2 To the extent feasible, the Parties will consider the best available information and best available science to quantify the water budget for the Subbasin in order to provide an 603
Coordination Agreement – Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 17 of 28 understanding of historical and projected hydrology, water demand, water supply, land use, population, climate change, sea level rise, groundwater and surface water interaction, and subsurface groundwater flow.

SECTION 11 – COORDINATED DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

11.1 The Parties will develop and maintain a coordinated data management system that is capable of storing and reporting information relevant to the reporting requirements and/or implementation of the GSPs and monitoring network of the Subbasin.

11.2 The Parties also will develop and maintain separate data management systems. Each separate data management system developed for each GSP will store information related to implementation of each individual GSP, monitoring network data and monitoring sites requirements, and water budget data requirements. Each system will be capable of reporting all pertinent information to the Coordination Committee. After providing the Coordination Committee with data from the individual GSPs, the Coordination Committee will ensure the data is stored and managed in a coordinated manner throughout the Subbasin and reported to DWR annually as required.

SECTION 12 – ADOPTION AND USE OF THE COORDINATION AGREEMENT

12.1 Coordination of GSPs
Each Party is responsible to ensure that its own GSP complies with the statutory requirements of SGMA, including but not limited to the filing deadline. The Parties to this Coordination Agreement intend that their individual GSPs be coordinated together in order to satisfy the requirements of SGMA and to be in substantial compliance with the California Code of Regulations. The collective GSPs will satisfy the requirements of sections 10727.2 and 10727.4 of the Water Code by providing a description of the physical setting and characteristics of the separate aquifer systems within the Subbasin, the measurable objectives for each such GSP, interim milestones, and monitoring protocols that together provide a detailed description of how the Basin as a whole will be sustainably managed.

12.2 GSP and Coordination AgreementSubmission
604
Coordination Agreement – Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 18 of 28 The Parties agree to submit their respective GSPs to DWR through the Coordination Committee and Plan Manager, in accordance with all applicable requirements. Subject to the subsequent attachment of the Technical Memoranda described in Sections 8-12, the Parties intend that this Coordination Agreement fulfill the requirements of providing an explanation of how the GSPsimplemented together satisfy the requirements SGMA for the entire Subbasin.

SECTION 13 – MODIFICATION AND TERMINATION OF THE COORDINATION

AGREEMENT

13.1 Modification or Amendment of Exhibit “A”
The Parties agree that Exhibit “A,” except for the withdrawal or addition of Parties to this Agreement, may be updated by unanimous vote of the Coordination Committee from time to time. Upon such modification, the updated Exhibit “A” shall be attached to this Agreement as a replacement to the previously existing Exhibit “A.” Upon such attachment, the updated “Exhibit “A” shall become a part of this Coordination Agreement without further Amendment of the Coordination Agreement being required. The Secretary shall provide notice of such change to all Group Contacts.

13.1.1 Addition of a Party
A Party may be added to this Coordination Agreement only upon its execution of a counterpart of this Agreement and its provision of any additional documentation required by Sections 3.1.2 a) through 3.1.2 d) of this Coordination Agreement. No Party may be added that is not within the Delta-Mendota Subbasin or that fails to execute an agreement to share in Coordinated Plan Expenses, unless such payment is waived by consent of all Parties.

13.2 Modification or Amendment of Coordination Agreement Except as provided in Sections 13.1 and 13.3, the Parties hereby agree that this Coordination Agreement may be supplemented, amended, or modified only by a writing signed by all Parties.

13.3 Amendment for Compliance with Law
Should any provision of this Coordination Agreement be determined to be not in compliance with legal requirements under circumstances where amendment of the Agreement to include a provision addressing the legal requirement will cure the non-compliance, the Parties agree to promptly prepare and approve such amendment.
605
Coordination Agreement – Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 19 of 28 SECTION 14 – WITHDRAWAL, TERM, AND TERMINATION

14.1 Withdrawal
Subject to the requirements identified in SGMA and the any coordination guidelines or regulations issued by DWR, a Party may unilaterally withdraw from this Coordination Agreement without causing or requiring termination of this Coordination Agreement, effective upon thirty (30) days written notice to the Secretary and all other Parties. The Plan Coordinator shall report any such withdrawal to DWR within five (5) days of receipt of the written notice.

14.1.1 Any Party who withdraws shall remain obligated for Coordinated Plan Expenses as provided in a separate Cost Sharing Agreement. If no separate Cost Sharing Agreement is then in effect or enforceable against the withdrawing Party, the Party is obligated to pay its share of all debts, liabilities, and obligations the Party incurred or accrued under the Coordination Agreement prior to the effective date of such withdrawal, as established under its separate GSP Group agreement concerning such share of obligations.

14.1.2 Upon withdrawal, a Party agrees that it has a continuing obligation to comply with SGMA and any coordination guidelines or regulations issued by DWR, which require a coordination agreement if there are multiple GSPs in the Subbasin. This obligation shall survive the withdrawal from this Coordination Agreement and is for the express benefit of the remaining Parties.

14.1.3 In the event any GSP Group Representative(s) prevents/prevent a required unanimous vote of the Coordination Committee after following all procedures described in

5.3.1 or Section 15 of this Agreement, the Parties in such GSP Group agree to provide notice that such GSP Group has unilaterally withdrawn from this Agreement in accordance with this Section.

14.2 Term
As modified pursuant to Section 13 and unless terminated in accordance with Section 14.2.3, this Coordination Agreement shall continue for a term that is coterminous with the requirements of SGMA for the existence of a Coordination Agreement.

14.3 Termination
This Coordination Agreement may be terminated or rescinded and the coordinated implementation of GSPs terminated by unanimous written consent of all the Parties. Nothing 606
Coordination Agreement – Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 20 of 28 in this Coordination Agreement shall prevent the Parties from entering into another coordination agreement for coordination with any other subbasin.

SECTION 15 – PROCEDURES FOR RESOLVING CONFLICTS
In the event of any dispute arising from or relating to this Agreement, the disputing Party shall, within thirty (30) calendar days of discovery of the events giving rise to the dispute, notify all Parties to this Agreement in writing of the basis for the dispute. Within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of said notice, all interested Parties shall meet and confer in a good-faith attempt to informally resolve the dispute. All disputes that are not resolved informally shall be settled by arbitration. Within ten (10) days following the failed informal proceedings, each interested Party shall nominate and circulate to all other interested Parties the name of one arbitrator. Within ten (10) days following the nominations, the interested Parties shall rank their top three among all nominated arbitrators, awarding three points to the top choice, two points to the second choice, one point to the third choice and zero points to all others. Each interested Party shall forward its tally to the Secretary, who shall tabulate the points and notify the interested Parties of the arbitrator with the highest cumulative score, who shall be the selected arbitrator. The Secretary may also develop procedures for approval by the Parties, for selection in the case of tie votes or in order to replace the selected arbitrator in the event such arbitrator declines to act. The arbitration shall be administered in accordance with the procedures set forth in the California Code of Civil Procedure, section 1280, et seq., and of any state or local rules then in effect for arbitration pursuant to said section. Upon completion of arbitration, if the controversy has not been resolved, any Party may exercise all rights to bring a legal action relating to the controversy.

SECTION 16 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

16.1 Authority of Signers
The individuals executing this Coordination Agreement represent and warrant that they have the authority to enter into this Coordination Agreement and to legally bind the Party for whom they are signing to the terms and conditions of this Coordination Agreement.

16.2 Governing Law
The validity and interpretation of this Coordination Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California without giving effect to the principles of conflict of laws, with venue for all purposes to be proper only in the County of Merced, State of California. 607

16.3 Severability
Except as provided for cure by amendment in Section 13.3, if any term, provision, covenant, or condition of this Coordination Agreement is determined to be unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, it is the Patties' intent that the remaining provisions of this Coordination Agreement will remain in full force and effect and will not be affected, impaired, or invalidated by such a determination.

16.4 Counterparts
This Coordination Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be an original, but all of which will constitute one and the same agreement.

16.5 Good Faith
The Patties agree to exercise their best efforts and utmost good faith to effectuate all the terms and conditions of this Coordination Agreement and to execute such further instruments and documents as are reasonably necessary, appropriate, expedient, or proper to carry out the intent and purposes of this Coordination Agreement.

SECTION 17 - SIGNATORIES
PARTIES:

PATTERSON IRRIGATION DISTRICT GSA Patterson Irrigation District I Date: 07i /??l7r\/A s~
Name of Representative:

WEST STANISLAUS IRRIGATION DISTRICT GSA 1
West Stanislaus Irrigation I Date:

District
Signature
Name of Representative:

DMIIGSA
Del Puerto Water District I Date: Oak Flat Water District I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

CITY OF PATTERSON GSA
City of Patterson I Date:

Signature
Name of Representative:

Coordination Agreement - Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 21 of28 608

16.3 Severability
Except as provided for cure by amendment in Section 13.3, if any term, provision, covenant, or condition of this Coordination Agreement is determined to be unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, it is the Parties' intent that the remaining provisions of this Coordination Agreement will remain in full force and effect and will not be affected, impaired, or invalidated by such a determination.

16.4 Counterparts
This Coordination Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be an original, but all of which will constitute one and the same agreement.

16.5 Good Faith
The Paities agree to exercise their best efforts and utmost good faith to effectuate all the terms and conditions of this Coordination Agreement and to execute such further instruments and documents as are reasonably necessary, appropriate, expedient, or proper to carry out the intent and purposes of this Coordination Agreement.

SECTION 17-SIGNATORIES
PARTIES:

PATTERSON IRRIGATION DISTRICT GSA
Patterson Irrigation District I Date:

Signature
Name of Representative:

WEST STANISLAUS IRRIGATION DISTRICT GSA 1 West Stanislaus Inigation I Date: S/26/tf District Signature ~J
Name of Representative: !-./CJ b vi- f ; ere. e.. 6-8"' P ../'a . I /vtQMO c:t Q,/' -

DMIIGSA
Del Puerto Water District I Date: Oak Flat Water District I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

CITY OF PATTERSON GSA Citv of Patterson I Date:

Signature
Name of Representative:

Coordination Agreement - Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 21 of28 609

16.3 Severabilitv
Except as provided for cure by amendment in Section 13.3, if any tenn, provision, covenant, or condition of this Coordination Agreement is detennined to be unenforceable by a court of competent jmisdiction, it is the Parties' intent that the remaining provisions of this Coordination Agreement will remain in full force and effect and will not be affected, impaired, or invalidated by such a detennination.

16.4 Counterparts
This Coordination Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be an original, but all of which will constitute one and the same agreement.

16.5 Good Faith
The Parties agree to exercise their best efforts and utmost good faith to effectuate all the tenns and conditions of this Coordination Agreement and to execute such fmiher instruments and documents as are reasonably necessary, approptiate, expedient, or proper to can-y out the intent and purposes of this Coordination Agreement.

SECTION 17- SIGNATORIES
PARTIES:

PATTERSON IRRIGATION DISTRICT GSA
Patterson Irrioation District Date: Twin Oaks Irri0 ation Com an Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Re resentative: Name of Re resentative:

WEST STANISLAUS IRRIGATION DISTRICT GSA 1
West Stanislaus Irrigation Date:

District
Signature
Name of Re resentative:

WEST STANISLAUS IRRIGATION DISTRICT GSA 2
West Stanislaus Irrigation
District
Signature
Name of Re resentative:

DMII GSA
Del Puerto Water District
Date:

Date:

Coordination Agreement - Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-201 8 FINAL Page 21 of 28 610

16.3 Severability
Except as provided for cure by amendment in Section 13.3, if any term, provision, covenant, or condition of this Coordination Agreement is determined to be unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, it is the Parties' intent that the remaining provisions of this Coordination Agreement will remain in full force and effect and will not be affected, impaired, or invalidated by such a determination.

16.4 Counterparts
This Coordination Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be an original, but all of which will constitute one and the same agreement.

16.5 Good Faith
The Parties agree to exercise their best efforts and utmost good faith to effectuate all the terms and conditions of this Coordination Agreement and to execute such further instruments and documents as are reasonably necessary, appropriate, expedient, or proper to carry out the intent and purposes of this Coordination Agreement.

SECTION 17 - SIGNATORIES
PARTIES:

PATTERSON IRRIGATION DISTRICT GSA
Patterson Irrie:ation District I Date:

Signature
Name of Representative:

WEST STANISLAUS IRRIGATION DISTRICT GSA 1
West Stanislaus Irrigation I Date:

District
Signature
Name of Representative:

DMIIGSA
Del Puerto Water District I Date: Oak Flat Water District I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

CITY OF PATTERSON GSA I J - Citv of Patterson ~ I Date: / F?c/// ~ Signa~ :_,£L_ I ,
Jr-" - /
Name of Representative: ~e.\/\ \(l.L) lv\
Coordination Agreement- Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 21 of28 611

CITY OF PATTERSON GSA
City of Patterson I Date:

Signature
Name of Representative:

NORTHWESTERN DELTA-MENDOTA GSA
County of Merced _ I Date: 71~1 ft fl County of Stanislaus I Date:
~1:P Q l~- Signature
Naipe o'f R~presentative:...1en/l ,e. 0'/51rilJI'- Name of Representative:

CENTRAL DELTA-MENDOTA REGION MULTI-AGENCY GSA
San Luis Water District I Date: Panoche Water District I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

Tranquillity Irrigation I Date: Fresno Slough Water District I Date:

District
Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

Eagle Field Water District I Date: Pacheco Water District I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

Santa Nella County Water I Date: Mercy Springs Water I Date:

District District
Signature Signature
Name of Representative: . I Name of Representative:

County of Merc_ed I Date:i/31/lf County of Fresno I Date:

Signature f ~ Signature
l~o.O . - Name \Of :kepresentative:'"Jo,-v l R. D'E!,uvof'.- Name of Representative:

OR(TLOMA WATER DISTRICT GSA
Oro Loma Water District I Date:

Signature
Name of Representative:

WIDREN WATER DISTRICT GSA
Widren Water District I Date:

Signature
Name of Representative:

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS GSA
Central California Irrigation I Date: Columbia Canal Company I Date:

District
Signature Signature
Coordination Agreement - Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 22 of 28 612

CITY OF PATTERSON GSA
Citv of Patterson I Date:

Signature
Name of Representative:

NORTHWESTERN DEL T A-MF..NDOTA GSA
County of Merced I Date: County o11Stanislau A I Date:/ O/qfl(,t Signature Signatu , I ( /./?A/L--" '
j_ ... ,.µ~yJ£;:,____
Name of Representative: JinJ.Aleldartini, (.; t1 arim~n:

APPROVED AS TO FORM (~ .'
John P. DotHng V ,,,/ {Z,,;i .A _
,ounty ou11 cl l}Y: &..""---"' 'f!J;t' :;;..:=..._ -- ... ~"'--F-+-- - Stanislns County /J$j- ~ ~ ,,cl
Dat : 0/7(/'/

CENTRAL DELTA-MENDOTA REGION MULTI-AGENCY GSA
San Luis Water District I Date: Panoche Water District I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

Tranquillity Irrigation
District
I Date: Fresno Slough Water District I Date:

Signature
Name of Representative:

Ea2le Field Water District
Signature
Name of Representative:

Santa Nella County Water
District
Signature
Name of Representative:

Countv of Merced
Signature
Name of Representative:

I Date:
l Date:

I Date:

ORO LOMA WATER DISTRICT GSA
Oro Loma Water District I Date:

Signature
Name of Representative:

WIDREN WATER DISTRICT GSA
Widren Water District I Date:

Signature
Name of Representative:

Pacheco Water District
Signature
Name of Representative:

Mercy Springs Water
District
Signature
Name of Representative:

Countv of Fresno
Signature
Name of Representative:

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS GSA
I Date:

I Date:

Central California Irrigation I Date: Columbia Canal Company I Date:

District
Si2nature Si2nature
Coordination Agreement - Delta-Mendota Sub basin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 22 of 28 613

NORTHWESTERN DELTA-MENDOTA GSA
Coun of Merced Date: Coun of Stanislaus Date:

Signature Signature
sentative: Name of Re resentative: ,.· t}i'XIiffiN., .. . ·-·· ... .. •• ... ..... . ....... ·•·. !A'GENC:Y;.;GS'A';it/ti".~Y/tC<:\f ..... · t)\';,:~t}\,/{:D;: ~,->····•.:~:,:;•::,: ,; ····-~ ' ', • '•'·"i '-;.:'•-· -,, .. -~.- ·· . ·.• ·1··••.,-;'"· ;:~··· '• '" ..... ~-- ; . ··'- '. ·,:>·· • .. · .. ,, ' • •. ,-· · · .. ·- · -~- ·,,1·_ .
"'N~'ffi~l:{:ifiR'.e'''fesitJtafi:vt:);:.:t?N\\')}:fa\,,;'H' './!,..

ORO LOMA WATER DISTRICT GSA
Oro Loma Water District Date:

Signature

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS GSA
Central California Irrigation Date: Columbia Canal Company Date:

District
Signature Signature
Name of
Firebau Date: Date:

Signature Signature
Coordination Agreement - Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 22 of28 614

CITY OF PATTERSON GSA
City of Patterson I Date:

Signature
Name of Representative:

NORTHWESTERN DELTA-MENDOTA GSA
County of Merced I Date: County of Stanislaus I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

CENTRAL DELTA-MENDOTA REGION MULTI-AGENCY GSA
San Luis Water District I Date: Panocpe.>Vatw; Di~trfcl I Date:

Signature Sicmf.1£~ lh Ir~ A 67/3} '/ft
Name of Representative: &me' of Repres~ntative: /
Tranquillity Irrigation I Date: /frresno Slough Water District I Date:

District
Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

Eagle Field Water District I Date: Pacheco W;rte.r Distri"• I Date:

Signature Sign~~ yi ~ ~/-;t3
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

Santa Nella County Water I Date: Mercy Springs Water I 0 District District . -, 13 31 It 1II
Signature Signatur/4l,((2 • '
Name of Representative: Name of Representative: '
County of Merced I Date: County of Fresno I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Reoresentative: Name of Representative:

ORO LOMA WATER DISTRICT GSA
Oro Loma Water District I Date:

Signature
Name of Representative:

WIDRENWATERDISTRICT GSA
Widren Water District I Date:

Signature
Name of Representative:

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS GSA
Central California Irrigation I Date: Columbia Canal Company I Date:

District
Signature Signature
Coordination Agreement - Delta-Mendota Sub basin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 22 of28 615

CITY OF PATTERSON GSA
City of Patterson I Date:

Signature
Name of Representative:

NORTHWESTERN DELTA-MENDOTA GSA
County of Merced I Date: County of Stanislaus I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

CENTRAL DELTA-MENDOTA REGION MULTI-AGENCY GSA
San Luis Water District I Date: Panocbe Water District I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

Tranquillity lrriga,\
Dis~ t 1 ir~1iR Fresno Slough Water District I Date:

Sigh~it{e\ \ ~;__ ~ c~~tlf J Signature
Name bf If epresentai.ive: Name of Representative:

Ea2le 1E0eld Water District I Date: Pacheco Water District I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

Santa Nella County Water I Date: Mercy Springs Water I Date:

District District
Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

County of Merced I Date: County of Fresno I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

ORO LOMA WATER DISTRICT GSA
Oro Loma Water District I Date:

Signature
Name of Representative:

WIDREN WATER DISTRICT GSA
Widren Water District I Date:

Signature
Name of Representative:

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS GSA
Central California Irrigation I Date: Columbia Canal Company I Date:

District
Si2nature Signature
Coordination Agreement-Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 22 of28 616

NORTHWESTERN DELTA-MENDOTA GSA
County of Merced I Date: County of Stanislaus I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

CENTRAL DELTA-MENDOTA REGION MULTI-AGENCY GSA
San Luis Water District I Date: Panoche Water District I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

Tranquillity Irrigation I Date: Fresno Slough Water District I Date: <f District <c--Lvt
Name
Signature
of Representative:
~~Name of Rep~1~ resentative:

Eagle Field Water District I Date: Pacheco Water District I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

Santa Nella County Water I Date: Mercy Springs Water I Date:

District District
Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

County of Merced I Date: County of Fresno I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

ORO LOMA WATER DISTRICT GSA
Oro Loma Water District I Date:

Signature
Name of Representative:

WIDREN WATER DISTRICT GSA
Widren Water District I Date:

Signature
Name of Representative:

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS GSA
Central California Irrigation I Date: Columbia Canal Company I Date:

District
Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

Firebaugh Canal Company I Date: San Luis Canal Company I Date:

Signature Signature
Coordination Agreement - Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 22 of28 617

NORTHWESTERN DELTA-MENDOTA GSA
Countv of Merced I Date: Countv of Stanislaus I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Reoresentative: Name of Reoresentative:

CENTRAL DELTA-MENDOTA REGION MULTI-AGENCY GSA
San Luis Water District I Date: Panoche Water District I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Renresentative: Name of Renresentative:

Tranquillity Irrigation l Date: Fresno Slough Water District I Date:

District
Signature Signature
Name of Reoresentative: Name of Renresentative:

Ea<1le Field Water District I Date: Pacheco Water District I Date:

Sign~ J} 1JIJh'r7.,d,_j·'?-I?"' Signature
Name' of Renresentative: Name of Reoresentative:

Santa Nella County Water I Date: Mercy Springs Water I Date:

District District
Signature Signature
Name of Renresentative: Name of Renresentative:

Countv of Merced I Date: Countv of Fresno I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Renresentative: Name of Renresentative:

ORO LOMA WATER DISTRICT GSA
Oro Loma Water District I Date:

Signature
Name of Renresentative:

WIDREN WATER DISTRICT GSA
Widren Water District l Date:

Signature
Name of Renresentative:

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS GSA
Central California Irrigation I Date: Columbia Canal Company I Date:

District
Signature Signature
Name of Renresentative: Name ofRenresentative:

Firebau!!h Canal Comoanv 7 Date: San Luis Canal Comoanv I Date:

Signature Signature
Coordination Agreement - Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 22 of28 618

NORTHWESTERN DELTA-MENDOTA GSA
County of Merced Date: County of Stanislaus I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

CENTRAL DELTA-MENDOTA REGION MULTI-AGENCY GSA
San Luis Water District Date: Panoche Water District I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

Tranquillity Jrrigation Date: Fresno Slough Water District I Date:

District
Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

Eaele Field Water District Date: Pacheco Water District I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Representative: .Aniu •~· - • - -.& Name of Representative:

Santa Nella County Water I
Dat~ ~, J Mercy Springs Water I Date:

District " ~,,u- 10 District
Signature /Jrrrw0 I Signature
Name of Representative: } Name of Representative:

County of Merce~ / Date: County of Fresno I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

ORO LOMA WATER DISTRICT GSA
Oro Loma Water District Date:

Signature
Name of Representative:

WIDREN WATER DISTRICT GSA
Widren Water District Date:

Signature
Name of Representative:

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS GSA
Central California Irrigation Date: Columbia Canal Company I Date:

District
Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

Firebaueh Canal Company J Date: San Luis Canal Company J Date:

Signature Signature
Coordination Agreement - Delta-Mendota Sub basin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 22 of28 619

NORTHWESTERN DELTA-MENDOTA GSA
County of Merced l Date: Countv of Stanislaus I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

CENTRAL DELTA-MENDOTA REGION MULTI-AGENCY GSA
San Luis Water District I Date: Panoche-Water District I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

Tranquillity Irrigation I Date: Fresno Slough Water District I Date:

District
Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

Eai::de Field Water District I Date: Pacheco Water District I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

Santa Nella County Water I Date: Mercy Springs Water I Date:

District District
Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

Countv of Merced I Date: County of Fresno I Date:ilJ.1119 Signature Signatur~ ~ ~-:b:-;-_ ( J -
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

ORO LOMA WATER DISTRICT GSA
Oro Loma Water District I Date:

Signature
Name of Representative:

WIDREN WATER DISTRICT GSA
Widren Water District I Date:

Signature
Name of Reoresentative:

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS GSA
Central California Irrigation I Date: Columbia Canal Company I Date:

District
Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

Firebau2h Canal Company I Date: San Luis Canal Company I Date:

Signature Signature
Coordination Agreement-Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 22 of28 620

NORTHWESTERN DELTA-MENDOTA GSA
County of Merced I Date: County of Stanislaus I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

CENTRAL DELTA-MENDOTA REGION MULTI-AGENCY GSA
San Luis Water District I Date: Panoche Water District I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

Tranquillity Irrigation I Date: Fresno Slough Water District I Date:

District
Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of ReDresentative:

Eagle Field Water District I Date: Pacheco Water District I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

Santa Nella County Water I Date: Mercy Springs Water I Date:

District District
Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

County of Merced I Date: County of Fresno I Date:

Signature Signature
Name of Representative: Name of Representative:

ORO LOMA WATER DISTRICT GSA
Oro Loma Water District I Date: ~
Signature --"h. --✓ -- -?. -" ., ✓ /-'
Name of Representative:

WIDREN WATER DISTRICT GSA
Widren Water District I Date:

Signature
Name ofRenresentative:

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS GSA
Central California Irrigation l Date: Columbia Canal Company I Date:

District
Signature Signature
Name of Renrescntativc: Name of Renrescntative:

Firebaugh Canal Com1mny I Date: San Luis Canal Company I Date:

Signature Signature
Coordination Agreement - Delta-Mendota Subbasin 05-14-2018 FINAL Page 22 of28 621