10.3 Data Management System (DMS)
Indio GSAs have been collecting and compiling groundwater data annually including water levels, water quality, and water use for the Annual Report. These data, and other data from the GSAs and other sources, are being compiled in relational databases, which comprise an Access database, GIS geodatabase, and Excel workbooks. These have capabilities for queries to quickly check and summarize data. As part of the Alternative Plan Update, the data management system has been redesigned to be practicable, usable, intuitive, and cost effective. The relational database includes easy-to-update tables and reports that assist in data analysis and sustainability goals. These tables include groundwater elevations, water quality, groundwater pumping, direct deliveries of imported water, and well locations. The geodatabase contains spatial files including jurisdictional areas, basin boundaries, monitoring locations, crop censuses, groundwater contours (elevation and quality), geology, and hydrologic features.
The DMS will be updated annually as part of the annual report. In addition, a full review and update will be conducted during the Alternative Plan 5-year update.
Water quality samples are analyzed in a certified
laboratory.
Chapter 10: Monitoring Program FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 10-15 TODD/W&C
10.4 Assessment and Improvement of Monitoring Program
The Bridge Document summarized the status of previously recommended monitoring and reporting improvements and also presented monitoring data gaps. These are summarized below along with brief updates.
• Surface water flow data to estimate potential yield from stormwater capture projects.
Stormwater capture, as a category of projects, is currently deferred. This reflects that significant local runoff already is captured cost-effectively at existing facilities (e.g., WWR-GRF, debris basins, West Valley unlined channels) or is integrated into flood control projects. • Uniform reporting of urban water use by user class to track water conservation efforts. While uniformity among agencies may not be generally feasible, CVWD has improved its reporting by meter class (user type) and continues to make improvements as needed. Other GSAs also continue to maintain and replace meters, as needed.
• Groundwater production data for wells in the East Valley, especially agricultural wells. CVWD has addressed groundwater production reporting for entities producing more than 25 afy. • Lack of a centralized groundwater database that allows all water agencies to share data. At this time, development of the DMS is underway and is a major focus. As summarized in Section 10.3, data on groundwater levels, water quality, and wells are being compiled and entered into the DMS.
• Non-uniform coverage of water quality data. Coverage of water quality data is being addressed through various efforts, such as the compilation of water quality data, data analysis and documentation of groundwater quality in Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions. As described in Section 10.1.5.1, a major effort is development of the CV-SNMP Monitoring Workplan to include 187 existing wells with planned installation of 23 new monitoring wells. As part of this Alternative Plan Update, the GSAs are moving ahead with options to fund the new monitoring wells, including application to DWR’s Technical Support Services program.
Other monitoring improvements are part of Alternative Plan Update implementation and will be reviewed and updated for each 5-year assessment.
Chapter 10: Monitoring Program FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 10-16 TODD/W&C
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-1 TODD/W&C CHAPTER 11: PROJECTS AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
Maintaining sustainability in the Indio Subbasin will require implementation of projects and management actions to offset forecasted increases in water demands. Water management elements included in this Alternative Plan Update to help maintain sustainability consist of water conservation measures, acquisition of additional water sources, source substitution and replenishment programs, water quality improvements, and other studies and programs.
11.1 Project Selection and Implementation
The Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) have evaluated a range of potential projects and management actions (PMAs) to help maintain sustainability. This section summarizes the process used to select the PMAs for inclusion in this Alternative Plan Update, as well as the entities responsible for implementing these activities.
11.1.1 Adaptive Management
The preceding chapters of this Alternative Plan Update have documented the success of the Coachella Valley’s water management strategies. Expectations for population growth have changed since the Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update (2010 CVWMP Update) (CVWD, 2012) and resulted in a corresponding reduction in the projected urban development of agricultural and vacant land in the Coachella Valley. At the same time, the reliability of imported water supply from the State Water Project (SWP) has declined due to a combination of drought, climate change, and legal and environmental restrictions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta). Uncertainty associated with forecasted water demands and anticipated conservation legislation, coupled with climate change and supply constraints, means that the GSAs need flexibility in determining what PMAs to implement in order to maintain a balanced Indio Subbasin and avoid significant and unreasonable undesirable results. This Alternative Plan Update incorporates a flexible and adaptive approach to water resources management that will allow the GSAs to adjust the implementation strategy.
The Plan Scenarios evaluated in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios, simulate a range of potential conditions to ensure that forecasted demands can be met, while sustainably managing groundwater resources. In each of the Plan Scenarios, a different suite of projected water supplies and PMAs is identified. The actual selection of PMAs for implementation by the Subbasin GSAs throughout the planning horizon will depend on how the various demand and supply uncertainties identified in this Plan play out. The selection and implementation of PMAs will be adaptively managed by the GSAs.
The process is cyclical and depends on the outcomes of the Plan implementation activities outlined in Chapter 12, Plan Evaluation and Implementation. These Plan implementation activities include ongoing monitoring, annual reporting on the state of the Subbasin, and 5-year updates including application of the numerical model to evaluate potential future scenarios. Adaptive management involves five steps:
monitoring, reporting, evaluating, adjusting, and implementing (see Figure 11-1 below). The Plan implementation actions – primarily ongoing monitoring and reporting through the Annual Reports – work to direct the GSAs selection and implementation of PMAs, based on the monitoring outcomes as compared with this Plan’s thresholds. This adaptive management approach also allows the GSAs to adapt to changing conditions and delay or defer PMAs if no longer needed.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-2 TODD/W&C Figure 11-1. Adaptive Management Cycle for PMA Implementation
Following is a description of each step in the adaptive management cycle:
1. Step 1: Monitoring. The GSAs will continue their ongoing monitoring programs as outlined in Chapter 10, Monitoring Program, to assess groundwater levels; climate, streamflow, and drain flow; groundwater production; subsidence; water quality; and seawater intrusion.
2. Step 2: Reporting. The GSAs will use the monitoring data to track and report conditions for the applicable sustainability indicators discussed in Chapter 9, Sustainable Management. If the monitoring data shows negative changes in groundwater condition, the GSAs will move to Step 3.
3. Step 3: Evaluating. If any negative trend is observed, the GSAs will conduct an evaluation to determine whether it is a locally driven change in conditions, such as a change in local land use or pumping patterns, or whether it represents a long-term, regional change in conditions. The evaluation will include steps such as analyzing pumping, well logs, land use changes, well permit records, imported water deliveries, or climate/precipitation data to determine if any recent changes occurred that may have affected monitoring results.
4. Step 4: Adjusting. To address a long-term regional trend that may cause undesirable results, the GSAs may need to adjust the projects, programs, and activities that are being implemented to manage the Subbasin. Each of the GSAs will select the PMAs within their respective jurisdiction; regional programs may be developed and implemented under the MOU (if amended). Any changes to projects, programs, and activities would then be captured within the 5-Year Plan Update described in Chapter 12, Plan Evaluation and Implementation.
5. Step 5: Implementing. Following selection of proposed or refined PMAs that respond to identified trends, monitoring and management practices will be implemented to reflect the new activities.
Step 1:
Monitoring
Step 2:
Reporting
Step 3:
Evaluating
Step 4:
Adjusting
Step 5:
Implementing
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-3 TODD/W&C
6. Return to Step 1: Monitoring. Ongoing monitoring data will then be used to assess the results of PMA implementation and if/how conditions change. If monitoring indicates that conditions have been restored to acceptable conditions (i.e., well above the minimum threshold), implementation of the PMAs will be deemed successful. If the exceedance is not addressed, the GSAs will identify and implement additional PMAs to avoid undesirable results.
11.1.2 Project Identification
A variety of PMAs are planned to be implemented over the planning horizon (to 2045) to achieve sustainability in the Subbasin. Projects were identified by the GSAs through a several-month process involving the GSAs, the general public, and interested stakeholders. The GSAs began by reviewing and updating the projects identified in the 2010 CVWMP Update to determine which had been successfully implemented and could be removed, which could be carried out in the Alternative Plan Update planning horizon, and which projects to defer, while also identifying new projects to add that have been developed since the 2010 CVWMP Update. Project information was compiled into a draft list that was discussed and presented during the SGMA Tribal Workgroup and Public Workshops held on March 3, 2020. The project selection process included review and input from the GSAs and stakeholders, which was used to refine the project list for inclusion in the Plan. This project list was created on the basis of priorities identified by the GSAs and stakeholders.
11.1.3 Project Implementation
The PMAs contained herein will be administered by the GSA project proponents. The GSAs may elect to implement projects individually or jointly with one or more GSAs and/or other project partners, as appropriate. The GSAs will individually consider the demand forecast in Chapter 5, Demand Projections; the overall Subbasin water budgets in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios; and the needs of the different management areas described in Chapter 2, Plan Area. The Annual Reports outlined in Chapter 12, Plan Evaluation and Implementation, will allow the GSAs to evaluate their cumulative progress toward maintaining, protecting, and improving Subbasin conditions.
11.2 List of Projects and Management Actions
The GSAs reviewed and refined the multiple projects, programs, and activities in the 2010 CVWMP Update to help the Subbasin maintain sustainability and achieve plan goals. The Alternative Plan Update includes a final list of 30 possible PMAs representing a wide variety of activities by the four GSAs. Projects are classified into four categories based on project benefits: water conservation, water supply development, source substitution and replenishment, and water quality protection. Deferred projects, listed in Section
11.7, are those that do not meet the Subbasin’s immediate needs or are currently unfeasible and may be revisited in the future. The categorized projects are shown in Figure 11-2. This project list contains a mix of planned and conceptual projects. Planned projects are those that are in the planning or design stages and will be implemented in the near future or as funding becomes available. Conceptual projects are in the planning, design, and funding stages and will be implemented later in the planning horizon.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-4 TODD/W&C Figure 11-2. Categorized Projects and Management Actions Water Conservation
•PMA 1: Urban Water
Conservation
•PMA 2: Golf Water
Conservation
•PMA 3: Agricultural Water
Conservation
Water Supply Development
•PMA 4: Increased Surface
Water Diversion
•PMA 5: Delta Conveyance
Facility
•PMA 6: Lake Perris Seepage
•PMA 7: Sites Reservoir
•PMA 8: Future Supplemental
Water Acquisitions
•PMA 9: EVRA Potable Reuse
Source Substitution &
Replenishment
•PMA 10: Mid-Valley Pipeline
Direct Customers
•PMA 11: Mid-Canal Storage
Project
•PMA 12: East Golf Expansion
•PMA 13: Oasis Distribution
System
•PMA 14: WRP-10 Recycled
Water Delivery
•PMA 15: Tertiary Expansion
•PMA 16: Canal Water Pump
Station Upgrade
•PMA 17: WRP-7 Recycled
Water Delivery
•PMA 18: WRP-4 Tertiary
Expansion & Delivery
•PMA 19: DWA WRP Recycled
Water Delivery
•PMA 20: PD-GRF Phase 2
Expansion
•PMA 21: TEL-GRF Expansion
•PMA 22: WWR-GRF
Operation
Water Quality Protection
•PMA 23: Eliminate
Wastewater Percolation
•PMA 24: Wellhead
Treatment
•PMA 25: Small Water System
Consolidations
•PMA 26: Septic to Sewer
Conversions
•PMA 27: Implement CV-
SNMP Groundwater
Monitoring Program
Workplan
•PMA 28: Implement CV-
SNMP Development
Workplan
•PMA 29: Colorado River
Salinity Forum
•PMA 30: Source Water
Protection
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-5 TODD/W&C The following sections provide project descriptions for the projects included in the Alternative Plan Update grouped by project category.
11.3 Water Conservation
Water conservation is a major component of overall water management in the Indio Subbasin. As a desert community reliant upon imported water supplies, the Coachella Valley has and will continue to use its water resources efficiently. The 2010 CVWMP Update included water conservation efforts for agriculture, urban, and landscaping water demands, and the GSAs continue to expand and strengthen water conservation programs not only through the Alternative Plan Update, but also through other efforts, such as the Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group (CVRWMG) and the 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan (2020 RUWMP) (CVWD, et al, 2021a).
Water conservation is also a requirement of the California Water Code (CWC) and legislation such as the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (Senate Bill [SB]x7-7) and the 2018 water conservation legislation. This section summarizes water conservation policies and the existing urban, agricultural, and golf course water conservation activities in the Coachella Valley, as well as potential water conservation implementation strategies. Consistent with Plan objectives, the Alternative Plan Update achieves a level of water use reduction consistent with applicable State law without causing dramatic lifestyle changes on the part of those conserving.
11.3.1 California Water Conservation Laws and Policies
Urban water use is expected to grow significantly in the future as development occurs. CVWD, DWA, CWA, and IWA are implementing several on-going water conservation programs for both large landscape customers and residential customers. They are also working with local governments and developers to reduce water use in new developments and are partnering with large water users, such as schools, to improve water efficiency and reduce groundwater pumping. California law also establishes multiple policies regarding water conservation. Legislation and policies driving these urban conservation measures are detailed below.
1. Water Conservation in Landscaping Act. The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 1881, Laird) required cities and counties to adopt water conservation ordinances by January 1, 2010. In accordance with the law, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) prepared an updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). For all cities and counties that do not adopt their own conservation ordinances, DWR’s updated MWELO would apply within their jurisdiction by January 1, 2010.
2. California Urban Water Conservation Council Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)/California Water Efficiency Partnership. In addition to state law requirements, water agencies and public interest groups formed the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) in 1991 (CUWCC, 1991). As the State’s water conservation landscape began to change in response to the State’s historic drought, the CUWCC voted to allow the organization to end and be replaced with the California Water Efficiency Partnership (CalWEP) in 2017. CalWEP set forth eight long-term objectives in its Strategic Plan (most recently updated in 2021) to provide leadership and expertise on California water issues, challenges, and opportunities within a collaborative network (CalWEP, 2021).
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-6 TODD/W&C
3. California 2008 Water Conservation Plan and SBx7-7. The Water Conservation Act was passed in 2009, and the final 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan was released in February 2010 (SWRCB, 2010). As part of the comprehensive Water Conservation Act of 2009, SBx7-7 mandates California urban water agencies achieve a 10 percent reduction in urban per capita water demand statewide by 2015 and a 20 percent reduction by 2020. Water use reductions are compared on a per capita basis to a 10-year baseline period. As reported in the 2020 RUWMP, the RUWMP participating agencies met the target water use reduction by 2020 (CVWD, 2021a).
4. 2018 Water Conservation Legislation. As the effects of climate change become more apparent and in response to the State’s historic 2012-2016 drought, the State recognized that more stringent water conservation legislation needed to be implemented. California signed the Water Conservation Legislation into law in 2018, effectively reorganizing and strengthening the conservation and reporting requirements for the drought emergency, mandating water-use reductions, and making “water conservation a way of life” on a permanent basis. Together, Assembly Bill 1668 (Friedman) and SB 606 (Hertzberg) lay out a new long-term water conservation framework, which involves developing new standards for indoor residential water use, outdoor residential water use, commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) water use for landscape irrigation, and water loss. Urban water suppliers will be required to stay within annual water use objectives, as determined by the State. DWR is currently in the process of conducting numerous studies and investigations, along with development of standards, guidelines, performance measures, data platforms, and recommendations for adoption by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). New water conservation regulations are anticipated as a result of this 2018 legislation, which will be relevant to the GSAs within the planning horizon.
The following sections describe existing urban, agricultural and golf course water conservation activities as well as potential water conservation implementation strategies consistent with legislation and policies driving the conservation measures.
11.3.1.1 PMA 1: Urban Water Conservation
For the past three decades, water purveyors have placed a significant focus on urban water conservation as a way of life to address the increasing water demands due to population growth and economic development in the Coachella Valley. Local urban water conservation programs began as early as 1988.
The Indio Subbasin GSAs have managed a suite of conservation programs and activities designed to increase efficiency, reduce future water demand, and support fulfillment of the requirements of the statewide Water Conservation Act. CVWD, DWA, CWA, and IWA have implemented ongoing programs for both large landscape customers and residential customers for achieving increased water conservation in the Coachella Valley.
The Regional Water Conservation Program (Regional Program) has been a cornerstone of water conservation in the Coachella Valley. Implemented in 2015 by the CVRWMG, this multifaceted Regional Program has achieved a significant level of conservation through a suite of programs and activities designed to increase efficiency, reduce future water demand, and assist the Coachella Valley in meeting regulatory requirements. The Regional Program had an emphasis on coordination and collaboration between the member agencies of the CVRWMG (CVWD, 2020d). Together, under the Regional Program, the agencies developed and branded “CV Water Counts” ( https://cvwatercounts.com/) to conduct education and outreach related to water conservation.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-7 TODD/W&C The GSAs are committed to implementing State policies and mandates related to water conservation, as described above. To comply with conservation regulations and address supply shortfalls during dry conditions, the GSAs are committed to implementing the conservation programs that are in place (see sections below), including CV Water Counts. Table 11-1 provides a summary of the demand management programs highlighted in the agencies’ 2020 RUWMP and identified by the GSAs. The GSAs will also continue to seek grant funding to support ongoing delivery and expansion of their conservation programs.
Table 11-1. Conservation Program Summary
Completed from Program Inception to 2019
Program CVWDa CWAa,b DWAb IWAb
Landscape Plan Check 1,126 -- -- 16
Residential Smart Controller Rebates 4,801 15 585 15
Large Landscape Smart Controller Rebates 1,769 -- -- -- Residential Turf Conversions (sq ft) 5,974,040 340,338 2,274,416 149,401 Commercial / HOA Turf Conversions (sq ft) 12,819,155 -- -- 253,537 Water Waste Investigations 4,941 -- -- 243
Toilet Rebates 9,445 42 2,166 628
Commercial Plumbing Retrofit -- -- -- 20
Residential Plumbing Retrofit -- 300 -- 157
Efficient Rotating Nozzles -- -- 10,699 --
Clothing Washer Rebates -- -- 181 176
a Adapted from 2020 RUWMP (CVWD et al, 2021a)
b Communication with agency staff, 2021.
As part of the 2020 RUWMP, the GSAs each developed and adopted a Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) and assessed planned WSCP actions in the context of a 5-year drought risk assessment (CVWD et al., 2021a). Each WSCP included six shortage response levels and associated actions which were consistent among the agencies, as shown in Table 11-2. Each level represents an anticipated reduction in the supplies that would normally be available and the GSAs may activate shortage levels across entire service areas or within certain areas that are impacted by an event. The levels involve voluntary and mandatory conservation measures and restrictions, depending on the causes, severity, and anticipated duration of the water supply shortage. These response actions have been used effectively in the past and could be implemented periodically as part of the GSAs’ adaptive management strategy. Each agency’s WSCP contains a detailed list of demand reduction actions that could be implemented as needed.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-8 TODD/W&C Table 11-2. Water Shortage Contingency Plan Levels
Shortage
Level
Percentage
Shortage Range
Description Shortage Response Actions
1 Up to 10% Normal water supplies Mandatory prohibitions defined by the State, ongoing rebate programs
2 Up to 10% Slightly limited water
supplies
Outdoor water use restrictions on time of day,
increased water waste patrols
3 Up to 10% Moderately limited water
supplies
Outdoor water use restrictions on days per week,
restrictions on filling swimming pools
4 Up to 10% Limited water supplies Limits on new landscaping, expanded public information campaign
5 Up to 10% Significantly limited water
supplies
Limits on watering of parks or school grounds
6 Up to 10% Severe shortage or
catastrophic incident
No potable water use for outdoor purposes
Source: 2020 RUWMP, WSCP Attachments (CVWD et al., 2021a)
The following sections provide a summary of the range of domestic water conservation projects and programs that CVWD, DWA, CWA, and IWA are currently implementing in the Coachella Valley. As total demand increases and MWELO is applied to new growth, the volume of water conserved will increase, representing the equivalent of a substantial source of supply. Additional savings from urban water conservation will ultimately depend on the public’s willingness to participate in the conservation programs and saturation.
Coachella Valley Water District
CVWD currently offers a variety of water-efficiency programs through its annual budget. CVWD also researches new incentives based on changing customer needs and recently implemented two new rebates for washing machines and hot water recirculating pumps. Outreach and education, including K-12 schools, is also a large part of CVWD’s efforts to spread the “conservation as a way of life” message to its customers. CVWD has a large section on its website (https:/ www.cvwd.org/conservation) devoted to water conservation and education. CVWD continues to offer to its customers a variety of indoor incentives (including Indoor Water Conservation Kit, Residential High Efficiency Toilet Rebates, Residential Efficient Washing Machine Rebates, Residential Hot Water Recirculation Pump Rebates, Commercial Water Efficient Toilet Rebates, Commercial Water Brooms, and Commercial Pre-Rinse Nozzles) and landscape/outdoor incentives (including Residential Landscape Rebates, Residential Smart Irrigation Controller Installations, Residential Rotary Nozzle Rebates, Homeowners’ Association (HOA) & Commercial Landscape Rebates, HOA & Commercial Smart Irrigation Controller Rebates, HOA & Commercial Rotary Nozzle Rebates, HOA & Commercial Irrigation Upgrade Rebates, and Landscape Workshops).
CVWD’s Landscape and Irrigation System Design Ordinance No. 1302.5 (updated in July 2020) establishes annual maximum water allowances for new and rehabilitated landscape sites that are served domestic water. The allowances are based on landscaped area, plant water use zone, low-moderate landscape plant water use rates, and high irrigation system application efficiency. In implementing Ordinance No. 1302.5, CVWD conducts plan checks and inspections.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-9 TODD/W&C CVWD uses water budget based tiered rates. Conservation pricing provides incentives to customers to reduce average or peak use, or both. CVWD uses water commodity rates for its domestic water, non- potable (including Canal and recycled) water, and groundwater replenishment services. Every residential customer is given a personalized water budget based on the number of people living in the home, the size of the home’s landscaped area (budgeting more water to those with larger landscapes), and daily weather (budgeting more water during hotter months). Every landscape meter is given a personalized water budget based on the landscaped area served. Every commercial property is given a personalized water budget based on the demand the entity places on the sanitation system and may include an allotment for landscape area served. Customers pay the tier rate for all water used within that tier. In 2021, CVWD updated water rate studies for its domestic water, Canal water, and replenishment assessment charges.
CVWD’s water loss program evaluates both apparent and real water loss. The programs and practices used to constitute water loss reduction efforts include Production Well Meter Testing; Customer Meter Testing, Leak Detection, and Repair; District Site Use Water Meters; Meter Reading; and Billing Reports.
CVWD’s Large Landscape Irrigation Audit
Program assists users in maximizing the
efficient operation of their irrigation system
by measuring performance, generating
irrigation schedules, and recommending
improvement actions. Audit sites are chosen
based on excessive water consumption, or in
response to a request for audit services. The
large landscape audit program operates
continuously and completes approximately 20
landscape audits per year. The success of this
program will be measured by the annual
water reduction achieved by large water users
participating in the program.
CVWD hosts a Landscaper Certification
Program (LCP) for professional landscapers that focuses on water use efficiency. CVWD partnered with College of the Desert (COD) (a local community college with an established Landscape Management Program), Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), and the cities, county, and neighboring water districts to implement the course and establish certification criteria for incorporation into each city's business license qualification requirements. CVWD developed the curriculum of the LCP using existing staff that hold licenses and certifications in irrigation efficiency, plant water use, horticultural practices, arboriculture, and landscape/golf course irrigation auditing.
CVWD also hosts a Qualified Water Efficient Landscaper (QWEL) certification class each year. The QWEL certification program was created by the Sonoma County Water Agency in partnership with the North Coast Chapter of the California Landscape Contractors Association and is nationally recognized by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) WaterSense program for Irrigation System Audits. The QWEL professional certification program provides landscape professionals with 20 hours of education on local water supply, sustainable landscaping, soils, water budgeting and water management, irrigation system components and maintenance, irrigation system audits, and scheduling and controller programming Example of desert landscaping to reduce
irrigation demands.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-10 TODD/W&C (QWEL, 2018). Upon completion of the course, an exam is given and participants will complete an irrigation system audit. Once all components have been successfully completed, certification is earned.
Coachella Water Authority
CWA is currently offering a variety of rebate programs for indoor and outdoor water use. CWA continues to build its conservation efforts with the development of a website ( https://www.conservecoachella.com/) dedicated to water conservation. CWA currently offers to its customers Conservation Programs for CII Accounts, Large Landscape Conservation Programs and Incentives, Residential Ultra Low Flow Toilet (ULFT) Replacement Programs, Residential Plumbing Retrofit, and Water Survey Programs for Single- and Multi-Family Residential Customers (CVWD, 2021a).
The City of Coachella has a prohibition for wasting water in Municipal Code Section 13.03.044, along with a tiered rate structure for water service within its service area.
CWA’s water rates include a variable commodity charge
(monthly charge based on the amount of water used or
consumed by the customer in hundreds of cubic feet
[HCF]) and a fixed metered account charge (basic
monthly rate by meter size). The rates have been
designed to recover the full cost of water service in the commodity charge, while discouraging wasteful water
use, and will continue to be implemented into the
future. Tiered rates are designed to incentivize
customers to be proactive in reducing water use.
Desert Water Agency
DWA continues to increase its investment in outreach
related to water conservation. DWA has a large section
on its website featuring conservation information and
program links ( www.dwa.org/save) , and hosts regular
information sessions, classroom curriculum, and
advertising on conservation topics. To date, these
investments account for significant water demand reduction within the community. DWA’s current conservation programs include a Smart Irrigation Controller Program, Grass Removal Program, Efficient Nozzle Program, Residential Washing Machine Incentives, Commercial Toilet Program, Conservation Coupon Program, and Hospitality Conservation Program. The agency is also developing an Advanced Metering Infrastructure network to give staff and customers access to near real-time water use information.
DWA offers large-landscape customers water use evaluations and will perform them for residential customers upon request. Customers receive a report documenting system deficiencies and outlining water-saving recommendations.
Example of landscape remodel from
CWA’s turf rebate program.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-11 TODD/W&C DWA is working to reduce its own water losses through water main replacement, proactive service line replacement, meter testing and updated procedures.
In June 2021, DWA passed Ordinance No. 72 enacting its Water Shortage Contingency Plan. The Ordinance outlines water use restrictions to be implemented during various shortage scenarios.
Indio Water Authority
IWA continues to promote water conservation using different outlets such as social media, speaking engagements, City events, bill inserts/messaging and the City of Indio newsletter. IWA promotes water use efficiency via the agency’s website ( www.indiowater.org) which features conservation tips, watering guides, and link to rebates and incentives. IWA currently offer rebates and incentives for turf replacement, clothes washer and toilet replacements, smart controller installation, and irrigation upgrades.
Additionally, IWA offers an online customer engagement tool where water customers can view water usage, set water use allowance notifications, and be notified of possible leaks on their property. IWA also promptly responds to water waste incidents that are reported via the State water waster portal and to IWA conservation staff.
As part of the 2020 RUWMP, IWA (along
with other participating agencies) updated
its Water Shortage Contingency Plan to
reflect additional tiers/stages and aligned
its water use restrictions as a region to
better streamline communication and
outreach efforts in promoting
conservation. IWA continues to implement
Stage 1 of its Water Shortage Contingency
Plan, which outlines water use restrictions
and promotes water use efficiency as
outlined in the Governor’s Executive Order
B-37-16 which calls for making water
conservation a California way of life.
Previously in 2016, the City of Indio passed
Ordinance No. 1684 to adopt water use
efficient landscape development standards (i.e., MWELO), which applies to new development projects with an aggregate landscape equal to or greater than 500 square feet, and renovated landscape projects with an aggregate landscape area equal or greater than 2,500 square feet. IWA also completes an audited water loss report and reviews for water system distribution leaks as outlined in SB 606 to further curtail inefficient water use.
11.3.1.2 PMA 2: Golf Water Conservation
Golf water conservation has been implemented by CVWD since development of the 2002 CVWMP and recognition that demand management was essential to balancing the Indio Subbasin. The CVWD Landscape Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1302.5), last updated July 2020, establishes uniform landscaping standards throughout the Coachella Valley. The Ordinance specifies the maximum allowable turf area and associated water demands for new golf courses, and other landscaping must use low water-using plant IWA’s turf rebate program encourages water
use efficiency.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-12 TODD/W&C materials (CVWD, 2019). Ordinance No. 1302.5 is one of the few ordinances in the State to establish turf limitations for new golf courses. In addition, CVWD has identified various methods for existing golf courses to further enhance water savings. CVWD is committed to working with new and existing golf courses to reduce water demands through programs such as irrigation system audits, scheduling irrigation with the best available science, plan checking, inspecting new golf courses for plan check compliance, and monitoring maximum water allowance compliance.
In December 2013, CVWD collaborated with the local chapter of the Golf Course Superintendents Association to create a Golf and Water Task Force. The initial objective of the Task Force was to discuss water supply issues and explore ways in which CVWD could help the 106 golf courses in its service area to reduce water use. The benefit of the collaboration has exceeded the initial goal. In 2014, the golf course representatives on the Task Force were integral in helping develop a turf rebate program that would meet the unique needs of the region’s golf courses. They also identified other rebate and incentive opportunities that staff might not have considered without the valuable feedback. CVWD launched the golf course rebate program in 2015, after securing a State grant. The golf course representatives helped promote the program and in 3 years (2015-2017), 31 courses participated in the program with 8 courses participating twice. The conversions equate to 161 acres of turf removed with an estimated water savings of 956 acre-feet per year (AFY). The Task Force also adopted individual water budgets for each golf course in the service area as a tool for understanding the correct amount of water needed. The golf course representatives have been key liaisons for educating all courses about using the budgets and encouraging water conservation among all golf courses. They have also provided feedback about possible rate increases which has had a strong influence on staff and the Board of Directors. Perhaps the most beneficial product of the Task Force is establishment of an open line of communication including invitations to speak about drought and other water issues at regional golf industry events (CVWD, 2021a). CVWD is committed to continued participation in the Task Force. The GSAs will also continue to seek grant funding to support ongoing delivery and expansion of conservation programs targeted to golf courses, including those identified by the Task Force.
One of the primary tools that CVWD has to reduce the impact of golf courses on the Indio Subbasin is the non-potable water program. CVWD currently has 54 golf courses connected to the Mid-Valley Pipeline, the Coachella Canal, or the blended delivery systems from WRP-7 and WRP-10. The conversion of golf courses from private production wells to non-potable water reduces groundwater pumping volumes and maximizes delivery of the region’s imported supplies. CVWD is committed to its ongoing non-potable water expansion.
DWA has six courses within its boundaries in the Planning Area. Recycled water is available to and has historically been used at four courses but is currently only accepted at three. The other two courses are far from DWA’s recycled water infrastructure and haven’t been deemed cost effective to connect.
11.3.1.3 PMA 3: Agricultural Water Conservation
CVWD has implemented agricultural water conservation efforts since preparation of the 2002 CVWMP.
Following the 2010 CVWMP Update, a variety of agricultural conservation programs have been implemented, including grower education and training, scientific irrigation scheduling, irrigation upgrades/retrofits, and engineering evaluations. Programs with voluntary grower participation, such as the Extraordinary Conservation Measures programs, have been effective in increasing water use efficiency. The Extraordinary Conservation Measures programs were a series of voluntary agricultural
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-13 TODD/W&C conservation measures designed to compensate United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) for the accidental overuse of the Colorado River supplies. Through voluntary agricultural conservation, CVWD was able to pay back the overrun (73,200 acre-feet [AF]) by 2009. Between 2015 and 2018, an additional 71 acres of agricultural land were converted from flood/furrow to drip irrigation which resulted in an estimated water savings of 252 AFY (CVWD, 2021b).
CVWD established the Agricultural Water Advisory Group (AWAG) in December 2015 to collaborate with other organizations and educate Valley residents about the agricultural industry’s stewardship of water in the Coachella Valley. The AWAG meets biannually to discuss water issues, legislative updates, grant funding opportunities, best management practices (BMPs), and information to assist farmers. This ensures collaboration with entities such as the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the United State Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office (CVWD, 2021b).
CVWD is committed to continued participation in the AWAG. The GSAs will also continue to seek grant funding to support ongoing delivery and expansion of agricultural conservation programs, including those identified by AWAG.
An agricultural resource page is available on CVWD’s website ( www.cvwd.org/434/Agriculture) providing links to various organizations, articles, meeting and training dates, and any available grant information.
11.4 Water Supply Development
CVWD and DWA continue their efforts to obtain additional water supplies to meet projected water demands, increase the reliability of water supply, and to avoid undesirable results associated with chronic groundwater level declines (including storage depletion, subsidence, and seawater intrusion). Sources of additional water include Colorado River water, SWP water, recycled water, exchanges, entitlements and transfers, and other water development projects.
11.4.1 Surface Water
11.4.1.1 PMA 4: Increased Surface Water Diversion
DWA’s surface water rights for Chino, Snow, Falls Creek, and Whitewater canyon flows total 13,309 AFY.
However, in different water year types, DWA has not always captured all the surface water it has had the right to divert from those sources. DWA plans to divert as much water from those sources as may be available and deliver that diverted surface water to the Whitewater River Groundwater Replenishment Facility (WWR-GRF) for replenishment into the Indio Subbasin and subsequent extraction for use in DWA’ domestic water supply system.
11.4.2 SWP Water
CVWD and DWA are working with Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and DWR to both improve the reliability of SWP water and acquire additional supplies. Future SWP projects include increased deliveries through the implementation of the Delta Conveyance Facility (DCF), the Lake Perris Dam Seepage Recovery Project, and the Sites Reservoir Project. SWP supplies are expected to increase by approximately 14,300 AF by 2045, along with increased SWP reliability of 26,500 AFY following construction of the DCF.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-14 TODD/W&C
11.4.2.1 PMA 5: Delta Conveyance Facility
The DCF is a project led by DWR to improve SWP reliability and result in increased future deliveries relative to projected long-term reliability (estimated to be 45 percent, see Chapter 6, Water Supply) by modernizing SWP conveyance facilities in the Delta. The DCF will construct and operate a new tunnel to bypass the existing natural channels that are currently used for SWP conveyance, which are vulnerable to earthquakes, sea level rise, and pumping restrictions. The new facilities will convey water from the north Delta to the south Delta and will be operated in coordination with the existing south Delta pumping facilities. The planning process for the proposed DCF is moving forward, and a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is anticipated for public review in mid-2022.
CVWD and DWA have approved an agreement to advance their share of funding for DCF planning and design costs and are considering approval of an Agreement in Principle for the Delta Conveyance Facility (unpublished) in 2021. SWP contractors estimate that SWP Table A deliveries will increase by 500,000 AFY and be restored to approximately 58 percent reliability after the DCF is built, resulting in an average SWP supply delivery increase of 26,500 AFY to CVWD and DWA by 2040. The DCF would increase water supply reliability and help prevent undesirable results in the Indio Subbasin associated with chronic lowering of groundwater levels.
11.4.2.2 PMA 6: Lake Perris Dam Seepage Recovery Project The Lake Perris Dam Seepage Recovery Project is a project led by DWR to collect and distribute SWP water seeping under Lake Perris Dam and deliver the water to MWD in addition to its current allocated Table A water. The proposed project consists of installing an integrated recovery well system that would include up to six new seepage recovery wells and a conveyance pipeline connecting the wells to the Colorado River Aqueduct. The project is proceeding as planned, and the Draft EIR was released in May 2021 for public comments.
MWD has partnered with CVWD and DWA and is in the process of developing a funding agreement with DWR to fund the environmental analysis, planning, and preliminary design of the project. CVWD and DWA will need an additional agreement (or amendment to the existing Exchange Agreement) to exchange a proportion of the recovered seepage water for Colorado River water delivered by MWD to WWR-GRF and Mission Creek Groundwater Replenishment Facility (MC-GRF) (MWD, 2020) through MWD’s Colorado River Aqueduct. As described in Chapter 6, Water Supply, the project is anticipated to deliver approximately 2,753 AFY to CVWD and DWA beginning in 2025.
11.4.2.3 PMA 7: Sites Reservoir Project
The Sites Reservoir Project is a reservoir that will capture and store excess water from snowmelt and winter runoff from the Sacramento River for use during dry periods. The Sites Reservoir is in the Sacramento Valley and is considered “off-stream” meaning that it will not dam or impede the Sacramento River or other stream. The Sites Reservoir will operate in conjunction with other California reservoirs to increase water supply reliability and resiliency. The water storage capacity in Northern California is expected to increase by up to 15 percent because of project implementation. Water supply and storage capacity will be made available to water purveyors throughout California who want to purchase water supply from the Sites Reservoir Project. The project is currently in the early planning and permitting
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-15 TODD/W&C stages, and the Sites Project Authority is in the process of negotiating agreements to secure funding and financing for design, construction, and operation of the project (Sites Project Authority, 2020a).
In 2019, CVWD and DWA both entered into an agreement with the Sites Project Authority for the next phase of planning for the Sites Reservoir (Sites Project Authority 2019; 2020b). CVWD and DWA are participating members at 10,000 AFY (5.2 percent) and 6,500 AFY (3.4 percent) levels, respectively.
Assuming a 30 percent conveyance loss, CVWD and DWA anticipate a total delivery of 11,550 AFY of Sites Reservoir water beginning in 2035.
11.4.2.4 PMA 8: Future Supplemental Water Acquisitions
As described in Chapter 6, Water Supply, CVWD has entered into various agreements with Rosedale Rio- Bravo, Glorious Lands Company, and MWD to deliver supplemental water to the Indio Subbasin. As opportunities arise, CVWD and DWA will continue to make water purchases from programs such as SWP Article 21 (interruptible water) and Turnback Pool water, Governor’s Drought Water Bank, the Yuba Accord, and the Rosedale-Rio Bravo transfer.
11.4.3 Potable Reuse
11.4.3.1 PMA 9: East Valley Reclamation Authority Potable Reuse In 2013, IWA and Valley Sanitary District (VSD) formed a Joint Powers Agreement for the East Valley Reclamation Authority (EVRA), with the main objective to augment local water resources through beneficial water reuse. Indirect potable reuse (IPR) involves use of advanced treated wastewater to replenish groundwater and manage groundwater storage. IPR projects may be used for long-term storage (banking) or shorter-term recharge and extraction. Both strategies help improve local groundwater supply by increasing water levels and potentially improving groundwater quality in a given aquifer (EVRA, 2020).
In November 2020, EVRA evaluated the feasibility using treated wastewater from the existing VSD Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) for IPR (EVRA, 2020). The study, which explored both spreading and injection as groundwater recharge options, recommended injection as a viable recharge alternative. The area identified to be utilized for IPR activities, at the southern end of the VSD WRF, is located within a geologically complex area. In addition, the sediments underlying the VSD site are of low permeability, which is not conducive to surface water spreading. Additional work (i.e., geophysical surveys and a deep boring) is needed to verify site-specific, subsurface hydrogeologic conditions. The data collected from this work could be used to assist in the siting and design of potential IPR injection and/or monitoring wells.
In addition to proposed injection wells, an advanced treatment plant would be constructed at the VSD WRF consisting of membrane filtration (microfiltration or ultrafiltration) followed by reverse osmosis (RO) and an ultraviolet disinfection/advanced oxidation process to meet State requirements for subsurface injection. By 2030, EVRA plans advanced treatment and recycling of 5,000 AFY of wastewater from the VSD WRF to potable standards for groundwater replenishment and reuse.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-16 TODD/W&C
11.5 Source Substitution and Replenishment
Source substitution is the delivery of an alternate source of water to users that currently pump groundwater. The substitution of an alternate water source reduces groundwater extraction and allows the management of groundwater storage. The
following discussion of source substitution
projects is presented by water source and by
location within the Coachella Valley.
11.5.1 Colorado River Water – Non-Potable
Water (NPW) Deliveries
Historically, Colorado River water (Canal
water) was used almost exclusively for
agricultural irrigation, with golf course
irrigation beginning in 1986. Direct use of
Colorado River water now includes agriculture,
duck clubs and fish farms, golf courses, and
construction water. This Alternative Plan
Update assumes continuation of direct
delivery to existing Canal water users.
11.5.1.1 PMA 10: Mid-Valley Pipeline (Canal Only Customers) The Mid-Valley Pipeline (MVP) is a pipeline distribution system to deliver Canal water to the Mid-Valley area to supplement CVWD’s recycled water for golf course and open space irrigation. Construction of the first phase of the MVP from the Coachella Canal in Indio to CVWD’s WRP-10 (6.6 miles in length) was completed in 2009. At WRP-10, Canal water supplements recycled water for delivery to large irrigators.
As of 2020, there were six golf courses connected directly to the MVP prior to its intersection to WRP-10.
In addition, 18 golf courses and other municipal users (i.e., schools and homeowners’ associations) in the West Valley are connected to the WRP-10 recycled water system and receive a blend of recycled water and Canal water from the MVP. CVWD plans to continue expansion of the MVP non-potable delivery system.
CVWD plans the direct connection to the MVP of an additional 14 golf courses and open spaces that primarily use groundwater for irrigation, thus serving Canal water to meet water demands. An estimated 6,203 AFY of new MVP demand will be delivered within the next 8 to 10 years, with an additional 5,797 AFY demand by 2040. These additional direct connections to the MVP are estimated to eliminate approximately 12,500 AFY of groundwater pumping.
11.5.1.2 PMA 11: Mid-Canal Storage Project
Additional storage near the middle of the existing Coachella Branch of the All-American Canal (Coachella Canal) will be valuable to spread out large flow changes over several hours and reduce peak flows through the Canal. Mid-system storage can attenuate large flow changes that might otherwise exceed existing drawdown criteria or exceed capacity near the Canal’s downstream end.
To that end, CVWD will increase water storage through the creation of an inline reservoir along the Coachella Canal. The Mid-Canal Storage Project will increase storage by 728 acre-feet (AF) by removing the existing embankment between the current lined canal with the original earthen canal section to form Construction of the Mid-Valley Pipeline in 2009 to
deliver Canal water to the Mid-Valley area.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-17 TODD/W&C a single wide trapezoidal reservoir section. The materials removed will be used to construct more gradual canal side slopes (from 1.5:1 to 3:1) and raise the invert two feet higher. This additional storage will allow CVWD to manage common, but unpredictable, events by providing for capture during excess water events for use during deficit water events. During drought periods, this added backup supply will improve efficient use of water and limit waste.
11.5.1.3 PMA 12: East Golf Expansion
The East Golf NPW Program currently serves 30 golf courses with an average annual delivery of 20,283 AFY from 2015 to 2019. The East Golf Expansion project proposes connecting four additional golf customers in the East Valley to the Coachella Canal. These additional connections to the East Golf Expansion system is estimated to eliminate approximately 3,330 AFY of groundwater pumping by 2025.
11.5.1.4 PMA 13: Oasis Distribution System
The Oasis Distribution System would expand
the Canal water delivery system to the Oasis
Area to utilize additional Colorado River
allocations under the Quantification
Settlement Agreement (QSA). The project
would substitute groundwater production
with Canal water for agricultural irrigation and
other non-potable landscape irrigation. The
Oasis Area is located near the northwest
margin of the Salton Sea, south of Avenue 66,
West of Harrison Street, and north of Avenue
86. System improvements required to convey
water to this area include construction of
gravity and pressurized pipelines, surface
reservoirs, pump stations, and related
modification and connections to the existing irrigation system (CVWD, 2014). Phase 1 of the project includes two reservoirs to provide additional storage and operation improvements and flexibility and is currently under construction. Phase 2 includes land acquisition and construction for four reservoirs, five pump stations, and approximately 18 miles of distribution pipeline and an expansion of the irrigation distribution system to serve an additional 4,520 acres. Phase 2 of the project is planned to begin construction mid-2021 (WEI, 2020). CVWD anticipates construction to be completed in 2022.
Projected expansion would gradually meet existing and potential future pumping demands as follow:
• 12,000 AF in 2023,
• 16,500 AF in 2024,
• 21,000 AF in 2025,
• 23,500 AF in 2026,
• 27,000 AF, in 2027, and
• 32,150 AF in 2028-2045
The Oasis Distribution System would further expand
the Canal water delivery system to the Oasis Area.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update i TODD/W&C
11.5.2 Direct Deliveries – Recycled Water
Currently, recycled water production exceeds existing demand during the winter months, and the remaining recycled water is disposed of through onsite percolation basins. CVWD has committed to maximizing recycled water use by continuing to expand the NPW system and adding new NPW customers in order to eliminate land disposal and reduce this source of nitrate to the groundwater basin. This Alternative Plan Update assumes continued delivery of recycled water from WRP-7, WRP-10, and DWA WRP, along with NPW expansion consistent with growth of municipal demands and associated increases in wastewater flows and recycled water availability. CVWD has plans to begin tertiary treatment and recycled water deliveries from WRP-4 as well, which is described below.
11.5.2.1 PMA 14: WRP-10 Recycled Water Delivery
The WRP-10 distribution system delivers non-
potable water to existing customers
throughout Indian Wells, Palm Desert, and
portions of Rancho Mirage. There are
currently 18 customers served by a blend of
Canal water and recycled water. CVWD is
planning to connect 29 additional customers
to serve an additional 27,790 AFY from the
WRP-10 NPW system by 2034, which delivers
a blend of recycled water and Canal water.
This project will increase recycled water
deliveries consistent with growth of municipal
demands and associated wastewater flow up
to the current tertiary treatment capacity of
16,800 AFY. The remaining demands from new
connections will be served by Canal water. CVWD has identified a broad array of golf courses in Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, and Indian Wells for potential future connections.
11.5.2.2 PMA 15: WRP-7 Tertiary Expansion
WRP-7 provides service to portions of Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Bermuda Dunes, Thousand Palms, and some unincorporated areas of Riverside County. It currently has a secondary treatment permit capacity of 5.0 million gallons per day (mgd) and a tertiary treatment capacity of 2.5 mgd (2,800 AFY). The recycled water produced at WRP-7 meets Title 22 requirements and is used for irrigation and is either stored in a covered storage reservoir or pumped offsite to an open reservoir near the Del Webb Sun City Golf Course.
CVWD plans to expand its WRP-7 recycled water production tertiary treatment capacity by 3 mgd to a total capacity of 5.5 mgd (6,150 AFY) to meet anticipated regulatory changes and utilize increases in future wastewater flows. Recent WRP-10 RWQCB permits suggest more stringent RWQCB regulation of wastewater percolation operations (CVWD, 2020b). CVWD’s 2020 Sanitation Master Plan Update projects the average day flow rate for WRP-7 to be 5.2 mgd in 2045 (CVWD, 2020c). This project provides the ability to recycle 100 percent of the 2045 projected WRP-7 flow, while eliminating the need to discharge treated effluent to percolation ponds, thus avoiding implementation of additional treatment to meet future CVWD is planning to connect 29 additional
customers to the WRP-10 recycled water distribution
system.
11-18
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-19 TODD/W&C anticipated water quality regulations. Design for the WRP-7 expansion project is underway, and construction is anticipated in 2025.
11.5.2.3 PMA 16: Canal Water Pump Station Upgrade
The Canal Water Pump Station Upgrade would upgrade the Mile Post (MP) 113.2 Canal water pump station capacity in order to convey Colorado River supply for blending with WRP-7 recycled water. This project will be designed/constructed in two phases (5.5 mgd and 6.2 mgd). The MP 113.2 Pump Station is located at Madison and Avenue 40 on the southwest corner next to the Coachella Canal in Indio. Phase 1 will involve replacement of two 2,800 gpm pumps. Phase 2 will involve the addition of a third 2,800 gpm pump. Additional NPW storage is also being designed as part of Phase 1 to provide flexibility for delivery.
Planning and design are expected to be completed by 2022, with project construction to be completed by 2026.
11.5.2.4 PMA 17: WRP-7 Recycled Water Delivery
WRP-7, located west of Interstate 10,
currently serves three golf courses with a
blend of recycled water and Canal water
from the Coachella Canal. WRP-7 has a
current tertiary capacity of 2,800 AFY and
delivered an average of 1,790 AFY from
2015-2019. This project will establish four
recycled water connections to add a total
estimated flow of 533 AFY by 2028. CVWD
may also increase recycled water deliveries
in the WRP-7 tributary area as the
surrounding areas within WRP-7’s proximity
become developed, resulting in increased
wastewater flows. Opportunities for
expansion include growth to the west of
WRP-7 within proximity to the existing WRP-7 customers, as well as increased deliveries to existing customers.
11.5.2.5 PMA 18: WRP-4 Tertiary Expansion & Delivery
WRP-4 provides service to the Cities of La Quinta, Mecca, Palm Desert, and Thousand Palms. Under current operations, the secondary system treats about 2.0 mgd average daily flow and does not have tertiary treatment capacity. The treatment system produces secondary effluent which is discharged to the Coachella Valley Storm Channel (CVSC) under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, which has a maximum month average daily effluent flow of 9.9 mgd.
CVWD’s tertiary treatment expansion at WRP-4 will be implemented in four phases. To avoid potential future restrictions on the minimum amount of treated wastewater that may be required to be discharged to the CVSC, the first phase is recommended to be constructed as soon as possible. Phase 1, which will provide 10 mgd of total tertiary treatment capacity, includes a secondary effluent equalization basin, lagoon effluent pretreatment (if required), coagulation/rapid mix, Filter Building, and filters; expands the chlorine contact basins and chemical feed systems; adds a new recycled water storage basin (up to 177 million gallons [MG]); and adds a new recycled water pump station (10 mgd capacity) and pipeline that
Golf courses in the mid-Valley area use recycled water
for irrigation.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-20 TODD/W&C connects into a new non-potable system off-site. The project will also require new Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) with Colorado River RWQCB and a permit amendment for the NPDES permit #CA0104973.
Phase 2 will provide overall space and structural elements for another 10 mgd of treatment capacity, increase capacity to 13.3 mgd by commissioning the fourth filter, and add equipment to the existing facilities, including coagulation/rapid mix, filters, chlorine contact basins, and recycled water pumps.
Phase 3 will increase capacity to 16.7 mgd and add equipment to the existing facilities, including media and equipment to commission the fifth filter. Phase 4 will increase capacity to 20 mgd and add equipment to the existing facilities, including filter media and equipment to commission the sixth filter. The recycled water storage may also require expansion based on seasonal demand patterns, and the non-potable system will be expanded (CVWD, 2020c).
Design is underway for the Phase 1 WRP-4 tertiary expansion, with construction anticipated in 2025.
CVWD is currently working on the Wastewater Change Petition process with SWRCB and the NPDES/WDRs permitting process with the Colorado River RWQCB, along with project-level environmental compliance.
The outcomes of the Change Petition will determine the final construction timeline and recycled water delivery volumes for the WRP-4 expansion. Since recycled water volumes are yet undetermined and distribution system options are still being analyzed, WRP-4 deliveries have not been included in the water budget modeling. However, CVWD plans to proceed with this project pending resolution of the Change Petition.
11.5.2.6 PMA 19: DWA WRP Recycled Water Delivery
The DWA WRP project will increase deliveries of recycled water in DWA's service area as new customers are identified and consistent with wastewater flow growth up to the 11,200 AFY of existing tertiary capacity.
11.5.3 Groundwater Replenishment
Three replenishment facilities are currently operated in the Indio Subbasin (see Figure 2-5): WWR-GRF, Palm Desert GRF (PD-GRF), and Thomas E. Levy GRF (TEL-GRF). Groundwater replenishment is an important component of Indio Subbasin management. With surface spreading, water is placed in shallow ponds where it is allowed to percolate into the underlying aquifers. Surface spreading requires large areas of open land for construction of ponds and the absence of significant confining clay layers that would prevent the water from reaching the aquifers. Since 1973, CVWD and DWA have replenished the western portion of the Subbasin at the WWR-GRF with nearly 4 million AF of SWP Exchange water and at the PD- GRF with a total of 14,836 AF since starting operations in 2019. CVWD has replenished the eastern portion of the Subbasin at TEL-GRF with about 400,000 AF since full-scale operations commenced in 2009.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-21 TODD/W&C
11.5.3.1 PMA 20: PD-GRF Expansion
The PD-GRF Expansion will expand direct
replenishment capacity at the PD-GRF
incrementally from 2020 through 2025. Phase
I, which involved repurposing and improving
existing percolation ponds located north of
WRP-10, was completed and began operations
in early 2019. Phase II proposes to construct
three detention basins within the Whitewater
River Stormwater Channel (WRSC) to the south
of the facility, as well as extend the existing
MVP within the northern bank of the
stormwater channel. The EIR for Phase II was
approved by CVWD’s Board of Directors in
2018, and the design of Phase II was complete
as of August 2019. To support construction
within potentially jurisdictional waters, CVWD is currently working on permitting with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Colorado River RWQCB. Construction of Phase II is scheduled to be complete in 2023 (CVWD, 2020a). This Alternative Plan Update assumes the PD-GRF will increase recharge capacity by 15,000 AFY to a total capacity of 25,000 AFY starting in 2023.
Increased replenishment at the PD-GRF will directly improve groundwater levels in the mid-Valley portion of the Subbasin.
11.5.3.2 PMA 21: TEL-GRF Expansion
Construction of the full-scale TEL-GRF was completed in mid-2009. This facility is located on the east side of the Subbasin in La Quinta and has an estimated average recharge design capacity of 40,000 AFY.
Currently, the capacity is limited by hydraulic and water delivery constraints within the Canal water distribution system to a long-term average of about 36,000 AFY. CVWD conducted a study in 2017 to evaluate the feasibility of increasing groundwater replenishment with Colorado River water at the TEL- GRF. The study recommended additional monitoring to better characterize hydrogeological conditions, and six monitoring wells were installed in 2019 in the vicinity of the GRF (CVWD, 2020a). Based on the results of the additional monitoring, TEL-GRF recharge capacity may be increased. The TEL-GRF Expansion will expand recharge capacity at the TEL-GRF incrementally from 2020 through 2025. This Alternative Plan Update assumes recharge capacity will increase to 40,000 AFY in 2025.
11.5.3.3 PMA 22: WWR-GRF Operation
The WWR-GRF has a recharge capacity of more than 300,000 AFY. The available capacity is valuable for conjunctive use operations by CVWD and DWA, as well as MWD through the Advance Delivery Agreement.
Since 2015, CVWD has been working with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on right-of-way acquisition for the portion of the WWR-GRF that is sited on public lands managed by the BLM.
CVWD and DWA intend to replenish as much SWP Table A water or other imported water at WWR-GRF as is available annually. The highest replenishment volume received to the facility was in 2017 at 385,994 AF. The SWP Exchange supply is projected to supply on average about 80,250 AFY for the WWR-GRF (see discussion in Chapter 6, Water Supply, for SWP reliability assumptions). This Alternative Plan Update The PD-GRF Expansion will expand direct
replenishment capacity at PD-GRF.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-22 TODD/W&C assumes the reliability of Table A deliveries of 45 percent and diversions to MC-GRF of 8 to 10 percent, with additional reductions in reliability starting in year 2045 under climate change conditions. CVWD also currently replenishes a portion of its Colorado River supply at WWR-GRF (ranging from 35,000 to 50,000 AFY), based on its 2019 Exchange Agreement with MWD, until that water is needed in the East Valley. If additional SWP exchange water can be acquired and/or SWP reliability improved through the DCF, average annual replenishment could increase to 119,500 AFY. Further, advance deliveries from MWD may increase individual year deliveries beyond anticipated annual averages.
11.6 Water Quality Protection
Groundwater quality is an important issue in the Subbasin. The Indio Subbasin has variable concentrations of water quality constituents as documented in Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions.
Some constituents (e.g., arsenic, hexavalent chromium) are naturally occurring. Sources of loading for TDS and Nitrate include subsurface inflow, watershed runoff, artificial recharge, wastewater percolation, septic seepage, and return flows (CV-SNMP Agencies, 2021). The GSAs conduct ongoing water quality monitoring to understand water quality conditions. Below are the PMAs related to water quality that will help protect the groundwater basin for beneficial uses and users and avoid undesirable results.
11.6.1 Water Quality Programs and Policies
As described in Chapter 8, Regulatory and Policy Issues, drinking, surface, and groundwater quality is regulated by the SWRCB and its RWQCBs. The following water quality policies and programs are applicable to the Indio Subbasin:
• Drinking Water Regulations. The SWRCB Division of Drinking Water (DDW) regulates public water systems, oversees water recycling projects, permits water treatment devices, and supports and promotes water system security. Drinking water regulations are contained in Title 17 and Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. Each of the GSAs in the Indio Subbasin maintains drinking water quality in compliance with DDW regulations. Note that private domestic wells are not regulated by DDW; private domestic wells and State Small Water Systems (between 5 and 14 connections) are regulated by Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (DEH). • Surface and Groundwater Regulations. The Colorado River RWQCB regulates surface and groundwater within the Colorado River Basin, which includes the Indio Subbasin. The RWQCB guides water quality protection with its Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Colorado River RWQCB, amended 2019), in addition to adopting and enforcing waste discharge and surface water discharge permits. Each of the GSAs in the Indio Subbasin complies with RWQCB regulations in implementation of its projects and programs. • Colorado River Salinity Forum. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act was passed by Congress in 1974 to address the growing salinity problem which would require cost-effective salinity control measures on the river. The Salinity Forum is a seven-state approach to lowering salinity levels by conducting triennial reviews of water quality along the river and reporting on progress achieved. Over the last 30 years, the salinity concentrations in the Colorado River have an overall, long-term downward trend, as a result of the programs. Weighted average annual salinity are at or below the numeric criteria (see Figure 8-1), while the Colorado River Basin States continue to develop their compact-apportioned water supply through projects and programs to meet water supply needs. The Program has successfully controlled over 1.22 million tons of salt
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-23 TODD/W&C annually and has identified additional measures to achieve the identified maximum potential salt reduction of 2.35 million tons per year by 2040.
• Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (CV-SNMP). To address rising salinities in groundwater, the SWRCB adopted a Recycled Water Policy in February 2009 which requires the development of Salt and Nutrient Management Plans (SNMPs) for groundwater basins throughout California. The plans require basin wide management of salts and nutrients from all sources in a manner that protects groundwater quality and beneficial uses. In 2015, CVWD, DWA, and IWA produced the Coachella Valley Salt & Nutrient Management Plan (CV-SNMP) (CVWD, et al., 2015). Subsequently, the Colorado River RWQCB evaluated the plan and concluded that the 2015 SNMP did not fully satisfy Recycled Water Policy requirements and provided a series of recommendations (Colorado River Basin RWQCB, 2020). In April 2021, an expanded SNMP agency group which includes all water and wastewater agencies in the Coachella Valley prepared a Development Workplan that describes a detailed scope of work to develop an updated CV-SNMP, including a new monitoring program. The Colorado River RWQCB approved the CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Workplan in early 2021(see also Chapter 8, Regulatory and Policy Issues).
• Disadvantaged Communities Infrastructure Task Force. CVWD established the Disadvantaged Communities Infrastructure (DACI) Task Force to collaborate with other entities and community members to achieve safe and affordable drinking water, wastewater, and flood control services in historically disadvantaged Coachella Valley areas. The DACI Task Force meets bi-monthly to discuss the various consolidation and infrastructure projects that are underway. CVWD, in collaboration with the DACI Task Force, completed domestic water and sanitation consolidation master plans in 2018 to prioritize the systems that are to be consolidated. Coordination among the groups’ local entities, regulators, and community members helps to garner support for ongoing grant funding, permitting, and approval processes.
11.6.1.1 PMA 23: Eliminate Wastewater Percolation
Currently, CVWD’s WRP-7, WRP-10, and Palm Springs’ WWTP/DWA’s WRP all discharge to percolation ponds within the Indio Subbasin. Over the last decade, non-potable water deliveries (described under Section 11.5 above) in the Indio Subbasin have expanded dramatically and reduced wastewater percolation. The GSAs will continue to reduce percolation of wastewater into the Indio Subbasin by continuing to implement source substitution efforts. The GSAs will continue to work with the Colorado River RWQCB to acquire permits for recycling of municipal wastewater, which will both protect groundwater quality and deliver a reliable new water supply to local customers.
11.6.1.2 PMA 24: Wellhead Treatment
The Wellhead Treatment project will assess the need to expand groundwater treatment facilities to treat additional wells in the future for arsenic, nitrate, or other constituents of concern. The GSAs are collaborating with the County of Riverside and small water systems to expand the potable water system to additional communities that are experiencing poor water quality in private wells (see also Chapter 8, Regulatory and Policy Issues, on treatment for arsenic).
Elevated concentrations of nitrate exist in some western areas of the Indio Subbasin (see Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions), reflecting natural and human-induced sources.
Generally, wells with high nitrate concentrations are relatively shallow, and deeper groundwater tends to
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-24 TODD/W&C be higher quality. Naturally elevated arsenic concentrations in groundwater also have been found in the East Valley, northwest of the Salton Sea (see Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions) with indications of higher concentrations at depth.
Wellhead treatment technology can be designed to remove selected constituents (such as nitrate and arsenic) in drinking water wells that exceed the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). The GSAs will continue to monitor the development of new MCLs (e.g., hexavalent chromium) and report on groundwater quality and as needed. In addition, the GSAs will seek grant funding to consolidate small water systems with recurring violations (see below) and will evaluate the feasibility of installing wellhead treatment on GSA wells to ensure delivered drinking water meets state and federal MCLs established to protect public health.
11.6.1.3 PMA 25: Small Water System Consolidations
Small water systems, often serving disadvantaged communities (DACs), may face challenges in providing safe, accessible, and affordable water because they may not have adequate resources to support maintenance, operation, and treatment costs. Primarily within the East Valley, the GSAs are working to extend public water and sewer service to mobile home park communities with deficient infrastructure and poor water quality. In 2018, CVWD completed the East Coachella Valley Water Supply Project (ECVWSP), a master planning effort to identify and prioritize small water systems within East Valley that could benefit from consolidation with its public water system. The master planning effort involved representatives from SWRCB, DEH, and multiple non-profits through the DACI Task Force. Over 80 small water systems currently relying on private groundwater wells and septic systems were identified. The ECVWSP grouped the systems into approximately 40 water consolidation projects based on proximity to each other and to CVWD’s existing facilities. CVWD began the preliminary engineering and environmental documentation for the two highest priority water consolidation projects in 2019 – Saint Anthony and Valley View. The Saint Anthony Project has an estimated capital cost of approximately $34 million and is currently under design. A portion of the project is anticipated to begin construction in 2021, with the remaining portions beginning construction in 2023. The Valley View Project is estimated to cost approximately $11 million. Preliminary design of the project is complete, and implementation is expected to begin in the next 5 years. The ECVWSP identified other water consolidation projects; CVWD will continue to implement these as funding becomes available in the future.
CWA is also working to consolidate multiple mobile home parks within its service area to address water quality deficiencies identified by DEH. Grant funding is being sought for construction of the necessary infrastructure for the small water system consolidations.
11.6.1.4 PMA 26: Septic to Sewer Conversions
Septic systems are a significant, documented source of nitrate to the groundwater basin. The Colorado River RWQCB has adopted septic tank prohibitions in areas of where high septic tank density has caused water quality degradation. Conversion from septic systems to sewer can offset a large proportion of this existing nitrate source to the basin. CVWD is pursuing a number of septic to sewer conversions to improve groundwater quality and sanitation within small communities in the East Valley. In 2018, CVWD completed a master planning effort to identify and prioritize parcels with septic systems within East Valley that could benefit from consolidation with its public sanitation system. The master planning effort involved representatives from SWRCB, DEH, and multiple non-profits through the DACI Task Force. Nearly 90 individual septic systems were identified, ranked, and prioritized for consolidation. The effort screened
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-25 TODD/W&C the priority systems to 55 and then grouped those into 18 sanitation consolidation projects based on proximity and potential to develop a backbone system in the East Valley. Several of the top five ranked consolidation projects in the master planning process – El Mesquite, Sunbird, Airport Blvd, Monroe Street, and Avenue 66 – are currently in the preliminary design, environmental compliance, and funding phases.
Construction for those projects is anticipated to begin within the next 5 years. CVWD will continue to implement consolidations as funding becomes available in the future.
11.6.2 Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (CV-SNMP) In 2015, the CV-SNMP was developed for the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin in accordance with the Recycled Water Policy. The SNMP was prepared to manage salts and nutrients on a Subbasin-wide basis, while encouraging recycled water use. However, the RWQCB found the 2015 CV-SNMP insufficient and made recommendations for improvements in 2020. In 2020 and 2021, the CV-SNMP partners – which include CVWD, Coachella Sanitary District, City of Palm Springs, CWA, DWA, IWA, Mission Springs Water District, Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company, and Valley Sanitary District – prepared a CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan and a CV-SNMP Development Workplan to guide revisions to the plan.
11.6.2.1 PMA 27: Implement CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan The GSAs, along with the other CV-SNMP partners, will implement the CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan (Monitoring Workplan; see Appendix 2-A) submitted to the RWQCB in December 2020 outlining an expanded groundwater monitoring program that would sufficiently determine whether concentrations of TDS and N in groundwater are consistent with water quality objectives. The RWQCB approved the Monitoring Workplan in February 2021. The Monitoring Workplan covers all Subbasins within the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin except for the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin; includes sampling from the deep, shallow, and perched zones of the aquifer; focuses on critical areas near large WRPs, GRFs, and other potential sources of loading; and emphasizes areas near production wells. The Monitoring Workplan establishes the monitoring network, sampling frequency, and reporting, and identifies gaps to be filled in the monitoring network. Monitoring data will be reported to the GAMA system annually starting in 2022. The monitoring program established in Chapter 10, Monitoring Program, was coordinated with the CV- Monitoring Workplan.
11.6.2.2 PMA 28: Implement CV-SNMP Development Workplan The GSAs, along with the other CV-SNMP partners, will implement the CV-SNMP Development Workplan (Development Workplan; see Appendix 2-A) submitted to the RWQCB in April 2021 outlining a scope of work for updating the CV-SNMP in accordance with the Recycled Water Policy. The CV-SNMP agencies have submitted a draft Development Workplan that will be presented to the RWQCB for discussion at their September 2021 meeting. The goal of the Development Workplan is to outline the steps necessary to resolve the challenges identified by the RWQCB in their review comments. Implementation of the Workplan will involve conducting public outreach and creating a technical advisory committee, characterizing current groundwater quality and loading, developing N/TDS forecasting methodologies, completing forecasting for multiple scenarios, selecting a preferred scenario, establishing management zones, and recommending TDS objectives. The implementation schedule for the Development Workplan concludes with a final CV-SNMP submitted to the RWQCB in 2026.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-26 TODD/W&C The CV-SNMP update may require implementation of mitigation for N/TDS loading, which will be evaluated during implementation of the Development Workplan. Mitigation may include the types of activities identified in the 2010 CVWMP Update and 2015 CV-SNMP:
• Enhanced Septic Systems. For areas where sewer conversion is not feasible due to economic or physical constraints, the use of enhanced septic technologies can provide additional nitrate removal. The EPA Environmental Technology Verification Program’s Water Quality Protection Center provides several septic technology alternatives for enhanced nutrient reduction. • Regulation of Self-Regenerating Water Softeners. A preventable source of salts to the Subbasin is the use of self-regenerating water softeners (SRWS). SRWS use an ion-exchange media to replace calcium and magnesium that contribute to hardness in water, with sodium and/or potassium. The salt added using SWRS enters the sewer/septic system and returns to the groundwater basin through percolation ponds after waste treatment or through irrigation of recycled water. In some regions of the State, prohibitions on the installation/sale of SRWS have been implemented to manage salt addition to the wastewater stream. • Fertilizer Application Optimization. Fertilizers containing nitrogen are a known source of nitrate to the groundwater basin. The use of recycled water that contains higher concentrations of nutrients can reduce the reliance on fertilizers as the nutrient source to a particular crop, resulting in reduced importation of nutrients to the Subbasin. Agencies can communicate the nutrient loads of their recycled water supplies to their users and the users incorporate these nutrient loads when determining the need for fertilizer applications.
11.6.2.3 PMA 29: Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum The Salinity Forum, which is a cooperative effort involving federal, state, and local agencies, includes projects that remove salt tonnage. This will be accomplished principally by reducing the salt contributions to the Colorado River from existing sources and minimizing future increases in salt load caused by human activities. CVWD will continue to support and participate in Salinity Forum efforts, including construction of salinity control measures (for example, prevention of inflow to the river from saline springs), advancement of policies for effluent limitation (for example, policies addressing discharges from fish hatcheries), and implementation of non-point source management plans (for example, improved irrigation practices).
11.6.2.4 PMA 30: Source Water Protection
Well management programs are required to ensure that existing and future wells do not impact the usability of the groundwater resource. Specific programs applicable to the Coachella Valley are well construction/destruction/abandonment policies, artesian well management, and well capping:
• Well Construction, Destruction, and Abandonment. Improperly constructed wells can result in poor yield and contaminated groundwater by establishing a pathway for pollutants to enter a well, allowing migration between aquifers of water with varying quality, or enabling the unauthorized disposal of waste into the well. Inactive or improperly abandoned wells present a physical danger and can allow groundwater pollution. Existing well construction, destruction and abandonment policies will be strengthened and implemented in cooperation with Riverside County DEH.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-27 TODD/W&C • Leaking Artesian Well Rebate Program. Historically, artesian groundwater conditions existed in much of the East Valley. Artesian flows occurred in decreasing amounts until the early 1990s (CVWD, 2010). As water management actions in the Indio Subbasin restore water levels, artesian conditions may reoccur. However, most wells are not properly equipped to deal with artesian pressure. CVWD will continue to implement the Leaking Artesian Well Rebate Program to educate and work with well owners to properly control artesian wells to avoid unnecessary waste of water and the potential for property damage.
11.7 Deferred Projects
The projects contained in this section have been determined by the GSAs as currently unfeasible or unnecessary at this time given Indio Subbasin conditions; however, they are retained here for future reference in case Indio Subbasin conditions change and additional management strategies are needed or if projects become feasible in the future. The 2010 CVWMP Update includes more detailed description of these projects. The deferred projects include the following:
• Intentionally Created Surplus Program. The potential may exist to develop additional supply under the Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS) program. The ICS program was created by the Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead in December 2007 (USBR, 2007). CVWD is currently not participating in the ICS program.
• Yuma Desalter Saved Water. The Yuma Desalter was constructed by USBR in 1992 to treat saline agricultural return flows from the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District. The plant has been maintained since construction, but only operated three times since then. Given that the Yuma Desalter has not been operated in the past 10 years, this project has been deferred. • Development of Fargo Canyon Subarea Supplies. Growth in Indio Subbasin areas northeast of the San Andreas fault will create additional demands for both potable and non-potable water.
CVWD and the cities of Coachella and Indio would need to investigate groundwater resources in the Fargo Canyon Subarea of the Desert Hot Springs Subbasin to determine the available supply and suitability for meeting demands in the area.
• Stormwater Capture. Stormwater capture has been identified as a potential method to augment local water supplies. Short duration, high intensity storms inducing large flows make it cost prohibitive for long term capture. The cities and unincorporated communities within the Plan Area – through the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit – require local runoff induced by increased impervious area related to new developments to include stormwater capture and recharge infrastructure. The potential yield of these smaller systems is not known at this time.
Consequently, stormwater capture is categorized as deferred, but may be considered in conjunction with other projects that construct stormwater and flood control facilities. • Storage Opportunities with Imperial Irrigation District (IID). As part of the QSA, CVWD and IID have signed an agreement that allows IID to store surplus Colorado River water in the Coachella Valley. This program would benefit Coachella Valley by providing higher levels of groundwater storage while IID water is stored in the Valley. However, IID does not actively use the Indio Subbasin for conjunctive use.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-28 TODD/W&C • Urban Water Treatment. The use of Canal water for potable uses would require treatment to meet drinking water regulations. In 2008, CVWD completed a pilot treatability study for Canal water (Malcolm-Pirnie, 2008) which investigated three alternative treatment approaches for meeting the Surface Water Treatment Rule and providing RO to reduce the salinity of Colorado River water delivered for urban use. This project has been categorized as deferred because direct treatment and use of Canal water is not planned by CVWD. • Colorado River Desalination. This project proposes to construct three or more separate RO treatment facilities, one at each recharge location, to remove the salt and other minerals from Colorado River water and to recharge the treated water into the Subbasin. However, this project has been categorized as a deferred project because the size, complexity, and intermittent operation of required treatment facilities would be cost prohibitive, exceed available renewable energy supplies, and would require a feasible plan for brine disposal. • Construction of SWP Extension. This project includes direct delivery of SWP through the construction of a SWP extension of the California Aqueduct. A direct connection to the terminus of the East Branch of the California Aqueduct in Cherry Valley would require at least 23-miles of conveyance pipeline. This project has been categorized as a deferred project because construction of such a pipeline (or aqueduct) is an expensive alternative to the existing exchange agreement with MWD and could adversely impact this agreement resulting in significant reductions in SWP supplies. Additionally, project permitting and approvals present uncertainty and there would be a significant environmental impact. In addition, direct importation of SWP water would most likely result in the loss of approximately 100,000 AFY of Colorado River water that results from the exchange of SWP water for QSA water from MWD. • Drain Water Desalination. Drain water desalination was recommended for irrigation purposes and considered a maximum of 100,000 AFY to be delivered to the Canal water distribution system.
CVWD has concluded drain water desalination is not needed at this time to meet projected demands and is therefore categorized as a deferred project. • Ocean Water Desalination. Coastal communities in Southern California are developing and implementing ocean water desalination. Though opportunities to work with coastal communities to develop ocean water desalination may arise in the future, ocean water desalination has been categorized as a deferred project as it is more expensive than other sources of water, is energy intensive, and requires multiple agreements to implement.
11.8 PMA Implementation
The sections above provide a menu of potential PMAs that could be selected and implemented by the GSAs, depending on the outcomes of the monitoring programs and adaptive management process. Table 11-3 includes the implementation actions necessary to move these projects and programs forward to ensure Indio Subbasin sustainability.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-29 TODD/W&C Table 11-3. Alternative Plan Update Implementation Actions Activity Name Project
Proponent(s)
Activity Name Activity Description
Water Conservation
PMA 1: Urban Water Conservation CVWD, DWA,
IWA, CWA
Outreach/Education and
CV Water Counts
Continue to implement public information programs, including CV Water Counts. Educate the public on conservation programs being planned and/or implemented, as well as educational tips that customers can use to lower their water usage. Includes publications, demonstration gardens, workshops, community events, website, social media, and a school education program.
CVWD, DWA,
IWA, CWA
Water Shortage
Contingency Plan (WSCP)
Implement WSCP as needed in response to drought conditions.
Implement supply augmentation, demand reduction, and
operational changes as needed to meet declared shortage level.
CVWD, DWA,
IWA, CWA
Grant Funding Pursue grant funding to fund urban water conservation programs at a higher level, as needed.
CVWD, DWA,
IWA, CWA
Conservation Study Conduct a Conservation Study, including a detailed analysis of market saturation. Quantify potential savings from
implementing current programs, relative cost on an AF basis, and potential for future savings.
CVWD, DWA,
IWA, CWA
Update and Implement
Water Rates
Update Replenishment Assessment Charge and all water and sewer rates as necessary per cost of service studies. Consider tiered rates. Implement updated rates.
CVWD, DWA,
IWA, CWA
Leak Detection/Water
Loss
Continue to implement water loss reduction programs and practices.
CVWD, DWA,
IWA, CWA
Implement Landscape
Ordinance
Continue to implement MWELO, including plan checks.
CVWD, DWA Water Audits Continue to implement Large Landscape Irrigation Audit Program to assist users in maximizing the efficient operation of their irrigation system by measuring performance, generating irrigation schedules and recommending improvement actions.
CVWD Professional Landscaper
Training
Continue to host a LCP for professional landscapers that focuses on water use efficiency.
CVWD, DWA Water Waste
Program/Patrols
Actively patrol the service area for water waste violations.
Unresolved issues result in increasing fines to customers.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-30 TODD/W&C Activity Name Project
Proponent(s)
Activity Name Activity Description
CVWD, DWA,
IWA, CWA
Indoor Rebates Implement indoor rebate programs, designed to assist homeowners and commercial customers who want to reduce
their water usage by upgrading or replacing devices, or installing new technology to improve efficiency.
CVWD, DWA,
IWA, CWA
Landscape/Outdoor
Rebates
Implement landscape/outdoors rebates, designed to assist homeowners, HOA, and commercial customers who want to
reduce their outdoor water usage by converting their lawn to desert-friendly landscaping, installing smart irrigation controllers, or improving the efficiency of their systems.
Reducing outdoor usage is the best way to meet a monthly water budget.
PMA 2: Golf Water Conservation CVWD Golf & Water Task Force Meetings
Continue to meet bi-monthly, or as needed, with Golf & Water Task Force to discuss conservation programs that support golf courses.
CVWD Model Golf Course Water
Budgets
Continue to create model water budgets for area golf courses and provide that information to the courses. While the courses are not billed according to those budgets (see water budget based tiered rates below), they can use the budget as a tool to determine their efficiency rates.
CVWD Golf Course Education
Programs
Develop golf course incentive programs that provide education for golf course managers on water use efficiency.
CVWD, DWA Grant Funding Secure grant funding as available to create incentive programs for water use efficiency such as lake liner programs, irrigation efficiency programs, or turf removal rebates.
CVWD Conservation Study Complete a Conservation Study to better quantify potential savings from implementing current or proposed golf
conservation programs, relative cost on an AF basis, and potential for future savings as needed.
PMA 3: Agricultural Water Conservation CVWD AWAG Meetings Continue to meet bi-annually with AWAG to discuss any updates that impact the agricultural community and receive input from local farmers.
CVWD Agricultural Efficiency Work with other agencies and organizations through AWAG to identify projects and programs that could assist farmers, including small farmers, on improving water use efficiency.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-31 TODD/W&C Activity Name Project
Proponent(s)
Activity Name Activity Description
CVWD Agricultural Resource
Page
Maintain agriculture page on CVWD website with links to resources such as agricultural articles, grants and rebates, meetings and groups, education, and trainings.
CVWD Grant Funding Secure grant funding to create incentive programs for water use efficiency such as flood-to-drip rebates, soil sensor programs, or irrigation fixture upgrades.
CVWD Conservation Study Complete a Conservation Study to better quantify potential savings from implementing current or AWAG identified
programs, relative cost on an AF basis, and potential for future savings as needed.
Water Supply Development
PMA 4: Increased Surface Water
Diversion
DWA Surface Water Diversions Increase surface water diversions for replenishment at WWR- GRF for use in its domestic water supply system.
PMA 5: Delta Conveyance Facility CVWD, DWA DCF Deliveries Continue participation in DCF, anticipated to increase Table A deliveries from 45% to ~58% starting in 2041; 60% Table A and 40% Article 21
PMA 6: Lake Perris Seepage CVWD, DWA Lake Perris Seepage Continue participation in Lake Perris Seepage, which installs a series of five pumps placed down-gradient from the face of the Lake Perris Dam that will pump seepage from the lake into a collection pipeline that discharges directly into MWD’s Colorado River Aqueduct. Anticipated 2025-2045 per 2019 Terms Sheet, 2,753 AFY
PMA 7: Sites Reservoir CVWD, DWA Sites Reservoir Continue participation in Sites Reservoir, which captures and stores stormwater flows from the Sacramento River for release in dry years. Deliveries at 11,550 AFY (participation amount with assumed 30% conveyance loss) beginning in 2035.
PMA 8: Future Supplemental Water
Acquisitions
CVWD, DWA Supplemental Water Enter into new agreements for Supplemental water, as available from SWP or Colorado River.
PMA 9: EVRA Potable Reuse IWA Implement Groundwater
Model and PDR
Implement groundwater model and begin regulatory and
stakeholder engagement. FY 2021-2023. Preliminary Design FY 2023-2024.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-32 TODD/W&C Activity Name Project
Proponent(s)
Activity Name Activity Description
Source Substitution and Replenishment
PMA 10: Mid-Valley Pipeline (Canal Only
Customers)
CVWD FY 32-40 Mid-Valley
Pipeline Golf Course
Connections/Design &
Construction
Seek Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN) grant funding support to design and construct mid-valley pipeline canal connections to Indian Wells Country Club, El Dorado Country Club, La Rocca, Marrakesh Country Club, Shadow
Mountain, Vintage Country Club, Morningside Country Club, Chaparral Country Club, Date Palm Country Club, Rancho Las Palmas, Monterrey Country Club, Thunderbird Country Club, and Porcupine Ridge. The projects will expand canal delivery for landscape irrigation to area golf courses.
PMA 11: Mid-Canal Storage Project CVWD Design and
Environmental
Develop plans, specifications, and engineering (PS&E), along with environmental permitting support, for the project.
CVWD Mid-Canal Storage
Construction
Construct a wide trapezoidal reservoir section within the Coachella Canal to store peak flows, improve water efficiency, and limit water waste.
PMA 12: East Golf Expansion CVWD East Golf Expansion Deliver Canal water to 5 additional golf courses in East Valley.
PMA 13: Oasis Distribution System CVWD Oasis Distribution System Expand the Canal water delivery system to the Oasis area.
Substitute groundwater production with Canal water for
agricultural irrigation and other non-potable landscape irrigation.
PMA 14: WRP-10 Recycled Water
Delivery
CVWD FY 18 Non-Potable Water
Golf Course
Connections/Construction
Seek CWSRF and WIIN grant funding support to construct non- potable water connections to Oasis Country Club, Woodhaven Country Club, Palm Desert Resort Country Club, Bermuda Dunes Country Club, Marriott Desert Springs, Marriott Shadow Ridge, Emerald Desert, and T1 Pump Station. The project will expand non-potable water landscape irrigation to area golf courses.
CVWD FY 21 Non-Potable Water
Golf Course
Connections/Design &
Construction
Seek CWSRF and WIIN grant funding support to design and construct non-potable water connections to Suncrest Country Club, Rancho Mirage Country Club, Annenberg, Tamarisk
Country Club, Tri-Palm Country Club, Jack Ivey Ranch, Palm Royale Country Club, Southwest Community Church, and Indian Wells Tennis Garden. The project will expand non-potable water landscape irrigation to area golf courses.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-33 TODD/W&C Activity Name Project
Proponent(s)
Activity Name Activity Description
CVWD FY 22 Non-Potable Water
Golf Course
Connections/Design &
Construction
Seek CWSRF and WIIN grant funding support to design and construct upsizing improvements to the existing NPW pipelines, converting Indian Ridge Country Club to lake delivery, and non- potable water connections to Desert Island and Springs Country Club. The project will expand non-potable water landscape irrigation to area golf courses.
CVWD FY 25 Non-Potable Water
Golf Course
Connections/Design &
Construction
Seek CWSRF and WIIN grant funding support to design and construct non-potable water connections to Mission Hills Country Club, Westin Hills, Outdoor Resort, and Forest Lawn.
The project will expand non-potable water landscape irrigation to area golf courses.
CVWD Future Non-Potable
Water Golf Course
Connections/Design &
Construction
These projects are planned for FY26 and beyond depending on new golf courses and residential tracts.
PMA 15: WRP-7 Tertiary Expansion CVWD FY 21 – WRP-7 Tertiary Treatment Expansion and
MP113.2 Pump Station
Upgrade/Construction.
Seek CWSRF and WIIN grant funding support to construct an expansion of the tertiary system by 2.5 mgd for a total capacity of 5.0 mgd, add a 5-million-gallon tertiary water storage bladder, repurpose a land disposal pond to accept secondary effluent for pretreatment, and upgrade the capacity of the MP 113.2 canal water pump station. The project will expand non-potable water landscape irrigation to area golf courses.
PMA 16: Canal Water Pump Station
Upgrade
CVWD Canal Water Pump
Station Upgrade
Construct pump station to convey Canal water. Complete design of MP 113.2 Canal Water Pump Station upgrade in 2022.
Complete construction in 2026.
CVWD FY21 – WRP-7 Tertiary
Treatment Expansion and
MP113.2 Pump Station
Upgrade/Construction
Seek CWSRF and WIIN grant funding support to construct a capacity upgrade to the existing pump Station at MP 113.2 canal water pump station. The additional pump station capacity will expand non-potable water landscape irrigation to area golf courses.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-34 TODD/W&C Activity Name Project
Proponent(s)
Activity Name Activity Description
PMA 17: WRP-7 Recycled Water Delivery CVWD FY 22 Non-Potable Water Golf Course
Connections/Design &
Construction
Seek CWSRF and WIIN grant funding support to design and construct non-potable water connections to Talavera Residential Community, Young's Family Farms, and Shadow Hills High
School, and Shadow Hills North Golf Course. The project will expand non-potable water landscape irrigation to area golf courses.
PMA 18: WRP-4 Tertiary Expansion &
Delivery
CVWD FY 22 WRP-4 – Phase 1A
Tertiary Expansion and
New Customer
Connections/Construction
This project includes seeking CWSRF and WIIN grant funding support to construct an expansion of the tertiary system by 2.5 mgd and connect three new irrigation farm customers including Grimmway Farms, West Coast Turf, and Ocean Mist. The project will expand non-potable water to area irrigation customers.
CVWD FY 26 WRP-4 – Phase 1B
Tertiary Expansion and
New Customer
Connections/Design &
Construction
This project includes seeking CWSRF and WIIN grant funding support to construct an expansion of the tertiary system by 7.5 mgd for a total capacity of 10 mgd and connect new irrigation farm customers. The project will expand non-potable water to area irrigation customers.
PMA 19: DWA WRP Recycled Water
Delivery
DWA DWA WRP Recycled
Water
Increase deliveries of recycled water in DWA's service area consistent with existing customer demands, wastewater flow growth and new cost-effective connections.
PMA 20: PD-GRF Expansion CVWD FY 22 - Palm Desert
Groundwater Facility -
Phase II
Construct three groundwater replenishment basins to receive Colorado River water within the Whitewater River Stormwater Channel. A groundwater replenishment facility will serve to help mitigate historical groundwater level declines within the West Whitewater River Sub-basin Area. Approximately an additional 15,000 AFY of Colorado River water will be delivered via the adjacent Mid-Valley Pipeline, for a total replenishment in the near vicinity of 25,000 AFY.
PMA 21: TEL-GRF Expansion CVWD TEL-GRF Expansion Expand recharge capacity at the TEL-GRF from 37,000 to 40,000 AF.
PMA 22: WWR-GRF Operation CVWD, DWA Maximize
WWR-GRF Replenishment
Continued operation of WWR-GRF at maximum available
replenishment water. If additional SWP exchange water can be acquired, increase replenishment.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-35 TODD/W&C Activity Name Project
Proponent(s)
Activity Name Activity Description
Water Quality Protection
PMA 23: Eliminate Wastewater
Percolation
CVWD, CWA,
DWA
Eliminate Wastewater
Percolation
Eliminate wastewater percolation. Recycle water that would have been percolated to be protective of water quality.
PMA 24: Wellhead Treatment CVWD, DWA,
IWA, CWA
Wellhead Treatment Assess the need to expand groundwater treatment facilities to treat additional wells in the future for arsenic, nitrate, or other constituents.
IWA Hexavalent Chromium
Wellhead Treatment
Pending Cr6 MCL, upgrade resin at existing IX treatment plants (FY 2021-22). Begin design and construction of new wellhead treatment facilities (FY 2022-26)
PMA 25: Small Water System
Consolidations
CVWD, DWA,
IWA, CWA
Small Water System
Consolidations
Extend urban water service to small water systems (e.g., mobile home/RV park communities) with deficient infrastructure and poor water quality. Implement consolidations as grant funding becomes available.
CVWD Saint Anthony Water
Consolidation Project
Seek grant funding to design and construct a new domestic water pipeline along Avenue 66 and adjacent roadways to serve the Saint Anthony area with clean, safe drinking water.
CVWD Valley View Water
Consolidation Project
Seek grant funding to design and construct a new domestic water pipeline along Airport Blvd and adjacent roadways to serve the Valley View area with clean, safe drinking water.
PMA 26: Septic to Sewer Conversions CVWD, DWA,
IWA, CWA
Septic to Sewer
Conservations
Seek USDA, CWSRF, and WIIN grant funding support to design and construct septic-to-centralized sewer systems and expand service to DACs. Implement conversions as grant funding becomes available.
CVWD Monroe Trunk Sewer Seek grant funding to design and construct a new sewer pipeline along Monroe Street from Avenue 62 to Avenue 64 to expand CVWD's service area to the tribal residential neighborhood within the intersection of Avenue 64 and Monroe. CVWD Avenue 66 Trunk Sewer Seek grant funding to design and construct a new sewer pipeline along Avenue 66 and Harrison to expand CVWD's service area to the Torres-Martinez Coachel center, Sunbird Mobile Home Park, and residential neighborhood within Middleton Road.
Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 11-36 TODD/W&C Activity Name Project
Proponent(s)
Activity Name Activity Description
CVWD Airport Blvd Sewer
Consolidation Project
Seek grant funding to design and construct a new sewer
collection system (gravity sewer pipelines and lift stations), along Desert Cactus Dr, Ave 57th, Fillmore St and Airport Blvd.
PMA 27: Implement CV-SNMP
Groundwater Monitoring Program
Workplan
CVWD, DWA,
IWA, CWA
Implement CV-SNMP
Workplans
Implement the CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program
Workplan approved by the RWQCB to expand and improve the region’s groundwater monitoring system for water quality.
PMA 28: Implement CV-SNMP
Development Workplan
CVWD, DWA,
IWA, CWA
Implement CV-SNMP
Workplans
Develop a compliant CV-SNMP per the SNMP Development
Workplan submitted to the RWQCB.
PMA 29: Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Forum
CVWD, DWA Colorado River Salinity
Forum
Support implementation of Colorado River Salinity Forum projects through participation and comments on Forum
activities.
PMA 30: Source Water Protection CVWD, DWA Abandoned well management program
Continue cooperating with Riverside County
DEH to identify and cap/destroy unused wells.
CVWD Leaking artesian well
rebate program
Continue implementing CVWD's leaking artesian well rebate program.
CVWD Well management rebate
programs
Continue to secure grant funding when available to supplement leaking artesian well rebate program and fund proper
abandonment/destruction of unused wells.
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-1 TODD/W&C CHAPTER 12: PLAN EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
This Alternative Plan Update describes the planning process for the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) in achieving a reliable and sustainable water supply. This chapter provides an evaluation of how implementation of this Plan will achieve the dual goals of meeting projected demands and maintaining groundwater sustainability. This chapter also outlines the Alternative Plan Update implementation activities necessary to support those goals.
12.1 Plan Evaluation
This Alternative Plan Update includes analysis of the range of uncertainties facing the GSAs in planning for a balance of future water demands and supplies. Chapter 5, Demand Projections, and Chapter 6, Water Supply, both address potential future conditions that are outside of the GSAs’ control, including increased municipal or agricultural demands, climate change, and regulatory changes. The planning process considered those uncertainties in the development of the five Plan scenarios in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios, which analyzed a range of potential future conditions given those uncertainties.
Chapter 11, Projects and Management Actions, then lays out an adaptive management process by which the GSAs can identify and select projects and management actions (PMAs) for implementation based on Indio Subbasin conditions. The PMAs are packaged in the Plan scenarios, and as described in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios, the scenarios associated with the 5-Year Plan and Future Projects indicate that the GSAs can maintain the Subbasin water balance despite climate change. Indio Subbasin conditions will be evaluated using the monitoring data as outlined in Chapter 10, Monitoring Program, and as compared to the sustainability objectives and thresholds established in Chapter 9, Sustainable Management. Each of these components of the planning process is essential to a water management plan that meets projected demands and maintains groundwater sustainability.
12.1.1 GSA Priorities
Consistent with the development and approach of this Alternative Plan Update (see Chapter 1, Introduction) and guided by the sustainability goal and objectives (see Chapter 9, Sustainable Management), the GSAs have collaboratively defined priorities for the PMAs. While overdraft has been reversed in terms of chronic groundwater level declines, storage depletion, subsidence, and seawater intrusion, the GSAs still face uncertainties in terms of forecasted demands and water supply availability.
Accordingly, this Plan Evaluation has focused on securing water reliability and resilience, namely the ability to provide consistent water supply and to respond to changing future conditions. Water supply reliability in the Indio Subbasin is the GSAs’ ability to consistently provide adequate water supply to meet projected demands while sustainably managing the Subbasin.
Chapter 6, Water Supply, describes currently available and projected future water supplies, but does not quantify future groundwater supplies, which will be the result of conjunctive use of groundwater storage and supplies with other water supplies. The role of groundwater is quantified using the numerical model as described in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios. In brief, the projected local surface water and imported supplies alone are not fully adequate to meet the anticipated demands in Chapter 5, Demand Projections, but the scenarios simulated with the model demonstrate that with available groundwater supplies the Indio Subbasin can reliably and sustainably meet future demands under a range of conditions. Historical data included in Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions,
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-2 TODD/W&C demonstrate that the management activities under the Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update (2010 CVWMP Update) (Coachella Valley Water District [CVWD], 2012) have eliminated groundwater overdraft, stopped subsidence, and reversed seawater intrusion. To maintain water reliability and resilience through the planning horizon, the GSAs established the following priorities (in no particular order) for use in selection of PMAs:
• Fully use available Colorado River water supplies
• Support improvement of the long-term reliability of SWP supplies, including participation in the Delta Conveyance Facility (DCF)
• Continue developing recycled water as a reliable local water supply • Implement source substitution and replenishment for resilience in response to changing conditions and for maintenance of long-term groundwater supply reliability • Increase water-use efficiency across all sectors
• Participate in development of the Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (CV- SNMP) to address salt and nutrient management in the Indio Subbasin.
The project list is provided in Chapter 11, Projects and Management Actions, along with implementation actions associated with each PMA. Using an adaptive management process, the GSAs can adjust project implementation if monitoring shows that water demands and supplies are higher or lower than projected or if tracking of groundwater levels indicates that undesirable results (including storage depletion and subsidence) could occur in the foreseeable future. Projects listed as “deferred” in Chapter 11, Projects and Management Actions, are not currently needed to achieve Indio Subbasin sustainability within the planning horizon but are retained as possible PMAs for future implementation as needed.
12.1.2 Water Supply Evaluation
This Alternative Plan Update continues the provision from the 2010 CVWMP Update of a supply buffer on both municipal and agricultural demands. A 10 percent supply buffer was applied to projected municipal demands, plus an additional 1,500 acres of agricultural demands (see Table 12-1). This supply buffer (28,415 acre-feet per year [AFY)] ensures that the GSAs are planning for adequate supplies to meet anticipated growth over the coming 25 years. Table 12-1 also includes the demand forecast with expanded agricultural demands that was considered in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios.
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-3 TODD/W&C Table 12-1. Demand Forecast with Supply Buffer (AFY)
5-Yr Average
(2015-2019) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Demand Forecast
Municipal 157,800 180,318 192,098 204,163 216,074 225,997 235,148 Agricultural 292,100 290,312 287,092 284,693 283,045 281,644 280,243 Golf 105,300 105,300 106,075 106,850 107,625 107,625 107,625 Other 19,500 18,893 21,593 21,593 21,593 21,593 21,593
Total 574,700 594,823 606,858 617,299 628,337 636,859 644,610 Demands with Supply Buffer
Demands with Supply Buffer 617,754 630,968 642,616 654,845 664,359 673,025 Expanded Agricultural
Demands with Supply Buffer
617,754 637,985 656,650 675,897 692,428 708,111
The potential local and imported supplies described below are based on the information presented in Chapter 6, Water Supply.
12.1.2.1 Local Supplies
Table 12-2 provides a summary of the local water supplies in the Indio Subbasin that are simulated for the year 2045 under each of the four Plan scenarios with climate change. These include surface water diversions, local watershed runoff that naturally infiltrates, recycled water, and net groundwater inflows from uses and other sources that replenish the Subbasin, less outflows. Chapter 6, Water Supply, quantifies the surface water, watershed runoff, and recycled water that is available to the GSAs under historical and climate change conditions (refer to Table 6-16). Return flows are groundwater inflows and were calculated during development of the Plan scenarios summarized in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios (refer to Table 7-12). Note that net groundwater inflows are listed at the bottom, separate from local supplies. While net inflows contribute to the available groundwater supply, they are calculated as part of the model simulations.
12.1.2.2 Imported Supplies
The imported water supplies in the Indio Subbasin consist of Colorado River water, SWP exchange supplies, and other imported water sources (e.g., Rosedale Rio-Bravo transfer). Chapter 6, Water Supply, quantifies the total imported water supply available from all three sources under historical and climate change conditions (refer to Table 6-16). Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios (Section 7.5), explains where those supplies were directed under the Plan scenarios, either for direct delivery or replenishment. Table 12-2 provides a summary of the imported supplies projected for the year 2045 under each of the with-project Plan scenarios.
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-4 TODD/W&C Table 12-2. Comparison of Planned Supplies Under Plan Scenarios, 2045 (AFY) 5-Year Plan
with Climate
Change
Future Projects
with Climate
Change
Expanded
Agriculture
with Climate
Change
Local Supplies
Surface Water Diversions 6,000 6,000 6,000
Natural Infiltrationa 29,200 29,200 29,200
Recycled Water - Current 13,398 13,398 13,398
Recycled Water - Futureb 6,815 11,815 11,815
Imported Supplies
Colorado River (less Conveyance Losses)c 411,550 411,550 411,550 SWP Water (less Allocation To MC-GRF)c 78,248 78,248 78,248 Other: Rosedale Rio-Bravod 0 0 0
Delta Conveyance Facility 0 23,562 23,562
Lake Perris Seepage 0 2,484 2,484
Sites Reservoir 0 10,426 10,426
Total Local + Imported Supplies 545,211 586,683 586,683 Net Groundwater Inflowe 121,660 114,320 117,636
Total Supplies with Net Returns from Use 666,871 701,003 704,319 a Natural infiltration of watershed runoff excludes surface water diversions and outflow to Salton Sea. b Recycled Water – Future includes planned potable reuse projects by East Valley Reclamation Authority. c Colorado River and SWP supply volumes do not account for evaporative loss that occurs during replenishment activities. Those losses were accounted for in the modeling.
d Rosedale Rio-Bravo supply is available through year 2035 and is zero in 2045. Included here to align with Chapter 6, Water Supply tables.
e Net groundwater inflow includes agricultural, golf course, and municipal return flows, plus subsurface inflow and wastewater percolation, less subsurface outflow, drain flow, and ET. Note that net groundwater inflow values are 25-year averages, not year 2045. Refer to Table 7-12.
As shown in Table 12-2, the GSAs forecast existing available supplies in the 5-Year Plan with Climate Change scenario and then forecast the implementation of future supplies in the Future Projects with Climate Change and Expanded Agriculture with Climate Change scenarios. Although the volume of existing imported water sources remains constant across the Plan scenarios, that supply is directed to different uses in the scenarios. In the Future Projects and Expanded Agriculture scenarios, additional imported water sources are included in the forecast. As the GSAs implement non-potable connections to deliver Canal water directly throughout the Subbasin, Colorado River replenishment volumes are adjusted and groundwater levels, storage, pumping, and other outflows change. This results in the different groundwater outcomes for the scenarios, as described in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios.
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-5 TODD/W&C As shown in this Alternative Plan Update, the local surface water and imported water sources in the GSAs’ current water supply portfolio are adequate to meet projected demands if the supply buffer is not considered. A comparison of the projected water demands (refer to Table 12-1) with the available water supplies identified in Chapter 6, Water Supply, is presented in Table 12-2 and Figure 12-1. The figure shows available water supplies, as modeled in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios, in year 2045 because that is peak projected demand within the planning horizon. The baseline demand forecast in Table 12-1 is 644,610 AFY by 2045 and all three Plan scenarios in Table 12-2 have adequate supply to meet that demand, which some supply buffer. Additionally, as demonstrated in in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios, all three with-project Plan scenarios will gain in groundwater storage over the planning horizon. Should some type of extended shortage, drought, or emergency occur, the GSAs have other water management tools, such as more aggressive implementation of water conservation programs and Water Shortage Contingency Plans, to address supply gaps. To ensure water supply reliability and resilience through the planning horizon, the GSAs are committed to the suite of additional supply and source substitution projects identified in Chapter 11, Projects and Management Actions.
The GSAs manage their portfolio of local and imported water supplies conjunctively with groundwater supplies, providing replenishment and utilizing the storage capacity of the Indio Subbasin. The modeling described in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios, demonstrates that with consideration of groundwater inflows and outflows, the GSAs can manage the amount of forecasted groundwater production from the Indio Subbasin while maintaining sustainability and avoiding undesirable results associated with chronic groundwater level declines (as well as storage depletion, subsidence, and seawater intrusion). Figure 12-2 shows that the simulated groundwater balance generally includes more inflows than outflows in the with-project Plan scenarios. With the groundwater budget factored in, along with active conservation programming, the GSAs will be able to meet forecasted demands with the supply buffer and contribute to increases in Indio Subbasin storage.
In the three with-project Plan scenarios that simulated varying project implementation and/or agricultural demands, results show a net increase in storage at the end of the 25-year planning horizon and continuing stability through the end of the modeling timeframe. Through implementation of this Alternative Plan Update, the Indio GSAs will be able to meet projected pumping demands and maintain Indio Subbasin sustainability with regard to water levels and storage under the range of potential futures established through the Plan scenarios. The three scenarios demonstrate that continued imported water replenishment and expansion of non-potable connections is essential to maintaining a balanced basin.
The simulated hydrographs and storage are projected to be higher than historical lows and to increase over the planning horizon. To address uncertainties in water supply or demand, this Plan identifies a range of PMAs that can be implemented by the GSAs. Under this Plan, conservation continues to be implemented, available Canal water is fully utilized, SWP supplies are acquired, when possible, recycled and non-potable water is expanded throughout the Mid-Valley, and domestic water and sewer consolidations protect the groundwater supplies of disadvantaged communities. This flexible approach allows for future implementation of more aggressive conservation or deferred projects to offset supply gaps that might arise.
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-6 TODD/W&C Figure 12-1. Comparison of Planned Supplies and Demands Under Plan Scenarios, 2045
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-7 TODD/W&C Figure 12-2. Model Inflows and Outflows by Scenario
FINAL
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-8 TODD/W&C This Alternative Plan Update demonstrates that the GSAs can meet the established Plan goal “to reliably meet current and future water demands in a cost-effective and sustainable manner”. In addition to meeting forecasted demands with the supply buffer, the GSAs will continue to recover from and avoid chronic groundwater overdraft, manage and protect water quality, and reduce vulnerability to climate change and drought, all within an adaptive management framework that allows for ongoing collaboration with stakeholders and tribes, cost control, and minimization of environmental impacts.
12.2 Plan Implementation
The Indio GSAs are working collaboratively to implement the Alternative Plan and ensure the sustainability of the Indio Subbasin. This includes implementing projects and management actions described in Section 11, Projects and Management Actions, as well as ongoing Plan implementation and administrative activities. As shown in Figure 12-3, Alternative Plan implementation includes the program management, tribal coordination, public outreach, ongoing data collection and monitoring, and funding activities necessary to implement this Plan.
Figure 12-3. Alternative Plan Implementation
This section describes the above items, including contents of required Annual Reports and Plan Updates that will be provided to DWR. This section also identifies the specific actions to move the proposed projects and management actions forward.
12.2.1 GSA Program Management
Each of the four GSAs is administered independently with oversight of individual agency projects and programs, as well as coordination among the GSAs. GSA program management primarily consists of general program administration, coordination between the GSAs and California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and oversight of ongoing GSA monitoring and reporting. Representatives from the four GSAs meet periodically at the staff level for information sharing and to coordinate activities. Staff-level meetings are not noticed or open to the public. Governance occurs independently via each of the four GSA Program Management
Monitoring Programs
Tribal Coordination
Stakeholder Outreach
Annual Reports
5-year Plan Update
Monitoring Network Improvements
Refine Subbasin Characterization
Pursue Funding Opportunities
Implement Projects & Management Actions (PMAs)
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-9 TODD/W&C GSA governing boards and councils, whose meetings are publicly noticed. Tribal and stakeholder engagement is described under Sections 12.6 and 12.7 below., respectively.
GSA administration includes coordination of Plan implementation activities, regular email communications to update GSA members on ongoing Indio Subbasin activities, administration of projects implemented by the GSA, and general oversight and coordination. This includes coordination of technical activities associated with Plan implementation, including monitoring network improvements. Other administrative actions involve tracking and evaluating Plan implementation and sustainability conditions, as well as assessing the benefit to the Indio Subbasin. GSA program management also includes grant applications and administration for potential funding sources. Administrative activities include oversight of consultants or contractors that may be retained by the GSAs in support of Plan implementation, including Plan updates, annual reporting, and monitoring.
GSA staff meetings are anticipated to be held annually, at a minimum, to discuss Annual Report data collection and findings, implementation of projects and management actions, and other topics necessary to implement this Alternative Plan Update. All oversight and administration activities are assumed to occur as needed and on an ongoing basis.
12.2.2 Monitoring Programs
Chapter 10, Monitoring Program, identifies monitoring programs and provides procedures for tracking sustainability progress. Monitoring programs are a critical element of Plan implementation. The monitoring programs described in Chapter 10, Monitoring Program, will allow the GSAs to track conditions within the Indio Subbasin and adjust implementation of the management strategies described in Chapter 11, Projects and Management Actions. This Alternative Plan Update has identified monitoring networks and protocols for groundwater levels, climate and hydrologic conditions, groundwater production, subsidence, water quality, and seawater intrusion. Monitoring network data will be collected for the following purposes:
• Characterize Indio Subbasin conditions
• Identify groundwater level, storage, and quality trends • Determine if additional management activities are necessary • Determine whether undesirable results are occurring
The following monitoring programs will be implemented to support ongoing groundwater management and to support Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) compliance in the Indio Subbasin:
• Groundwater Levels. Groundwater levels are monitored at least three times per year in approximately 345 wells by the Indio Subbasin GSAs as part of their respective groundwater level monitoring programs. As part of Plan implementation, water levels will be uploaded to the DWR Monitoring Well Module and data will be publicly accessible. • Climate, Streamflow, and Drain Flow. Climate data (including temperature, evapotranspiration, and precipitation) are available from DWR’s California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) for four active CIMIS stations. Precipitation data have been and will be collected for the 12 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District precipitation monitoring stations. Temperature and precipitation data are also available from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) station in Indio. Streamflow is measured by the United States
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-10 TODD/W&C Geological Survey (USGS) at 19 locations within the Indio Subbasin. CVWD measures drain flows at 27 drain sites on a monthly basis.
• Groundwater Production. The GSAs, specifically CVWD and Desert Water Agency (DWA), have been monitoring (assessing) groundwater production in the West Areas of Benefit (AOBs) since 1982 and the East AOB since 2005. CVWD and DWA groundwater production data set is audited two times a year and summarized as part of the SGMA Annual Report and the annual Engineer’s Report. The GSAs also submit validated Water Loss Audits annually. These audits inventory all sources of production and are publicly available.
• Subsidence. Land subsidence has been investigated since 1996 through an on-going cooperative program between CVWD and the USGS. The USGS has applied satellite-based Global Positioning System (GPS) surveying techniques to determine the location, extent, and magnitude of the vertical land-surface changes in the Coachella Valley. GPS measurements have also been taken at 24 geodetic monuments that have been paired with nearby water level monitoring wells to assess relationships between subsidence and groundwater level changes. In addition, DWR provides interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) satellite-based data and GPS data to identify and assess land subsidence across many California groundwater basins, including the Indio Subbasin.
In its cooperative study with the GSAs, USGS also will analyze DWR-provided InSAR results with findings published in 2025.
• Water Quality. The GSAs monitor and report the quality of their water sources to the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Drinking Water (DDW). These data are publicly available on the SWRCB’s Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program (GAMA) website. CVWD also collects water quality data for other programs such as monitoring of the GRFs. Groundwater quality data are also available from various other sources, including the USGS National Water Information System. The new CV-SNMP monitoring program will be a robust new source of compiled water quality data.
• Seawater Intrusion. Saline water intrusion is monitored specifically through two sets of dedicated nested monitoring wells operated by CVWD. One set of four wells is located about 2.1 miles north of the Salton Sea and the other set is about one mile west of the Salton Sea and north of Oasis.
Monitoring data for the representative well network, as described in Chapter 10, Monitoring Program, will be managed and reported to DWR and stakeholders in the Annual Reports described in Section 12.8.
The monitoring networks build on the foundation of existing monitoring programs and develop further monitoring to continue the characterization of the Indio Subbasin. The monitoring program will be coordinated with DWR’s SGMA Portal, Monitoring Well Module, and partner agencies such as USGS.
12.2.2.1 Data Management System
The GSAs have been collecting and compiling groundwater data annually including water levels, water quality, and water use. For this Alternative Plan Update and subsequent Annual Reports, these data, and other data from the GSAs and other sources, are being compiled in relational databases, which comprise an Access database, GIS geodatabase, and Excel workbooks. As part of the Alternative Plan Update, the DMS has been redesigned to be practicable, usable, intuitive, and cost effective. These tables include groundwater elevations, water quality, groundwater pumping, direct deliveries of imported water, and
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-11 TODD/W&C well locations. The geodatabase contains spatial files including jurisdictional areas, basin boundaries, monitoring locations, crop censuses, groundwater contours (elevation and quality), geology, and hydrologic features. The regional DMS will be updated annually as part of the Annual Report. In addition, a full review and update will occur during the 5-year Plan Update.
Additionally, DWR has built a DMS through its SGMA Portal (see: https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/) for submittal and viewing of Annual Report data by GSAs throughout the State. The GSAs, stakeholders, and interested parties will rely on that database to make data from Key Wells widely available.
12.2.3 Tribal Coordination
Throughout the Alternative Plan Update process, the GSAs have engaged with the Indio Subbasin tribal governments, namely the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, and the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians, each of which have provided representatives to the SGMA Tribal Workgroup meetings. The SGMA Tribal Workgroup, established in 2017, has been active for several years through submittal and DWR approval of the Alternative Plan and the Alternative Plan Update process.
During the Alternative Plan Update, the SGMA Tribal Workgroup continued to discuss major water-related concerns facing the tribes and ensuring regional water management efforts, such as the long-term implementation of the Alternative Plan Update, are responsive to those needs. During these meetings, the GSAs presented work in progress and requested data from the tribes to support the planning process (e.g., land use plans, water demands).
The GSAs will continue to engage with the tribes through quarterly SGMA Tribal Workgroup meetings. At the Workgroup meetings, the GSAs will present monitoring data, Annual Report findings, and status of project implementation to support Indio Subbasin sustainability.
12.2.4 Stakeholder Outreach
The GSAs have conducted stakeholder outreach to identify and obtain input from groups that may be otherwise limited from participating in the Alternative Plan Update process and implementation. The GSAs have used a variety of outreach methods to coordinate among local stakeholders and communicate SGMA-related information to interested parties during Plan development. The GSAs plan to continue collaboration and public outreach during Plan implementation. This will include providing opportunities for stakeholder participation at public workshops, providing access to Plan information through email announcements and online (see project website: www.IndioSubbasinSGMA.org) , releasing Annual Reports that evaluate the Plan’s progress toward implementation, and continued coordination with entities representing diverse communities in the Indio Subbasin.
12.2.4.1 Stakeholder Workshops
During the Alternative Plan Update, the GSAs hosted seven public workshops to share information, present work in progress, and request feedback from stakeholders.
The GSAs will continue to host stakeholder workshops to ensure open participation in Plan implementation by members of the public and interested parties and to receive stakeholder input.
Stakeholder workshops are anticipated to be held annually to present the findings of the Annual Reports, including reporting on monitoring data and compliance with sustainability criteria established in this Alternative Plan Update. The Indio Subbasin website will be updated as needed to feature meeting
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-12 TODD/W&C agendas and materials, so that stakeholders have access to past and current materials related to Plan implementation.
Additionally, the GSAs will continue to report out to their Boards of Directors annually, at a minimum, for review and discussion of the Annual Reports. Board meetings are publicly noticed and open to all stakeholders to participate.
12.2.4.2 Outreach and Website Maintenance
The GSAs have used an email list to communicate with stakeholders and interested parties (see overview in Section 1, Introduction). Announcements related to Plan implementation – such as availability of new data, release of Annual Reports, and scheduling of public workshops – will continue to be distributed via email. Prior to stakeholder workshops or meetings, email announcements will be circulated with access to meeting materials via the website. Emails will also be distributed as specific deliverables are finalized, when opportunities are available for stakeholder input, or when items of interest to the stakeholder group arise, such as relevant funding opportunities.
The Indio Subbasin website will be updated as needed to feature meeting agendas and materials, Annual Reports, and other program information as applicable.
12.2.5 Annual Reports
Annual Reports have been submitted by April 1 of each year since 2018, following the Alternative Plan adoption. As summarized below, Annual Reports provide general information, documentation of Subbasin conditions, and description of plan implementation progress.
12.2.5.1 General Information
The Annual Reports include an Executive Summary that highlights key contents and findings. The Introduction presents the organization of the Annual Report, a summary of the Alternative Plan process, and a map and overview of the Subbasin.
12.2.5.2 Subbasin Conditions
The Subbasin setting section provides updated context on climate, the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin, and the Indio Subbasin. Additional sections summarize current hydrologic and groundwater conditions and monitoring program results with evaluation of how conditions have changed in the Indio Subbasin over the previous year and comparison of groundwater data for the year to historical groundwater data. Reporting will include comparison of groundwater conditions to any minimum thresholds established by the GSAs, with discussion of adaptive management, as needed. Sections of the Annual Report document groundwater elevation data, groundwater extractions, surface water conditions (including local surface water, imported water deliveries, and recycled water), total water use, and change in groundwater storage. Annual reports present selected hydrographs of groundwater elevation data, groundwater level contour maps, groundwater level change maps, and graphs documenting pumping and other elements of the water budget, and cumulative change in groundwater storage.
12.2.5.3 Plan Implementation Progress
Plan implementation progress is described in the Annual Reports, including projects and management actions, acquisition of additional water supplies, source substitution, groundwater recharge, and water quality improvements. Status of the monitoring program is also summarized.
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-13 TODD/W&C
12.2.6 5-year Plan Update
The GSAs have committed to update of the Alternative Plan every 5 years to assess progress toward meeting sustainability, incorporate changes in conditions including water demand and supply availability, evaluate PMAs, and evaluate projected groundwater conditions using the numerical model.
12.2.6.1 Alternative Plan Update
The GSAs will evaluate the Alternative Plan Update every 5 years. At that time, the GSAs will report on whether any Alternative Plan Update sustainability criteria (e.g., minimum thresholds or measurable objectives established by the GSAs) should be revised, based on any significant changes and outcomes of the monitoring programs. The 5-year Update will include the following:
• Sustainable Management—Description of the current Subbasin conditions with reference to Alternative Plan objectives and any sustainability indicators established by the GSAs. New information and significant changes will be identified and discussed. • Plan Implementation Progress—Description of implementation activities, update of the implementation schedule, and adjustments to projects and management actions. • Update of Alternative Plan Elements—Update of Alternative Plan elements (such as Plan Area, Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model, Groundwater Conditions, Sustainable Management) to reflect increased understanding available from ongoing monitoring, new information, and significant changes.
• Monitoring Network Update—Reporting on the status of the Plan’s monitoring programs and discussion of progress made in filling data gaps.
• Regulatory or Policy Issues—Summary of new regulatory or policy issues relevant to water resources management of the Indio Subbasin.
• Plan Amendments—Identification of any amendments made to the Alternative Plan and discussion of potential future amendments if identified. • Coordination—Summary of coordination among GSAs within or outside of the Indio Subbasin and collaboration with land use agencies.
12.2.6.2 Indio Subbasin Groundwater Model Update
The Indio Subbasin groundwater model will be updated annually to evaluate annual change in groundwater storage and comprehensively reviewed and updated every 5 years based on additional information provided by GSAs. This will include extending the historical model time series to the update year and updating all inputs. Areas of higher uncertainty, such as agricultural demands and imported water reliability will be refined using additional information made available through the monitoring program and implemented projects. Additional drain flow information will be used to achieve better calibration. Once the model has been updated and re-calibrated, the future scenarios will be designed and simulated. Associated water budget and model outputs will be evaluated considering project implementation.
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-14 TODD/W&C
12.2.7 Monitoring Network Improvements
The groundwater monitoring networks have abundant historical data that meet or exceed data density requirements outlined in DWR’s Monitoring Networks and Identification of Data Gaps, Best Management Practices for Sustainable Management of Groundwater (DWR, 2016) in the deeper zones. The GSAs are pursuing additional dedicated shallow monitoring wells to help monitor shallow and perched areas of the Subbasin for both water levels and water quality.
12.2.7.1 Groundwater Monitoring Improvements
To better understand the basin in general and vertical gradients specifically, the GSAs are implementing groundwater monitoring improvements. The GSAs will regularly assess the monitoring network and install additional and/or replacement monitoring wells. This effort is being coordinated with the Coachella Valley SNMP monitoring networks to achieve the overall goal of groundwater quality protection.
12.2.7.2 Subbasin Well Inventory
Unlike many other groundwater basins in California, the Indio Subbasin has an extensive well inventory that has been compiled by CVWD and DWA in order to implement the Replenishment Assessment Charge (RAC) Programs for assessable groundwater production. CVWD levies and collects the RAC from groundwater producers that benefit from the Groundwater Replenishment Programs (GRPs) and extract more than 25 acre-feet per year (AFY) within the CVWD’s West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit (AOB) and East Whitewater River Subbasin AOB in the Indio Subbasin. DWA levies and collects the RAC from groundwater producers that benefit from the GRPs and extract more than 10 AFY within DWA’s West Whitewater River Subbasin AOB. However, there is incomplete data on minimal pumpers who do not meet these criteria. It is unclear how many wells producing less than the RAC criteria exist, and approximations of unreported production are best estimates.
The GSAs are planning a well inventory for the Indio Subbasin that will identify and compile information about all production wells located in the Indio Subbasin. CVWD is planning to initiate this effort, with the other GSAs participating at their discretion. The well inventory will involve development of a well registry to aid in this process. The well inventory will support any extension or refinement of the monitoring network, allow improvement of groundwater extraction estimates, and improve the understanding of how private wells may affect Indio Subbasin conditions and how Indio Subbasin management may affect private wells. The well inventory will provide documentation of well locations and well construction relative to the Key Wells and Minimum Thresholds identified for managing groundwater levels (see Section 9.3.3, Sustainability Criteria for Groundwater Levels). This will help substantiate the current effectiveness of the groundwater level MTs in protecting wells or identify as-yet unknown shallow wells.
The comprehensive well inventory will also provide a basis for cooperating with well permitting agencies (e.g., County of Riverside) to ensure that new wells are constructed with appropriate construction and depth to provide reliable water supply despite reasonably anticipated and managed changes in groundwater levels. Compilation of the well inventory may include the following:
• Review and organize the DMS to incorporate well inventory component • Gather water well drillers reports with well construction information • Coordinate with well owners to identify wells and obtain relevant information on location, construction, use, status, and monitoring, if any
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-15 TODD/W&C • Conduct as-needed field visits to verify well location, use, and status • Input well inventory information into the DMS.
The GSAs will collaborate with DWR, local agencies, water users, landowners, and leaseholders to identify and locate wells and compile information on construction, status, and use.
12.2.7.3 Expand Groundwater Production Reporting
SGMA (Section 10725.8) authorizes GSAs to require that the use of every groundwater extraction facility (production well) be measured with a water-measuring device (meter) with the exception of de minimis extractors (domestic users extracting 2 AFY or less). As explained in Section 12.10.2, both CVWD and DWA already require metering and extraction reporting by groundwater produces using more than 25 and 10 AFY, respectively, based on their respective water management authorities. CVWD and DWA separately author an Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment annually to assess the groundwater supply conditions and the need for continued replenishment within their AOBs, to provide a description of the current GRF operations, and to recommend adjustments to the RAC that is levied on groundwater production (see CVWDs website: https://cvwd.org/Archive.aspx?AMID=43 and DWA’s website: https://dwa.org/about-us/documents/library/) .
The GSAs may consider expansion of groundwater extraction reporting to include groundwater pumpers that produce less than the current assessment threshold but more than the de minimis threshold established by SGMA. CVWD will initiate a Cost of Service Study within its service area to consider SGMA fees that may apply to this reporting; the other GSAs may require reporting and develop fees within their service areas at their discretion.
12.2.8 Refine Subbasin Characterization
Means to improve understanding of the Indio Subbasin have been identified in this Alternative Plan Update, which the GSAs will explore over the coming 5 years. Refining the Indio Subbasin characterization in these areas will improve the GSAs ability to manage the Indio Subbasin.
12.2.8.1 Drain Flow Study
There are 27 agricultural drains where CVWD collects flow measurements and water quality data. The agricultural drain system was designed to intercept shallow, higher salinity groundwater (from return flows and rising groundwater) and convey it to the Salton Sea. As discussed in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios, the subsurface drain flows are an outflow from the Indio Subbasin included in the groundwater balance. As such, they are an important component of the water budget output from the groundwater model. The drains are also a source of salt outflow important to the Subbasin’s salt balance.
The Drain Flow Study will study the relationship between groundwater levels in the various aquifers, current and historical crop water application, and flows and salt export through the drain system Geochemical and isotope studies could be implemented to assess potential water sources (return flows vs rising groundwater) of drain flows. The study will contribute to an improved understanding of the relationship between groundwater levels in the various aquifers, protection of water quality in the deep aquifer, drain flow volumes and salt export, which may result in refinements of this groundwater model element.
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-16 TODD/W&C
12.2.8.2 Subsidence Study
CVWD has on ongoing partnership with USGS. CVWD will collaborate with USGS and the other GSAs on the current study (July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2025), whose objectives are to (1) detect and quantify land subsidence using GPS methods (2015–22) and InSAR methods (2017–23), (2) evaluate the relation between changes in land-surface elevation and groundwater levels at selected sites during 2015–23, and (3) provide technical assistance to CVWD and their contractors in the potential development of subsidence simulation capabilities for the existing numerical groundwater flow model. USGS also will analyze DWR-provided InSAR results to compute changes in land-surface elevation in the Indio Subbasin during 2017–23. Findings will be published in a report in 2025.
12.2.8.3 Subsurface Flow Study
The GSAs will conduct analyses of the San Gorgonio and Mission Creek Subbasin boundaries to better estimate subsurface inflows from adjacent Subbasins. The study will consider subsurface flow at faults and to the Garnet Hill Subarea and will be used to update and improve the numerical model. This effort will include coordination with the GSAs of adjacent groundwater Subbasins and their numerical models.
12.2.9 Pursue Funding Opportunities
The development of this Alternative Plan Update was funded, in part, through a Proposition 68 Sustainable Groundwater Management Grant. Costs of overall Plan implementation are expected to be shared by the GSAs through the 2018 MOU, a second Supplement to the 2016 MOU, that establishes cost- share agreements, individual agency contributions, and/or new cost-sharing agreements yet to be developed (see Appendix 1-C). However, there will be a need to seek funding opportunities to support Plan projects and management actions and ongoing implementation.
12.2.9.1 Pursue Grant Programs
Outside grants will be sought to reduce the cost of implementation to participating agencies and the communities of the Indio Subbasin. Financing options under consideration include loans and grants for projects and management actions, as well as monitoring network improvements and other planning/feasibility analysis needed to support Plan implementation. Funding through grants or loans has varying levels of certainty and may be available for some implementation activities (including capital projects). Table 12-3 lists examples of potential funding options.
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-17 TODD/W&C Table 12-3. Potential Funding Sources for 2022 Alternative Plan Implementation Funding Source Description
Sustainable Groundwater Management
(SGM) Grant Program administered by DWR
With the passage of Propositions 1 and 68, DWR established the SGM Grant Program to fund planning and implementation
activities for groundwater basins subject to SGMA. Propositions 1 and 68 allocated $240 million for competitive grants, in two rounds of grant solicitations, to fund implementation projects that address drought and groundwater challenges, prevent or clean up contaminated groundwater, support supply reliability, and support water banking, exchange, or reclamation. The Round 2 solicitation, for medium and high priority basins, is anticipated in Spring 2022.
Technical Support Services (TSS) for
Groundwater Sustainability Plans
administered by DWR
DWR’s TSS program supports GSAs as they develop and
implement their GSPs. TSS’s goal is to provide education, data, and tools to GSAs at both regional and statewide scales to build the capacity needed to achieve sustainability. TSS provides field activities (monitoring well installation, geologic logging, etc.), modeling, and mapping.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
Loan Program administered by SWRCB
Historically, the SWRCB has had $200 to $300 million available annually for low-interest loans (typically ½ of the General Obligation Bond Rate) for water recycling, wastewater
treatment, and sewer collection projects. During recent years, available funding has become limited due to high demand.
Success in securing a low-interest loan depends on the demand of the CWSRF Program and available funding. Applications are accepted on a continuous basis. SWRCB prepares a fundable list for each fiscal year. In order to receive funding, a project must be on the fundable list.
Water Recycling Funding Program (WRFP) –
Planning and Construction Grants from
SWRCB
WRFP grants were most recently funded by Proposition 1, as well as the general CWSRF Program. Planning grants (for facilities planning) are available and can fund 50% of eligible costs, up to $75,000. Construction grants have been periodically exhausted but are typically restored with water bond funding.
Low-interest loans through the CWSRF program are available and while limited, recycled water projects receive priority over wastewater projects (which are also eligible under CWSRF, the umbrella program for the WRFP).
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Loan
Program administered by the SWRCB
Division of Drinking Water
Approximately $100 to $200 million is available on an annual basis for drinking water projects. Low-interest loans are available for project proponents should they decide to seek financing. Funding has become more limited; however,
applicants are encouraged to apply. Applications are accepted on a continuous basis. SWRCB prepares a fundable list for each fiscal year. In order to receive funding, a project must be on the fundable list.
Infrastructure State Revolving Fund Loan
Program administered by the California
Infrastructure and Economic Development
Bank (I-Bank)
Low-interest loans are available from I-Bank for infrastructure projects (such as water distribution). Maximum loan amount is $25 million per applicant. Applications are accepted on a continuous basis.
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-18 TODD/W&C Funding Source Description
Title XVI Water Recycling and Reclamation /
Water Infrastructure Improvements for the
Nation (WIIN) Program – Construction
Grants administered by the United States
Bureau of Reclamation (USBR)
Grants up to 25% of project costs or $20 million, whichever is less, are available from USBR for water recycling projects. A Title XVI Feasibility Study must be submitted to and approved by USBR to be eligible. USBR solicits grants annually.
WaterSMART Title XVI Water Recycling and
Reclamation Program – Feasibility Study
Grants administered by USBR
Grants up to $150,000 have been available in the past for preparation of Title XVI Feasibility Studies. It is possible future rounds may be administered.
Revenue Bonds Revenue bonds can be issued to pay for capital costs of projects allowing for repayment of debt service over 20- to 30-year timeframe. Depends on the bond market and the existing debt of project proponents.
Integrated Regional Water Management
(IRWM) implementation grants
administered by DWR
The Coachella Valley IRWM Region can pursue grant funding through the IRWM Implementation Grant Program. The
Coachella Valley IRWM Region falls within the Colorado River Funding Area (Funding Area). The Colorado River Funding Area was allocated $22.5 million in funding through Proposition 1. Of that, roughly $7.9 million was awarded to the Funding Area during the Round 1 solicitation. The remaining funding is anticipated to be distributed during the Round 2 solicitation, which is expected in late 2021.
Proposition 68 grant programs administered
by various state agencies
Grant programs funded through Proposition 68, which was passed by California voters in 2018, and administered by various state agencies are expected to be applicable to fund SGMA implementation activities. These grant programs are expected to be competitive, where $74 million has been set aside for Groundwater Sustainability statewide.
12.2.9.2 Consider Groundwater Management Fee
Implementation of this Alternative Plan Update is anticipated to be based on contributions from the GSAs and available grant programs. However, additional funding may be required to sustainably manage the Indio Subbasin. SGMA (Section 10725.8) authorizes GSAs to collect a groundwater management fee in order to effectively manage the groundwater balance. CVWD will initiate a Cost of Service Study to evaluate implementing a SGMA fee that may apply to groundwater production. The other GSAs may consider a similar fee, and if so, would require groundwater production reporting. This would provide an additional source of revenue for Plan implementation and improve assessment of groundwater extraction from the Indio Subbasin.
Ultimately, it will be up to the individual GSAs to determine how they meet their financial goals for Plan implementation. If grants or loans are secured for project implementation, potential pumping fees and assessments may be adjusted to align with the operating costs of ongoing implementation activities.
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-19 TODD/W&C
12.2.10 Implement PMAs
Chapter 11, Projects and Management Actions, includes projects and programs that have been identified to protect and improve groundwater levels and quality. Some of the PMAs are ongoing programs, some are in the planning and design phases, and others are still conceptual. Based on the outcomes of the monitoring programs described in Section 12.5 and analyzed in the Annual Reports described in Section
12.8, the GSAs will adaptively manage the Indio Subbasin. PMAs will be moved forward as needed to maintain the Indio Subbasin in sustainable conditions, able to meet Plan Area water demands, and groundwater levels and quality that avoid undesirable results. Table 11-5 in Chapter 11, Projects and Management Actions, includes the implementation actions necessary to move these projects and programs forward to ensure Indio Subbasin sustainability. With implementation of these PMAs as outlined in this Alternative Plan Update, the GSAs are anticipated to meet their water management goals and comply effectively with SGMA.
12.3 Implementation Timeline
Table 12-4 presents the implementation timeline for this Plan through the next 5 years when the next Alternative Plan Update is due to DWR. Included in the schedule are activities necessary for ongoing Plan monitoring and updates, as well as tentative schedules for anticipated projects and management actions.
Additional details about the activities included in the implementation timeline have been described throughout this Plan.
GSA operations and Plan implementation will incur costs, which will require funding by the GSAs. The activities associated with Subbasin-wide management and Plan implementation will be borne by the four GSAs. Some activities (such as the Annual Reports and 5-Year Plan Updates) will be funded under the cost- sharing arrangement established by the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed in 2016, along with multiple supplements (see Appendix 1-C). Other management activities will be funded by individual GSAs or through other cost-sharing agreements or amendment to the MOU. Projects will be administered by the GSA project proponents. GSAs may elect to implement projects individually or jointly with one or more GSAs.
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-20 TODD/W&C Table 12-4. Alternative Plan Update Implementation Timeline Activity Timeline
GSA Program Management
Oversight and Coordination Ongoing
GSA Meetings Annually, or as needed
Monitoring Programs
Groundwater Level Monitoring Ongoing
Climate, Streamflow, and Drain Flow Monitoring Ongoing
Groundwater Production Monitoring Ongoing
Subsidence Monitoring Ongoing
Water Quality Monitoring Ongoing
Seawater Intrusion Monitoring Ongoing
Applied Recharge Monitoring Ongoing
Data Management System (DMS) Ongoing
Tribal Coordination
SGMA Tribal Workgroup Quarterly
Stakeholder Outreach
Stakeholder Workshops Annually, or as needed
Outreach and Website Maintenance Ongoing
Annual Reports
Submit Annual Reports Annually
5-Year Plan Update
Alternative Plan Update Submit by January 1, 2027
Groundwater Model Updates 2024 –2026
Monitoring Network Improvements
Groundwater Monitoring Improvements Ongoing
Develop Subbasin Well Inventory Ongoing
Expand Groundwater Production Reporting Ongoing
Refine Subbasin Characterization
Drain Flow Study 2022 - 2025
Subsidence Study 2022 – 2025
Subsurface Inflow Study 2022 – 2025
Pursue Funding Opportunities
Pursue Grant Programs As funding is available
Evaluate Groundwater Management Fee Ongoing
Implement Projects and Management Actions (PMAs)
PMA 1: Urban Water Conservation Ongoing
PMA 2: Golf Water Conservation Ongoing
PMA 3: Agricultural Water Conservation Ongoing
PMA 4: Increased Surface Water Diversion Ongoing
PMA 5: Delta Conveyance Facility Planning underway
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-21 TODD/W&C Activity Timeline
PMA 6: Lake Perris Seepage Planning underway
PMA 7: Sites Reservoir Planning underway
PMA 8: Future Supplemental Water Acquisitions As available PMA 9: EVRA Potable Reuse Planning underway
PMA 10: Mid-Valley Pipeline (Canal Only Customers) Planning underway PMA 11: Mid-Canal Storage Project Planning underway
PMA 12: East Golf Expansion Planning underway
PMA 13: Oasis Distribution System Construction underway PMA 14: WRP-10 Recycled Water Delivery Planning, design, and construction underway
PMA 15: WRP-7 Tertiary Expansion Planning and design underway PMA 16: Canal Water Pump Station Upgrade Design underway PMA 17: WRP-7 Recycled Water Delivery Planning and design underway PMA 18: WRP-4 Tertiary Expansion & Delivery Design underway PMA 19: DWA WRP Recycled Water Delivery As available
PMA 20: PD-GRF Expansion Planning underway
PMA 21: TEL-GRF Expansion Planning underway
PMA 22: WWR-GRF Operation Ongoing
PMA 23: Eliminate Wastewater Percolation Ongoing
PMA 24: Wellhead Treatment Ongoing
PMA 25: Small Water System Consolidations Ongoing
PMA 26: Septic to Sewer Conversions Ongoing
PMA 27: Implement CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring
Program Workplan
Ongoing
PMA 28: Implement CV-SNMP Development Workplan Ongoing
PMA 29: Colorado River Salinity Forum Ongoing
PMA 30: Source Water Protection Ongoing
12.4 Summary
The overarching goal of the Alternative Plan Update is to reliably meet current and future water demands in a cost-effective and sustainable manner. Implementation of the original 2002 Coachella Valley Final Water Management Plan (CVWMP) (CVWD, 2002) and 2010 CVWMP Update (CVWD, 2012) has achieved that overarching goal with the recognition that water management and development of projects and management actions is an ongoing adaptive process.
With the passage of SGMA in 2014, the GSAs are addressing the sustainability indicators established in the legislation. This Alternative Plan Update incorporates a goal specifically for groundwater sustainability, which is to maintain a locally managed, economically viable, sustainable groundwater resource for existing and future beneficial uses in the Indio Subbasin by managing groundwater to avoid the occurrence of undesirable results. This Alternative Plan Update establishes the groundwater conditions and hydrogeological conceptual model for the Indio Subbasin, forecasts water demands through the planning
Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 12-22 TODD/W&C horizon, describes water supplies available to the GSAs, defines sustainable management for this region, presents water management projects and programs to ensure Subbasin sustainability, and models the simulated conditions that will result from implementation of those project portfolios. This planning process has demonstrated that with the proposed projects identified in this Plan, and despite anticipated climate changes, the Indio Subbasin GSAs are able to meet forecasted demands under a variety of conditions and maintain the Indio Subbasin in balance, even increasing groundwater storage over time.
Subsidence and saltwater intrusion have been stopped and are not anticipated to occur during Plan implementation.
As documented in this Alternative Plan Update, the water supply of the Indio Subbasin is managed sustainably by the Indio Subbasin GSAs, with ongoing and adaptive management into the foreseeable future. This Alternative Plan Update has been developed in collaboration with the recently initiated CV- SNMP and the two plans will continue to be coordinated. The GSAs have succeeded in reversing historical groundwater trends and are currently – and plan to continue – managing the Indio Subbasin sustainably.
This Plan demonstrates that the GSAs have the necessary tools to support effective water management in the region.
Chapter 13: References FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 13-1 TODD/W&C CHAPTER 13: REFERENCES
Chapter 1. Introduction
Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group (CVRWMG). 2018. 2018 Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water Management & Stormwater Resources (IRWM/SWR) Plan Update.
December 2018. Prepared by Woodard & Curran. Available:
https://www.cvrwmg.org/irwm/irwm-plan/ .
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). 2002a. Coachella Valley Final Water Management Plan.
September 2002. Prepared by MWH and WaterConsult. Available:
https://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/358 .
CVWD. 2002b. Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) CVWMP and State Water Project (SWP) Entitlement Transfer.
CVWD. 2012a. Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update. January. Coachella, California.
Final. Prepared by MWH. Available: https://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/317 .
CVWD. 2012b. Subsequent Program EIR for the 2010 Update.
CVWD, 2014. 2014 Status Report on the 2010 Update. Prepared by MWH.
CVWD, Desert Water Agency (DWA), and Indio Water Authority (IWA). 2015. Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan. June 2015. Prepared by MWH.
CVWD, DWA, and Mission Springs Water District (MSWD). 2013. Mission Creek/Garnet Hill Water Management Plan. January 2013. Prepared by MWH. Available:
https://www.cvwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/1149/Mission-Creek-Garnet-Hill-WMP-Final- Report-Sections-PDF?bidId=.
CVWD, DWA, and MSWD. 2016. SGMA Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan Bridge Document for the Mission Creek Subbasin. Prepared by MWH/Stantec.
CVWD, CWA, DWA, IWA, MSWD, and MDMWC. 2021. 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by Water Systems Consulting.
Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). 2016. Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP).
Colorado River RWQCB. 2020. Letter from Paula Rasmussen, Executive Officer to Steve Bigley, Mark S.
Krause, and Trish Rhay. Subject: Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan, February 19, 2020.2
Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2019. Alternative Assessment Staff Report for the Indio Subbasin
Indio Subbasin GSAs (CVWD, CWA, DWA, and IWA). 2016. SGMA Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan Bridge Document for the Indio Subbasin. December 2016. Prepared by MWH/Stantec.
Chapter 13: References FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 13-2 TODD/W&C Chapter 2. Plan Area
DWR. 2003. California’s Groundwater: Bulletin 118—Update 2003. October. Sacramento, California.
Available: https://cawaterlibrary.net/document/
bulletin-118-californias-groundwater-2003/.
DWR. 2021a. DAC Mapping Tool. Available: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/dacs/ DWR 2021b. EDA Mapping Tool. Available: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/edas/ CVRWMG. 2018. 2018 Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water Management & Stormwater Resources (IRWM/SWR) Plan Update. December 2018. Available:
https://www.cvrwmg.org/irwm/irwm-plan/ .
CVWD. 2002. Coachella Valley Final Water Management Plan. September 2002. Prepared by MWH and WaterConsult. Available: https://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/358 .
CVWD. 2012. Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update. January. Coachella, California.
Final. Prepared by MWH. Available: https://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/317 .
Indio Subbasin GSAs (CVWD, CWA, DWA, and IWA). 2016. SGMA Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan Bridge Document for the Indio Subbasin. December 2016. Prepared by Stantec. Available:
file:///C:/Users/rprickett/Downloads/20161228%20SGMA%20Bridge%20Document%20- %20Indio%20-%20Final.pdf.
Indio Subbasin GSAs (CVWD, CWA, DWA, and IWA). 2020. Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2018-2019. Prepared by Todd Groundwater and Woodard & Curran. Available:
https://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/800 .
CVWD, DWA, and MSWD. 2013. Mission Creek/Garnet Hill Water Management Plan. January 2013.
Prepared by MWH. Available: https://www.cvwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/1149/Mission- Creek-Garnet-Hill-WMP-Final-Report-Sections-PDF?bidId=.
Colorado River Funding Area Partners. 2020. 2020 Colorado River Funding Area Water Needs Assessment. July 2020. Prepared by Woodard & Curran. Available:
http://www.cvrwmg.org/resources/library/
Mission Creek GSAs. 2021. Mission Creek Subbasin Alternative Plan Update. Draft. Available:
http://www.missioncreeksubbasinsgma.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/10/Vol_I_MCSB_AltPlanUpdate_PublicDraftSections_12345678refs_101 821_v1.pdf
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2020. Detection and measurement of land subsidence and uplift using Global Positioning System surveys and interferometric synthetic aperture radar, Coachella Valley, California, 2010–17. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5093. Authors:
Sneed, M., and Brandt, J.T. Available: https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20205093 .
Chapter 3. Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model
DWR. 1964. California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 108—Coachella Valley Investigation. July.
Sacramento, California. Available: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=8773 .
DWR. 1979. Coachella Valley Area Well Standards Investigation: Los Angeles. California Department of Water Resources, Southern District.
Chapter 13: References FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 13-3 TODD/W&C DWR. 2003. California’s Groundwater: Bulletin 118—Update 2003. October. Sacramento, California.
Available: https://cawaterlibrary.net/document/
bulletin-118-californias-groundwater-2003/.
CVWD. 2017. Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment for the Mission Creek Subbasin Area of Benefit, West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit, and East Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit 2017-2018. April. Palm Desert, California. Available:
https://www.cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/574 .
CVWD, DWA, and MSWD. 2013. Mission Creek/Garnet Hill Water Management Plan. January 2013.
Prepared by MWH. Available: http://www.cvwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/1149/Mission- Creek-Garnet-Hill-WMP-Final-Report-Sections-PDF?bidId=.
Indio Subbasin GSAs (CVWD, CWA, DWA, and IWA). 2020. Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2018-2019. Prepared by Todd Groundwater and Woodard & Curran. Available:
http://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/800 .
Chapter 4. Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions DWR (1964). Coachella Valley Investigation, California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 108.
Central Arizona Project (CAP). 2015. 2014 Annual Water Quality Report, August 2015.
CAP. 2017. 2016 Annual Water Quality Report, May 2017.
CAP. 2019. 2018 Annual Water Quality Report, October 2019.
CVAG. 2007, amended 2016. Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Prepared on behalf of Riverside County, the cities of Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, as well as Coachella Valley Water District, Mission Springs Water District, Imperial Irrigation District, California State Parks, Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy, and Caltrans. Available:
https://www.cvmshcp.org/index.htm .
CVRWMG. 2018. Coachella Valley IRWM & Stormwater Resource (SWR) Plan Update. December 2018. https://dwa.org/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/integrated-regional-water- management-plan/2019/06/2019_04_03_CVRWMG-Final2018IRWMSWR-Plan_160437- compressed.pdf
CVWD. 2002. Coachella Valley Final Water Management Plan. September 2002, prepared by MWH and WaterConsult. Available: https://www.cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/358 CVWD. 2012. Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update. January. Coachella, California.
Final. Prepared by MWH. Available: https://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/317 .
County of Riverside. 2020. Eastern Coachella Valley Area Plan, August 4, 2020. https://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/14/genplan/2021/ECVAP_5521.pdf Hausladen, D. M., Alexander-Ozinskas, A., McClain, C., & Fendorf, S. (2018). Hexavalent chromium sources and distribution in California groundwater. Environmental science & technology, 52(15), 8242-8251. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.7b06627 Huberty, M. R., Pillsbury, A. F., and Sokoloff, V. P., 1948, Hydrologic studies in Coachella Valley, California, University of California Agricultural Experiment Station, Berkeley, California.
Chapter 13: References FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 13-4 TODD/W&C Jurgens, B. C., Fram, M. S., Belitz, K., Burow, K. R., & Landon, M. K. (2010). Effects of groundwater development on uranium: Central Valley, California, USA. Groundwater, 48(6), 913-928. https://ngwa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2009.00635 .
McClain, C. N., Fendorf, S., Johnson, S. T., Menendez, A., & Maher, K. (2019). Lithologic and redox controls on hexavalent chromium in vadose zone sediments of California’s Central Valley.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 265, 478-494.
McMahon, P. B., Brown, C. J., Johnson, T. D., Belitz, K., & Lindsey, B. D. (2020). Fluoride occurrence in United States groundwater. Science of The Total Environment, 139217. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969720327340 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) (2020). Annual Report for the Fiscal Year July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020.
Salton Sea Authority (2020) 2020 Annual Report on the Salton Sea Management Program. https://saltonsea.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2020-Annual-Report_2-21-20-v3.pdf Sneed, M., and Brandt, J. (2020) Detection and Measurement of Land Subsidence and Uplift Using Global Positioning System Surveys and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar, Coachella Valley, California, 2010–17, USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2020-5093, 74p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20205093
Todd Groundwater. 2019. TM1 - Data Review, Modeling and Monitoring Plan, Evaluation of the Influence of Wastewater Reclamation Plant 10 (WRP 10) on Groundwater TDS and Nitrate Concentrations, April 2019.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2014. High Levels of Natural Perchlorate in a Desert Ecosystem.
GeoHealth-USGS Newsletter. Vol. 11, No. 1 2014.
https://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/2014-06-09-natural_perchlorate.html Chapter 5. Demand Projections
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2020. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2011–2020. May. Sacramento, California. Available:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ .
DWR. 2015. Website: Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). Available:
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Urban-Water-Use-Efficiency/Model- Water-Efficient-Landscape-Ordinance
DWR. 2017. Draft Guidance Document for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater, Engagement with Tribal Governments. June. Sacramento California. Available:
https://cawaterlibrary.net/document/guidance-document-for-the-sustainable-management-of- groundwater-engagement-with-tribal-governments-june-2017-draft/.
DWR and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2018. Making Conservation a California Way of Life: Primer of 2018 Legislation on Water Conservation and Drought Planning Senate Bill 606 (Hertzberg) and Assembly Bill 1668 (Friedman). November. Sacramento, California. Available:
https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Water-Use-And- Efficiency/Make-Water-Conservation-A-California-Way-of-Life/Files/PDFs/Final-WCL-Primer.pdf
Chapter 13: References FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 13-5 TODD/W&C CVWD. 2002. Coachella Valley Final Water Management Plan. September 2002, prepared by MWH and WaterConsult. Available: https://www.cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/358 CVWD. 2012. Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update. January. Coachella, California.
Final. Prepared by MWH. Available: https://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/317 .
CVWD. 2019a. 2019 Crop Report. Available: http://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/864 .
CVWD. 2019b. Ordinance 1302.4, An Ordinance of the Coachella Valley Water District Establishing Landscape and Irrigation System Design Criteria. February. Coachella, California. Adopted by the Coachella Valley Water District Board of Directors February 12, 2019. Available:
https://www.cvwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/93/Landscape-Ordinance-13024-PDF?bidId= .
County of Riverside. 2018. Riverside County Agricultural Production Report 2018. October. Riverside, California. Available: https://www.rivcoawm.org/Portals/0/PDF/2018-Crop-Report.pdf .
Riverside County Center for Demographic Research. 2006. Riverside County Projections 2006. Month.
City, State. Available: URL.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2008. 2008 Regional Transportation Plan. May.
Los Angeles, California. Available: URL.
SCAG. 2020. Connect SoCal (2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy). May. Los Angeles, California. Available: https://scag.ca.gov/read-plan-adopted-final- plan.
TXP, Inc. 2014. The Local Economic Impact of Participating Coachella Valley Short Term Rentals. March.
Presentation. Available: https://www.slideshare.net/STRadvocacy/txp-strac-impact-report- coachella-0312141.
U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau). 2020. Website: American Community Survey: 2014–2018 5-Year Estimates. Available: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/technical- documentation/table-and-geography-changes/2018/5-year.html.
Water Research Foundation (WRF). 2000. Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water. January Denver, Colorado. Research partner: U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation.
Published as Residential End Uses of Water in 1999, and Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water in 2000. Available: https://www.waterrf.org/research/projects/residential- commercial-and-institutional-end-uses-water.
WRF. 2016. Residential End Uses of Water, Version 2, Executive Report. April. Denver, Colorado.
Available: https://www.circleofblue.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/WRF_REU2016.pdf .
Wheeler's Market Intelligence. 2009. Demographic Profiles of the Coachella Valley. 2009 Edition. Month.
La Quinta, California. Available: URL.
Chapter 6. Water Supply
CVWD. 2003. 2003 Quantification Settlement Agreement. October 2003.
CVWD. 2012. Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update. January 2012. Prepared by MWH.
Chapter 13: References FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 13-6 TODD/W&C CVWD. 2019a. Amended and Restated Agreement Between the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Coachella Valley Water District, and Desert Water Agency for the Exchange and Advance Delivery of Water.
CVWD. 2019b. Second Amendment to Delivery and Exchange Agreement Between Metropolitan and Coachella for 35,000 Acre-Feet.
CVWD. 2019c. Drought Contingency Plan Implementation Agreement between Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and Coachella Valley Water District.
CVWD and DWA. 2014. Mission Creek Water Management Agreement. Dated as of July 15, 2014.
DWR. 2004. Amendment No. 19 to Water Supply Contract between the State of California Department of Water Resources and Coachella Valley Water District (Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District transfer) dated February 23, 2004.
DWR. 2007a. Amendment No. 20 to Water Supply Contract between the State of California Department of Water Resources and Coachella Valley Water District (Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District transfer) dated May 9, 2007.
DWR. 2007b. Amendment No. 19 to Water Supply Contract between the State of California Department of Water Resources and Desert Water Agency (Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District transfer) dated May 9, 2007.
DWR. 2007c. Amendment No. 21 to Water Supply Contract between the State of California Department of Water Resources and Coachella Valley Water District (Berrenda Mesa Water District transfer) dated September 26, 2007.
DWR. 2007d. Amendment No. 20 to Water Supply Contract between the State of California Department of Water Resources and Desert Water Agency (Berrenda Mesa Water District transfer) dated September 26, 2007.
DWR. 2020a. Final State Water Project Delivery Capability Report 2019. August 26, 2020. Available:
https://water.ca.gov/Library/Modeling-and-Analysis/Central-Valley-models-and-tools/CalSim- 2/DCR2019
DWR. 2020b. Technical Addendum to Final State Water Project Delivery Capability Report 2019. August 26, 2020. Available: https://water.ca.gov/Library/Modeling-and-Analysis/Central-Valley-models- and-tools/CalSim-2/DCR2019
International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC). 1973. Minute No. 242. Available:
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/pdfiles/min242.pdf Metropolitan Water District (MWD). 2020. Summary of Lake Perris Seepage Recovery Project Sharing Agreement Terms, DRAFT – As of November 26, 2019.
Secretary of the Interior. 2003. Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement: Federal Quantification Settlement Agreement for the Purposed of Section 5(B) of Interim Surplus Guidelines. October 10, 2003. Available: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/crwda/crwda.pdf .
Sites Project Authority. 2019. 2019 Reservoir Project Agreement, Dated as of April 1, 2019.
Sites Project Authority. 2020. First Amendment to 2019 Reservoir Project Agreement, Dated as of January 1, 2020.
Chapter 13: References FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 13-7 TODD/W&C U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 1922. Colorado River Compact, 1922.
Available: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/pdfiles/crcompct.pdf .
USBR. 1928. Boulder Canyon Project Act. Available:
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/pdfiles/bcpact.pdf
USBR. 1931. 1931 Boulder Canyon Project Agreement. Available:
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/pdfiles/ca7pty.pdf USBR. 1968. 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act. Available:
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/pdfiles/crbproj.pdf USBR. 1986. 1986 Agreement Between the United States of America and the State of California for Coordinated Operation of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project.
USBR. 2007. Record of Decision for the Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead. December 2007. Available:
https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/
USBR. 2018. 2018 Addendum to the Coordinated Operation Agreement, Central Valley Project/State Water Project.
USBR. 2019. Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan Agreement.
USBR. 2020a. Draft Report – Review of the Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead. October. Available:
https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/documents/7.D.Review_DraftReport_10-23- 2020.pdf
USBR. 2020 (website). Boulder Canyon Operations Office – Programs and Activities, Lower Colorado River Water Accounting Reports. Available:
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/wtracct.html .
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020 (website). Water Project Biological Opinions. Available:
https://www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/cvp-swp/index.htm
U.S. Government Printing Office. 1946. 1944 United States-Mexico Treaty for Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande. Available:
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/pdfiles/mextrety.pdf Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D5490-93, 1994. Standard guide for comparing ground-water flow model simulations to site-specific information.
ASTM D5981-96e1, 1998. Standard guide for calibrating a ground-water flow model application.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 1979. Coachella Valley area well standards investigation, Memorandum Report.
Chapter 13: References FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 13-8 TODD/W&C California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2018. Guidance for Climate Change Data Use During Groundwater Sustainability Plan Development. July. Available: https://www.water.ca.gov/- /media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Sustainable- Groundwater-Management/Best-Management-Practices-and-Guidance- Documents/Files/Climate-Change-Guidance---SGMA.pdf
DWR. 2021. Consumptive Use Program PLUS (CUP+). Available: https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water- Use-And-Efficiency/Land-And-Water-Use/Agricultural-Water-Use-Models, Last Accessed: March 12, 2021.
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). 2002. Coachella Valley Final Water Management Plan.
September 2002. Prepared by MWH and WaterConsult. Available:
https://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/358 .
CVWD. 2012. Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update. January. Coachella, California.
Final. Prepared by MWH. Available: https://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/317 .
Fogg, G.E., G.T. O’Neill, E.M. LaBolle, and D.J. Ringel, 2000. Groundwater Flow Model of Coachella Valley, California: An Overview.
Reichard, E.G., and J.K. Meadows, J.K., 1992. Evaluation of a ground-water flow and transport model of the upper Coachella Valley, California. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 91-4142.
Stantec. 2019. Documentation for the Agricultural Water Conservation Goals and Recommended Methods to Track Progress, Final Report.
Tetra Tech and the Salton Sea Authority. 2016. Salton Sea Funding and Feasibility Action Plan Benchmark 2: Review and Update Existing Condition Data; SSAM Model Elevation Forecasts.
May 2016.
Wood. 2021. Predicted 2020-2069 Subsurface Flows across Segments of the Banning/San Andreas Fault for Six Mission Creek Subbasin MODFLOW Model Scenarios. Microsoft Excel Workbook of flows by boundary segment. July 13, 2021.
Chapter 8: Regulatory and Policy Issues
California Natural Resources Agency. 2020. 2020 Annual Report on the Salton Sea Management Program. Available: https://saltonsea.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2020-Annual- Report_2-21-20-v3.pdf
California Natural Resources Agency. 2021. Salton Sea Management Program. SSMP Update to State Water Board August 2020. Available: https://saltonsea.ca.gov/ California State Water Resources Control Board. 2020. Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). July.
Available: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/pfas/
City of Coachella, 2016, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. July 27, 2016. Available:
https://www.coachella.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=4620
Coachella Valley Irrigated Lands Coalition. 2015. Water Quality Compliance Program, February.
Available:
http://users.neo.registeredsite.com/1/4/8/12320841/assets/CVILC_WQ_Compliance_Program_ -_February_2015.pdf
Chapter 13: References FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 13-9 TODD/W&C CVWD, DWA, and IWA. 2015. Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan.
Final, June. Available:
https://www.cvwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/2441/Coachella-Valley-Groundwater-Basin-Salt- and-Nutrient-Management-Plan-Final-PDF?bidId=
CVWD. 2012. Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update. January. Coachella, California.
Final. Prepared by MWH. Available: https://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/317 .
CVWD 2018. Technical Memorandum No. 1, East Coachella Valley Water Supply Project – System Identification. June 18.
CVWD. 2020. “As EPA lifts drinking water order for Oasis Mobile Home Park, CVWD sets sights on long- term fix.” CVWD News, May 29, 2020. Available:
https://www.cvwd.org/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=343
CVWD. 2020. Comment Letter – Hexavalent Chromium MCL Costs. Letter to SWRCB, December 31, 2020.
Available:
http://www.cvwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/5263/20201231-Comments-Cr6-MCL-Estimate- of-Costs-Ltr?bidId=
Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2006. Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin – Region 7 (Basin Plan). Available:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb7/publications_forms/publications/docs/basinplan_2006 .pdf
Colorado River RWQCB. 2014. Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Agricultural Wastewater Discharges and Discharges of Waste from Drain Operation and Maintenance Activities Originating within the Coachella Valley, Order R7-2014-0046. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/coloradoriver/board_decisions/adopted_orders/orders/2014/ 0046cv_ag_waiver.pdf
Colorado River RWQCB. 2019. Notice Of CEQA Scoping Meeting in The Matter Of A Proposed Amendment To The Water Quality Control Plan For The Colorado River Basin Region To Incorporate The Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels As Water Quality Objectives. April 16, 2019. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/coloradoriver/water_issues/programs/basin_planning/docs/p n7_19_34.pdf
Colorado River RWQCB. 2020a. General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Waste from Irrigated Agricultural Lands for Dischargers that are Members of a Coalition Group in the Coachella Valley, Riverside County, Order R7-2020-0026. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/coloradoriver/board_decisions/adopted_orders/boardorders 2020.html
Colorado River RWQCB. 2020b. 2020 Triennial Review of the Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region Staff Report. December. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/coloradoriver/water_issues/programs/basin_planning/docs/2 020/2020trsr_main.pdf
Chapter 13: References FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 13-10 TODD/W&C Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum. 2020. 2020 Review of Water Quality Standards for Salinity, Colorado River System. October. Available:
https://coloradoriversalinity.org/docs/2020%20REVIEW%20-%20Final%20w%20appendices.pdf DWR. 2018. Guidance for Climate Change Data Use During Groundwater Sustainability Plan Development. Available:
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/SGMA-Groundwater- Management/Best-Management-Practices-and-Guidance-Documents DWR. 2019. Alternative Assessment Staff Report-Coachella Valley-Indio (Basin No. 7-021.01), July 17, 2019. Available: https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web- Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Sustainable-Groundwater- Management/Alternatives/Files/ExistingPlans/Indio/03_Indio_Staff_Report.pdf?la=en&hash=06 B70190C42BCD333B91AE8BB95730E324B5EF1C
DWR. 2021. 2018 Water Conservation Legislation. https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-And- Efficiency/Making-Conservation-a-California-Way-of-Life DWA. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016. Available: https://dwa.org/wp- content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2020/08/101-26P7-UWMP2015-AMENDED_2020-07-FINAL- p.pdf
Drewes, J.E, Paul Anderson, Nancy Denslow, Walter Jakubowski, Adam Olivieri, Daniel Schlenk, and Shane Snyder. 2018. Monitoring Strategies for Constituents of Emerging Concern (CECs) in Recycled Water Recommendations of a Science Advisory Panel Convened by the State Water Resources Control Board. April 2018. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_recycling_policy/docs/2018/2 018_final_report_cecs_recycled_water.pdf
Hoerling, M., D. Lettenmaier, D. Cayan, and B. Udall (Hoerling et al.). 2009. Reconciling Colorado River Streamflow. Southwest Hydrology. May/June. Available:
http://www.swhydro.arizona.edu/archive/V8_N3/feature2.pdf Montrose Press. 2021. “Bureau of Reclamation takes no action on Paradox salinity-control unit.” February 9, 2021. Available: https://www.montrosepress.com/news/bureau-of-reclamation- takes-no-action-on-paradox-salinity-control-unit/article_d53b9116-6a7c-11eb-9c8d- 973c7ca13991.html
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. OEHHA Adopts Updated Public Health Goal for Perchlorate. February 27, 2015. Available: https://oehha.ca.gov/water/press- release/press-release-water/oehha-adopts-updated-public-health-goal-perchlorate- 0#:~:text=SACRAMENTO%20%E2%80%93%20The%20Office%20of%20Environmental,for%20per chlorate%20in%20drinking%20water.&text=%E2%80%9CIt%20is%20set%20at%20a,for%20peop le%20of%20all%20ages.%E2%80%9D
Rumer, Anna. “CVWD pushes for safe water in disadvantaged communities.” Desert Sun. Feb 17, 2017, p.A01. Available: https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/environment/2017/02/17/cvwd- pushes-safe-water-disadvantaged-communities/97904606/
Chapter 13: References FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 13-11 TODD/W&C Salton Sea Authority. 2016. Salton Sea Funding and Feasibility Action Plan Benchmark 7: Project Summary. Available: https://saltonsea.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/SS-Benchmark-7_5- 11-16r.pdf
Sneed, M., and Brandt, J.T. 2007. Detection and measurement of land subsidence using global positioning system and interferometric synthetic aperture radar, Coachella Valley, California, 1996–2005: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5251, v. 2.0, 31 p.
Available: https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20075251 .
Sneed, M., and Brandt, J. 2020. Detection and Measurement of Land Subsidence and Uplift Using Global Positioning System Surveys and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar, Coachella Valley, California, 2010–17, USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2020-5093. 74p., Available:
https://doi.org/10.3133/sir202050
SWRCB. 2018. Water Quality Control Policy for Recycled Water. adopted December 11, 2018. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/resolutions/2018/121118_ 7_final_amendment_oal.pdf
SWRCB. 2018. Antidegradation Policy Project. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/plans_policies/antidegradation.html SWRCB. October 2020. Perchlorate in Drinking Water. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/Perchlorate.html Udall, Brad. 2017. Climate Change is Shrinking the Colorado River. Colorado State University, The Conversation, June 14, 2017. Available: https://source.colostate.edu/climate-change-shrinking- colorado-river/#
USBR. 2012. 2012 Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/finalreport/index.html USBR. 2019. Colorado River Basin Drought Contingency Plans, November 17, 2019. Available:
https://www.usbr.gov/dcp/finaldocs.html
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019. Contaminants of Emerging Concern including Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products. updated August 19, 2019. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/wqc/contaminants-emerging-concern-including-pharmaceuticals-and- personal-care-products
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Sonny Bono Salton Sea. 2020. Available:
https://www.fws.gov/refuge/sonny_bono_salton_sea/about.html CVWD, CWA, DWA, IWA, MSWD, and MDMWC. 2021. 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan. June 30. Prepared by Water Systems Consulting. Available:
http://www.cvrwmg.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Coachella-Valley-RUWMP-draft.pdf Chapter 9. Sustainable Management
CVWD, DWA, and MSWD. 2013. Mission Creek/Garnet Hill Water Management Plan. January 2013.
Prepared by MWH. Available: http://www.cvwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/1149/Mission- Creek-Garnet-Hill-WMP-Final-Report-Sections-PDF?bidId=
Chapter 13: References FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 13-12 TODD/W&C CVWD. 2002. Coachella Valley Final Water Management Plan. September 2002. Prepared by MWH and WaterConsult. Available: https://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/358 .
CVWD. 2012. Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update. January. Coachella, California.
Final. Prepared by MWH. Available: https://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/317 .
Colorado River RWQCB, 2020, Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan, letter to Steve Bigley, Mark S. Krause, Trish Rhay, February 19, 2020.
DWR. 2019. Alternative Assessment Staff Report for the Indio Subbasin.
Sneed, M. and Brandt, J. T., 2020, Mitigating Land Subsidence in the Coachella Valley, California, USA: An Emerging Success Story, Proc. IAHS, 382, 809–813, https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-382-809-2020 , 2020.
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies. 2020. Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan, Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Update. December 23. Prepared by West Yost.
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies. 2021. Workplan to Develop the Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan. Prepared by West Yost.
Chapter 10. Monitoring Program
Belitz, Kenneth, Dubrovsky; Neil M., Burow, Karen; Jurgens, Bryant; and Johnson, Tyler, 2003, Framework for a Ground-Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Program for California, U.S.
Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigation Report 03-4166, Sacramento, California, 2003. https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri034166/
CVWD, 2012, Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update. Final Report. January 2012.
Prepared by MWH. Available: http://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/317 Indio Subbasin GSAs (CVWD, CWA, DWA, and IWA). 2016. SGMA Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan Bridge Document for the Indio Subbasin. December 2016. Prepared by Stantec. Available:
file:///C:/Users/rprickett/Downloads/20161228%20SGMA%20Bridge%20Document%20- %20Indio%20-%20Final.pdf
Cunningham, W.L., and Schalk, C.W., comps., 2011, Groundwater technical procedures of the U.S.
Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 1–A1, 151 p. https://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/1a1/pdf/tm1-a1.pdf
DWR. 2010. California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Program Procedures for Monitoring Entity Reporting, December 2010. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web- Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/CASGEM/Files/CASGEM-Procedures-for-Monitoring-Entity- Reporting-Final-121610_ay_19.pdf
DWR. 2016. Monitoring Networks and Identification of Data Gaps, Best Management Practices for Sustainable Management of Groundwater, December 2016. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR- Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Sustainable-Groundwater-Management/Best- Management-Practices-and-Guidance-Documents/Files/BMP-2-Monitoring-Networks-and-Identification-of- Data-Gaps_ay_19.pdf
Chapter 13: References FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 13-13 TODD/W&C Sneed, Michelle, and Brandt, Justin, 2007, Detection and Measurement of Land Subsidence Using Global Positioning System Surveying and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar, Coachella Valley, California, 1996–2005: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5251, 30 p. https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5251/pdf/sir_2007-5251.pdf Sneed, M., and Brandt, J., 2020, Detection and Measurement of Land Subsidence and Uplift Using Global Positioning System Surveys and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar, Coachella Valley, California, 2010–17, USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2020-5093, 74p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20205093
CVWD. 2019. 2019-2020 Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment. April 2019.
Prepared by WEI. https://www.cvwd.org/Archive.aspx?AMID=43 Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies. 2020. Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan. December 23, 2020. Prepared by West Yost.
Chapter 11. Projects and Management Actions
California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) 1991. Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation (MOU).
California Water Efficiency Partnership (CalWEP). 2021. 2021-2023 Strategic Plan.
Coachella Valley SNMP Agencies. 2021. Workplan to Develop the Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan. April.
CVWD. 2008. Phase 2 Draft Surface Water Treatment Process Evaluation Report. July 2008. Prepared by Malcolm-Pirnie.
CVWD. 2010. Unpublished Coachella Valley groundwater level data.
CVWD. 2012. Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update. January 2012. Prepared by MWH.
CVWD. 2014. Oasis Area Irrigation System Expansion Project: Preliminary Design Report. Prepared by DAHL Consultants (DAHL).
CVWD. 2019. Ordinance 1302.4. Coachella Valley Water District Establishing Landscape and Irrigation System Design Criteria. February 2019.
CVWD. 2020a. 2020-2021 Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment. April 2020. Prepared by Wildermuth Environmental, Inc.
CVWD. 2020b. Sanitation Master Plan Update, Volume 1 General. April 2020. Prepared by CDM Smith.
CVWD. 2020c. Sanitation Master Plan Update, Volume 3 General. April 2020. Prepared by CDM Smith.
CVWD. 2020d. Regional Water Conservation Program Post Performance Report.
CVWD, CWA, DWA, IWA, MSWD, and MDMWC. 2021a. 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. Prepared by Water Systems Consulting.
CVWD, CWA, DWA, and IWA. 2021b. Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2019-2020. February 2021. Prepared by Todd Groundwater and Woodard & Curran.
CVWD, CWA, DWA, IWA, MSWD, and MDMWC. 2021. 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan. June 30, 2021.
Chapter 13: References FINAL
Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update 13-14 TODD/W&C CCVWD, DWA, and IWA. 2015. Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan.
Prepared by MWH.
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Salinity Forum). 2020. Review Water Quality Standards for Salinity, Colorado River System. October 28, 2020.
Colorado River RWQCB. Amended 2019. Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region.
East Valley Reclamation Authority. 2020. Evaluation of Indirect Potable Reuse at the Valley Sanitary District Water Reclamation Facility. November 2020. Prepared by Geoscience Support Services, Inc.
QWEL, 2018. Qualified Water Efficient Landscaper Reference Manual. https://www.qwel.net/files/QWEL_Reference_Manual_CA_INTERACTIVE.pdf Sites Project Authority. 2020a. Final Strategic Plan. December 2020. Prepared by the Catalyst Group.
SWRCB. 2010. 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan. February 2010.
USBR. 2007. Colorado River Interim Guidelines for East Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lakes Powell and Mead.
Chapter 12. Plan Evaluation and Implementation
CVWD. 2002. Coachella Valley Final Water Management Plan. September 2002. Prepared by MWH and WaterConsult. Available: https://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/358 .
CVWD. 2012. Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update. January. Coachella, California.
Final. Prepared by MWH. Available: https://cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/317 .
DWR. 2016. Monitoring Networks and Identification of Data Gaps, Best Management Practices for Sustainable Management of Groundwater. December 2016.
This page intentionally left blank.
Prepared by
9655 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 320
San Diego, CA 92123
woodardcurran.com
2490 Mariner Square Loop, Suite 215
Alameda, CA 94501
toddgroundwater.com
Volume 2: Appendices
Prepared for: Indio Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies http://www.indiosubbasinsgma.org/
2022 INDIO SUBBASIN
WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
Alternative Plan
Final | December 2021
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX 1-A
ALTERNATIVE PLAN ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION OF EXISTING MODEL AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
This page intentionally left blank.
DRAFT
ALTERNATIVE PLAN ASSESSMENT ,
EVALUATION OF EXISTING MODEL
AND RECOMMENDAT I ONS
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
COACHELLA WATER AUTHORITY
DESERT WATER AGENCY
INDIO WATER AUTHORITY
October 2020
2490 Mariner Square Loop, Suite 215
Alameda, CA 94501
www.toddgroundwater.com
In cooperation with:
This page intentionally left blank.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations i TODD / W&C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 TM Organization ........................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 2010 CVWMP Update Background ............................................................................................ 1-1
1.3 Planning Area ............................................................................................................................. 1-2
2.Water Demand Projections ................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Population and Growth Projections ........................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Comparison to Actual Population and Growth .......................................................................... 2-2
2.3 Water Demand Projections ........................................................................................................ 2-3
2.3.1 Urban Water Demands Assumptions................................................................................. 2-3
2.3.2 Golf Course Demand Assumptions .................................................................................... 2-3
2.3.3 Agricultural Demand Assumptions .................................................................................... 2-4
2.3.4 Fish Farms and Duck Clubs Demand Assumptions ............................................................ 2-4
2.4 Comparison to Actual Water Demands ..................................................................................... 2-4
3.Water Supply Projections................................................................................................................. ..3-1
3.1 Water Supply Projections......................................................................................................... ..3-1
3.1.1 Surface Water Assumptions ............................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.2 Colorado River Assumptions ............................................................................................ ..3-1
3.1.3 State Water Project (SWP) Exchange Assumptions ......................................................... ..3-3
3.1.4 Non-Potable Water Assumptions ...................................................................................... 3-3
3.1.5 Conservation Assumptions .............................................................................................. ..3-4
3.2 Comparison to Actual Supplies ................................................................................................ ..3-6
4.Status of 2010 CVWMP Implementation ........................................................................................... 4-1
5.2010 CVWD Model EVALUATION ....................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Model Input and Construction ................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.1 MODFLOW Code and Input Packages ................................................................................ 5-3
5.1.2 Model Grid and Layers ....................................................................................................... 5-3
5.1.3 Aquifer Properties .............................................................................................................. 5-4
5.1.4 Initial Conditions ................................................................................................................ 5-5
5.2 Groundwater Inflows ................................................................................................................. 5-5
5.2.1 Subsurface Inflow ............................................................................................................... 5-5
5.2.2 Mountain front and Stream Channel Recharge ................................................................. 5-6
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations ii TODD / W&C
5.2.3 Artificial Recharge .............................................................................................................. 5-7
5.2.4 Wastewater Discharges ..................................................................................................... 5-7
5.2.5 Return Flows ...................................................................................................................... 5-7
5.3 Groundwater Outflows .............................................................................................................. 5-8
5.3.1 Groundwater Pumping ....................................................................................................... 5-8
5.3.2 Evapotranspiration ........................................................................................................... 5-10
5.3.3 Drains ............................................................................................................................... 5-10
5.3.4 Salton Sea ......................................................................................................................... 5-10
5.4 Model Performance ................................................................................................................. 5-10
5.4.1 Head Calibration Hydrographs ......................................................................................... 5-11
5.4.2 Head Calibration Statistics ............................................................................................... 5-14
5.4.3 Water Budget Calibration ................................................................................................ 5-14
5.5 Model Update Recommendations ........................................................................................... 5-17
6.REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 6-1
LIST OF TABLES PAGE
Table 3-1: Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) Canal Water Diversions ................................... ..3-2 Table 3-2: SWP Table A Amounts............................................................................................................. ..3-3 Table 3-3: Projected Recycled Water Supplies, 2010 CVWMP (AFY) ....................................................... ..3-4 Table 3-4: Ranges of Potential Water Conservation Savings - 2045 ........................................................ ..3-6
LIST OF FIGURES PAGE
Figure 1-1: 2010 CVWMP Planning Area ................................................................................................... 1-3 Figure 2-1: 2010 CVWMP Population Projections ..................................................................................... 2-1 Figure 2-2: Comparison of Actual Population Growth with 2010 CVWMP Projections ............................ 2-2 Figure 2-3: Projected Demand from 2010 CVWMP ................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-4: Total Historical Demand for the Indio Subbasin (2010-2019) ................................................. 2-6 Figure 3-1: Projected Supply from 2010 CVWMP .................................................................................... ..3-7 Figure 3-2: Total Historical Supply for the Indio Subbasin (2010-2019) .................................................. ..3-8 Figure 5-1: Model Area and Boundaries .................................................................................................... 5-2 Figure 5-2: Model Calibration Hydrographs ............................................................................................ 5-13 Figure 5-3: Simulated vs. Measured Groundwater Elevation Calibration Chart 1997-2009 ................... 5-15 Figure 5-4: Model Water Budget ............................................................................................................ 5-16 Figure 5-5: Simulated vs. Measured Drain Flows Model Update .......................................................... 5-17
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations iii TODD / W&C
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AF acre-feet
AFY acre-feet per year
CRA Colorado River Aqueduct
CVSC Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel
CVWD Coachella Valley Water District
CVWMP Coachella Valley Water Management Plan
CWA Coachella Water Authority
DWA Desert Water Agency
DWR California Department of Water Resources
ET evapotranspiration
feet bgs feet below ground surface
feet msl feet above mean sea level
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
HCM hydrogeologic conceptual model
IWA Indio Water Authority
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
MWH MWH Americas, Inc.
PD-GRF Palm Desert Groundwater Replenishment Facility
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SMCL Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
SWP State Water Project
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TEL-GRF Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation
USGS United States Geological Survey
WWR-GRF Whitewater River Groundwater Replenishment Facility WY Water Year
This page intentionally left blank.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 1-1 TODD / W&C
1.INTRODUCTION
The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), Coachella Water Authority (CWA), Desert Water Agency (DWA), and Indio Water Authority (IWA) represent the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) responsible for managing the Indio Subbasin in compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). In December 2016, these agencies, collectively the Indio Subbasin GSAs, submitted to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update (2010 CVWMP) (CVWD, 2012a) and a Bridge Document (Indio Subbasin GSAs, 2016), as an Alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Alternative Plan) to comply with SGMA requirements. The Alternative Plan has guided local water management since 2010 and, along with annual reports and this Alternative Plan Update, will continue to guide water management.
As part of the Alternative Plan Update, Todd Groundwater and Woodard & Curran have prepared this Technical Memorandum (TM) to summarize a review of the 2010 CVWMP and to document the performance of the existing groundwater model through Water Year (WY) 2018-2019.
1.1 TM ORGANIZATION
This Technical Memorandum is divided into the following sections:
•Section 1 – Introduction summarizes the report organization, 2010 CVWMP background, and planning area.
•Section 2 – Water Demand Projections describes the 2010 CVWMP population, growth, and demand projections as compared to historical data.
•Section 3 – Water Supply Projections describes the planning assumptions used to develop water supply projections for the 2010 CVWMP and compares these projections to actual supply used to meet demand.
•Section 4 – Status of 2010 CVWMP Implementation describes the 2010 CVWMP projects and highlights of implementation.
•Section 5 - 2010 CVWD Model Assessment documents the numerical groundwater flow model that will be used to assess sustainability and future management alternatives for the Indio subbasin.
•Section 6 – References provides references for this TM.
1.2 2010 CVWMP UPDATE BACKGROUND
The 2010 CVWMP, an update of the original 2002 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (2002 CVWMP), was prepared to reflect the changes in expected development within the Coachella Valley based on conversion of agricultural land to urban land uses and the reductions in water supply reliability estimates resulting from environmental and legal restrictions in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Bay-Delta). Additional factors were also considered such as climate change, changing water quality requirements, and the potential for other emerging issues.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 1-2 TODD / W&C
The programs and projects identified in the 2010 CVWMP are based on the following objectives:
1.Meet current and future water demands with a 10 percent supply buffer,
2.Eliminate long-term groundwater overdraft,
3.Manage and protect water quality,
4.Comply with state and federal laws and regulations,
5.Manage future costs, and
6.Minimize adverse environmental impacts.
Each objective contributes to improved water supply reliability for the Coachella Valley by ensuring adequate supplies to meet current and future demands, eliminating the long-term depletion of groundwater storage, and ensuring that basin water quality is protected from degradation.
1.3 PLANNING AREA
The Planning Area for the original 2002 CVWMP was the Indio Subbasin and the portion of Imperial County served by CVWD. The Imperial County portion of the Planning Area depends on water supplies delivered from the Indio Subbasin. The Planning Area for the 2010 CVWMP covered this same area, plus those portions of the Desert Hot Springs Subbasin that were within the incorporated boundaries or the spheres of influence of the cities of Coachella and Indio. shows the Planning Area boundary used in the 2010 CVWMP.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 1-3 TODD / W&C
.
Figure 1-1: 2010 CVWMP Planning AreaSource: 2010 CVWMP (CVWD)
This page intentionally left blank.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 2-1 TODD / W&C
2.WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS
The purpose of this section is to summarize the planning assumptions used to develop the water demand projections for the 2010 CVWMP and compare these projections to actual demands between 2010 and 2019. The planning horizon for the 2010 CVWMP was 2045.
2.1 POPULATION AND GROWTH PROJECTIONS
The growth forecast from the 2010 CVWMP was based on the Riverside County Projections 2006 (RCP- 06) developed by the Riverside County Center for Demographic Research. This forecast was prepared in late 2006 and early 2007 during the rapid period of growth in the Coachella Valley, before the collapse of the housing market and economic recession. Between 2000 and 2008, Riverside County’s population increased by over a half million people, making it one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the United States over that period. Population in the Planning Area in 2020 was projected to be 600,000, growing to almost 1,200,000 by 2045 (Figure 2-1).
Source: 2010 CVWMP (CVWD)
Figure 2-1: 2010 CVWMP Population Projections
While adopted land use plans were not specifically used to develop the 2010 CVWMP demand projections, it was recognized that significant land use changes would be required to accommodate the projected population growth. The 2010 CVWMP incorporated the following assumptions to apply growth forecasts to projected land use changes:
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 2-2 TODD / W&C
1.Urban growth in the East Valley would occur equally (50 percent each) on agricultural and vacant parcels. Urban growth in the West Valley was assumed to occur on vacant parcels, as there was little to no agricultural land.
2.A total of 75 new golf courses were projected to be constructed by 2045. If fewer courses were constructed, it was expected that the land area would be developed for urban uses.
3.RCP-06 included growth on Tribal lands. Land development on Tribal lands would occur at the same rate and in the same patterns as growth on non-Tribal lands.
4.The RCP-06 population growth forecast was used (with the water demand factors) to project future municipal water demands.
2.2 COMPARISON TO ACTUAL POPULATION AND GROWTH
Historical population was calculated using California State Department of Finance (DOF) and U.S. Census Bureau data for 2010 to 2019. DOF data were used to estimate population within the cities. Population estimates within the unincorporated areas of the region were based on 2010 Census Place data. These estimates were then adjusted to include additional population associated with the average number of new units from annual American Community Survey (ACS) estimates. The 2010 CVWMP projected a 40 percent growth in population from 2010 to 2020. Actual population within a similar timeframe (2010- 2019) grew just 10 percent, as shown in Figure 2-2. The historical 2019 population estimate was 418,000, while the 2010 CVWMP projected about 600,000.
Figure 2-2: Comparison of Actual Population Growth with 2010 CVWMP Projections
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 2-3 TODD / W&C
2.3 WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS
Water demand projections in the 2010 CVWMP were divided into four categories using a 2005 baseline:
urban, agricultural, golf, and fish farms and duck clubs. The 2005 baseline total demand was adjusted up by 8.7 percent for the projections to account for above average rainfall in that year.
2.3.1 Urban Water Demands Assumptions
Existing urban water demands in the 2010 CVWMP were based on data obtained from CVWD and DWA on urban groundwater, recycled water, and Coachella Canal (Canal) water use for 2000-2009. Per capita water use ranged from 579 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) in 2000 to 428 gpcd in 2009, with an average of 463 gpcd. The 2010 CVWMP assumed existing indoor and outdoor urban per capita demands would decrease 20 percent by 2020 to about 371 gpcd due to implementation of new California plumbing fixture requirements. The 2005 adjusted baseline urban demand was 207,100 AF. Projected population growth rates in RCP-06 were applied to the 2005 baseline population. A 320 gpcd demand factor1 was applied to projected population growth, with the resulting new demand added to the baseline demand. This lower demand factor reflected an expected 25 percent demand reduction with on-going implementation of landscape irrigation requirements in the 2007 and 2009 CVWD landscape ordinances and then existing plumbing codes for new development. The following conservation percentages were applied to the baseline water demand projections each year (see also Section 3.1.5 below):
•Existing and future indoor use: build up to 20 percent reduction by 2020 and apply moving forward
•Existing outdoor use: build up to 20 percent reduction by 2020 and apply moving forward •Agriculture: build up to 14 percent reduction by 2020 and apply moving forward •Existing golf: build up to 10 percent reduction by 2015 and apply moving forward.
The Coachella Valley has relatively little dedicated industrial use. Most industrial water demands are supplied by the municipal water agencies and are included in the urban water demands. Colmac Energy Division operates a 47 megawatt (MW) agricultural waste-to-energy plant on Cabazon tribal land near Mecca. The water demand for this facility was estimated to be 1,100 AFY in the 2002 CVWMP. The Cabazon Band of Mission Indians proposed construction of a major resource recovery park at the site. This facility was expected to increase demand to about 2,300 AFY by 2010. As of January 2020, this enlarged facility has not been constructed.
2.3.2 Golf Course Demand Assumptions
Existing golf course demands were established based on historical groundwater pumping, Canal water deliveries, and recycled water deliveries. When the 2010 CVWMP was prepared, there were 83 golf courses (79.7 18-hole equivalents) in the western Indio Subbasin and 37 golf courses (37.5 18-hole equivalent courses) in the East Valley2. Existing golf courses were assumed to remain in operation for the planning period. Golf course demand ranged from 102,500 AFY to 116,100 AFY between 2000 and 2009 1 800 gpd/connection divided by 2.5 persons/connection. The 800 gpd/connection factor is an average associated with the implementation of the 2007 and 2009 Landscape Ordinances. The 2.5 persons/connection is an average provided by CVWD.
2 Most courses are regulation 18-hole courses. However, some courses have 9 holes, other courses have 27 holes, and a few are 9-hole short courses (pitch and putt).
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 2-4 TODD / W&C
based on historical data. For the few courses where water demand data were not available, a demand of 1,200 acre-feet per year (AFY) per 18-hole course was assumed. Water conservation of 5 percent in 2010 ramping up to 10 percent by 2015 was applied to existing golf course demands.
Future golf course demands were based on the turf acreage limitation of the 2007 CVWD landscape ordinance (four acres per hole plus 10 acres for practice areas) and the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) calculations from the ordinance, averaging 700 AFY per 18-hole course. The future number of golf courses was calculated using the ratio of the total number of existing golf course to the total existing population. Therefore, golf demand increased in proportion to population growth in the West and East Valley areas, respectively.
2.3.3 Agricultural Demand Assumptions
Historical agricultural demand was based on Canal water use and estimated groundwater pumping. Canal water use was based on CVWD billing records. Due to a lack of reliable agricultural groundwater pumping records prior to 2005, agricultural production was estimated for the years 2000-2006 using power records and crop reports. Estimates of agricultural pumping for 2007-2009 were based on a combination of reported pumping and estimates. The 2010 CVWMP estimated average irrigation efficiency to be about 70 percent. In addition, CVWD furnished information on extraordinary water conservation savings for the period 2004-2009.
Future agricultural water demands were adjusted to account for assumed tribal water use. Tribal demand was estimated to be 24,200 AFY in 2005 based on estimated water use on tribal parcels in the East Valley.
The 2010 CVWMP assumed tribal water use would increase at the same rate as municipal water use.
2.3.4 Fish Farms and Duck Clubs Demand Assumptions
Other water demands included fish farms and duck clubs, . Fish farm demands were based on available groundwater pumping and Canal water delivery records. During the 2010 CVWMP, a major fish farm operation ceased operation. Consequently, fish farm water demands were assumed to be 8,500 AFY which represented the expected demands of the remaining fish farming operations.
Duck clubs in the Coachella Valley use water seasonally to fill and maintain ponds during the fall and winter months. Historical demands averaged about 4,000 AFY for the 2000-2009 period with a declining trend after 2005. Future duck club water demands were assumed to be 2,000 AFY for the planning period.
2.4 COMPARISON TO ACTUAL WATER DEMANDS
Historical demand data have been compiled from the following sources for 2010 through 2019:
•CVWD and DWA monthly groundwater production data
•CVWD monthly Canal delivery data
•CVWD and DWA monthly recycled water delivery data
As part of the ongoing Alternative Plan Update process, these data are being evaluated for the the Alternative Plan Update chapter, Water Demand Projections. Since the 2010 CVWMP, actual demands have been on average 150,000 AFY lower than projected.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 2-5 TODD / W&C
Figure 2-3, reproduced from the 2010 CVWMP, shows the projected demand from the 2002 WMP and the 2010 CVWMP, extending from 2005 to 2045.
Source: 2010 CVWMP (CVWD)
Figure 2-3: Projected Demand from 2010 CVWMP
Figure 2-4 presents a comparison of water demand as projected in the 2010 CVWMP for the years 2010 to 2019, along with the actual water demand by sector for those years. As illustrated, the 2010 CVWMP projected a baseline demand (gray line) that reached approximately 722,000 AFY in 2015 and continued to increase to 758,000 AFY in 2019. Actual demands increased generally in the first few years and were approximately 618,000 AFY in 2014. Actual demands then decreased to 558,000 AFY by 2019.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 2-6 TODD / W&C
Figure 2-4: Total Historical Demand for the Indio Subbasin (2010-2019) -
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
De
m
a
n
d
(
A
F
Y
)
Agriculture Municipal Golf
Fish Farms/Duck Clubs 2010 CVWMP Projection
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 3-1 TODD / W&C
3.WATER SUPPLY PROJECTIONS
The purpose of this section is to summarize the planning assumptions used to develop the water supply projections for the 2010 CVWMP and to compare these projections to actual supply. The 2010 CVWMP describes and evaluates four water supply planning scenarios based on existing local water supplies and differing levels of imported water supply availability. The 2010 CVWMP water supply mix is based on Scenario 2. Scenario 2 assumes the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) is valid, but that no improvements in the Bay-Delta conveyance occurs, resulting in a decrease of the State Water Project (SWP) reliability to 50 percent.
3.1 WATER SUPPLY PROJECTIONS
Water supply planning for both the 2002 CVWMP and the 2010 CVWMP included evaluation of direct water delivery separately from groundwater replenishment uses. Direct demands were those uses served with surface water, Colorado River water, recycled water, or groundwater. Replenishment water deliveries were considered separately as they supplement the groundwater supplies. Groundwater replenishment was evaluated as part of the groundwater balance with the amount based on proposed projects and available supplies.
3.1.1 Surface Water Assumptions
The 2010 CVWMP assumed that local surface water was diverted for direct use only from Whitewater River, Snow Creek, Falls Creek, and Chino Creek. The long-term average for natural precipitation was estimated at 60,200 AFY. The 2010 CVWMP assumed that 95 percent of flows become groundwater supply (57,190 AFY), with 5 percent outflow to the Salton Sea. No annual variations in natural recharge were included in the 2010 CVWMP projections.
Stream diversions were based on long-term average of 3,217 AFY. While the 2010 CVWMP assumed a constant 3,217 AFY of local surface water supply for the entire projection period, those deliveries were not realized. Ongoing evaluation as part of the Alternative Plan Update indicate that actual surface water supply averaged approximately 1,800 AFY from 2010 to 2019.
3.1.2 Colorado River Assumptions
In the 2010 CVWMP, Colorado River supplies were as shown in Table 3-1. No annual variations in Canal water available for delivery was included in the 2010 CVWMP projections. Conveyance losses in the Coachella Canal were estimated to be 31,000 AFY.
Direct use of Colorado River water includes agriculture, duck clubs, fish farms, golf courses, and untreated municipal (includes construction water). Colorado River direct delivery assumptions for the 2010 CVWMP included 1,000 AFY to duck clubs, 1,500 AFY to fish farms, and increasing deliveries to agriculture and golf courses based on expansion of the Canal delivery system.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 3-2 TODD / W&C
Table 3-1: Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) Canal Water Diversions Diversion 2020 Quantity
(AFY)
2026-2045 Quantity
(AFY)
Base Entitlement 330,000 330,000
1988 MWD/IID Approval Agreement 20,000 20,000
IID/CVWD First Transfer 50,000 50,000
IID/CVWD Second Transfer 23,000 53,000
Coachella Canal Lining -26,000 -26,000
Indian Present Perfected Rights Transfer -3,000 -3,000
QSA Diversions at Imperial Dam 394,000 424,000
MWD/SWP Transfer 35,000 35,000
Total Diversions at Imperial Dam 429,000 459,000
Assumed Conveyance Losses (2010 CVWMP Update) -31,000 -31,000 Total Deliveries 398,000 428,000
Anticipated conversion of groundwater to Colorado River (Canal) supply for urban demands in the East Valley involved the following assumptions:
•Future non-potable use was assumed to be served with untreated Canal water meeting 50 percent of the urban demand growth.
•Future potable use was assumed to be treated Canal water. The treated volumes were adjusted annually with initial operation by 2015.
•Oasis Distribution System Project delivered up to 32,000 AFY of additional Canal water for agriculture in the Oasis Area.
Following are the Colorado River recharge assumptions for the 2010 CVWMP:
•Thomas E. Levy GRF (TEL-GRF): Assumed TEL-GRF to operate at 32,500 AFY increasing to 40,000 AFY by 2015.
•Martinez Canyon GRF: Projected that Martinez Canyon GRF would be operated as a pilot facility at 4,000 AFY through 2020, increasing to 20,000 AFY full-scale facility by 2025. •Indio GRF: Projected that Indio GRF would be operated at 5,000 AFY starting in 2014, increasing to 10,000 AFY in 2021.
•Whitewater River GRF (WWR-GRF): Assumed operation based on available excess Canal water available from the East Valley. This amount in worksheet calculations is unclear.
The 2010 CVWMP assumed no changes to the prescribed allocations under the QSA, and those allocations were realized. In 2019, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation diverted 344,000 AFY of Colorado River water for CVWD. After conveyance losses, approximately 327,000 AFY of Canal water was received. Treatment and delivery of 25,000 AFY of Canal water was never realized; all Canal deliveries were untreated.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 3-3 TODD / W&C
3.1.3 State Water Project (SWP) Exchange Assumptions
In the 2010 CVWMP, DWA and CVWD were shown to have a combined maximum annual SWP Table A amount of 194,100 AFY, as shown in Table 3-2. All Table A SWP Exchange water delivered to DWA and CVWD was assumed to recharge either at Whitewater River Groundwater Replenishment Facility (WWR- GRF) in the Indio Subbasin or at Mission Creek GRF (MC-GRF) in Mission Creek Subbasin.
Table 3-2: SWP Table A Amounts
Agency Original SWP
Table A (AFY)
MWD Transfer
(AFY)
Tulare Lake
Basin Transfer
#1 (AFY)
Tulare Lake
Basin Transfer
#2 (AFY)
Berrenda
Transfer
(AFY)
Total (AFY)
CVWD 23,100 88,100 9,900 5,250 12,000 138,350
DWA 38,100 11,900 ‐ 1,750 4,000 55,750
Total 61,200 100,000 9,900 7,000 16,000 194,100
Because imported water recharge deliveries vary widely from year to year, recharge was based on estimated long-term average SWP Exchange reliability rather than year-to-year values. SWP supply assumptions were as follows:
•Assumed 60 percent supply reliability based on 2009 SWP Reliability Report, with future reduction of SWP reliability at 0.1 percent per year
•Did not include any projected deliveries of SWP Article 21, Turnback Pool, Governor’s Drought Water Bank, Yuba Accord, or Rosedale Rio Bravo water because they were seen as highly uncertain.
•Assumed allocation of Table A amounts at 93 percent to WWR-GRF and 7 percent to MC-GRF. •MWD SWP Transfer (35,000 AFY) historically delivered to WWR-GRF, though included in the Colorado River supply in 2010 CVWMP Update.
•Did not include MWD Advanced Deliveries because those are banked supplies and they ultimately contribute to long-term averages.
The 2010 CVWMP assumed average SWP Table A deliveries of 73,500 AFY from 2010 to 2019, which were realized. By 2019, the Table A Allocation 10-year average delivery was approximately 75,000 AFY. The 10- year average total WWR-GRF deliveries, which include advanced deliveries and non-Table A supplies, was approximately 153,300 AFY.
3.1.4 Non-Potable Water Assumptions
The 2010 CVWMP developed projections of future wastewater generation and subsequent recycled water deliveries for each of the wastewater treatment plants in the Valley. Existing (2009) wastewater treated at CVWD’s Water Reclamation Plant-4 (WRP-4), the Valley Sanitary District (VSD) plant, and the Coachella Sanitary District (CSD) plant was assumed to be discharged to the CVSC for the planning period.
The 2010 CVWMP assumed future wastewater flows to be equivalent to domestic indoor water use, less consumptive use of about 3 gpcd. Indoor demands were estimated to be about 20 percent of total demands based on the ratio of wastewater flow per service account to urban water demand per service account using CVWD data. Wastewater was routed to respective wastewater treatment plants based on
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 3-4 TODD / W&C
the projected population served by each plant. Baseline wastewater flow projections were adjusted to account for indoor water conservation. Projected recycled water use was then subtracted to determine the wastewater volumes percolated to the groundwater basin or discharged to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (CVSC).
The 2010 CVWMP assumptions for recycled water delivery included (see Table 3-3):
•All of the recycled water generated by growth after 2009 from CVWD’s four WRPs, VSD, and CSD was assumed to be reused for non-potable irrigation.
•About 5,000 AFY of WRP-4 effluent was assumed to be used for agriculture; all other recycled was assumed to be used for golf irrigation.
•Approximately 85 percent of the available wastewater from the City of Palm Springs WWTP was assumed to be treated and delivered by DWA WRP for urban and golf course irrigation.
Table 3-3: Projected Recycled Water Supplies, 2010 CVWMP (AFY) Recycled Water
Facility 2010 2020 2045
DWA WRF 4,800 6,268 9,119
CSD WRF 0 1,790 6,602
VSD WRF 389 500 2,798
CVWD WRP-4 0 3,929 22,116
CVWD WRP-7 2,448 3,674 6,248
CVWD WRP-9 322 302 302
CVWD WRP-10 5,610 10,001 11,800
Projected Totals 13,569 26,464 58,985
While the 2010 CVWMP assumed all wastewater flows generated by new growth would become recycled water supply, those deliveries were not realized. By 2019, half of projected recycled water supplies had been realized (approximately 13,500 AFY deliveries from DWA WRF, CVWD WRP-7, and CVWD WRP-10) due to slower than projected growth.
3.1.5 Conservation Assumptions
The 2010 CVWMP included an aggressive program of water conservation for urban, golf course and agricultural water users to meet projected demands. Water conservation was based on annual conservation percentages that were applied to the baseline demand forecast. Model documentation for the 2010 CVWMP states that return factors and wastewater flows were also adjusted annually to account for the effects of planned water conservation.
Urban Conservation
The 2010 CVWMP developed baseline urban water demands and then adjusted them to incorporate water conservation measures to be implemented as part of the Plan. Existing urban water demands were based on data obtained from CVWD and DWA for 2000-2009. Per capita water use ranged from 579 gpcd in 2000 to 428 gpcd in 2009, with an average of 463 gpcd. The 2010 CVWMP assumed:
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 3-5 TODD / W&C
•existing indoor and outdoor urban per capita demands would decrease 20 percent by 2020 to about 371 gpcd as a result of water conservation (20 percent by 2020), and •per capita water use for future growth was estimated to be 320 gpcd; this lower demand factor reflected an expected 25 percent demand reduction with on-going implementation of landscape irrigation requirements and plumbing codes for new development.
Conservation percentages were applied to the baseline water demand projections each year. If the conservation targets could be achieved, they would result in urban water savings of 82,400 to 106,200 AFY by 2045 depending on the water supply scenario.
Golf Conservation
The 2010 CVWMP assumed that existing golf courses would remain in operation for the planning period.
Golf course demand ranged from 102,500 AFY to 116,100 AFY between 2000 and 2009 based on historical data. For the few courses where water demand data was not available, a demand of 1,200 AFY per 18 - hole course was assumed. The 2010 CVWMP Update assumed:
•Water conservation of 5 percent in 2010 ramping up to 10 percent by 2015 was applied to existing golf course demands.
•Future golf course demands for an estimated 75 new golf courses were based on the turf acreage limitation of the 2007 CVWD landscape irrigation ordinance (4 acres per hole plus 10 acres for practice areas) and the MAWA calculations from the ordinance, averaging 700 AFY per 18-hole course. The future golf demand increased in proportion to population growth in the West and East Valley areas.
The golf course conservation target is a savings of 11,600 to 17,400 AFY by 2045.
Agricultural Conservation
The 2010 CVWMP says average agricultural usage per acre was estimated to be 6.28 AFY/acre accounting for double cropping and excluding any additional water conservation. This figure was multiplied by the estimated future agricultural acreage to estimate future agricultural demand.
The 2010 CVWMP established an agricultural water conservation target of 14 percent by 2020 compared to the average use per acre in 2000-2002 (pre-CVWMP adoption). The 14 percent goal was based on the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) Water 2025 Report and CVWD’s Extraordinary Conservation Program, which identified potential agricultural conservation savings.
If the 14 percent target could be achieved, the CVWMP’s agricultural conservation program was to save about 39,500 AFY of water in 2020, decreasing to 23,300 AFY by 2045 as agricultural land uses transition to urban uses.
Water Conservation – Range
The 2010 CVWMP included a range of water conservation savings from 117,300 AFY to 147,000 AFY by 2045, depending on what QSA and SWP scenarios are used (see Table 3-4). The “low range” estimates are based on the assumptions outlined above for the three use types; the “high range” estimates include increasingly more expensive and mandatory programs as necessary to fill the supply gap.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 3-6 TODD / W&C
Table 3-4: Ranges of Potential Water Conservation Savings - 2045 Type of Conservation Low Range (AFY)1 High Range (AFY)2 Urban 82,400 106,200
Agriculture3 23,300 23,300
Golf Courses 11,600 17,400
Total 117,300 146,900
1. The low range represent the minimum amount of demand reduction required assuming successful completion of the BDCP and provides a portion of the supply buffer.
2. The high range represents the among of demand reduction required if the BDCP is not successful and provides a portion of the 10 percent supply buffer.
3. Agricultural savings decline over time as agricultural land is converted to urban uses.
3.2 COMPARISON TO ACTUAL SUPPLIES
Historical supply data have been compiled from the following sources for 2010 through 2019:
•CVWD monthly Canal delivery data
•CVWD SWP annual delivery data
•CVWD and DWA groundwater recharge data
•CVWD and DWA monthly recycled water delivery data
•DWA monthly surface water diversion data
Since the 2010 CVWMP, actual supplies served to users have been lower than projected due to lower water demands throughout the region.
Figure 3-1 is reproduced from the 2010 CVWMP and shows the projected supply from 2000 to 2045. As illustrated, the 2010 CVWMP projected a baseline demand (red line) and how these would be met through various sources of supply and water conservation to achieve sustainability.
Figure 3-2 presents a comparison between the 2010 CVWMP demand projection and actual supplies used to fulfill demands for the years 2010 to 2019. As illustrated, the 2010 CVWMP projected a baseline demand (gray line) that reached approximately 758,000 AFY in 2019. Actual supplies used to meet regional water demand (see Figure 2-4 above) amounted to approximately 618,000 AFY in 2014 and then decreased to 558,000 AFY in 2019. Colorado River water and SWP exchange water delivered to the Indio Subbasin for both direct use and recharge are accounted for, with the exception of SWP advanced deliveries. Desalinated drain water was not developed as a supply source over the last decade.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 3-7 TODD / W&C
Source: 2010 CVWMP (CVWD)3
Figure 3-1: Projected Supply from 2010 CVWMP
3 Note that the 2010 CVWMP assumed a greater portion of the projected supply would be made up by water conservation than estimated in its baseline demand forecast (refer back to Figure 2-3). The conservation band in the demand forecast (light blue in Figure 2-3) is based on varying conditions of growth and passive conservation. The conservation band in the supply chart (light blue in Figure 3-1) was calculated as the necessary difference between total supplies and the baseline demand.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 3-8 TODD / W&C
Figure 3-2: Comparison of Demand and Supply for the Indio Subbasin (2010-2019)4 4 Note: SWP recharge totals in Figure 3-2 do not include Advanced Deliveries. -
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Su
p
p
l
y
(
A
F
Y
)
Canal Direct + Recharge SWP Recharge
Net Groundwater Production Surface Water
Recycled Water 2010 CVWMP Projection
Historical Demand
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 4-1 TODD / W&C
4.STATUS OF 2010 CVWMP IMPLEMENTATION
It is critical to perform periodic evaluations of Plan implementation. Current progress and preliminary results provide guidance as to whether Plan goals or projects require revisions or adjustments. This section summarizes 2010 CVWMP Implementation.
The Indio Subbasin GSAs continue to implement the goals and programs of the 2010 CVWMP. As noted in the Indio Subbasin WY 2018-2019 Annual Report, groundwater production remains more than 25 percent less than the historical highs in the early 2000s. The results of the on-going basin monitoring program demonstrate the significant progress being made toward the goal of eliminating long-term groundwater overdraft. In the last 10 years, the Indio Subbasin has gained over 840,000 AF of groundwater in storage.
Over the past ten years, much of the Indio Subbasin experienced water level gains as a result of continued recharge at the WWR-GRF and TEL-GRF, conversion of golf courses from groundwater to Coachella Canal and recycled water, and water conservation. Replenishment operations at the PD-GRF began in February 2019 and are expected to contribute significantly to improved groundwater level conditions in the mid- valley region.
CVWD continues to work with the golf courses in its service area to extend the Mid-Valley Pipeline and recycled water distribution system to serve additional courses with Coachella Canal and recycled water, and to reduce their groundwater pumping. CVWD’s increased allocation of Colorado River water through the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) added 5,000 AF of available supply in 2019.
Projects described in the 2010 CVWMP include:
•Water conservation: The Indio Subbasin GSAs have implemented water conservation programs for both large irrigation customers and residential customers. Most water purveyors and several cities have implemented landscape audit programs and rebates for replacement lawn conversion and high-efficiency water devices. CVWD adopted a Landscape Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1302.4) that establishes maximum allowable turf area and associated water demands for new golf courses.
•New supply development: As part of the QSA, CVWD’s Colorado River allocation through the Coachella Canal will increase to 424,000 AFY by 2026 and remain at that level until 2047, decreasing to 421,000 AFY until 2077, when the agreement terminates. CVWD and DWA are actively participating in other statewide programs to improve the long-term reliability of the SWP supply. As opportunities arise, CVWD and DWA make water purchases from other water transfer programs.
•Source substitution: Golf courses connected to the Coachella Canal distribution system in the East Valley meet a majority of their total water use with Coachella Canal water. CVWD is working on design drawings for new connections to its Mid Valley Pipeline, which delivers non-potable water to West Valley golf courses.
•Groundwater recharge: WWR-GRF and TEL-GRF continue to replenish the Indio Subbasin with SWP exchange water and Colorado River water. In 2019, PD-GRF began replenishing the mid- valley area of the basin with Colorado River supplies.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 4-2 TODD / W&C
•Water quality protection: The Indio Subbasin GSAs are operating wellhead treatment facilities to address elevated arsenic in local wells. Additional water quality programs are being implemented for well and septic system abandonment.
Overall, groundwater conditions documented in the Indio Subbasin WY 2018-2019 Annual Report demonstrate the effectiveness of the 2010 CVWMP in guiding sustainable management of the Indio Subbasin.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-1 TODD / W&C
5.2010 CVWD MODEL EVALUATION
This Section documents the numerical groundwater flow model that was updated and used for the 2010 CVWMP and evaluates the model’s suitability for additional update and improvement, followed by assessment of sustainability and future management alternatives for the Alternative Plan Update. The original model was developed for CVWD during the mid- to late-1990s as a tool for managing groundwater in Coachella Valley. The model was constructed with the widely used USGS MODFLOW code and simulates three-dimensional groundwater flow within and between the shallow and deep aquifer zones, includes various sources of Subbasin recharge, discharge to production wells, evapotranspiration, flow to drains, and flow to and from the Salton Sea. The model was originally calibrated over a 61-year historical period from 1936-96. It was subsequently extended as a part of the 2002 and 2010 CVWMP and used to simulate future subbasin management scenarios beginning in 1997 through a defined future planning period. The most-recent version of the model, prepared for the 2010 CVWMP (and containing measured and estimated of inflows and outflows through 2008), will be used as the basis for the calibration update and future management simulations as a part of the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan five‐year update (Plan Update) for submission to DWR. Most of the inflow and outflow data for the period 1997-2008 will be retained in the updated model, recent data will be used for the period 2009-2019, and new estimates will be synthesized for predictive simulations of future conditions.
The original model was documented in a report prepared by Graham Fogg, the author of the model (Fogg, et.al, 2000). Graham Fogg and his consulting team, along with David Ringel, Consulting Engineer, consulted with Todd Groundwater staff, providing insights into construction and input data for the original model and 2010 CVWMP version of the model, and providing selected data files and computer programs used to develop and pre-process the model inputs (Fogg, 2020a,b; Ringel, 2020).
The following section describes the features and key input parameters of the model. Some of these input parameters will be updated and refined for use in the Plan Update.
5.1 MODEL INPUT AND CONSTRUCTION
The area covered by the groundwater model is shown on Figure 5-1. The upstream and downstream ends of the model correspond to the San Gorgonio Pass area and Salton Sea, respectively. The southwest flank of the model represents the interface between the unconsolidated sedimentary fill and consolidated to semi-consolidated rocks of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains. The northeast flank of the model represents the interface between the unconsolidated sedimentary fill and consolidated to semi- consolidated rocks of the Little San Bernardino Mountains, Indio Hills, and Mecca Hills. Most of the ephemeral stream flow into the basin originates along the southwest flank. Note that the San Gorgonio Pass, Mission Creek and Desert Hot Springs subbasins are not explicitly modeled; subsurface outflow from these subbasins into the main basin is included in the boundary conditions at the Pass, and along the Banning and San Andreas faults.
This page intentionally left blank.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-2 TODD / W&C
Figure 5-1: Model Area and Boundaries
This page intentionally left blank.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-3 TODD / W&C
5.1.1 MODFLOW Code and Input Packages
The original model was constructed using ‘MODFLOW 88’. For the 2010WMP, the code was updated to ‘MODFLOW 2005’. GFA used various data files and pre-processing programs to format the data and create the MODFLOW input files.
The model utilizes the following standard MODFLOW Packages:
•BASIC (BAS)
•BLOCK CENTERED FLOW (BCF)
•HORIZONTAL FLOW BARRIER (HFB)
•WELL (WEL)
•RECHARGE (RCH)
•DRAIN (DRN)
•EVAPOTRANSPIRATION (EVT)
•GENERAL HEAD BOUNDARY (GHB)
The original 1936-1996 model also used the TIME-VARIANT SPECIFIED HEAD (CHD) Package for the northwestern boundary with the San Gorgonio Basin, but this was changed to a specified flux boundary for the 2010 CVWMP version of the model, and the CHD Package is no longer used.
Input data for the original and 2010WMP models were generally pre-processed using various datafiles and programs to accumulate and format the input types, that were then loaded into the text (ASCii) MODFLOW input files. For example, the various sources of recharge such as mountain front and stream channel recharge, return flows, artificial recharge, and wastewater percolation were pre-processed and accumulated on a model grid cell basis to create the MODFLOW RCH Package for input.
For the model update, upgraded input data pre-processing methodologies including new databases and GIS data sets will be used to streamline model input development.
5.1.2 Model Grid and Layers
The model consists of a three-dimensional, finite-difference grid of blocks called cells, the locations of which are described in terms of the 270 rows, 86 columns and 4 layers. At the center of each cell there is a point called a node at which head is calculated. The model has a node spacing of 1,000 ft in the x-y plane, and variable vertical node spacing representing variable thicknesses of the corresponding aquifer or aquitard intervals. The grid is oriented along the length of the valley, coinciding with the principal direction of regional groundwater flow.
The MODFLOW model comprises four layers, representing the following hydrostratigraphic units:
•Layer 1 – semi-perched aquifer in East Valley and upper portion of shallow aquifer in West Valley •Layer 2 – shallow aquifer zone
•Layer 3 – regional aquitard in East Valley and shallow-deep aquifer transition zone in West Valley •Layer 4 – deep aquifer
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-4 TODD / W&C
The elevation of the tops and bottoms of the model layers are referenced to land surface elevations and reflect aquifer and hydrostratigraphic unit thickness as inferred from borehole data across the basin. In the lower valley, layer thickness follows geologic characterizations by DWR (1979) that were corroborated by analysis of subsurface data. For example, Model Layer 1 approximately corresponds with the semi- perched zone (100 ft thick), Layer 2 with the upper aquifer unit (80 to more than 240 ft thick), Layer 3 with the regional aquitard (80 to more than 240 ft thick), and Layer 4 with a lower aquifer unit (1,000 ft thick).
In the upper valley, aquifer thickness estimated by USGS (Reichard and Meadows, 1992), was initially used and later revised during model calibration.
5.1.3 Aquifer Properties
Distributions of aquifer hydraulic properties were developed to simulate the aquifer and aquitard units in the shallow and deep aquifer zones. Aquifer hydraulic properties control the rates of groundwater flow, amounts of water in storage, and aquifer responses to recharge and pumping, and include aquifer transmissivity, horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity, and unconfined and confined storage coefficients. Initial estimates of transmissivity (T) were obtained in part from previously calibrated values used in Reichard and Meadows (1992) for the upper valley, some pumping test results for the lower valley, and fairly abundant specific capacity data for the entire valley. Hydraulic conductivity (K) of the confining bed in multiple aquifer zones was estimated based on the sediment texture and heterogeneity and was treated as a calibration parameter in the original 1936-1996 model. Similarly, vertical K (Kv) of the aquifer zones was based on the degree of fine-grained bedding present in electric and drillers logs as well as past experience with three-dimensional heterogeneity in sedimentary basins; this parameter was also adjusted in calibration.
Most model cells were assigned moderate to high hydraulic conductivities, based on the pumping test and specific capacity data, and reflect the properties of the coarse sand and gravel deposits that predominate in the subsurface. Transmissivities are higher on the southwest margins of the basin grading to lower values in the center. Also, permeabilities tend to decrease southeastward toward the Salton Sea.
Southeast of Indio, tight silts and clays up to 100 ft thick are present in the upper aquifer and create a semi-perched zone. The lower permeabilities were assigned to these model cells within Model Layer 3.
The specified ratio of horizontal to vertical hydraulic conductivity varies between 10 and 100 throughout the model, based on the degree of fine-grained bedding present in electric and drillers logs.
Distribution of specific yield (Sy) from Reichard and Meadows (1992) was initially used in the upper valley for Model Layer 1; these values were subsequently modified slightly during calibration. Similar specific yield values were initially estimated for the unconfined areas and semi-perched zone in the lower valley; these values were later adjusted during calibration. Specific storage (Ss) values were estimated for each of the Model Layers 2, 3 and 4, and were multiplied by layer thickness to obtain storage coefficient (S) for each model layer. Ss varied in confined vs. unconfined areas. Storage coefficients of the aquifer system are much greater in the upper unconfined alluvium than in the deeper confined units The Garnet Hill Fault forms a partial barrier to flow between the Garnet Hill and Palm Springs subareas.
The MODFLOW HFB Package was used to simulate the barrier effects of this fault.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-5 TODD / W&C
5.1.4 Initial Conditions
Initial head conditions in the 2010 CVWMP model are set from the final computed heads for each cell in the 1936-1996 calibration simulation, corresponding to the end of calendar year 1996. Thus, these are the starting heads for the predictive model simulations, which begin in 1997. This approach maintains consistency between the model computed heads and flows from the original calibrated model, as well as continuity between the calibration and predictive models.
5.2 GROUNDWATER INFLOWS
The model addresses inflows to the subbasin, which involve recharge through a combination of natural inflows of surface water and groundwater, imported water, and wastewater percolation. Sources of recharge to the basin include
•Subsurface inflow from the San Gorgonio Pass and Mission Creek subbasins •Mountain front and stream channel recharge
•Artificial recharge of imported water
•Wastewater discharges
•Return flows from municipal/domestic, agricultural, golf courses, and other sources Combined return flows represent the largest source of recharge, followed by imported water recharge and natural Mountain front and stream channel recharge.
Except for subsurface inflow boundaries, each of these sources of recharge was estimated individually, then accumulated into a combined MODFLOW RCH Package. Recharge rates over time were accumulated on a model grid cell basis, accounting for cell areas to preserve total recharge amounts, and applied as recharge to Model Layer 1. The MODFLOW RCH Package was used to simulate mountain front and stream channel recharge rather than the MODFLOW Streamflow Routing Packages, which is sometimes used to simulate groundwater-stream interactions.
For the Alternative Plan model update, the individual components of recharge will be re -calculated for the period 2009-2019 using measured data and better estimates, and the MODFLOW RCH Package re- constructed. New simulations of the period 1997-2019 will be run to confirm model performance, prior to conducting the future predictive simulations.
5.2.1 Subsurface Inflow
Figure 5-1 shows the locations of subsurface inflows specified in the northwestern and eastern boundaries of the model. These boundaries simulate inflow from San Gorgonio and Mission Creek Groundwater Basins. Flux rates were estimated for each boundary and applied to Model Layers 1 through 4.
Inflow from San Gorgonio Basin
A specified-flux boundary is used to simulate subsurface inflow from the San Gorgonio Pass subbasin to the Indio subbasin. In the original historical model, the amounts of flow over time were computed by the model with a time-dependent specified head boundary using the MODFLOW CHD Package. In the 2010 CVWMP model, the boundary condition was changed from a time-dependent specified head to a specified
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-6 TODD / W&C
flux boundary, which is used to represent the long-term average inflow for each cell. The amount of inflow was set to a constant value of approximately 9,000 AFY in the 2010 CVWMP model.
Inflow from Mission Creek Basin
Subsurface inflow also occurs from the Mission Creek subbasin to the northeast into the Garnet Hill subbasin, across the Banning and San Andreas faults. These faults consist of several parallel faults and form the northeasterly boundary of the Indio groundwater basin. Groundwater level differences across the Banning Fault in this area are on the order of 200-250 ft. The estimated flow across the Banning Fault into the Garnet Hill Subbasin in the CVWMP Model was set to a constant value of 2,000 AFY. The Garnet Hill Fault also forms a partial barrier to flow and demarcates the Garnet Hill and Palm Springs subareas internal to the model. This barrier was simulated using the MODFLOW HFB Package and allows variable flow between the subareas.
5.2.2 Mountain front and Stream Channel Recharge
Rainfall runoff that recharges along the mountain front and infiltration of streamflow beyond the mountain fronts are simulated in the groundwater model. Precipitation in the San Bernardino, San Jacinto, and Santa Rosa Mountains is the primary natural source of water to the subbasin, with only minor recharge from precipitation in the Little San Bernardino Mountains. The total volume of tributary inflow varies from season to season and year to year, due to wide variations in precipitation. Perennial streamflow from the mountain watersheds is does not occur.
Rainfall-runoff relationships were developed for the twenty-four watersheds in the San Bernardino, San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains that contribute to groundwater recharge in the study area. Where stream gage station data are available, annual streamflow amounts were recharged along the mountain fronts and stream reaches. For un-gaged watersheds, synthetic runoff relations were developed based on the rainfall-runoff curves developed for nearby gaged streams.
Mountain-front recharge includes subsurface inflow from the canyons and surface runoff from minor tributaries along the mountain fronts. Mountain-front recharge from the watersheds was assumed to be ten percent of the average annual streamflow, and evenly distributed to perimeter cells of the model located in canyons and along mountain fronts. Recharge from infiltration of streamflow was distributed to model cells differently depending on whether the year was relatively wet or dry. During dry years, recharge from infiltration of streamflow was distributed to the perimeter model cells. During wet years, recharge from streamflow on major tributaries was distributed to the streamflow recharge cells according to a basic river routing model.
Recharge by infiltration of streamflow occurs primarily along the major stream channels within the model boundary. For the 2010 CVWMP model, actual and synthesized stream flows were used for the period 1997-2008, and estimated average flows were used for the period after 2008. Total streamflow recharge between 1997 and 2008 in the 2010 CVWMP model ranged from approximately 7,000 to 90,000 AFY.
Corresponding mountain front recharge ranged from 700 to 9,000 AFY. Recharge from the lower portion of the Whitewater River Channel contributed another 800 to 4,600 AFY of recharge.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-7 TODD / W&C
5.2.3 Artificial Recharge
Managed artificial recharge occurs in the subbasin at several sites including the Whitewater Groundwater Replenishment Facility (WWR-GRF), Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility (TEL-GRF), and recently constructed Palm Desert Groundwater Replenishment Facility (PD-GRF). Minor amounts of imported water were also recharged at the Martinez GRF. Since 1973, CVWD and DWA have received State Water Project (SWP) water through an exchange agreement with Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan). Water released from Metropolitan’s Colorado River Aqueduct flows down the Whitewater River channel to the recharge ponds near Windy Point. A portion of the water infiltrates along the channel, and some evaporates from the ponds before percolating down to the water table. Estimates of the amount lost to infiltration in the channel and that to evaporation from the ponds were made for the model. Note that during extremely wet years, over 100,000 AF of water are replenished at the WWR-GRF, and groundwater levels in the artificial recharge area increased hundreds of feet. Total annual artificial recharge amounts between 1997 and 2008 ranged from approximately 1,000 to 162,000 AFY.
5.2.4 Wastewater Discharges
Treated wastewater that is not recycled is discharged to percolation ponds for disposal. The Palm Springs Water Reclamation Plant (WRP), Valley Sanitation District WRP, and CVWD’s WRP7, WRP9 and WRP10 each discharge effluent to percolation ponds. Total annual wastewater percolation amounts between 1997 and 2008 ranged from approximately 5,800 to 14,000 AFY.
5.2.5 Return Flows
Return flows represent the largest sources of recharge to the basin and groundwater model. Sources of return flows include Agricultural, Municipal and Domestic, Golf Courses, and other sources.
Agricultural
Colorado River water from the Coachella Canal is used along with groundwater pumped from wells to supply the needs of agriculture. Annual estimates of agricultural returns for each section were made for the historical period using a water budget methodology, as documented in Fogg et al. (2000). Agriculture areas, crop types, crop demands, consumptive use, and corresponding demands for surface water and pumped groundwater were estimated, to develop the return flow amounts. These returns were distributed uniformly to model cells within each section in the uppermost model layer using various database and pre-processing programs. A FORTRAN program was also written to include these agricultural returns, along with other sources of recharge, in the complete RCH package dataset for MODFLOW. Total annual agricultural return flow amounts between 1997 and 2008 ranged from approximately 106,000 to 146,000 AFY.
Municipal and Domestic
Municipal and domestic return flows to the groundwater basin result from septic tank effluent in unsewered areas and from outdoor landscape irrigation returns, which are affected by the amounts of water used indoors versus outdoors.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-8 TODD / W&C
The West Valley is generally sewered, and landscape irrigation is the main source of municipal and domestic return flows. Based on water use analyses, West Valley returns were estimated to be 32 percent of the total groundwater pumped for municipal and domestic uses. In the East Valley, landscape irrigation represents a smaller fraction of municipal water use, and return flows are estimated to be 20 percent of municipal and domestic groundwater pumping in sewered areas, and 54 percent of the pumping in unsewered areas. Urbanized areas were assumed sewered while most on-farm domestic use is unsewered. Returns from municipal and domestic use were distributed evenly to the cell at the well location and the surrounding eight model cells in the uppermost model layer. Total annual municipal and domestic return flow amounts between 1997 and 2008 ranged from approximately 53,000 to 67,000 AFY.
Golf Courses
Annual returns from golf course irrigation were estimated to be 34.7 percent of applied water , based on the difference between the applied water and turf evapotranspiration. These returns were evenly distributed to Layer 1 model cells within the sections where the golf courses are located. Golf course pumping is metered in the west valley management area; returns from metered golf course pumping were estimated to be 34.7 percent of the pumped water and were distributed evenly to the cell at the well location and the surrounding eight model cells in the uppermost model layer. Total annual golf course return flow amounts between 1997 and 2008 ranged from approximately 35,000 to 44,000 AFY.
Other Return Flows
In the original historical model, no groundwater returns are assumed to occur from fish farm and duck club operations. Water losses at these facilities include evaporation and direct discharges to the drain system for disposal. For the historical model, return flows from groundwater pumping for reclamation leaching was returned to the groundwater system as recharge within the semi-perched zone in sections where drains were installed. However, no reclamation leaching was assumed to occur during the 2010WMP period; thus, no such returns were specified for 1997-2008.
5.3 GROUNDWATER OUTFLOWS
The model quantifies outflows; groundwater is discharged from the Indio Subbasin through groundwater pumping for multiple beneficial uses, evapotranspiration, drain outflows, and subsurface outflow to the Salton Sea.
5.3.1 Groundwater Pumping
Annual estimates of agricultural, municipal, golf course, and other pumping for each section were made for the historical model using the consumptive use method. Wells were simulated using the MODFLOW WEL Package, with wells assigned to model cells based on known or inferred well locations and depths.
The agricultural pumping was distributed to known and inferred irrigation wells within each section in the upper and lower aquifers. Unmetered golf course pumping was estimated in a similar manner. Pumping for municipal and domestic use was compiled from SWRCB, USGS, CVWD and DWA records and estimated where necessary. CVWD and DWA metered pumping for municipal and domestic use, and all available metered golf course and fish farm pumping, was included where available in years 1997-2009 in the 2010 CVWMP Update. Pumping estimates also included any unmetered municipal and domestic use, golf
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-9 TODD / W&C
course, agricultural, greenhouse, on-farm domestic pumping from private wells, and any fish farms and duck club pumping. Although metering of agricultural pumping in the east valley began in 2004, the data were not complete until 2011-2012; thus, agricultural pumping was estimated for the 2010 CVWMP Update. Metered pumping will be used after 2012 in the updated model simulations.
Pumping is simulated in the model using the standard MODFLOW WEL Package. Pumping amounts over time were calculated and distributed to model grid cells corresponding to the known or estimated production well locations and depths. Most pumping occurs from the deep aquifer (Model Layer 4).
For the Alternative Plan model update, the individual categories of pumping will be re-calculated for the period 2009-2019 using measured and better estimates, and the MODFLOW WEL Package will be re - constructed. New simulations of the period 1997-2019 will be run to confirm model performance, prior to conducting the future predictive simulations.
Agricultural
Agricultural pumping, primarily in the east valley, represents a component of groundwater discharge from the basin. For the 2010 CVWMP model, agricultural pumping was estimated based on water deliveries and consumptive use. Details of the methodologies used to estimate agricultural pumping are provided in Fogg (2000). Total annual agricultural water usage amounts between 1997 and 2008 ranged from approximately 283,000 to 372,000 AFY, with pumping amounts during this period estimated to range from 53,400 to 105,900 AFY. Metering of agricultural pumping in the east valley began with the inception of the East Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit Groundwater Replenishment Program in 2005 and was completed in 2011-2012. Metered well pumping data will be used in the model update.
Municipal and Domestic
CVWD and DWA have metered municipal groundwater pumping in the upper valley since the mid-1970s.
Most of the historical groundwater production in the East valley was unmetered and was estimated in the 2010 CVWMP model. On-farm domestic water use was included in the pumping distribution. Metered municipal well pumping data will be used in the model update for both the upper and lower valley, with minor unmetered domestic and other pumping estimated. Total annual municipal and domestic pumping amounts between 1997 and 2008 ranged from approximately 179,000 to 230,000 AFY.
Golf Courses
Golf course pumping in the upper and lower valley was estimated in the historical model based on known pumping amounts or estimated based on the acreage irrigated and year when each course was constructed. For estimated amounts, water use was computed using turf demands, annual evapotranspiration (ET) rates, leaching rates, and irrigation efficiencies. For the 2010 CVWMP model, metered pumping data was used for golf pumping. Total annual golf course pumping amounts between 1997 and 2008 ranged from approximately 82,900 to 93,400 AFY.
Fish Farms, Duck Clubs and Other
Fish farming is a water-using agricultural enterprise that benefits from the warm groundwater in the lower valley near the Salton Sea. Fish farming grew rapidly in the 1980s and 1990s, to approximately 1,000 acres
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-10 TODD / W&C
of fish farm ponds in the East valley. The total water demand by fish farms in 1997 was estimated to be approximately 27,000 acre-ft.
Duck clubs provide water for ponds to attract ducks and other waterfowl during hunting season. The duck clubs are located entirely within the East valley. The total water demand for duck clubs in 1996 was estimated to be approximately 4,000 acre-ft.
5.3.2 Evapotranspiration
Native vegetation ET is simulated in the eastern portion of the historical model as described in Fogg et al. (2000). An ET boundary condition was initially assigned to cells within the semi-perched zone in the historical simulation; as land within the semi-perched zone was developed for agriculture, the ET boundary was replaced with a drain boundary. Since no additional drains were installed after 1996, the ET boundaries were maintained at 1996 conditions in the predictive model. ET amounts are calculated based on specified plant rooting depths, reference ET values, and simulated shallow groundwater elevations. Total annual evapotranspiration amounts simulated between 1997 and 2008 ranged from approximately 4,400 to 5,100 AFY.
5.3.3 Drains
Shallow groundwater drainage systems are installed in the eastern portion of the Subbasin and serve to maintain the water table below crop rooting depths. The model simulates drains in Layer 1 with installation dates, locations, and drain elevations based on their construction records. On-farm drains are constructed at approximately 6-ft depths and are connected to the CVWD drains. CVWD drains are typically installed at depths of 8 to 10 ft. The model calculates the amounts of drain flow based on the drain elevations, adjacent groundwater elevations, and aquifer/drain conductance, a permeability parameter. Flow from the drains goes either into the CVSC or directly into the Salton Sea. No additional drains have been installed since 1996 and 2002; consequently, the drain boundary conditions in the model are maintained at the 1996 configuration. Total annual drain flow amounts simulated between 1997 and 2008 ranged from approximately 41,200 to 51,500 AFY.
5.3.4 Salton Sea
The Salton Sea is simulated as a GHB with time-varying elevations. Actual Salton Sea elevations were used in the historical model then held constant at 1999 levels 2010 CVWMP Update simulations. Note that Salton Sea levels have declined approximately 10 feet since circa 2000, and simulated elevations of this boundary condition will be adjusted in the updated model. Simulated net flow between the Sea and groundwater system is relatively small, less than 1,000 AFY in the 1997-2008 simulation.
5.4 MODEL PERFORMANCE
The original 1936-1996 regional model was well-calibrated to measured groundwater elevation and water budget trends across the basin (Fogg, 2000). Errors between observed and simulated groundwater elevations were generally low, and simulated drain flow amounts over time corresponded to measured and estimated drain flows after the drains were installed.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-11 TODD / W&C
Performance of the updated 2010 CVWMP model was re-assessed to confirm the model continues to accurately simulate of measured data for the period from 1997-2019. Model simulation results for the latest 2010 CVWMP Update dataset were compared with measured groundwater elevations throughout the valley, and with agricultural drain flows in the East Valley. Because the original model was constructed and calibrated to 1936-1996 data, and since aquifer properties were not changed in the model for the 2010 CVWMP Update, calibration results for the updated period provide an additional validation step for the original model.
It is noteworthy that the 2010 CVWMP Update dataset was developed during 2008-10 and includes measured pumping and recharge data that were readily available at the time, generally through 2008.
However, for the simulation period from 2009 to 2019, for which data were not yet available, various modeling assumptions (pertaining to natural and artificial recharge, municipal, resort and irrigation pumping demands, as well as included CVWMP programs) were used to estimate future pumping and recharge amounts and their distributions in the model. Thus, it is reasonable to expect the current model to perform better from 1997-2009 than from 2010-19. Model inflows and outflows for the period 2009- 2019 will be updated and the model re-run to confirm calibration quality for this period.
5.4.1 Head Calibration Hydrographs
Figure 5-2 shows the locations of five wells considered to be representative of local groundwater level conditions throughout the subbasin, and which have also been monitored for many years. These wells were selected for plotting hydrographs for visual comparison with model-simulated results as well as for calculation of error residuals. The original calibration results for the 1936 -1996 model, along with the 1997 through 2019 results from the 2010 CVWMP model update are included on the hydrographs. Model year 1997 through 2008 simulation results are considered representative of actual historical conditions, while 2009 through 2019 results are based on 2010 CVWMP projections of inflows and outflows and are not representative of actual conditions during this period. The calibration results for the five wells are described below from northwest to southeast, down the Valley.
Well 03S04E20F01S is completed in the unconfined aquifer near the WW-GFR and exhibits large groundwater elevation fluctuations of around 250 feet between 1997 and 2008, in response to recharge operations at the GRF. The 2010 CVWMP Update simulation results show the model generally reproduces the observed trends in groundwater levels during the period 1997-2008. The modeled peak groundwater elevations are lower that the observed peaks in 1998-99 and 2005-06, but this is due in part to the annual stress periods of the model, that use average annual recharge volumes at the GRF, rather that the dynamic amounts recharged across the year. Observed-simulated hydrographs after 2008 deviate, due to the assumed relatively constant recharge and discharge amounts used for this simulation period.
Nearby wells 04S04E15J01S and 04S04E13C01S are in Palm Springs near the San Jacinto Mountain front and completed in the lower aquifer. Both wells are shown on the hydrograph because they have different periods of record but are closely located, with similar depths and water level responses, and are located in the same model cell. As shown, the model simulation results compare well with observed groundwater levels from 1997-2008. The model-simulated peaks from the hydraulic effects of the artificial recharge at
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-12 TODD / W&C
WWR-GRF and recovery are well-matched with the measured data, both of which exhibit muted and delayed responses to the wet year WWR-GRF recharge events.
Well 05S06E05Q01S and nearby Well 05S06E23M01S are located near Indian Wells and completed in the lower aquifer. Both exhibited similar water level trends for their periods of record. T he model results compare well with the observed trends in groundwater levels through 2008, including the diminished peaks due to large amounts of artificial recharge at WWR-GRF in 1998-99 and 2005-06 that, due to its location downgradient from WWR-GRF, have been attenuated and delayed by approximately 4 years at this location.
Well 06S07E23F01S and nearby Well 06S07E22B01S are located near Lake Cahuilla and completed in the lower aquifer. The model closely reproduces the trends and approximates the values in measured groundwater levels very well in this area over the 1997-2008 simulation period.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-13 TODD / W&C
Figure 5-2: Model Calibration Hydrographs
This page intentionally left blank.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-14 TODD / W&C
Well 06S08E36M01S is located between Thermal and Mecca and completed in the lower aquifer. The simulated groundwater elevation trends match groundwater levels very well in this area over the 1997 - 2008 simulation period.
The example hydrographs shown on Figure 5-2 indicate good overall calibration in most portions of the Indio subbasin. However, certain subareas and depth intervals exhibit lower quality calibration results for the 2010 CVWMP model update. For example, simulated water levels in the Garnet Hill subarea are not well-calibrated with observed levels in some wells. This may be due to offsets in simulated initial conditions, as compared with observed levels in 1997, and to inaccuracies in the simulated amounts of inflow from the Mission Creek subbasin. This will be further evaluated after completion of the 2009-2019 model update and changes made to certain input parameters to improve calibration in this subarea.
5.4.2 Head Calibration Statistics
Figure 5-3 shows a scatter plot of model-computed heads vs. measured water level data for measurements in the simulation from 1997-2009. The comparison of the match between measured data and simulated values for this subperiod is representative of model performance, since actual data on pumping and recharge are included in the model versus estimated rates used in the 2009-2019 portion of the simulation. In this period there are 27,890 groundwater elevation observations covering an elevation range of 1,086.05 ft. As shown on the chart, there is a very good correlation between observed and simulated data throughout the subbasin. The average residual (difference between observed and simulated elevations) of this data set 2.18 ft, and residual standard deviation of 22.93 ft. These calibration results indicate the model accurately reproduces groundwater elevations and trends in the subbasin.
5.4.3 Water Budget Calibration
Figure 5-4 shows a summary of the transient simulated flow water budget components in the model from 1997-2009. Similar results were provided for the historical model period from 1936-96 in documentation provided by GFA (Fogg, 2000).
The water budget components include specified recharge, pumping, and subsurface inflows from the San Gorgonio Pass and the Mission Creek Subbasins, along with model computed flows to native vegetation ET, net flow to the Salton Sea, and net flow to drains. A QC check of model simulated recharge and discharge amounts with the original data used to develop the model inputs confirms the input data were processed and loaded correctly.
Model computed drain flow provides a calibration check for the model, since CVWD has measured or estimated flows to the agricultural drains for many years. Todd and Ringel Engineering provided GFA with measured data on these flows.
Model computed drain flows are compared with measured agricultural drain flows in Figure 5-5. The very good agreement from the 1950s through the early 2000s shows that the model is capable of simulating real trends in both water levels and flow rates. Apparent divergence of model-computed flows from measured after 2005 will be re-checked after completion of the model update.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-15 TODD / W&C
Figure 5-3: Simulated vs. Measured Groundwater Elevation Calibration Chart 1997-2009
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-16 TODD / W&C
Figure 5-4: Model Water Budget
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 5-17 TODD / W&C
Figure 5-5: Simulated vs. Measured Drain Flows Model Update
5.5 MODEL UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS
The most recent version of the model, prepared for the 2010 CVWMP (and containing measured and best- estimates of recharge and discharge through 2008), will be used as the basis for the calibration update and future management simulations as a part of the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan five‐year update (Plan Update) for submission to DWR. We recommend that most of the recharge and discharge input data for the period 1997-2008 be retained in the updated model, but better estimates developed for the period 2009-2019 and synthesized for predictive simulations of future conditions.
Updated measurements and improved estimates for the period 2009-2019 will be developed using new data sources and a database/GIS pre-processing data management system, for model update efficiency and use in future updates. The key recharge and discharge components that will be updated include:
•Initial Conditions in Garnet Hill subarea
•Subsurface Inflow Boundary Conditions
•Mountain front and Stream Channel Recharge
•Artificial Recharge
•Wastewater Discharges
•Return Flows
•Groundwater Pumping
•Salton Sea Elevations
After completion of the update through 2019, it is recommended that model performance and calibration results be re-assessed, prior to conducting the predictive model future management scenario simulations.
DRAFT TM Alternative Plan
Assessment and Recommendations 6-1 TODD / W&C
6.REFERENCES
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) (1979) Coachella Valley area well standards investigation: Los Angeles, California Department of Water Resources, Southern District.
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) (2002a) Coachella Valley Final Water Management Plan, September 2002, prepared by MWH and WaterConsult.
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) (2012) Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update, January 2012, prepared by MWH.
Fogg, G.E., G.T. O’Neill, E.M. LaBolle, and D.J. Ringel (2000). Groundwater flow model of Coachella Valley, California: an overview.
Indio Subbasin GSAs (2016). SGMA Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan – Bridge Document for the Indio Subbasin, prepared by MWH.
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX 1-B
2022 INDIO SUBBASIN ALTERNATIVE PLAN COMMUNICATIONS PLAN
This page intentionally left blank.
9655 Chesapeake Drive | Suite 320
San Diego, California 92123
www.woodardcurran.com
T 858.875.7400
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan 1 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Communication Plan April 14, 2020
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan
Communication Plan
TO: Indio Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) FROM: Rosalyn Prickett, Woodard & Curran
Jen Sajor, Woodard & Curran
Nicole Poletto, Woodard & Curran
DATE: April 14, 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
2. GSA DECISION‐MAKING PROCESS ........................................................................................... 2
3. OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ........................................................................ 2
4. SCHEDULE FOR PUBLIC INPUT ................................................................................................. 3
5. INPUT FROM DIVERSE SOCIAL, CULTURAL, AND ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES .................... 4
6. TRIBAL OUTREACH AND COORDINATION ................................................................................ 6
7. OUTREACH METHODS ................................................................................................................ 7
8. PUBLIC ACCESS TO DATA.......................................................................................................... 9 APPENDIX A: INDIO SUBBASIN STAKEHOLDER LIST ....................................................................... 10 Please note, this Communication Plan is a living document that may change as additional stakeholders are identified or feedback is received. Additional schedule changes may occur due to COVID-19, along with changes in our approach to communicating with and engaging stakeholders remotely. An updated Communication Plan will be uploaded to the website as needed.
1. INTRODUCTION
In 2014, California enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) to provide a framework for long-term sustainable groundwater management across California. SGMA requires that all California basins designated high or medium priority shall be managed under a GSP or Alternative Plan to a GSP (Alternative Plan). The Indio Subbasin (Subbasin) was designated by DWR as a medium priority basin. As such, SGMA requires formation of locally-controlled groundwater sustainability agency(ies) (GSAs) as the entity(ies) responsible for developing and implementing a GSP or Alternative Plan. The primary goal of the GSP or Alternative Plan is to develop sustainable groundwater management practices for managing the groundwater basin or subbasin without causing undesirable results.
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), Coachella Water Authority (CWA), Desert Water Agency (DWA), and Indio Water Authority (IWA) collectively represent the Indio Subbasin GSAs. In January 2017, the GSAs submitted to DWR the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (2010 CVWMP), accompanied by an Indio Subbasin Bridge Document, as a SGMA-compliant Alternative Plan. On July 17, 2019, DWR approved the Alternative Plan with a requirement to submit an Alternative Plan Update by January 1, 2022.
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan 2 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Communication Plan April 14, 2020
This Communication Plan contains outreach strategies and methods to address effective communication with stakeholders during development of the Alternative Plan Update, including: building trust between and among the GSAs and property owners/residents, disadvantaged communities, tribes, agricultural interests, and environmental interests; language barriers and the need for translation;; and the need for strong and transparent facilitation.
2. GSA DECISION‐MAKING PROCESS
The GSAs are the designated decision-making entities for the Alternative Plan Update process. On October 5, 2016, the GSAs (CVWD, CWA, DWA, and IWA) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to establish an agreement for collaboration and cost-share for management of the Indio Subbasin under SGMA. Each GSA is responsible for the portion of the Indio Subbasin within their respective service area. The MOU establishes that its intent is to foster cooperation, coordination, and communication among the GSAs regarding management of the Indio Subbasin.
The 2016 MOU established the GSAs’ intent to develop and submit the Alternative Plan to DWR. On April 3, 2018, the GSAs approved a Supplement to the MOU that outlined the GSAs intent to prepare an Annual Report for Water Year 2017. On October 29, 2018, the GSAs approved a Second Supplement to the MOU that allowed for ongoing preparation of Annual Reports by April 1 of each water year, along with preparation of a 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update (which is the subject of this Communication Plan). The Second Supplement directs CVWD to serve as the managing entity for selected consultants, but allows for input and review of all SGMA-related deliverables and transmittal of all data and files to each of the four GSAs.
The GSAs will participate in all community workshops and directed outreach meetings. Public input, no matter the method received (e.g., phone, email, public meeting), will be shared with all of the GSAs for consideration throughout the planning process.
3. OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
3.1 Purpose
Public engagement includes both stakeholder coordination and general public involvement. The goal of this public engagement effort is to understand the needs of stakeholders, increase awareness and understanding of the Alternative Plan Update, and promote active involvement in the process.
Stakeholders with interest in water management – including agency representatives, municipalities, tribes, agricultural representatives, large irrigators, and non-profit organizations – are the target audience for this Alternative Plan Update Communication Plan. The general public will be engaged throughout the planning process to share information about the Indio Subbasin and water management decisions, and solicit input to the Alternative Plan Update.
Coordination with various entities with interests and/or authority over water management will ensure their active involvement in the Alternative Plan Update. These entities have a vested interest in local water resources and can provide invaluable input to the Alternative Plan Update process, as well as implementing projects/management actions during Plan implementation phases. Through public involvement, the Alternative Plan Update process aims to increase awareness and understanding from the general public including residents, community members, tribes and disadvantaged communities that are ultimately served by the GSAs. The Plan Update will take into account community needs, while demonstrating the importance and interrelation of water management strategies, increasing regional and
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan 3 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Communication Plan April 14, 2020
local support for implementation projects/management actions (and associated investments), and generating broad-based support for continued regional coordination.
3.2 Participants
All interested stakeholders and members of the general public are invited to participate in this process and collaborate with the GSAs. Individuals representing the following groups have been identified as potential stakeholders:
• State, county and municipal
governments
• Wastewater and water agencies
• Land use planning and economic
development agencies
• Community councils
• School districts
• Environmental conservation and
natural resources organizations
• Private pumpers and large irrigators
• Resource agencies and special
interest groups
• Flood control districts
• Disadvantaged and environmental
justice communities
• Elected officials
• Farm Bureau and agricultural interest
• Tribal governments
• Academic institutions
• Recreational interests
• Regional planning organization
• Regulatory agencies
• Stormwater management agencies
• Development community
• Chambers of Commerce
Interested members of the general public may include:
• Private homeowners or landowners
• Homeowners associations
• Landscape architects and contractors
• Garden clubs and organizations
• Rotary clubs and other service clubs
• Commercial, industrial, and residential
developers
• Community-based organizations
• Schools and parent groups
• Churches
The Alternative Plan Update process will leverage stakeholder connections made through the Coachella IRWM Program. Appendix A (located at the end of this Plan) lists all regional stakeholders identified in collaboration with the Coachella Valley IRWM Program, as well as additional participants identified by the GSAs. These stakeholders will be contacted and invited to participate in the Alternative Plan Update process. This Communication Plan is a living document and the stakeholder list may continue to expand if additional stakeholders are identified.
4. SCHEDULE FOR PUBLIC INPUT
The Alternative Plan Update planning process will include outreach and education activities that involve stakeholders affected by water management in the Indio Subbasin. The outreach and education process will inform and educate them about SGMA, groundwater management, the Alternative Plan Update planning process, and solicit and address issues and opportunities to improve groundwater management for the Subbasin. The following activities will be undertaken by the GSAs:
• Develop and provide information regarding SGMA, Alternative Plan Update planning, and groundwater management for public dissemination.
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan 4 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Communication Plan April 14, 2020
• Present groundwater analysis and modeling, and solicit stakeholder and public input on sustainability goals, management actions, and implementation plans. • Provide and summarize stakeholder and public input for the GSAs to consider throughout the GSP process.
• Identify and provide opportunities for public input at key project milestones as shown in the Project Schedule (see Figure 1).
4.1 Project Schedule
The final Alternative Plan Update must be submitted to the DWR by January 1, 2022. The 2022 Alternative Plan Update is scheduled for completion by November 2021, providing time for adoption and approval by the GSAs. The project schedule is designed to solicit, consider, and address public and stakeholder input regarding the important planning elements, including Subbasin conditions, groundwater modeling, sustainability goals, management actions, implementation plan, and the draft and final Alternative Plan Update. Figure 1 shows a depiction of the generalized schedule for these planning elements and public and stakeholder engagement. This Communication Plan is a living document and the schedule may change as the need arises. All schedule updates will be posted to the website ( www.IndioSubbasinSGMA.org) .
Alternative Plan review and evaluation will begin in Summer 2021. During this phase, the draft Alternative Plan will be published for public review at the website ( www.IndioSubbasinSGMA.org) . The GSAs will open a 45-day public comment period. The GSAs will hold a community workshop to provide an overview of the Alternative Plan content, while giving stakeholders an opportunity to provide feedback and comments about the Alternative Plan. Once the public review period is completed, public comments will be taken into consideration and incorporated into a final version of the Alternative Plan before submitting to DWR by January 1, 2022. Following submittal, DWR will post the Alternative Plan Update for a 60-day comment period through the DWR’s SGMA portal at http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/ . Public comments will be posted to the DWR’s website prior to the State agency’s evaluation, assessment, and approval.
5. INPUT FROM DIVERSE SOCIAL, CULTURAL, AND ECONOMIC
COMMUNITIES
5.1 Purpose
The goal of diverse outreach is to identify and obtain input from groups that may be otherwise limited from participating in the Alternative Plan Update process and implementation. Various reasons exist which limit participation in regional water planning efforts, such as financial or language constraints.
Previous outreach efforts through the Coachella IRWM Program have identified water-related concerns facing groups with limited voice in water management efforts. Diverse outreach for input to the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update will build on previous efforts from the Coachella Valley IRWM program and CVWD’s Disadvantaged Community Infrastructure Task Force.
Targeted outreach to diverse populations within the Indio Subbasin will be conducted to ensure that the technical assumptions and approach used in the planning effort are understood. This outreach includes directed email communications inviting these groups to attend up to eight quarterly public workshops (described in Section 7 Outreach Methods below).
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan 5 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Communication Plan April 14, 2020
Figure 1: 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update Schedule
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan 6 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Communication Plan April 14, 2020
5.2 Participants
Communities targeted for diverse outreach include disadvantaged communities (DACs) and environmental justice (EJ) organizations. DACs are defined by DWR as census geographies with an annual Median Household Income (MHI) of less than 80% of the statewide MHI. EJ is defined by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and environmental of environmental laws.” Outreach to organizations also involved with EJ issues ensures that water management activities implemented under the Alternative Plan implementation do not unduly burden DACs.
Numerous local and State-wide DACs and EJ organizations will be targeted during outreach for the Alternative Plan, including but not limited to:
• Clean Water Action
• Desert Alliance for Community Empowerment
• Desert Edge Community Council
• El Sol Neighborhood Educational Center
• Environmental Justice Coalition for Water (EJCW)
• Inland Congregation United for Change (ICUC)
• Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
• Representative from Assemblyman Garcia
• Pueblo Unido Community Development Corporation
• Rural Community Assistance Corporation
5.3 Coachella Valley EJ Enforcement Task Force (regional Water Quality Control Board)Public Comments
Public comments will be accepted both verbally and in writing, and will be considered in development of the Alternative Plan Update. A comment matrix will be maintained by the GSAs throughout the planning process to track and incorporate, as appropriate, comments received on the Alternative Plan Update.
5.4 Community Meetings
GSA members are available to speak at existing community meetings regarding SGMA and the Alternative Plan Update, as requested by and based on the interest of stakeholders. If a GSA member is present at a community meeting, they can provide a SGMA Update as available.
6. TRIBAL OUTREACH AND COORDINATION
6.1 Purpose
The goal of engaging the Coachella Valley’s tribal governments is to better understand their critical water resources issues and needs. An Indio Subbasin Tribe and Groundwater Sustainability Agency Workgroup (Tribal Workgroup) was established in 2017 and has existed for several years through submittal and DWR approval of the Alternative Plan. During the Alternative Plan Update, the GSAs seek to continue to discuss major water-related concerns facing the tribes and ensure regional water management efforts, such as the long-term implementation of the Alternative Plan Update, are responsive to those needs.
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan 7 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Communication Plan April 14, 2020
Targeted outreach to the tribes within the Indio Subbasin will be conducted to ensure that the technical assumptions and approach used in the planning effort are understood. This outreach includes up to five semi‐annual meetings with tribal representatives through the existing Tribal Workgroup and will occur on the same day as the public workshops (described in Section 7 Outreach Methods below).
6.2 Participants
Tribal participants will be contacted based on input from Tribal Workgroup members and the GSA partners. The following six Native American tribes in the region will be targeted during outreach for the Alternative Plan Update process:
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Augustine Band of Mission Indians
• Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians
• Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
• Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians
Additionally, meetings will include the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, a current member of the Tribal Workgroup, and may include representatives from other tribal coordinating agencies or groups.
7. OUTREACH METHODS
The GSAs believe that public access is critical to the success of the Alternative Plan Update process.
The GSAs have taken a strategic approach to public outreach. The following tactics have been implemented to achieve successful outreach:
• Developed an initial Communication Plan that can be executed by any combination of agency staff or consultants.
• Refined the timeline for the Alternative Plan Update process in such a way that appropriate dates for notification of public meetings, workshops, etc. can be documented and addressed in a logical and orderly manner.
• Determined methods for the dissemination of information for public review and for public input (e.g. email and website).
The following tactics will be used moving forward, during the planning process, to achieve greater community participation where possible:
• Provide outreach documents in both English and Spanish to accommodate the primary languages of community members.
• During planning/preparation for public workshops, make suggestions for schedule or format that allow for greater public participation.
• Apprise the members at each meeting, and sooner if necessary, as to the issues and needs for supporting public outreach.
The public will be notified of public workshops via email and website, given specific contact information for questions or comments, and given sufficient time to review materials prior to or after workshops.
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan 8 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Communication Plan April 14, 2020
7.1 Public Workshops
Eight public workshops will be held on a quarterly basis. The public workshops are intended to inform stakeholders and the general public of the Alternative Plan Update progress, solicit data and information to support planning and analysis for the Subbasin, and seek input on key decisions made throughout the planning process. Public workshops to address the Plan Update will include outreach to the participants listed above. The GSAs recognize the need and importance of public participation and will work diligently to make sure that not only are stakeholders and participants listened to, but that their valuable advice helps create an effective groundwater management plan update for the region.
Public workshops will generally be held within the Indio Subbasin during regular business hours; however, select workshops and meetings may be held outside of normal business hours to accommodate the participation of stakeholders and the general public. Select after-hours workshops may focus on educating community members about the Indio Subbasin, its groundwater conditions, and the effectiveness of historical management strategies. As appropriate, meeting locations will rotate throughout the valley to ensure broad and fair participation by members of the local public, including areas of the valley that are predominantly DACs and EJs. Any changes to the location and time of public workshops will be considered to allow for meeting flexibility, as needed. Translation headsets for all public workshops will be provided by CVWD. In addition, GSAs can be available to present about SGMA at community meetings, at the request of community organizations.
7.2 Website
Establishing a bilingual (English and Spanish) Alternative Plan website will be a key component of the regional outreach. The website will house information about SGMA, the Alternative Plan Update process, GSA partners (CVWD, CWA, DWA, and IWA), public meetings, project reports and studies, and groundwater data and information. It will also provide options for contacting the GSAs – via email, writing, or in person.
The website ( www.IndioSubbasinSGMA.org) will be developed with landing pages including a general overview of SGMA, ways to get involved, information about the Alternative Plan Update (including links to completed deliverables and workshop materials), and the GSAs’ contact information. Each page of the website will include an opportunity to sign-up for project emails. Landing pages will be also be available in Spanish at http://www.indiosubbasinsgma.org/espanol/ .
7.3 Fact Sheets & Flyers
A bilingual (English and Spanish) Fact Sheet will be developed to explain the purpose and regulatory requirements for Alternative Plans, as well as how the 2010 CVWMP serves as the basis for the Alternative Plan Update. Additional handouts or flyers for the Alternative Plan Update will be created and distributed to stakeholders as the need presents itself. These flyers may summarize work underway for the Plan Update or to document key decisions made during the planning process. All outreach documents will be produced in English and Spanish. The Alternative Plan Update will be made available in both print and electronic format in English.
7.4 Correspondence
An electronic mailing list of stakeholders and interested parties, and any special subgroups, will be maintained and updated throughout the Alternative Plan Update. E-mail notices, the primary method of communication, will be sent to announce the availability of new materials on Alternative Plan Update on the website, project milestones, and workshop dates. Press releases will also be used as a method of
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan 9 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Communication Plan April 14, 2020
correspondence. Announcements will be distributed in English with Spanish translation in the same message.
7.5 Social Media
GSA partners will utilize existing social media channels (CVWD, DWA, and IWA Facebook and Twitter accounts) to spread updates on the Alternative Plan Update to the general public. CWA may post through the City of Coachella Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. This may include announcements prior to public workshops or the availability of new materials on the Alternative Plan Update on the website.
8. PUBLIC ACCESS TO DATA
Existing and future data associated with the planning process, as included in the Alternative Plan Update, will be made available to the public through the public workshop series. Project maps and data tables will be presented and reviewed with stakeholders in order to garner input and feedback. Groundwater modeling assumptions and results will be presented to stakeholders during the workshop series.
This page intentionally left blank.
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan 10 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Communication Plan April 14, 2020
APPENDIX A: INDIO SUBBASIN STAKEHOLDER LIST
Agency Stakeholder List
CVRWMG
Coachella Valley Water District
Coachella Water Authority
Desert Water Agency
Indio Water Authority
Mission Springs Water District
Valley Sanitary District
Cities
City of Cathedral City
City of Coachella
City of Desert Hot Springs
City of Indian Wells
City of Rancho Mirage
City of Palm Desert
City of Palm Springs
County of Riverside
Coachella Valley Economic Partnership
Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency Riverside County Department of Environmental Health
Riverside County Economic Development Agency
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Supervisor V. Manuel Perez’s office
Supervisor Chuck Washington’s office
Community Councils
Desert Edge Community Council
Elected Officials
Congressman Raul Ruiz (36th Dist.)
State Senator Mike Morrell (23rd Dist.)
State Senator Ben Hueso (40th Dist.)
Assemblyman Chad Mayes (42nd Dist.)
Assemblyman Eduardo Garcia (56th Dist.)
Resource Agencies
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Department of Water Resources
Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board
U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs
Special Interests
Clean Water Action
Coachella Valley Association of Governments
Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control
Desert Recreation District
Friends of the Desert Mountains
Leadership Counsel for Justice & Accountability
Tribes
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Augustine Band of Mission Indians
Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan 11 Woodard & Curran, Inc.
Communication Plan April 14, 2020
Agency Stakeholder
List
Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians
Academia
California State University San Bernardino
Loma Linda University
Other Water/Wastewater Entities
Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
Salton Community Services District
Private Pumpers and Large Irrigators
Agricultural pumpers
Home Owners' Associations
Golf courses
Nurseries
Disadvantaged Community Organizations
Clean Water Action
Desert Alliance for Community Empowerment
Desert Edge Community Council
El Sol Neighborhood Educational Center
Environmental Justice Coalition for Water
Inland Congregation United for Change
Leadership Counsel for Justice & Accountability
Pueblo Unido CDC
Rural Community Assistance Corporation
APPENDIX 1-C
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING GOVERNANCE OF THE INDIO
SUB-BASIN UNDER THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT
This page intentionally left blank.
80237.00802\24604519.1 1
SUPPLEMENT TO
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
REGARDING GOVERNANCE OF THE INDIO SUB‐BASIN
UNDER THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT
This SUPPLEMENT dated April 3, 2018 is entered into among the City of Coachella, a municipal corporation acting through, and on behalf of, the Coachella Water Authority (CWA), the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), the Desert Water Agency (DWA), and the City of Indio, a municipal corporation acting through, and on behalf of, the Indio Water Authority (IWA) for the purpose of developing a common understanding among the Partners regarding the governance structures applicable to implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (Water Code, Part 2.74, Section 10720 et seq.) (SGMA) in the Indio Sub‐Basin of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin. The Partners to this MOU shall be collectively referred to herein as “Partners” and individually as “Partner”.
WHEREAS, each Partner is a party to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding governance of the Indio Sub‐basin under SGMA; and
WHEREAS, the Partners wish to supplement the MOU for the purpose of retaining consultants to assist in the preparation of Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) annual reports by water year for the Indio Sub‐basin for submission to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) by April 1 of each year to satisfy SGMA requirements;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually understood and agreed as follows:
SECTION 1:
RETENTION OF CONSULTANTS AND AGREEMENTS
1.1 The Partners acknowledge and agree that DWR has required that all GSAs who have submitted an Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Alternative GSP) prepare and submit an Annual Report for Water Year 2017 (October 1, 2016 – September 30, 2017) to DWR by April 1, 2018 in accordance with SGMA. The Partners agree to the following:
1.1.1 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec, formerly MWH America’s Inc.), the consultant who completed work needed to submit the Indio Sub‐basin Alternative GSP, has provided the scope of work and fee schedule included in Exhibit 1 for the preparation of the GSAs Annual Report for the Indio Sub‐basin for Water Year 2017.
1.1.2 The Partners have agreed to have CVWD retain Stantec to prepare the GSAs Annual Report for the Indio Sub‐basin for Water Year 2017 for an amount not to exceed $63,260, without prior authorization of the Partners.
80237.00802\24604519.1 2
1.1.3 CVWD shall invoice each Partner for reimbursement of one‐fourth (1/4) of the cost of the preparation of the Annual Report for the Indio Sub‐basin for Water Year 2017 which is an amount equal to $15,815.
SECTION 2:
INVOICING AND PAYMENT
2.1. CVWD shall administer Agreements and pay consultants per the terms of the Agreements as approved by the Partners, and then invoice each Partner for reimbursement of one‐fourth (1/4) of the payment that has been made to the consultants.
2. 2 Each Partner shall pay the invoice within 30 days of receipt of the invoice.
SECTION 3:
MISCELLANEOUS
3.1 Abbreviations, capitalized words, and phrases used in this supplement shall have the same meaning as in the MOU.
3.2 All terms of the MOU remain unchanged, except, as supplemented herein.
3.3 This Supplement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed original, but all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Partners have executed this Supplement as of the day and year indicated on the first page of this MOU.
;;;; tt : ~-71, 8
Coachella Valley Water District
Mark Krause
Desert Water Agency
80237.00802\24604519.1 3
William B. Pattison, Jr.
Coachella Water Authority
Brian Macy
Indio Water Authority
80237.00802\24604519.1 3
William B. Pattison, Jr. J.M. Barrett
Coachella Valley Water District Coachella Water Authority Mark Krause Brian Macy
Desert Water Agency Indio Water Authority
J.M. Barrett
Coachella Valley Water District Coachella Water Authority Mark Krause Brian Macy
Desert Water Agency Indio Water Authority
80237.00802\24604519.1 3
J.M. Barrett
Coachella Valley Water District
Mark Krause
Desert Water Agency
80237 .00802\24604519.1 3
William B. Pattison, Jr.
Coachella Water Authority
Brian Macy
Indio Water Authority
80237.00802\24604519.1 1
SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
REGARDING GOVERNANCE OF THE INDIO SUB-BASIN
UNDER THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT
This SECOND SUPPLEMENT dated October 29, 2018 is entered into among the City of Coachella, a municipal corporation acting through, and on behalf of, the Coachella Water Authority (CWA), the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), the Desert Water Agency (DWA), and the City of Indio, a municipal corporation acting through, and on behalf of, the Indio Water Authority (IWA) for the purpose of developing a common understanding among the Partners regarding the governance structures applicable to implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (Water Code, Part 2.74, Section 10720 et seq.) (SGMA) in the Indio Sub-Basin of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin. The Partners to this MOU shall be collectively referred to herein as “Partners” and individually as “Partner”.
WHEREAS, each Partner is a party to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated October 5, 2016 regarding governance of the Indio Sub-basin under SGMA; and WHEREAS, each Partner is a party to a Supplement to MOU dated April 3, 2018 for the purpose of retaining a consultant to assist in preparing the Groundwater Sustainability Agency’s (GSA’s) Indio Sub- basin Annual Report for Water Year 2016-2017 in accordance with SGMA; and WHEREAS, the Partners wish to supplement the MOU a second time for the purpose of retaining consultants to assist in the preparation of the GSA’s Indio Sub-basin Annual Reports by Water Year for submission to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) by April 1 of each year to satisfy SGMA requirements; and
WHEREAS, the Partners wish to supplement the MOU a second time for the purpose of retaining consultants to assist in updates and revisions identified and required by the DWR of the Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Alternative GSP) for the Indio Sub-basin to satisfy SGMA requirements; NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually understood and agreed as follows:
SECTION 1:
RETENTION OF CONSULTANTS AND EXECUTION OF AGREEMENTS
1.1 The Partners acknowledge and agree that DWR has required that the GSAs prepare and submit an annual report by April 1 of each year for the previous Water Year (October 1 through September 30) to DWR in accordance with SGMA. The Partners therefore agree to the following:
1.1.1 The Partners agree to have CVWD develop a scope of work by the end of each Water Year for the preparation of the GSA’s Indio Sub-basin Annual Report for the previous Water Year.
80237.00802\24604519.1 2
1.1.1.1 Each Partner shall have the opportunity to review the scope of work and provide comments for inclusion prior to release in a Request for Proposals (RFP) or Bid Package.
1.1.2 The Partners agree to have CVWD release an RFP or Bid Package in accordance with all Procurement Policies of the CVWD to solicit proposals from qualified consultants for the preparation of the GSA’s Indio Sub-basin Annual Report for the previous Water Year.
For the purposes of this Second Supplement to the MOU, qualified consultants consist of firms competitively selected and contracted by CVWD for on-call hydrogeological services.
1.1.2.1 Each Partner shall have the opportunity to review and score the proposals received from each respondent to the RFP or Bid Package for the selection of the consultant.
1.1.3 The Partners agree to have CVWD enter into Agreements with selected consultants in accordance with all Procurement Policies of the CVWD to prepare the GSA’s Indio Sub- basin Annual Report for each Water Year.
1.1.3.1 Each Partner shall have the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Annual Report and the Draft Final Annual Report.
1.1.3.2 Each Partner shall be provided one electronic and one hard copy of the Final Annual Report.
1.1.3.3 Each Partner shall be provided electronic copies of all data and files used to create report graphics and tables.
1.2 The Partners acknowledge and agree that DWR may periodically notify the GSAs to perform updates, revisions, or modifications to the Alternative GSP in accordance with SGMA. The Partners therefore agree to the following:
1.2.1 The Partners agree to have the CVWD develop a scope of work to perform required updates, revisions, or modifications to the Alternative GSP.
1.2.1.1 Each Partner shall have the opportunity to review the scope of work and provide comments for inclusion prior to release in a Request for Proposals (RFP) or Bid Package.
1.2.2 The Partners agree to have CVWD release an RFP or Bid Package in accordance with all Procurement Policies of the CVWD to solicit proposals from qualified consultants to perform updates, revisions, or modifications to the Alternative GSP. For the purposes of
80237.00802\24604519.1 3
this Second Supplement to the MOU, qualified consultants consist of firms competitively selected and contracted by CVWD for on-call hydrogeological services.
1.2.2.1 Each Partner shall have the opportunity to review and score the proposals received from each respondent to the RFP or Bid Package for the selection of the consultant.
1.2.3 The Partners agree to have CVWD enter into Agreements with selected consultants in accordance with all Procurement Policies of the CVWD to perform updates and revisions to the Alternative GSP.
1.2.3.1 Each Partner shall have the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Alternative GSP and Draft Final Alternative GSP.
1.2.3.2 Each Partner shall be provided one electronic and one hard copy of the Final Alternative GSP.
1.2.3.3 Each Partner shall be provided electronic copies of all data and files used to create report graphics and tables.
SECTION 2:
INVOICING AND PAYMENT
2.1 CVWD shall administer the Agreements with the consultants and pay the consultants per the terms of the Agreement.
2.2 CVWD shall invoice each Partner for reimbursement of one-fourth (1/4) of the payment that has been made to the consultants.
2.3 Each Partner shall pay invoices within 30 days of receipt of the invoice.
SECTION 3:
MISCELLANEOUS
3.1 Abbreviations, capitalized words, and phrases used in this Second Supplement shall have the same meaning as in the MOU.
3.2 All terms of the MOU remain unchanged, except, as supplemented herein.
3.3 This Second Supplement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed original, but all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Partners have executed this Second Supplement to the MOU as of the day and year indicated on the first page of this Second Supplement to the MOU.
Coachella Valley Water District
Mark Krause
Desert Water Agency
8023 7 .00802\24604519 .1 4
William B. Pattison, Jr.
Coachella Water Authority
Mark Scott
Indio Water Authority
80237.00802\24604519.1 4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Partners have executed this Second Supplement to the MOU as of the day and year indicated on the first page of this Second Supplement to the MOU.
J. M. Barrett William B. Pattison, Jr.
Coachella Valley Water District Coachella Water Authority Mark Krause Brian Macy
Desert Water Agency Indio Water Authority
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Partners have executed this Second Supplement to the MOU as of the day and year indicated on the first page of this Second Supplement to the MOU.
J.M. Barrett
Coachella Valley Water District Coachella Water Authority Mark Krause
Desert Water Agency
Brian Macy
Indio Water Authority I
80237.00802\24604519.l 4
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX 1-D
SGMA TRIBAL WORKGROUP AND PUBLIC WORKSHOP MEETING AGENDAS AND
SUMMARIES
This page intentionally left blank.
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Tribal Workgroups
Public Workshops
Example Email Notification
This page intentionally left blank.
1 Vanessa De Anda
From:IndioSubbasinSGMA
Sent:Monday, August 23, 2021 5:17 PM
To:IndioSubbasinSGMA
Subject:REMINDER: You're Invited! Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update Tribal Workgroup:
August 26
Attachments:Indio Go To Meeting Instructions_26Aug21.pdf; Indio_Tribal Workgroup 6_Agenda.pdf
Coachella Valley Tribal Workgroup –
Reminder, our next Tribal Workgroup for the 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update is this Thursday, August 26. This meeting is only open to Tribal Workgroup members and will be held virtually due to COVID-19 concerns. The agenda is attached. Our meeting materials, including the PowerPoint presentation, will be available on our website ( www.IndioSubbasinSGMA.org) .
Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update – Tribal Workgroup Thursday August 26, 2021, 10:00 am – 12:00 pm
GoToMeeting
Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/991180029
You can also dial in using your phone: (571) 317-3122, Access Code: 991-180-029 Please let us know if you did not receive the calendar appointment by responding to this email Discussion topics will include:
· Alternative Plan Status
· Groundwater Model
· Plan Scenarios & Projects and Management Actions
· Simulation Results
It is important that we hear your voice, as this Alternative Plan Update will be used to reliably meet current and future water demands in a cost-effective and sustainable manner in the Indio Subbasin. Your participation is greatly appreciated.
Please note, the public workshop scheduled to follow the Tribal Workgroup meeting will begin at 2:00 PM.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us by phone at 213-223-9463 or email [email protected].
Thank You,
Indio Subbasin GSAs
2 Learn more at www.IndioSubbasinSGMA.org
From: IndioSubbasinSGMA
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 4:39 PM
To: IndioSubbasinSGMA
Subject: You're Invited! Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update Tribal Workgroup: August 26
Coachella Valley Tribal Workgroup –
New meeting date! Our next Tribal Workgroup for the 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update will be held on Thursday, August 26. A calendar appointment will be sent shortly.
This meeting is only open to Tribal Workgroup members and will be held virtually due to COVID-19 concerns.
Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update – Tribal Workgroup Thursday August 26, 2021, 10:00 am – 12:00 pm
GoToMeeting
Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/991180029 .
You can also dial in using your phone: (517) 317-3122, Access Code: 991-180-029 Please let us know if you did not receive the calendar appointment by responding to this email.
Discussion topics will include:
· Alternative Plan Status
· Plan Scenarios & Water Balance
· Projects & Management Actions
· Schedule & Next Steps
It is important that we hear your voice, as this Alternative Plan Update will be used to reliably meet current and future water demands in a cost-effective and sustainable manner in the Indio Subbasin. Your participation is greatly appreciated.
Please note, the public workshop scheduled to follow the Tribal Workgroup meeting will begin at 2:00 PM.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us by phone at 858-875-7405 or email [email protected].
Thank You,
Indio Subbasin GSAs
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Tribal Workgroups
Agendas and Meeting Minutes
This page intentionally left blank.
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Tribal Workgroup
AGENDA February 20, 2020 at 10:00 am – 12:00 pm Spotlight 29 Casino, Medjool Room 46-200 Harrison Place, Coachella, CA 92236 # ITEM TIME* 1 Welcome and Introductions
• Introductions
• Agenda
• Meeting Objectives
10:00 am
2 Overview of Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) • What is SGMA?
• How does SGMA apply to the Indio Subbasin?
• What are the roles/responsibilities of GSAs?
• What is the SGMA Timeline for the Indio Subbasin
10:20 am
3 Water Management Planning in the Indio Subbasin
• When did water management planning begin and how has it evolved? • What is the current status of groundwater planning?
10:40 am
4 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
• What is the Alternative Plan?
• Is the Alternative Plan working?
• What is the strategy and process to update the Alternative Plan? 11:00 am
5 Public Comment
• Your participation and input are important 11:30 am
6 Next Steps and Closing Remarks 11:40 am
*times are subject to change
This page intentionally left blank.
1 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Tribal Workgroup #1
SUMMARY February 20, 2020 at 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm Spotlight 29 Casino, Medjool Room 46-200 Harrison Place, Coachella, CA 92236 Welcome and Introductions Mr. Levi Anderson, Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians, welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made around the room. Mr. Edwin Lin, Todd Groundwater Inc., presented the meeting objectives and agenda, and introduced the project team working on the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update. The Indio Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) are Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), Coachella Water Authority (CWA), Desert Water Agency (DWA), and Indio Water Authority (IWA). The Consultant team includes Todd Groundwater Inc. and Woodard & Curran Inc.
Overview of Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Mr. Lin presented an overview of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA provides a framework for sustainable management of groundwater basins, promotes local management, and sets regulatory deadlines for submitting plans and reporting progress towards sustainable management. SGMA also offers State assistance in the form of funding, data, and technical support. Local GSAs are required to prepare a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) or submit an Alternative Plan. “Sustainable” management is defined as the management and use of groundwater in a manner that can be maintained without causing undesirable results. Mr. Lin explained that the Indio Subbasin is designated as a medium-priority basin and is subject to SGMA legislation. The State has recognized the existing water management plan, the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (CVWMP), as a functionally equivalent Alternative Plan. The State recommended that the Indio Subbasin GSAs quantify sustainability criteria and incorporate additional elements into the 2022 Alternative Plan Update. SGMA also requires that the Indio Subbasin be sustainably managed within 20 years. Each Indio Subbasin GSA is responsible and has the authority for water management within its respective boundaries. The Indio GSAs have a history of cooperation, which is ongoing. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been executed and establishes an intent to foster cooperation, coordination, and communication regarding management of the Indio Subbasin. The GSAs have also agreed on collaboration and joint submission of the Alternative Plan, Annual Reports, and 5-Year Plan Updates. Mr. Lin presented the current SGMA timeline for the Indio Subbasin. The Indio GSAs formed in June 2017 and the Alternative Plan, submitted in December 2016, was approved by DWR in July 2019. The
2 2022 Alternative Plan Update must be submitted by January 1, 2022. From then, the GSAs are required to prepare four 5-Year Plan Updates, with the expectation that the Indio Subbasin will achieve groundwater sustainability by 2042. Discussion by the tribal members on the overview of SGMA included:
• Tribes have land use authority and we hope to participate in the planning process. • SGMA requires 5-year updates, so water management issues will be revisited regularly. Plus, Annual Reports will be submitted annually to DWR to track progress. • The Indio Subbasin website ( www.IndioSubbasinSGMA.org) includes a link to DWR’s SGMA portal, which has the 2010 CVWMP, Indio Subbasin Bridge Document, and submitted Annual Reports.
Water Management Planning in the Indio Subbasin Mr. Lin presented the history of water management in the Indio Subbasin. Multiple sources of water have been developed to ensure a reliable supply for the region. Stormflows from the Whitewater River were captured and used for groundwater recharge beginning in 1918. The Coachella Canal, which imports Colorado River water, was completed in 1949. CVWD and DWA contracts for State Water Project (SWP) water began in 1963. SWP water is exchanged for Colorado River water via the Colorado River Aqueduct as there are no physical SWP facilities to deliver the SWP allocations. Since 1973, this SWP exchange water has been used to recharge the Indio Subbasin at the Whitewater River Groundwater Replenishment Facility. Finally, water recycling within the Indio Subbasin began in 1965. Mr. Lin then presented the history of the CVWMP and other water management plans. The 2010 CVWMP serves as the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan. The Plan assessed future growth and land use changes, estimated future water demands and supplies, and established data collection and monitoring programs to track groundwater conditions and Plan performance. The 2010 CVWMP also identified management actions needed to meet current and future water demands in a cost effective and reliable manner. Mr. Lin then explained that the Alternative Plan shared the same goals and met the requirements of a GSP. Agencies in the Indio Subbasin use a combination of management actions to meet local water demands, including local stormwater water and imported water for direct replenishment of groundwater, non-potable water and recycled water for source substitution, and agricultural, golf, and urban conservation. The Alternative Plan has resulted in a significant increase in groundwater storage across the Indio Subbasin and groundwater levels have increased regionally. More work is needed to ensure continued success of the Alternative Plan. Discussion by the tribal members on water management planning in the Indio Subbasin included:
• Will the Alternative Plan Update build from the 2010 CVWMP? o Yes, plus it will incorporate SGMA requirements and DWR recommendations. • The 2010 CVWMP is larger than SGMA – will there be a separate process to update that? o No, the 2010 CVWMP focused on water management planning, groundwater and economic growth, and this Plan Update will encompass all. The Plan update will have all elements of the CVWMP and SGMA, including supply and demand assumptions, projects and management actions, and environmental factors (beyond interconnected surface waters).
3 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update Mr. Lin described the purpose of the Alternative Plan and outlined the tasks involved in preparing the plan. Tasks include assessing the existing plan, estimating future water demands and supplies, establishing quantifiable sustainability goals, and implementing a stakeholder and public outreach plan. The Alternative Plan Update will include an update of the Coachella Valley groundwater flow model to support the development of current and future water budgets. The process will have four biennial Tribal Workgroup meetings, in which the project team will report on progress, share results and findings, and solicit input and feedback. The 2022 Alternative Plan Update Report Draft is expected to be ready for public review and comment in early Fall 2021. The Final Report will be prepared in Winter 2021. Mr. Lin encouraged meeting participants to visit the Indio Subbasin website ( www.IndioSubbasinSGMA.org) for more information on the planning process and to learn how to get involved. He emphasized that tribal participation and input are important components to this planning process. The goals of the tribal outreach task are to keep the tribal members informed about and engaged in the planning process, so the project team can incorporate their concerns and feedback. Discussion by the tribal members on the Alternative Plan Update included:
• Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is concerned that the workshop announcements aren’t clear – wasn’t clear to him that CVWMP and Alternative Plan are the same and will be updated in this planning process. The CVWMP needs to be thoroughly vetted. o The intent of the workshop announcements was to articulate that the CVWMP and Alternative Plan are the same and are being updated. The project team will review the announcements moving forward to make sure this is clear. • The Coachella Valley Salt & Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) also needs to be accepted and adopted. GSA representatives shared next steps in this process. • Does the Alternative Plan include agricultural use of groundwater? o Yes, the Plan includes Coachella Canal and groundwater pumping data gathered by DWA (>10 AF) and CVWD (>25 AF) Replenishment Assessment Charges (RACs). However, it does not include tribal groundwater pumping unless the tribes provide this data. • Will the 2022 Alternative Plan Update have groundwater level data from 2010-2020? o Yes, this is part of DWR requirements.
• How is water delivered to the Thomas E. Levy recharge area and Palm Desert recharge area? o The Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility is replenished with Canal water sent to Lake Cahuilla and then to the recharge area. The Palm Desert Groundwater Replenishment Facility is replenished with Canal water from the Mid Valley Pipeline. • Why is the natural recharge value different from the surface water direct use value? o The natural recharge value is metered by USGS in stream, while the surface water direct use is metered by DWA for potable use. • Water balance could be accomplished by converting more agriculture use to Canal water • SGMA requirement for 5-year update means that the Alternative Plan will be a living document with regular updates. The region can change direction if needed and make the ‘right’ investments.
4 • Any conclusions so far regarding how climate change will affect groundwater basin? o None yet; likely effects will be availability/reliability of imported supply. • What is the groundwater modeling software being used? o MODFLOW, standard USGS code
Next Steps Mr. Lin announced to workshop participants that the next Tribal Workgroup meeting will be held on August 27, 2020 from 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM at a location to be determined. He reminded participants to make sure they’re on the tribal workgroup email list to receive updates. For additional information, please contact Rosalyn Prickett at: [email protected] or (858) 875-7420. Discussion by the tribal members on the Next Steps included:
• How will the public workshops and Tribal Workgroup meetings differ? o We will be giving the same presentation today, may be different in the future based on timing of meetings. Tribal Workgroup members are on the outreach list and will also be invited to the Public Workshops. • California Rural Water Association (CRWA) contacted 29 Palms Band of Mission Indians to offer facilitation services for SGMA, if needed. This would be funded by the State. But we believe the Workgroup process is going well so far. • What will the public review process be for the Alternative Plan? o Public Review will be 45 days, one time. But we will discuss elements of the Alternative Plan Update here (at the Tribal Workgroup) prior to Plan release; there will be no surprises. • The project team is asking for tribal land use and demand data, for use in the planning process. The project team has also sent letters to the cities and County because land and water planning is interconnected. • Suggestion to add to website a place to update progress monthly (graphic or news box? Send information to tribes in advance?). • The State Water Project (SWP)/Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) exchange is unique. Suggestion to publish an annual accountability of that water banking, so we know how much MWD water has been stored in the Indio Subbasin. The region could have deficit if that water is called in. o CVWD already does this in their SGMA Annual Reports. MWD is advanced delivery, not banking. Allocation belongs to CVWD or DWA and is simply delivered early. No water is later removed by MWD. • BIA’s hydrogeologist is responsible for 107 Federal tribes in State, and this basin has 5-7 tribes. BIA is concerned that the water data for this basin is in difficult places to track down (e.g., CVWMP, Bridge Document, Engineer’s Reports, etc.). • Suggestion that a cross-walk is developed for the Alternative Plan vs GSP. • Suggestion that hyperlinks be included with sources (+ page numbers) that will take reader directly to background document. Context of the presented numbers is important (e.g. natural recharge number versus direct use number).
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Tribal Workgroup #2
AGENDA
August 27, 2020 at 10:00 am – 12:00 pm
GoToMeeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/919772373 or Dial In by Phone: +1 (872) 240-3212; Access Code: 919-772-373 # # ITEM TIME
1 Welcome and Introductions
• Meeting Objectives
• Workgroup Timelines
10:00 am
2 Alternative Plan Status
• Review Tasks
• Tribal Outreach
• Summary of Requested Data
10:15 am
3 Demand Forecast
• Confirm SCAG Growth Projections on Tribal Lands
10:40 am
4 Questions and SGMA Next Steps
• Get Involved
11:00 am
5 Other Planning Efforts
• SNMP Update
• UWMP Update
11:15 am
*times are subject to change
This page intentionally left blank.
1 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Tribal Workgroup #2
SUMMARY
August 27, 2020 at 10:00 am – 12:00 pm
Virtual Meeting
Tribal Workgroup and Supporting Members
• Chuck Jachens, Bureau of Indian Affairs
• Brian Moniez, Department of Water Resources
(DWR)
• David Limón Saldivar, Augustine Band of
Cahuilla Indians
• Gabi Lewis, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians (TMDCI)
• Jennifer Wong, DWR
• John Covington, Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
• Jose Mora, Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission
Indians
• Joseph Mirelez, TMDCI
• Levi Anderson, Twenty-Nine Palms Band of
Mission Indians
• Pakiza Chatha, DWR
• Thomas Tortez Jr., TMDCI
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs)
• Adekunle Ojo, Indio Water Authority (IWA)
• Ashley Metzger, Desert Water Agency (DWA)
• Mark Krause, DWA
• Melanie Garcia, Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD)
• Mike Nusser, CVWD
• Reymundo Trejo, IWA
• Ryan Molhoek, DWA
• Steve Bigley, CVWD
• Trish Rhay, IWA
• Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, CVWD
Consultant Team
• Edwin Lin, Todd Groundwater
• Iris Priestaf, Todd Groundwater
• Nicole Poletto, Woodard & Curran
• Rosalyn Prickett, Woodard & Curran
Welcome and Introductions
Ms. Rosalyn Prickett, Woodard & Curran, welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made as participants joined the call. Ms. Prickett briefed everyone on how to use the virtual GoToMeeting platform and then presented the meeting objectives and agenda. She reintroduced the project team working on the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update, including the Indio Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) and Consultant team. Ms. Prickett provided an overview of the Workgroup timeline over the two-year planning period. This included the quarterly meeting schedule for both Public Workshops and Tribal Workgroup meetings.
One question by the tribal members on the schedule included:
Is there a progress calendar that identifies the proposed completion dates? o We have a general schedule on when we intend to proceed with different components of the Alternative Plan Update. We can circulate this to the SGMA Tribal Workgroup.
2 Alternative Plan Status
Ms. Prickett presented an overview of the Alternative Plan Update tasks. The first two tasks, assess the existing plan and process available datasets, have been completed. Data analysis for 2010 to 2019 is underway. Task 3, which documents groundwater conditions and basin characterization, is also underway. The demand forecast that is currently under development will be discussed later in this meeting (Tasks 4 and 5). Projections for municipal, golf, and agriculture future demands are underway and projected future supplies and potential supply projects and management actions are being defined. This includes the amount of recycled water delivered to irrigation customers in the Valley and future recycled water plans.
Groundwater model inputs from 2010 to 2019 are being updated and calibrated under Task 6. The next steps are to incorporate the projected demand forecast and supply mix into the groundwater model. Tasks 7 and 8 haven’t been started yet. Establishing the sustainability goal and criteria are all coordinated with the Plan implementation tasks.
The final task is stakeholder engagement and tribal outreach that will run throughout the Alternative Plan Update process. Tribal outreach is consistent with DWR’s 2017 SGMA Guidance for Engagement with Tribal Governments and communications are sent out via the tribal email list. There are 5 semi- annual Tribal Workgroup presentations and a data request was circulated in early May 2020 with a follow-up letter sent mid-May. The GSA is looking to collect any data related to land use, population and housing projections, water demands, or water conservation data or programs on tribal lands.
Discussion by the tribal members on Plan status included:
Is there a Technical Advisory Committee or Stakeholder Advisory Committee that has been formed by the Indio GSA?
o There is no advisory or stakeholder committee other than our Public Workshops announced to all stakeholders in the Indio Subbasin. The GSA members do have coordination meetings to manage the consultant team, but there is no advisory or stakeholder committee. All of the Alternative Plan Update analysis and deliverables are presented at the scheduled Public Workshops.
How can beneficial users and public users engage with the Alternative Plan and the Bridge Document, other than outreach conference calls?
o The intent of the Public Workshops is to engage anyone that may be interested in participating in the planning process. Anyone who may want to provide technical input or input on the materials being developed may participate in these workshops. Rather than selecting a few individuals to an advisory committee, we opted to cast a wide net and invite everyone to participate.
Has the Communication Plan been developed? What does it look like? o The Communication Plan has been developed and is available on the website on the “Get Involved” page. The document outlines how we intend to engage stakeholders during the planning process. It includes topics such as establishing a preliminary list of stakeholders, outlining Public Workshops, and discussing SGMA Tribal Workgroup meetings. Several comments submitted with the Bridge Document in 2017 talked about the presence of five federally recognized tribes within the Subbasin. Is it the intent of the GSA to prepare a tribal consultation policy drafted by the GSA to engage the tribes? o When the GSAs began working on SGMA compliance, each GSA met individually with the tribes in their service areas. At these consultations, we discussed the best way to engage
3 the tribes and whether we should focus on formal government-to-government consultation or to work with staff during the planning process. The tribes concluded at that time that staff-to-staff coordination was appropriate, and we established the SGMA Tribal Workgroup. This may need to change in the future, but that was the approach we agreed upon at that time. We are also following the SGMA Guidance for Engagement with Tribal Governments.
Demand Forecast
Ms. Prickett discussed the municipal demand forecast process which takes Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2020 growth projections for households, population, and employment and allocates growth to land use categories. 5-year (2015-2019) averages from customer billing data were then used to develop unit demand factors for residential and non- residential land uses, which are also adjusted by conservation factors.
Maps of the Subbasin have been prepared to demonstrate anticipated population growth per SCAG projections, along with anticipated land uses. The SCAG projections may need to be refined based on planned tribal development. The GSAs are requesting information on any future plans or projects that are forecasted on tribal lands through 2045. There was general acceptance to use the presented population projections as the basis of our demand forecast.
Discussion by the tribal members on the demand forecast included:
What type of tribal data was used?
o The SCAG projections are based on tribal data shared with local municipalities and reflected in their General Plans.
o The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians confirmed that their tribal land use projections are included in local municipal General Plans. o The Morongo Band of Mission Indians confirmed that their tribal lands are included in the San Gorgonio GSP. They offered to share information if deemed helpful to the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update.
Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians has larger conceptual projects such as casinos and hotels that may be implemented in the future. Where can we submit that information? o If you have any data or information on large-scale projects, please contact [email protected] or [email protected]. We would like to include this information in the demand forecast. o The Consultant team will follow up directly with the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians tribal chair to gather this information.
Next Steps
Ms. Prickett announced to workshop participants that the next SGMA Tribal Workgroup meeting will be held on November 19, 2020 from 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM and will be held virtually via GoToMeeting.
There will be a Public Workshop following the Tribal Workgroup meeting from 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM on the same day.
She reminded participants to make sure to visit our website for more information. For additional information, please contact Rosalyn Prickett at: [email protected] or (858) 875-7420.
4 Other Planning Efforts
Ms. Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, CVWD provided updates on the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP), a separate but concurrent update process with the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update.
The Regional Board sent a letter on February 19, 2020 and an SNMP Workplan and Monitoring Plan will be completed by December 31, 2020 to address their concerns.
Ms. Ashley Metzger, DWA announced the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) update is underway. UWMPs must be submitted every five years. The 2020 plans are due July 1, 2021. For this update, all of the water purveyors in the Valley are collaborating to ensure consistency among local agencies, especially when related to water shortage contingency planning. The team is waiting for DWR to release the 2020 Guidebook that incorporates new legislative changes to complete the update.
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
SGMA Tribal Workgroup #3
AGENDA
November 19, 2020 at 10:00 am – 12:00 pm
GoToMeeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/431521669 or Dial In by Phone: +1 (224) 501-3412; Access Code: 431-521-669# # ITEM TIME
1 Welcome and Introductions
• GoToMeeting Instructions
• Agenda and Meeting Objectives
• Introductions
10:00 am
2 Alternative Plan Status
• Process and Plan Update Outline
10:20 am
3 Plan Area
• Topics to Provide Geographic Context
10:25 am
4 Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model (HCM)
• Topics to Describe Hydrogeologic Setting
10:35 am
5 Groundwater Model Update
• Status of Model Update
10:50 am
6 Demand Forecast
• Municipal, Agricultural, Golf and Other Demands
11:05 am
7 Supply Analysis
• Available Future Supplies
11:20 am
8 Next Steps
• Emerging Issues
11:35am
9 Other Planning Efforts
• SNMP Update
• UWMP Update
11:45 am
*times are subject to change
This page intentionally left blank.
1 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
SGMA Tribal Workgroup
SUMMARY November 19, 2020 at 10:00 am – 12:00 pm GoToMeeting for Presentation Tribal Workgroup and Supporting Members • Chuck Jachens, Bureau of Indian Affairs • John Covington, Morongo Band of Mission Indians • Justin Conley, Agua Caliente Band • Levi Anderson, Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) • Ashley Metzger, DWA • Castulo Estrada, CWA • Katie Evans, CVWD • Mark Krause, DWA • Melanie Garcia, CVWD • Reymundo Trejo, IWA • Ryan Molhoek, DWA • Steve Bigley, CVWD • Trish Rhay, IWA • Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, CVWD Consultant Team • Iris Priestaf, Todd Groundwater • John Ayres, Woodard & Curran • Maureen Reilly, Todd Groundwater • Nicole Poletto, Woodard & Curran • Rosalyn Prickett, Woodard & Curran Welcome and Introductions Ms. Rosalyn Prickett, Woodard & Curran, welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made as participants joined the call. Ms. Prickett briefed everyone on how to use the virtual GoToMeeting platform and then presented the meeting objectives and agenda. She reintroduced the project team working on the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update, including the Indio Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) and Consultant team. Ms. Iris Priestaf, Todd Groundwater reviewed the meeting objectives and an overview of the Workgroup timeline over the two-year planning period. This included the quarterly meeting schedule for both Public Workshops and Tribal Workgroup meetings.
Alternative Plan Status Ms. Priestaf presented an overview of the Alternative Plan Update tasks. Outreach is a key task throughout the Alternative Plan Update process. There are 12 chapters in the Plan and Ms. Priestaf
2 walked attendees through the outline of the document, beginning with information included in the Plan Area chapter. The Plan Area chapter will include maps that note the location of cities and counties, tribal lands, federal and state lands, and disadvantaged communities, etc. The purpose of these maps is to depict the location of agencies that have water management and/or land use planning roles and to understand the region. One map depicts water management facilities including water sources and infrastructure in the region as well as accompanying descriptions. A water resource monitoring networks and programs map introduces climate, streamflow, subsidence, groundwater elevations, surface water and groundwater quality, groundwater pumping, and drain flows. If anyone has any updated information or input for the maps, please let the team know. Discussion: Are there any other items to describe or introduce in the Plan Area chapter? • Will the plan include maps indicating areas affected by the primary water quality constituents? o That information will be located in the Groundwater Conditions chapter. The Plan Area chapter will depict the basic monitoring network.
Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model (HCM) Ms. Priestaf introduced the HCM which establishes the physical framework for the Plan Area. The HCM cross sections allow for a depth view of the basin and depict geology, wells, faults, and groundwater levels to improve understanding of what is below the surface. Ms. Priestaf walked the attendees through a cross-section graphic to explain the constituents that make up the basin. The lighter colored sand and gravel is permeable, and as the constituents get darker, they become less permeable. For example, clay is less permeable compared to sand. Slide 19 indicates how fault zones impact water levels in the basin, decreasing depth to surface and then causing a sudden drop in flow due to faults. Ms. Priestaf also explained groundwater inflow and outflow in the Indio Subbasin. Slide 21 depicts a panoramic view of the topography of the Basin. There are markers along the cross section to let you know where you are located on land. In the upper valley, the basin is permeable, and as you move towards the Salton Sea, there is more clay soil. Groundwater levels near the Salton Sea are much closer to the surface compared to the upper valley. With this information, the groundwater model will simulate the Subbasin.
Groundwater Model Update Ms. Maureen Reilly, Todd Groundwater provided an update on the groundwater model. The HCM shows that the basin has not changed considerably from the previous plan. This model builds upon the consistency of previous estimates, adds new pumping data for all wells, updates subsurface inflow and Salton Sea elevations, and develops recharge estimates for 2010-2019. These updates improve the data and methods used in the 2010 model. First, the team characterized the inflow in the basin from various sources. Inflow included:
• Mountain and Stream - USGS gages help depict mountain front recharge and stream percolation throughout the basin. Mountain flow routes water through the watershed. Mountain flow is typically in the southern end of the basin and subsurface flow exists in the eastern end of the basin. • Golf - The team inventoried golf courses in the basin and identified their water supply sources. Comparing the supply with the expected demand gives return flow. The supply and
3 return flow were similar to the previous analysis in 2010, but improved the spatial variability of irrigation efficiency. • Agricultural - The agricultural return flow was calculated using the Trimester Crop Census. The Census shows what crops are being grown when and where and can help provide an understanding of the amount of water that is being used. It depicts multicropping and permanent crops to allow for detailed temporal change of water use in the Basin. • Municipal – Municipal return flow was calculated looking at outdoor water use. The model was able to vary the local outdoor use spatially. The major outflow in the basin is groundwater pumping, The depth of pumping impacts water conditions. As water use changes, the well depth data can give a better picture of how the basin conditions may change. In order to confirm if the groundwater model simulates reality, observation wells were used to compare simulated and observed values. The team coordinated with neighboring basins in order to ensure consistency. This tool will allow for scenario planning in the future. • In the Alternative Plan, 2005 groundwater levels were used as a threshold for land subsidence as an example. Since the model will be redefined, what data will be incorporated [what year] to define groundwater levels, land subsidence, groundwater in storage and of course determining a threshold for sustainability indicators? o The model is only a tool and doesn’t develop sustainability indicators. It also doesn’t calculate subsidence. It calculates water levels and storage based on the inflows and outflows that are entered. The groundwater levels used as the threshold for subsidence will be discussed when the sustainability indicators are discussed at a future meeting.
Demand Forecast Ms. Prickett noted that the demand forecast results presented are preliminary. Feedback was encouraged to determine if any changes needed to be made. The demand forecast is based on 11 geographic units used to identify the underlying demographic information that included land use and water use patterns in each area. This includes an east and a west unincorporated area in order to analyze the data at a finer scale.
Municipal Demands There are five major steps to determine the municipal demands forecast: the regional growth forecast, land use inventories, unit demand factors, projected water loss, and adjustment factors. These steps are discussed in more detail below. 1) Regional Growth Forecast – The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2020 data was used to provide projections for households, employment, and population. SCAG data was used in the previous plans. These growth forecasts are based on the City and County General Plans and other planning documents for the agencies. The SCAG growth forecast projects that for the Plan Area, population will increase by approximately 53%, households will increase 66% and employees will increase 39%. These projections are more in line with the 2002 Plan. Because the Alternative Plan Update is due before the US Census data is released, the SCAG 2020 numbers were used. 2) Land Use Inventories – This is important to project housing units in alignment with demand. SCAG and US Census data helped determine the number of occupied households vs planned. About 30% of the housing units in the Plan Area are vacant or are only occupied seasonally
4 but may continue to have water use and therefore it is important to incorporate. The SCAG land use inventory map shows land use based on the City and County general plans. Over time, a slight shift to multi-family units are expected, but the split between single family and multi-family units will remain relatively equal at the end of the planning horizon. 3) Unit Demand Factors – Unit demand factors use 5-year averages from customer billing data (2015-2019). It is important to note that the demand factors show gallons per housing unit or gallons for employee per day for industrial use, which is not equivalent to gallons per capita per day (GPCD). A demand factor for all GSAs was calculated. CVWD’s single family demand factors were calculated for each of the geographic units within their service area. Water demands for small water systems throughout the eastern unincorporated area were applied to the demand factor for CVWD to accommodate other housing units that are not currently served by CVWD’s domestic system. All of DWAs designated land use meters show up in the Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional (CII) category rather than the designated Landscape category. 4) Projected Water Loss – Water loss is based on audited water loss reports for the water that is lost between delivery and the meters. Water loss is estimated at about 10%. 5) Adjustment Factors –Demands are adjusted by conservation savings estimates for indoor and outdoor water use. Passive conservation includes indoor conservation (e.g. changes in indoor plumbing) and outdoor conservation for only future development (new development efficiencies) and not existing development. Conservation for existing development will be applied separately. In summary, there is a 43% increase in projected municipal demands over time. Each GSA is depicting a projected increase in demand ranging from 28% (DWA) to 190% (CWA).
Agricultural Demands The forecast process was similar to the municipal demands forecast. Ms. Prickett explained that the team analyzed the regional growth forecast, land use inventories, and unit demand factors. The forecast considered the SCAG 2020 growth projections for households, population, and employment. The land use inventory identified idle and agricultural lands for conversion based on SCAG land use mapping to see which agricultural areas may be going out of service. 5-year averages (2015-2019) from agricultural pumping and Canal delivery data were used to develop unit demand factors. The baseline demand for the 5-year average of 2015-2019 is 205,150 AFY. These projections were applied to the crop census to estimate the total cropped acres and develop demand factors. The average unit demand factors ranged from approximately 4.3 acre-feet/acre to 7.3 acre-feet/acre. This affects the agricultural demand factors because changing agriculture in the future years impact the demand forecast in the geographic units. Within CWA and IWA especially, a total of approximately 14,300 acres are expected to be converted from agricultural or idle land to urban land. The forecast predicts an overall decrease in water demand, even with the addition of approximately another 1,000 acres of agricultural land converted from idle land.
Golf Demands The golf water demands followed a similar format to calculate the baseline demand. It also planned for conservation from future golf courses to comply with CVWD Ordinance No. 1302.4. In the last 10 years, two golf courses were opened, and two very small courses were closed, depicting a potential flat line in the golf industry. Ms. Prickett explained that the team also talked to the Southern California Golf Association to understand projected growth, and they did not project significant growth. The current demand forecast assumes three new golf courses will be constructed before 2045.
5 Other Demands The other demands include fish farms, duck clubs, surf parks, polo/turf, and environmental water. Through the review of supply assessments and the Salton Sea pilot project, three new users were identified. The baseline average was approximately 19,000 AF. The demand forecast predicts four new users will be added between 2025 and 2035, adding 2,700 AFY of water demands.
Summary When all demands are rolled together, there is a 7% increase in demand from 2020 to 2045. This is relatively low in comparison to the projected population increase and depicts the impact of changing uses in the Valley. Any input on new or planned demands was requested.
Supply Analysis Ms. Prickett noted that there is uncertainty with the supply sources discussed today. In certain scenarios, these supplies may change. The six buckets of the supply portfolio include groundwater, State Water Project exchange water, Colorado River water, recycled water, surface water, and other supplies. These supplies are discussed in more detail below. The Indio Subbasin provides groundwater storage capacity. Total groundwater storage has increased since 2009. The recovery of the groundwater storage demonstrates the success of the 2002 and 2010 Water Management Plans. The water budget is a work in progress (inflows and outflows) and will be evaluated with the model when the water budget calculations are complete. The difference between the inflow and the outflow is the net return flow that is entering the basin. The groundwater model will give a better estimate of the net return flow number. For the watershed model, the long-term average for net watershed runoff is 42,300 AFY (1931-2019). The high was in 1980 and the low was in 2002. The surface water diversions were removed from the average as well as the amount of flow that goes through the Indio gage to the Salton Sea. DWA and CVWD have contracts for State Water Project Water (SWP). SWP water is exchanged with Metropolitan Water District (MWD) for Colorado River Water and it is annually variable due to Northern California hydrology. The SWP Table A amount assumes a reliability of 58% annually that will decrease to 52% over time. If the Delta Conveyance Facility is constructed, reliability will improve assumedly back to 58% or more. CVWD has a QSA entitlement and MWD SWP transfer. Colorado River water is generally delivered by the Coachella Canal to farmers in the eastern portion of the Valley. The MWD transfer can be delivered to the Canal or Whitewater and can be recharged at Whitewater River GRF. The plan includes a ramp up of QSA entitlement minus conveyance and transfer losses (436,000 AFY at its peak). The supply forecast reflects the ramp up (5,000 AFY per year) in accordance with 2003 QSA, minus conveyance and transfer losses.
Surface water diversions occur at Snow, Falls, Chino Creeks in the San Jacinto Mountains and Whitewater River Canyon. Water is delivered directly to agriculture and municipal users in the West Valley. Forecast is continued delivery of that supply from 2,360 AFY to 6,000 AFY over time.
Recycled water is produced at three Water Reclamation Plants (WRPs) including CVWD’s WRP-7 and WRP-10 and DWA’s WRP. Existing wastewater flow at these plants is 19,400 AFY but current capacity is over 30,000 AFY. About 35% of the available supply is recycled at these plants. The forecast is based on difference of these projected flows. The amount of indoor water use is the projection for available wastewater going forward. If this additional water up to design capacity is recycled, this could be about 32,500 AFY. This is the potential supply but there might not be any infrastructure to distribute. This will be discussed further in the Projects and Management Actions chapter of the GSP.
6 Other supplies include several other transfers and supplies not covered by the other buckets. This includes the Yuba Accord, Rosedale Rio-Bravo, and the construction of Sites Reservoir. Ms. Prickett echoed that the Supply forecast results are preliminary, and feedback is encouraged. The existing supplies forecast totals to about 640,000 AF by 2045. If future additional supplies are added, supplies are over 700,000 AFY. The water supplies for the future are dependent on the implementation of projects based on the projects and management sections of the GSP. • Will there be a discussion of uncertainty? Such as annual variations, drought, data error, etc. o Yes, in the Alternative Plan Update we will discuss uncertainty. In the scenarios there is the option to change some of the supply projections. For example, in a drought scenario there would be less surface water available from runoff and therefore the supply numbers will be updated accordingly for that projection. • Uncertainty would potentially include Sites and DCP?
o The uncertainty will include potential future supplies that haven’t been discussed yet and are not controllable by the suppliers in the basin. We will take into account how that will impact the supply and demand moving forward. • Can you explain the increase in surface diversion from the Snow, Falls, Chino creek, San Jacinto Mountains, and Whitewater River Canyon from 2,630 to 6,000 AFY? o The projected increase in diversions is projected based on the available supply that DWA has projected from watershed runoffs. o Is that mountain runoff?
Yes, it is watershed runoff.
o What is that dependent on?
It is dependent on development of customers in that geography, just like a recycled water project. There is potential for supply, but it is dependent on projects for delivery. • Where would additional data greatly improve the certainty of the conclusions? o We are working through processing that kind of data while working through our supply forecast to understand long term supply certainty and are talking with State water supply contractors to improve our understanding. The goal is to make it as accurate as possible. • Will that information be included in the plan?
o Yes, the assumptions that we did for the supply forecast will be included in the Plan. There will also be a scenario on climate change that will be included in the plan.
Next Steps Ms. Priestaf reviewed next steps for the team for the next few months. This includes the documentation of groundwater dependent ecosystems, completing the update of the groundwater model, quantifying the Indio Subbasin water budget, identifying projects and management actions, developing proposed sustainability criteria, and identifying emerging issues. For the context of emerging issues, SGMA identifies six undesirable results, and serve as the indicators for what sustainable management within the basin means. The team needs to determine what the criteria are to maintain sustainable management goals. The emerging issues identified in
7 2010 need to be updated. These issues included specific water quality constituents, water conservation, seismic risk, subsidence, invasive species, climate change. What are some emerging issues that concern you now? Emerging issues identified by attendees include:
• Salt and Nutrient Management Plan - Will a discussion of the SNMP and its influence on this plan be included? The regulatory aspects of salt and nutrient management can greatly influence water supply. • Chromium-6 MCL to be developed/updated in the future is a concern Other Planning Efforts Ms. Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, CVWD provided updates on the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP), a separate but concurrent update process with the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update. The Regional Board sent a letter on February 19, 2020 and an SNMP Workplan and Monitoring Plan will be completed by December 31, 2020 to address their concerns. A workplan is being developed and the due date has been extended to April 30, 2021. The draft monitoring plan was submitted November 16 and there is a meeting in December to review. The SNMP development workplan is being collaboratively prepared by water and wastewater agencies with input from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Ms. Ashley Metzger, DWA announced the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) update is underway. UWMPs must be submitted every five years. The 2020 plans are due July 1, 2021. DWR has released the draft Guidebook. There are new requirements this round including reporting on energy use and Delta reliance. DWA is also working on water shortage contingency planning. The first stakeholder meeting on the UWMP is December 14, 2020 from 2:00-4:00. Email Ashley ([email protected]) if you are interested in receiving more info. A final draft is due to DWR July 2021. • DWR's review of the Alternative Plan included seven recommended action items to be addressed in future updates of the Alternative Plan. Additionally, the Tribes provided comments related to the review of the Alternative Plan. How can the tribes be assured that these action items and comments will be addressed or considered? Note: I am not representing any other tribe other than Morongo based on the contents of my question. o We plan to integrate our work in response to DWR’s recommendations into the Plan itself. We will specifically address DWR’s recommendations by integrating those recommendations and all comments we receive into our document. I think these issues will be coming up in future workshops, and the interaction in workshops have been key to understanding what the concerns are.
Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs) Ms. Prickett reviewed a “bonus slide” focused on the GDE Field Assessment Sites. The Natural Communities Commonly Associated with Groundwater (NCAG) geospatial dataset were included on a map with the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) vegetation sites. Of the NCAG data set parcels identified, the team is looking to understand which sites are groundwater dependent ecosystems. The data set captures everything that could be related to waterways including streams, riparian corridors, and dry washes and the team is fact checking the NCAG data sets to see where there are habitats that could be accessing groundwater for survival. 15 sites have been identified for field assessments in December. Four sites have been identified as tribal owned sites: Sites 3, 7, 13, and 14. Sites 3 and 7 may be Torrez Martinez and are identified as
8 Department of Interior parcels (assumedly BIA). 13 and 14 may be on Agua Caliente lands. Can you help our team get access to those sites for the field assessment so we can verify if they are GDEs? • Site 9 looks like it is near Twenty-Nine Palms Reservation land. Where is this? o It says it is federal government owned – you are correct, it is probably Twenty-Nine Palms. o Would need to see a closer look. Cabazon Reservation and Twenty-Nine Palms are adjacent. • Even if GDEs are not on Tribal lands, they may have significant values to the Tribes. o We look forward to that input next time when we discuss the results of the field study • Who do we follow up with if we find a site that is not publicly accessible but is on tribal land? o Some of these lands may be publicly accessible. I am seeing one that is Torres Martinez but it may be close to something that CVWD operates. We will narrow down to the site list to sites that may not be publicly accessible. • Who will go out from your team?
o A wetland biologist will conduct the field assessment. They have looked at the Multiple Species Conservation plan and completed their desktop analysis. The results of this analysis and the field survey will be presented at the next meeting. • Site 15 looks like it is open to the public.
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
SGMA Tribal Workgroup
AGENDA March 3, 2021 at 10:00 am – 12:00 pm GoToMeeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/801714669 or Dial In by Phone: +1 (872) 240-3311; Access Code: 801-714-669 # # ITEM TIME 1 Welcome and Introductions
• GoToMeeting Instructions
• Agenda and Meeting Objectives
• Introductions
10:00 am
2 Alternative Plan Status
• Process and Plan Update Outline 10:20 am
3 Groundwater Conditions
• Topics to Characterize Groundwater Conditions 10:25 pm 4 Sustainable Management Criteria
• Orientation
• Groundwater Levels, Storage, and Subsidence
10:40 pm
5 Groundwater Model Update
• Status of Model Update 11:00 pm
6 Projects and Management Actions
• Proposed List of PMAs
• Scenario Planning 11:10 pm
7 Other Planning Efforts
• SNMP Update
• UWMP Update
11:45 pm
*times are subject to change
This page intentionally left blank.
1 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Tribal Workgroup #4
SUMMARY March 3, 2021 at 10:00 am – 12:00 pm Virtual Meeting Tribal Workgroup and Supporting Members • Altrena Santillanes, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians • David Limon Saldivar, Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians • Jennifer Wong, DWR • John Covington, Morongo Band of Mission Indians • Jonathan Rose, Torres Martinez • Jose Mora, Twenty-Nine Palms • Nina Waszak, Augustine Band • Dr. Patrick Taber, Bureau of Indian Affairs • Richie Lopez, Torres Martinez • Thomas Tortez, Torres Martinez Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) • Castulo Estrada, CWA • Ivory Reyburn, CVWD • Katie Evans, CVWD • Mark Krause, DWA • Melanie Garcia, CVWD • Reymundo Trejo, IWA • Ryan Molhoek, DWA • Steve Bigley, CVWD • Trish Rhay, IWA • Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, CVWD Consultant Team • Iris Priestaf, Todd Groundwater • John Ayres, Woodard & Curran • Nicole Poletto, Woodard & Curran • Rosalyn Prickett, Woodard & Curran • Vanessa De Anda, Woodard & Curran Welcome and Introductions Ms. Rosalyn Prickett, Woodard & Curran, welcomed everyone to the meeting, and introductions were made as participants joined the call. Ms. Prickett briefed everyone on how to use the virtual GoToMeeting platform and notified attendees that the conference would be recorded. She then presented the meeting objectives and agenda and reintroduced the project team working on the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update, including the Indio Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) and Consultant team. Ms. Prickett reviewed the meeting objectives and an overview of the Workgroup timeline over the two-year planning period. This included the quarterly meeting schedule for both Public Workshops and Tribal Workgroup meetings.
Alternative Plan Status Ms. Iris Priestaf, Todd Groundwater, presented an overview of the Alternative Plan Update tasks. Outreach is a key task throughout the Alternative Plan Update process. There are 12 chapters in the Plan and Ms. Priestaf walked attendees through the outline of the document, beginning with the information included in the Plan Area chapter.
2 Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater Levels Ms. Priestaf presented a map of the groundwater level contours in the Indio Subbasin (Subbasin). The Subbasin has a robust monitoring program that consists of 345 wells. Monitoring data from these wells was used to develop the groundwater level contour map. The groundwater levels range from 1,100 feet in the northeastern part of the Subbasin and decrease to 200 feet below mean sea level (msl) toward the Salton Sea. Groundwater flow is perpendicular to the contours, so groundwater flows from northwest to southeast in the Subbasin. Ms. Priestaf presented a map showing the change in groundwater levels from 2009 through 2019. The map indicates that groundwater levels have primarily increased during the past decade, and the largest increases have occurred near the groundwater replenishment facilities (GRF). These increases in groundwater levels are the result of recharge in the GRFs, implementation of source substitution programs (e.g., recycled water to offset groundwater use), and conservation programs. Ms. Priestaf presented four hydrographs showing groundwater levels from 2009 through 2020, though she noted that numerous hydrographs in the Subbasin are available. The hydrographs show a consistent pattern of overall groundwater level increases from 2009. The hydrographs also show large increases near recharge at the GRFs and smaller increases at locations distant from the GRFs. Overall, the hydrographs show recovery from overdraft since 2009.
Change in Groundwater Storage Ms. Priestaf presented a graph showing the cumulative change in storage from 1970 through 2019. The hydrograph starts a “running total” of groundwater storage in 1970 as this was right before the Whitewater River GRF began operation in 1973. The hydrograph starts with a net change in storage of 0 acre-feet (AF) in 1970 and shows a significant decline in groundwater storage happening in the mid-1980s through 2009. The year 2009 marked a historical low for groundwater storage, and overdraft has started to reverse since then with a net storage increase of 840,000 AF. Increased groundwater storage is important as it can be used during a water shortage such as drought. Workgroup comments and questions included the following:
• There is an overall increase in groundwater storage between 2016 and 2019. Is this due increased availability of groundwater after the recent drought? o Yes, the graph shows the net effect of pumping plus replenishment and recharge, which includes both natural and managed recharge. • What is the size and storage capacity of the Subbasin? o The Subbasin is very large. In some places, the aquifers might be thousands of feet deep, but this may not necessarily translate to usable groundwater in an economic manner. o In 1964, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) determined that the Subbasin was 1,000 feet deep with a storage capacity of approximately 39 million AF. However, studies since then have proven that the Subbasin is more than 1,000 feet deep.
Land Subsidence Ms. Priestaf presented land subsidence, or the sinking of the ground surface, in the Subbasin. In this case, land subsidence is not caused by tectonics and action in the San Andreas fault, but rather as a result of the compaction of sediments that occur with groundwater level declines. Clay layers in the Subbasin float in groundwater, so if groundwater levels decline, the clay layers settle and compact, causing the ground surface to also decline. The Subbasin is susceptible to land subsidence which may
3 disrupt conveyance facilities and facilities on the ground surface. Land subsidence in the Subbasin has been studied since 1995 by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and CVWD. USGS research shows a correlation between land subsidence and groundwater declines, reaching up to 2 feet of subsidence in parts of the Subbasin between 1995 and 2010. USGS has documented stabilization of land surface and even uplift in some areas of the Subbasin since 2010 as a result of increasing groundwater levels. For comparison, land subsidence in the Central Valley is as much as 30 feet and is still ongoing.
Sustainable Management Criteria Mr. John Ayres, Woodard & Curran, presented the Sustainable Management Criteria (SMC) for the Alternative Plan Update. To define the SMC, DWR recommends setting thresholds for groundwater levels and using these thresholds as a proxy for the storage and subsidence indicators. The GSAs have an overarching objective to avoid undesirable results of a significant and unreasonable loss of yield from existing production wells. SGMA does not define “significant” and “unreasonable” as these are determined at the local level. Representative monitoring will occur throughout the Subbasin, but not every well will be monitored. Subbasin management will only include management activities that the GSAs can influence.
Sustainability Management Criteria Mr. Ayres explained that SMCs can be qualitative. For the Subbasin, the Sustainability Goals are defined as the conditions in the absence of undesirable results within the next 20 years. Undesirable Results are qualitative and descriptive; these are conditions that should be avoided in the Subbasin. In comparison, Measurable Objectives (MO) are specific, quantifiable goals for the maintenance or improvement of specified groundwater conditions to achieve the sustainability goal. Minimum Thresholds (MT) are numeric values for each sustainability indicator used to define undesirable results. Interim Milestones (IM) are quantitative target values representing measurable groundwater conditions in increments of five years; these will be updated during every Plan update. A graphic illustrating the quantitative criteria was presented to the group. The Alternative Plan goal is “to reliably meet current and future water demands cost-effectively and sustainably.” The draft SGMA Sustainability Goal is to “maintain a locally managed, economically viable, sustainable groundwater resource for existing and future beneficial use in the Indio Subbasin by managing groundwater to avoid undesirable results.” The SGMA Sustainability Goal only focuses on groundwater and is nested within the Alternative Plan goal, which is broader and encompasses all water supplies. This meeting focuses on three of the six SMC, which include: 1) chronic lowering of groundwater levels, 2) reduction of groundwater storage, and 3) land subsidence. The draft undesirable result statements were phrased broadly for these three SMC to give the GSAs local control over what is significant and unreasonable, as well as drive the monitoring networks and thresholds.
Groundwater Levels Mr. Ayres explained that the undesirable results for the chronic lowering of groundwater levels indicator include impacts to shallow wells, and maintenance of municipal and industrial water supply. Ms. Priestaf provided the consultant team’s recommendations on setting MTs for groundwater levels, storage, and subsidence. SGMA defines a groundwater level MT as a groundwater elevation measured at a representative monitoring site. There will not be MTs or monitoring conducted for every single pumping well in the Subbasin, just for the representative sites. There are two options for setting groundwater elevation MTs, as described below:
4 1. Use historical low groundwater levels. The groundwater levels reached a historical low in 2009. The historical low occurred recently without any reported significant problems that impacted the beneficial uses of water wells. In comparison, historical groundwater level lows in the Central Valley led to community water systems and wells drying up. This option is recommended because the historical low groundwater levels are conservative and protective of the Subbasin based on the best available information. 2. Document construction of all production wells, select criteria per diverse well characteristics, relate private wells to representative “Key Wells.” This option would protect production wells; however, it requires documentation of the construction of all production wells (including but not limited to the well location, bottom depth of the well, etc.). To implement this option, extensive data collection and decision-making would be required to define the selection criteria. It is recommended that the Subbasin develops a well inventory in the future as a way to refine the MTs. Ms. Priestaf presented hydrographs showing the suggested MTs corresponding with the lowest groundwater elevations measured at Key Wells. These MTs will guide management in the Subbasin. Ms. Priestaf stated that there are 757 wells in the Subbasin. Of these wells, 57 wells were selected as representative wells in the Key Well network because they have well construction data, are easily accessible (though this may change in the future if they are abandoned or replaced), have an extensive monitoring record and current data, are distributed throughout the Subbasin near other production wells and small water systems that are vulnerable to groundwater level declines, and are representative of all GSAs. Workgroup comments and questions included the following:
• Are all 747 wells part of the CVWD system, or are some private? o No, they belong to various GSAs and organizations. Some wells are private. • How many wells are in Tribal lands?
o The consultant team is unsure how many wells are in Tribal lands. • Does the Alternative Plan Update address the Data Management System (DMS) that is required in the SGMA regulations? o The Alternative Plan Update will include a chapter for the monitoring program and the DMS. • Will there be a physical DMS already in place or created for the Alternative Plan? o There is ongoing data management in the Subbasin. The team is currently reviewing how data is managed and will be making recommendations for improvements and quality control/quality assurance (QA/QC) to ensure data are accurate and complete. This will be used to develop a living DMS with geographic information. • Will the data from the 57 representative wells be available? o Yes, Annual Reports will include well data and hydrographs comparing data to MTs. o Currently, DWR is planning to roll up all data from GSPs and Alternative Plans in a statewide DMS, similar to CASGEM. Ms. Priestaf stated that the SMC will assume that undesirable results will occur if groundwater levels remain consistently below the MTs. It is recommended that an undesirable result be defined when the MT is crossed in five low season monitoring events (i.e., October) in 25% of the monitoring wells across the subbasin. Annual reporting will include MT hydrographs to identify potential problems, analyze what will happen as groundwater management actions change in that area, and determine if the Subbasin will recover.
5 Groundwater Storage Ms. Priestaf explained that using levels as a proxy for groundwater storage is recommended for the Subbasin as groundwater level monitoring generally matches the long-term change in storage. Based on previous monitoring, it is expected that the groundwater level MTs are protective of groundwater storage and will not lead to significant and unreasonable conditions in storage.
Land Subsidence Ms. Priestaf explained that using levels as a proxy for subsidence is also recommended for the Subbasin. Based on previous monitoring, it is expected that the groundwater level MTs are protective of land subsidence and will not lead to significant and unreasonable conditions.
Groundwater Model Status Ms. Priestaf presented the groundwater model status. The model provides a numerical simulation of the Subbasin. The model was updated with recent inflow and outflow data and coordinated with models for adjacent basins for consistency. The model is in the process of final calibration, and a chapter for the model is underway. The model will continue to provide a reliable tool to simulate future conditions and scenarios.
Projects and Management Actions Ms. Prickett presented the projects and management actions (PMAs) which are required under SGMA to achieve sustainability. The project team previously presented the water supply portfolio, which will be packaged into different scenarios and modeled when the model calibration is finalized. The PMAs have been grouped into two major categories: 1) SGMA implementation to comply with the SGMA requirements, and 2) PMAs. 1. SGMA implementation activities to support SGMA compliance. 2. The PMAs are actions that support sustainable water management. These PMAs are different from, but support, the water supplies that were discussed in the last workshop. Many PMAs help to convey, deliver, and recharge regional supplies. PMAs 1 that will be included in the Alternative Plan Update are grouped into the following five categories:
o Water Conservation
o Water Supply Development
o Source Substitution and Replenishment
o Water Quality Improvements
o Other Studies and Programs Ms. Prickett presented the objectives of scenario modeling. Scenario modeling will consider how uncertainties may affect the ability to sustainability manage water resources, as well as help the Subbasin meet SGMA regulations for balancing the water budget and avoiding groundwater overdraft. Ms. Prickett explained there are several uncertainties for the water demand projections. Land use agencies may experience development at rates greater than anticipated, resulting in higher water demands than projected. There may also be increased agricultural water demands resulting from an influx of new farmers from neighboring subbasins that have experienced significant decreases in pumping due to SGMA. To account for these uncertainties, there was a 10% buffer added to the total 1 Please refer to the meeting presentation for a list of PMAs considered for the Subbasin.
6 municipal demand (i.e., 110% of total municipal demand), and the potential new acreage for agriculture was doubled (i.e., 1,000 acres of new agriculture). Ms. Prickett explained there are also many uncertainties for the supply projections. Climate change may change the local hydrology, which would reduce watershed runoff, as well as lead to additional reductions in water supplies from the Colorado River and State Water Project (SWP). SWP supplies may also decline if the Delta Conveyance project is delayed or not constructed. Other sources of uncertainty include imported water disruptions as a result of natural disasters or regulatory constraints, groundwater changes in storage and outflows, and recycled water constraints from evolving regulations and project delays. The Sites Reservoir and Lake Perris Seepage projects may also not be constructed or delayed. Ms. Prickett presented five scenarios that are underway. These include: 1) No Project – assumes growth but no additional water supplies, 2) Baseline – assumes supplies and facilities in the Capital Improvement Program, 3) Future Projects – assumes all planned supplies and facilities including new SWP supplies, the buildout of nonpotable system, and source substitutions, 4) Future Projects with Climate Change – assumes planned supplies & facilities, limited by climate change, and 5) Future Projects with Drought – assumed planned supplies and facilities limited by reoccurring drought. Workgroup comments and questions included the following:
• Are forecasts only quantitative versus qualitative (i.e., arsenic levels in the lower groundwater basin)? o The water budget (groundwater levels and volume) will be assessed quantitatively, but not the groundwater quality.
Next Steps Ms. Prickett presented the next steps for February through April 2021. The consultant team will develop scenarios and determine how they will be input into the groundwater model. Results will be presented at the next meeting. The consultant team will also complete fieldwork and surveys for Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs), finalize proposed PMAs and sustainability criteria based on input from Tribal and public workshops, and quantify Indio Subbasin water budget. Finally, the consultant team will finalize the 2020 Annual Report and submit to DWR by April 1. The 2020 Annual Report will be presented to the CVWD Board on March 9 and uploaded to the CVRMWG website ( http://www.cvrwmg.org/) . Workgroup comments and questions included the following:
• Will the Tribal Workgroup continue even after the Alternative Plan Update is submitted? Will the Tribal Workgroup be involved in the periodic 5-year updates? If yes, what will be the frequency of meetings? o Yes, the Tribal Workgroup will continue but will return to the previous format. The meeting frequency will be determined by CVWD and the tribes – how often does the group want to meet? Tribal Workgroup meetings will be added to the SGMA implementation list. There were no comments from the attendees on meeting frequency.
7 • Ms. Altrena Santillanes requested to be added to all future stakeholder meetings. Ms. Santillanes will email Ms. Prickett so that she can add her to the future Tribal Workgroup invitations and email list.
Other Planning Efforts Ms. Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, CVWD provided updates on the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP), a separate but concurrent update process with the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) sent a letter on February 19, 2020, and an SNMP Workplan and Monitoring Plan will be completed by December 31, 2020, to address their concerns. The workplan consists of a groundwater monitoring plan for the entire basin, as well as a scope of work for updating the SNMP. A workplan is being developed and the due date has been extended to April 30, 2021. The draft monitoring plan was submitted in December 2020 and was approved by the Regional Board in February 2021. The SNMP development workplan is being collaboratively prepared by eight water and wastewater agencies with input from the Regional Board. Mr. Ryan Molhoek, DWA announced the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) update is underway. UWMPs must be submitted every five years. DWR has released the final Guidebook. There are new requirements this round including reporting on energy use and Delta reliance. DWA is also working on updating the water shortage contingency planning so that it aligns with the 2020 UWMP. The next stakeholder meeting on the UWMP will be held on March 31, 2021, from 2:00-4:00. Visit the CVRMWG ( http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/) if you are interested in receiving more information. A final draft is due to DWR on July 1, 2021.
This page intentionally left blank.
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
SGMA Tribal Workgroup
AGENDA June 24, 2021 at 10:00 am – 12:00 pm GoToMeeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/959153965 or Dial In by Phone: +1 (312) 757-3121; Access Code: 959-153-965# # ITEM TIME 1 Welcome and Introductions
• GoToMeeting Instructions
• Agenda and Meeting Objectives
• Introductions
10:00 am
2 Alternative Plan Status
• Process and Plan Update Outline 10:20 am
3 Groundwater Conditions
• Groundwater Quality, Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems 10:25 pm 4 Sustainable Management
• Groundwater Quality, Seawater Intrusion, Interconnected Surface Waters 10:55 pm
5 Groundwater Model and Plan Scenarios
• Status of Model Update
• Scenario Planning 11:25 pm
6 Other Planning Efforts
• SNMP Update
• UWMP Update
11:45 pm
*times are subject to change
This page intentionally left blank.
1 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Tribal Workgroup #5
SUMMARY
June 24, 2021 at 10:00 am – 12:00 pm
Virtual Meeting
Tribal Workgroup and Supporting Members
• Chuck Jachens, Bureau of Indian Affairs
• David Limon Saldivar, Augustine Band of
Cahuilla Indians
• Diana Ugarte Navarro, Torres Martinez
• Jennifer Ruiz, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
• Jose Mora, Twenty-Nine Palms
• Nina Waszak, Augustine Band
• Otoniel Quiroz, Torres Martinez
• Dr. Patrick Taber, Bureau of Indian Affairs
• Shawn Muir, 29 Palms Band of Mission Indians
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs)
• Ashley Metzger, DWA
• Castulo Estrada, CWA
• Katie Evans, CVWD
• Mark Krause, DWA
• Ryan Molhoek, DWA
• Trish Rhay, IWA
• Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, CVWD
Consultant Team
• Iris Priestaf, Todd Groundwater
• Nicole Poletto, Woodard & Curran
• Rosalyn Prickett, Woodard & Curran
• Vanessa De Anda, Woodard & Curran
• William Medlin, Woodard & Curran
Welcome and Introductions
Ms. Rosalyn Prickett, Woodard & Curran, welcomed everyone to the meeting, and introductions were made as participants joined the call. Ms. Prickett briefed everyone on how to use the virtual GoToMeeting platform and notified attendees that the conference would be recorded. She then presented the meeting objectives and agenda. Ms. Prickett reviewed the meeting objectives and an overview of the Workgroup timeline over the two-year planning period. This included the quarterly meeting schedule for both Public Workshops and Tribal Workgroup meetings.
Alternative Plan Status
Ms. Prickett presented an overview of the Alternative Plan Update tasks. Outreach is a key task throughout the Alternative Plan Update process. There are 12 chapters in the Plan and Ms. Priestaf walked attendees through the outline of the document, beginning with the information included in the Plan Area chapter. The public review period is anticipated in September or October 2021.
Groundwater Conditions: Water Quality
Ms. Priestaf, Todd Groundwater, presented the groundwater conditions for water quality in the Indio Subbasin. The water quality analysis involved compiling data from various databases and mapping the following eight constituents: salinity (TDS), nitrate, arsenic, hexavalent chromium (Cr-6),
2 fluoride, perchlorate, uranium, and DBCP. The constituents were mapped from 1990 to 2019 to see geographic patterns, distribution, and trends. The cross-sections for TDS, nitrate, arsenic, Cr-6 show vertical variation, and the time concentration plots for TDS and nitrate show trends over time.
Ms. Priestaf presented a series of maps showing the range of contaminant concentrations overtime throughout the Subbasin.
The highest TDS concentrations are located near the Salton Sea and along the eastern edge potentially from seawater intrusion, and along the Subbasin margins potentially from return flows and subsurface inflow. The lower concentrations are found along the deeper center of the Subbasin.
Shallow wells are more variable and have higher TDS concentrations because they are more influenced by recharge and other processes. Since 1990, TDS concentrations have increased in the deeper zones in the central and eastern Thermal subarea. Sources of TDS include natural sources, return flows from agricultural and landscape irrigation, imported water recharge, septic and wastewater disposal, subsurface inflow, and historical inflow from the Salton Sea.
Workgroup comments and questions included the following:
• On the TDS cross-sections, how can neighboring wells have good and bad water quality? What accounts for this anomaly?
o Differences may be due to higher-salinity subsurface inflow. The project team will review the data and circumstances of each well.
• On TDS time-concentration plots, why are some wells with higher concentrations along the margins? Is that also from high TDS subsurface inflow?
o In some cases, this might also be from higher salinity return flows.
The Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for nitrate is 45 mg/L, but the majority of the Subbasin is below 10 mg/L. Some particular areas with higher nitrate reflect multiple sources, including natural mesquite sources and loading from historical agriculture, landscaping, septic and wastewater disposal. In general, shallow wells have higher nitrate concentrations and are more variable.
Workgroup comments and questions included the following:
• Can you please provide a reference for the mesquite-nitrate relationship document discussed?
o The reference will be shared following the Workgroup meeting.
The MCL for arsenic is 10 μg/L. Though the majority of the Subbasin is below 5 μg/L, there are areas with concentrations higher than 50 μg/L due to anoxic (low oxygen) conditions in the East Valley near the Salton Sea and geothermal factors. The higher concentrations tend to be found at greater depths.
The MCL for total chromium is currently 50 μg /L, and Cr-6 is just one element of the total chromium standard for drinking water. The SWRCB had previously established an MCL for Cr-6 of 10 μg/L but has since rescinded this regulation. The drinking water standard for Cr-6 of 10 μg/L may be reinstated in the near term. The source of Cr-6 is likely natural, and higher concentrations are found at greater depths. Cr-6 levels are stable in most wells and decrease near groundwater replenishment facilities.
The MCL for uranium is 20 pCI/L, and the Subbasin primarily ranges from 5-10 pCI/L. Uranium in the Subbasin is likely from natural geologic sources such as granitic rocks in the northwestern portion of the Subbasin.
The MCL for fluoride in drinking water is 2 mg/L. Fluoride in the Subbasin is naturally occurring and is associated with faulting, such as the San Andreas Fault, and geothermal areas along the Salton Sea.
3 The MCL for perchlorate in drinking water is 6 μg/L. Perchlorate is largely undetected throughout the Subbasin, except for a few wells in the upper northwestern part of the Subbasin at levels below the MCL. Sources for perchlorate include industrial sources, fertilizer, and natural sources.
The MCL for DBCP is 0.2 μg/L. There have been DBCP detections in three private irrigation wells in the central portion of the Subbasin at levels below 0.1 μg/L. DBCP is associated with pesticides that were banned in 1979.
The GSAs are tracking water quality constituents of concern. The large water systems meet drinking water standards for the eight constituents presented. The domestic wells and small water systems may be affected by nitrate, Cr-6, and arsenic.
Workgroup comments and questions included the following:
• In the past, the use of Colorado River water for groundwater replenishment added perchlorate into the groundwater. Why does this phenomenon not appear on the maps? o Though perchlorate had been detected in Colorado River water in the past due to manufacturing facilities in the watershed, the Colorado River water is no longer a source of concern due to clean-up and mitigation efforts.
Groundwater Conditions: Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs) Mr. Will Medlin, Woodard & Curran, presented the groundwater dependent ecosystem (GDE) analysis required by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). GDEs are ecological communities or species that depend on groundwater emerging from aquifers or groundwater occurring near the surface. The GDEs Assessment considered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Level III and IV ecoregions, the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) conservation areas, and special status (threatened and endangered) species. The MSHCP covers almost all of the Subbasin in Riverside County. The MSHCP was approved in 2008 and most recently amended in August 2016. The MSHCP is administered by the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission and is intended to conserve sensitive habitats and species through mitigation of impacts and issuance of take permits for species. CVWD, CWA, and IWA are permittees and signatories to the MSHCP.
The GDE assessment was limited to federal and state-listed “threatened and endangered species”.
There are 17 listed species in Subbasin, of which 6 have direct reliance on groundwater and 7 have indirect reliance.
The preliminary GDE Assessment started in 2020 with a desktop analysis based on the Natural Communities Commonly Associated with Groundwater (NCCAG) datasets. After completing the desktop GDE Assessment, the project team performed field surveys to verify the analysis in January 2021. The following was concluded from the field survey:
• Probable GDE: 1% (1 site)
o I.e., water or other saturation or wetland vegetation or aquatic or semiaquatic • Probable Non-GDE: 69% (9 sites)
o I.e., uplands, developed areas, mis-mapped areas, human-made or otherwise modified features that would typically include water is present like golf courses, ponds, reservoirs, and fields
• Playa Wetlands: 23% (3 sites)
o I.e., wetland vegetation where water has receded such as along the Salton Sea Out of the 882 NCAG wetlands identified through the desktop analysis, 1,045 points were analyzed to assess whether GDEs were present. Out of those 1,045, 50 points were probable GDEs, 932 points
4 were probable non-GDEs, and 63 points were playa wetlands. Probable GDEs exist in the mountain from canyons and may rely partially on surface water or snowmelt. Playa wetlands occur along the Salton Sea exposed seabed near the drain and surface water outlets.
Workgroup comments and questions included the following:
• Was the Whitewater Channel included in this assessment? o Yes, it was included, but generally considered a Probable non-GDE. Even though riparian habitat may exist within other areas of the Subbasin or along the channel, human-made structures (like ponds or drains) and other riparian areas that are not groundwater dependent are not considered GDEs under SGMA. They are still mapped and protected by other state and federal entities, but not designated under SGMA.
Sustainable Management
Ms. Priestaf presented an overview of DWR recommendations on Sustainable Management Criteria (SMC), which included setting thresholds for groundwater levels and using those as a proxy for storage and subsidence. Minimum threshold (MT) for groundwater levels is set at the historical low as measured at 57 Key Wells. The historical low was selected because undesirable results (such as production wells drying) were not reported, meaning that the historical low is protective against undesirable results. An undesirable result will occur when the MT is exceeded in 5 consecutive low - season monitoring events in 25 percent of wells across the Subbasin. The GSAs will monitor and report groundwater levels in Annual Reports.
Ms. Priestaf presented DWR recommendations to the GSAs for water quality, seawater intrusion, and GDEs. DWR also recommended GSAs: 1) continue to study the rate and level of increased salt contents in groundwater due to the importation of Colorado River Water, and 2) incorporate the Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (CV-SNMP) into future iterations of the Alternative Plan.
In response, the Alternative Plan includes maps, cross-sections, and time concentration plots, as well as a discussion of significance, sources, and distribution factors of salts and nitrates in the Subbasin.
Development of Alternative Plan Update has also been coordinated with the CV-SNMP effort since 2020. The Subbasin has applied for funding from DWR to install additional monitoring wells.
DWR requested the GSAs to clarify if there is an MT associated with subsurface drain flow as referenced in the 2002 and 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plans (CVWMP). The 2010 CVWMP recognized the potential degradation of water quality as a result of downward migration of shallow return flows in the East Valley to deep zones. Projects have been able to raise groundwater levels in deep productive levels, which have resulted in upward gradients and flow. High groundwater levels are generally protecting deep zones. Although increasing drain flows are beneficial because they are correlated with groundwater levels, the Alternative Plan Update will not include an MT for drain flows.
Ms. Priestaf presented a map with simulated levels in the shallow aquifer as of 2020. The contour along the Salton Sea is at -220 feet below sea level (BSL), higher than the Salton Sea contour at -238 feet BSL. From 1997-2014, the modeling implies that there was inflow into the Subbasin from the Salton Sea. This has been reversed since 2015 through managed aquifer recharge, source substitution, and conservation. The modeling results match observed groundwater levels.
DWR also recommended that the GSAs identify the GDEs in the Subbasin. The Alternative Plan Update will include an appendix documenting the GDE study.
5 Workgroup comments and questions included the following:
• When will the draft Alternative Plan Update be made available for Tribes to comment on? Request to please make time for tribal members to review in advance of public review. o The draft Alternative Plan Update will be released for Tribes to comment during the public review period in Fall 2021 to allow time to address and incorporate comments, and to adopt the plan.
Groundwater Model Update
Ms. Priestaf presented the groundwater model update. The original historical simulation from 1936 to 1996 was first updated in 2010 and again recently to include the historical period from 2009 to 2017. The groundwater model is now being actively applied to model future scenarios.
Revised Plan Scenarios
Ms. Prickett presented an update on the revised plan scenarios. Three types of future scenarios will be analyzed, including:
• Baseline: additional demands but no new projects
• Near term projects: additional demands and capital improvement projects (CIP)/programs planned within 5 years
• Future projects: additional demands and all planned projects/programs in the CIP These three scenarios will be modeled with and without climate change.
The baseline scenario assumes a 50-year hydrology mimicking hydrology between 1970 and 2019.
Under climate change, the model assumes the recent 25-year hydrology with multiple dry cycles between 1994 and 2019. The recent 25 years have had 20 percent less mountain-front runoff compared to the 50-year year average.
The baseline scenario assumes SWP water reliability of 45 percent, the historical average since the Wanger decision in 2007. Some years, such as 2021, have experienced reliability as low as 5 percent.
Future projects scenario includes participation in Delta Conveyance Facility (DCF) that may increase SWP reliability up to 58 percent. The climate change scenario will also assume a 1.5 percent factor as projected by DWR.
Workgroup comments and questions included the following:
• What is the probability of receiving SWP water?
o The probability that water will be received is only 45 percent. However, 2014 experienced a 10 percent allocation, and 2021 is currently experiencing a 5 percent allocation. There have been two historical dry periods since the 2007 Wanger decision. The 45 percent reliability takes into consideration of recurrence of dry periods. This number is more conservative than the 58 percent reported in the DWR capability report.
The baseline scenario assumes the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) entitlement minus conveyance losses. The future projects scenario includes additional nonpotable water such as Canal water and recycled water deliveries. Because of the current drought conditions in the Colorado River watershed, the climate change scenario assumes the QSA entitlement minutes conveyance losses, accounting for the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan (DCP) contribution in phases. CVWD’s contribution is 7 percent (approximately 24,000 acre-feet [AF]) of the total for California; this volume will be contributed back to the lakes and storage.
6 Approximately 30 percent of water demand is assumed to return to sewer. The baseline scenario assumes only the current recycled water supplies will continue with no additional recycled water projects. The near term scenario assumes current supplies as well as projects planned for implementation within the next 5 years, and the long term scenario assumes all planned projects will be implemented. The amount of water available for recycled water is the same across all scenarios with or without climate change.
Next Steps
Ms. Prickett presented the next steps for July through September 2021. The consultant team will finalize Plan Scenarios in groundwater model and quantify water budgets, and results will be presented at the next Tribal workgroup scheduled for August 26, 2021. Ms. Prickett invited participants to offer any additional comments or questions. For any additional information, please contact Rosalyn Prickett at [email protected].
Workgroup comments and questions included the following:
• Is it possible to send the presentation before the meeting? o The slides are typically uploaded to the website
( http://www.indiosubbasinsgma.org/) the Monday before the meeting.
Other Planning Efforts
Ms. Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, CVWD provided updates on the SNMP, a separate but concurrent update process with the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update. The Monitoring Program Workplan was approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) in February 2021, and an SNMP Workplan was submitted to the Regional Board on May 3, 2021, and is tentatively scheduled to be presented to the Board in August 2021. A letter has been sent to the Tribal groups to determine interest in the monitoring program. For any additional information or to attend the meeting, please contact Zoe Rodriguez del Rey at [email protected].
Ms. Ashley Metzger, DWA provided updates on the regional 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). All six agencies have adopted the UWMP, and the final UWMP will be submitted to DWR by July 1, 2021. Visit the CVRMWG ( http://www.cvrwmg.org/uwmp/) if you are interested in receiving more information.
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
SGMA Tribal Workgroup
AGENDA August 26, 2021 at 10:00 am – 12:00 pm GoToMeeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/991180029 or Dial In by Phone: +1 (571) 317-3122; Access Code: 991-180-029# # ITEM TIME 1 Welcome and Introductions
• GoToMeeting Instructions
• Agenda and Meeting Objectives
• Introductions
10:00 am
2 Alternative Plan Status
• Process and Plan Update Outline 10:20 am
3 Groundwater Model
• Overview of Model Features and Updates 10:25 am
4 Plan Scenarios & Projects and Management Actions (PMAs) • Climate Change Assumptions
• PMAs in each Plan Scenario 10:40 am
5 Simulation Results
• Comparison of Baseline vs. Baseline with Climate Change • Results of 4 Climate Change Scenarios
10:55 am
6 Other Planning Efforts
• SNMP Update
11:25 am
*times are subject to change
This page intentionally left blank.
1 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Tribal Workgroup #6
SUMMARY
August 26, 2021 at 10:00 am – 12:00 pm
Virtual Meeting
Tribal Workgroup and Supporting Members
• Chuck Jachens, Bureau of Indian Affairs
• Jennifer Ruiz, Cabazon
• Guarav Rajen, Augustine Band
• Nina Waszak, Agua Caliente Band
• Marco Perez, Augustine Band
• Dr. Patrick Taber, Bureau of Indian Affairs
• Shawn Muir, Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission
Indians
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs)
• Ashley Metzger, DWA
• Castulo Estrada, CWA
• Jim Barret, CVWD
• Katie Evans, CVWD
• Mark Krause, DWA
• Melanie Garcia, CVWD
• Reymundo Trejo, IWA
• Steve Bigley, CVWD
• Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, CVWD
Consultant Team
• Iris Priestaf, Todd Groundwater
• Daniel Crag, Todd Groundwater
• Arthella Vallarta, Woodard & Curran
• Rosalyn Prickett, Woodard & Curran
Welcome and Introductions
Ms. Rosalyn Prickett, Woodard & Curran, welcomed everyone to the meeting, and introductions were made as participants joined the call. Ms. Prickett briefed everyone on how to use the virtual GoToMeeting platform. She then presented the meeting objectives and agenda. Ms. Prickett reviewed the meeting objectives and an overview of the Workgroup timeline over the two-year planning period.
Alternative Plan Status
Ms. Iris Priestaf, Todd Groundwater, presented an overview of the tasks and list of chapters for the Alternative Plan Update. Ms. Priestaff reviewed the 2010 CVWMP goal that will be retained in the Alternative Plan Update, along with the new Sustainability goal: “to maintain a locally managed, economically viable, sustainable groundwater resource for existing and future beneficial uses in the Indio Subbasin by managing groundwater to avoid the occurrence of undesirable results.” She then reviewed the refined Plan objectives being included in and guiding development of the Update, including a new 7th objective: “Reduce vulnerability to climate change and drought impacts”.
2 Workgroup comments and questions included the following:
• You said we are “not” in overdraft and last year we were 10% over in demands. Why are you saying we are not in overdraft?
o Overdraft is a long-term condition and sometimes the Subbasin balance will be slightly over or under. The goal is long-term positive storage. Although sometimes there is a negative water balance during drought, that storage will be replaced during wet conditions/years.
• Indio Subbasin had 30,000 AFY less coming in than going out last year. What if this happens year after year?
o Negative balance uses storage and the Subbasin is being managed for this.
Groundwater Model
Mr. Daniel Craig, Todd Groundwater, presented an overview of the numerical model construction and model features. The model simulation period was extended through 2019 with updated recharge and pumping data, along with updated subsurface inflow boundary conditions. A calibration assessment was completed, which demonstrates that the model simulations are well matched with the measured levels. The model also compared simulated drain flows with measures flows, which were also well matched. Historical model accurately simulates shallow and deep groundwater levels and can be used to predict future water level and storage changes under different scenarios. The model also provides forecasts of future drain flows, Salton Sea interactions, and other water budget conditions.
Workgroup comments and questions included the following:
• What is definition of deep vs shallow (in terms of feet)? o I have my answer from the graphs. Thanks!
• Are the four layers of equal thickness?
o No, they were based on geological analysis of well logs throughout the Subbasin. This will be described in the Alternative Plan Update, but the layers are all variable thickness based on geology.
• It is a 3-Dimensional grid of 1,000 ft by 1,000 of model cells. The model cannot really be used for locating one single cell well. Do we need more localized data? o For local projects and issues, you may want to have a smaller grid. If you are interested in looking at smaller models, some of the agencies do have smaller models for their local projects. The purpose of this model is to look at the overall regional groundwater trends. As a result, the model grid is adequate and sufficient for the Alternative Plan Update.
• Most hydrographs are showing drop over time, albeit they are leveling off lately. o Yes, that recovery is due to GSA management activities, including increased replenishment and source substitution.
• Is the rise in groundwater levels near the Salton Sea due to reduced pumping or recharge? o It was a combination of recharge at the Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility, source substitution, and reduction in groundwater pumping.
3 Plan Scenarios & Projects and Management Actions
Ms. Prickett presented the five Plan scenarios and described how the model inputs were developed assuming implementation of differing suites of projects and management actions (PMAs). The GSAs established priorities in selection of PMAs, which are broken down into four categories:
1. Water Conservation
2. Water Supply Development
3. Source Substitution and Replenishment
4. Water Quality Protection
The complete list of PMAs will be available in the Alternative Plan Update.
Ms. Prickett also explained the groundwater model’s climate change assumptions. The model assumes a 50-year period, and future scenarios incorporate recent (drier) patterns. For local inflow, the Baseline scenario uses a long-term hydrology and previously estimated annual recharge volumes.
The climate change scenarios use repeated historical conditions only for the period 1995-2019 that include multiple droughts. Additionally, the availability of imported water for direct delivery and groundwater replenishment was reduced.
The five modeled scenarios include the following:
• Baseline and Baseline with Climate Change - The projects listed in these two scenarios are existing operational activities that are assumed to continue forward. • Five-Year Plan with Climate Change - These are the projects the GSAs are planning to implement in their five-year Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs). Under this scenario, there are more Source Substitution and Replenishment projects compared to the Baseline and Baseline with Climate Change scenarios.
• Future Projects with Climate Change – This scenario includes a variety of additional supply acquisition, source substitution, and replenishment projects. • Expanded Agriculture with Climate Change - This scenario assumes the same suite of future projects as Future Projects with Climate Change, along with a significant amount of new additional agriculture in the East Valley.
There were no Workgroup comments.
Simulation Results
Mr. Craig presented the simulation results from the five Plan scenarios that Ms. Prickett described.
The results in these scenarios are not realistic because additional projects are already planned by the GSAs. However, the scenarios provide a comparison of future conditions with and without climate change/drought.
Baseline and Baseline with Climate Change
Total inflows for Baseline are higher than in Baseline with Climate Change, especially in peak recharge years. Note that the first 25 years assume addition of new supplies and demand, but the second 25 years do not assume new demands. Cumulative change in storage is much higher in Baseline. Baseline with Climate Change hovers right around zero and even ends negative. The groundwater model simulated forecasted supply and demand for 2020-2044 as required by SGMA, but kept assumptions at the year 2045 levels for 2045-2069. This operates as a stress test for ongoing management of the basin at 2045 levels but does not recognize that demands will continue increasing after 2045.
4 Future groundwater levels in Baseline with Climate Change in West Valley are about 30-40 feet lower than baseline conditions due to reduced replenishment supplies. In East Valley, the impacts of climate change are less (only 5 feet difference) because most of natural infiltration occurs in the West Valley.
In Baseline, there are larger changes in groundwater levels in the East Valley, while in Baseline with Climate Change, declines are more substantial in the far West Valley near WWR-GRF.
There were no Workgroup comments.
Four Climate Change Scenarios
The groundwater model simulated additional scenarios with five-year CIP projects, future projects, and expanded agriculture. Water budgets show net positive inflows in all three of the project scenarios. Mr. Craig presented simulated pumping, inflows, groundwater levels, and cumulative storage for the four climate change scenarios. In Mid-Valley and East Valley areas, Baseline with Climate Change groundwater levels are declining, but they are increasing for the other three scenarios. All three scenarios show significant declines in far West Valley due to reductions in WWR- GRF replenishment under various future project implementation. Cumulative change in storage for Baseline with Climate Change is net negative after 50 years, while other three climate change scenarios show net positive.
Mr. Craig stated that the scenarios indicate that Five-Year PMAs are needed for supply-demand balance and that future PMAs are needed for reliability in face of climate change and uncertainties in demand past the 25-year planning horizon. He also concluded that for all scenarios (except Baseline with Climate Change) the Subbasin will be sustainable.
Workgroup comments and questions included the following:
• I am looking into the future, and Tribal groups have an interest in water quality. MODFLOW modeling is not right approach to address those issues. o The Alternative Plan Update includes discussion of historical and current groundwater conditions but defers to the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan process for establishment of water quality objectives. This groundwater model only deals with volume (levels and storage) and not quality.
• Streamflow and precipitation do not answer all our climate change questions. We need to look in detail at vegetation and ET changes due to climate changes.
Next Steps
Ms. Prickett presented the next steps for completion and submittal of the Alternative Plan Update to DWR. The Draft Plan will be circulated for review for 30 days in late September. Following receipt of comments, a Final Plan will be released for adoption by the GSA governing bodies in early December.
Workgroup comments and questions included the following:
• The Whitewater River Groundwater Replenishment Project Draft EIR is out for public comment. You can find the information and all the documents at http://www.cvwd.org/502/Whitewater-River-Groundwater-Replenishme Other Planning Efforts
Ms. Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, CVWD, provided updates on the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP). The Monitoring Program Workplan was approved by the Regional Board February 2021.
The SNMP Development Workplan was submitted to the Regional Board in May 2021 and will be presented to the Regional Board on September 14, 2021. Implementation will likely begin in early 2022 and will include a stakeholder process.
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
SGMA Tribal Workgroup
AGENDA October 20, 2021 at 10:00 am – 12:00 pm GoToMeeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/334147341 or Dial In by Phone: +1 (872) 240-3212; Access Code: 334-147-341# # ITEM TIME 1 Welcome and Introductions
• GoToMeeting Instructions
• Agenda and Meeting Objectives 10:00 am
2 Alternative Plan Status
• Subbasin History and Plan Objectives 10:20 am
3 Groundwater Conditions and Sustainable Management
• Groundwater Conditions and Sustainability Criteria 10:30 am 4 Water Demands and Supplies
• Demand Forecasts and Supply Portfolio 10:50 am
5 Numerical Model, Plan Scenarios, and Projects & Management Actions (PMAs)
• Model Features and PMAs in each Plan Scenario 11:10 am 6 Plan Evaluation and Implementation
• Plan Implementation Activities
11:25 am
7 Other Planning Efforts
• SNMP Update
11:40 am
*times are subject to change
This page intentionally left blank.
1 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Tribal Workgroup #7
SUMMARY
October 20, 2021 at 10:00 am – 12:00 pm
Virtual Meeting
Tribal Workgroup and Supporting Members
• Jennifer Ruiz, Cabazon Band
• Guarav Rajen, Augustine Band
• Margaret Park, Agua Caliente Band
• Dr. Patrick Taber, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs)
• Ashley Metzger, DWA
• Ryan Molhoek, DWA
• Katie Evans, CVWD
• Mark Krause, DWA
• Melanie Garcia, CVWD
• Reymundo Trejo, IWA
• Michelle Tse, IWA
• Steve Bigley, CVWD
• Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, CVWD
Consultant Team
• Iris Priestaf, Todd Groundwater
• Maureen Reilly, Todd Groundwater
• Rosalyn Prickett, Woodard & Curran
• Vanessa De Anda, Woodard & Curran
Welcome and Introductions
Ms. Rosalyn Prickett, Woodard & Curran, greeted participants as they joined the call. Ms. Prickett welcomed everyone to the workshop and reviewed how to use the virtual GoToMeeting platform.
She then reviewed the meeting objectives and provided an overview of the Workgroup timeline over the two-year planning period. She noted that this is the final SGMA Tribal Workgroup meeting specific to the 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update (Alternative Plan Update) before submittal to the State in December 2021.
Alternative Plan Status
Ms. Iris Priestaf, Todd Groundwater, presented an overview of the Alternative Plan Update. Ms.
Priestaff reviewed the methods in which people have been engaged, which included seven public workshops, seven SGMA Tribal Workgroups, a website with monthly updates, and regular email announcements and updates. The four GSAsare developing the Alternative Plan Update for the Indio Subbasin (Subbasin) and areas that are, or are likely to be, supplied groundwater from the Subbasin.
The importance of supplemental supply to alleviate groundwater overdraft has been noted for decades. The water supply portfolio includes capture and recharge of stormflows, completion of the Coachella Canal, acquirement of State Water Project (SWP) contracts, and use of recycled water.
2 Ms. Priestaf reviewed the Alternative Plan Update goal: “To reliability meet current and future water demands in a cost-effective and sustainable manner”. She also reviewed the refined objectives being included in and guiding the development of the Alternative Plan Update, including a new 7th objective:
“Reduce vulnerability to climate change and drought impacts”. Plan implementation has resulted in significant groundwater levels increases regionally and cumulative groundwater storage increases across the Subbasin.
Workgroup comments and questions included the following:
• The history of the Valley presented in Sections 1.1 and 1.2 starts late. USBR has historical surveys of Coachella Valley available online that describe the Valley as a mesquite forest. The surveys also show numerous wells and thousands of people living in the Valley. The mesquites, which hold water in the ground, were cut down for agriculture. We should question the existence of golf courses in the area given the limited precipitation.
Groundwater Conditions and Sustainable Management
Ms. Priestaf presented an overview of the Subbasin and groundwater flows, noting that it extends from the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin to the Salton Sea. Groundwater flow moves downhill through the Subbasin supplying wells and discharging into the Salton Sea.
Ms. Priestaf presented an overview of undesirable results for six sustainability indicators, which are all addressed in the Alternative Plan Update and listed below. A minimum threshold (MT) is a numeric value used to define undesirable results.
Groundwater Levels
Undesirable results include significant and unreasonable reduction in the long-term viability of domestic, agricultural, municipal, or environmental uses, and impacts to relatively shallow wells, including small water systems and private drinking water supply wells. Hydrographs in the Alternative Plan Update show declining groundwater level trends in the Subbsain from the 1990s to around 2009. As such, the MTs have been defined as the historical lows measured at 57 Key Wells in around 2009 with no reported shortages. An undesirable result has been defined to occur when the MT is crossed in five consecutive low-season monitoring events in at least 25% of wells across the Subbasin.
Groundwater Storage and Land Subsidence
The MTs for groundwater levels have a strong correlation with, and are therefore a proxy for, the groundwater storage and land subsidence sustainability indicators. The change in groundwater storage indicated declines between 1987 to 2009, and reversal of overdraft and increase of storage in 2009. This correlates with the change of groundwater levels seen across the Subbasin around 2009. Since then, there has been an increase of about 840,000 AF in storage that can be used during periods of drought. Similarly, the Subbasin experienced up to 2 feet of land subsidence between 1995 to 2010 correlated with groundwater declines due to groundwater pumping. Stabilization and uplift have been documented in the Subbasin since 2010 with increasing groundwater levels.
Groundwater Quality
The GSAs are tracking numerous water quality constituents. Large water systems meet all drinking water standards, but small water systems and domestic wells may be affected by some constituents like nitrate from multiple sources and naturally occurring hexavalent chromium and arsenic. The GSAs are coordinating with community representatives and domestic systems to ensure access to high-quality water. The Alternative Plan Update provides a comprehensive assessment of groundwater quality that incorporates an extensive discussion of eight constituents of concern,
3 including maps, cross-sections, and time concentration plots. As an example, Ms. Priestaf presented a map showing total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations in the Subbasin to provide an overview of groundwater quality. The map shows TDS concentrations are below the recommended levels in the majority of the Subbasin, but higher concentrations are found along the Subbasin boundaries and near the Salton Sea. The Alternative Plan Update resulted in an improved basis to study the rate and level of increased salt in groundwater from all sources. Coordination with the Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (CV-SNMP) will start in 2022.
Seawater Intrusion
The Subbasin is bounded by one end of the Salton Sea, which is distinguished by salinity that is twice that of the ocean and increasing, and decreasing surface water levels and shoreline. Seawater intrusion is a consequence of overdraft and is therefore closely tracked by the GSAs. Numerical modeling indicates there was net inflow from the Salton Sea into the Subbasin from 1997 to 2014 and a net outflow from the Subbasin to the Salton Sea since 2015. Seawater intrusion has been reversed.
Interconnected Surface Water and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs) The Alternative Plan Update reviewed the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and other documents for protected species, performed a desktop analysis of polygons provided by DWR’s Natural Communities Commonly Associated with Groundwater (NCCAG), conducted a field survey of 13 sites, and mapped potential GDEs. The analysis found that 5% of the evaluated sites were probable GDEs that partially rely on surface water or snowmelt, 89% of the evaluated sites are probable non-GDEs that include agricultural fields and drainages, uplands, and dry washes, and 6% are playa wetlands that depend on agricultural drain flows and occur along the Salton Sea exposed seabed. This analysis is included in an appendix to the Alternative Plan Update.
Workgroup comments and questions included the following:
• Looking at slide 33, how is seawater intrusion reversed? You noted that aquifer levels were lowest in 2009, but this reversed in 2015.
o Seawater intrusion was reversed through replenishment, source substitution, and water recycling, which caused groundwater levels to increase throughout the Subbasin. Increasing groundwater levels pushes seawater out. • Why is there is a 6-year gap between increased groundwater levels and reversal of seawater intrusion? Does the groundwater replenished at the GRF ultimately end up at the Salton Sea? o The model looks at the hydraulic head at the Salton Sea. Because there are higher hydraulic levels, the seawater is pushed out.
• Should the Plan be looking at increasing nitrate and TDS trends instead of the fact that the constituents are below the thresholds? If you look at the system as a whole, TDS may increase over time upgradient of the Subbasin.
o The Alternative Plan Update includes a lot of information on TDS and nitrate trends for wells in the Subbasin. Water quality will be further discussed in the CV-SNMP that is currently underway.
• The Plan needs to give additional thought to GDEs. Additional resource areas in the canyon and the playa supplies natural vegetation.
o The GDEs assessment consisted of a robust desktop analysis and field verification.
The desktop analysis looked at NCCAG and other data sources to identify GDEs, though, through areal mapping, many areas were screened out. A wetland biologist also analyzed the sites within the Valley to verify the desktop analysis.
4 Water Demands and Supplies
Ms. Prickett presented the demand forecast for 2020 to 2045. The demand forecast was based on 11 geographic units and considered projected land uses, conversion of agricultural lands, historical water use, and conservation trends. Demands were forecasted for municipal, golf, agricultural, and other uses. Municipal demands relied on regional growth projections provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), land use inventories, unit demand factors, projected water loss, and adjustment factors (i.e., conservation savings estimates). Forecasted demands for agriculture considered existing agriculture and projected conversions of idle land to urban land uses, and forecasted demands for golf considered market trends and three proposed new golf courses.
Other demands included fish farms, duck clubs, polo/turf, and potential surf parks. Total water demand is expected to increase approximately 8% between 2020 to 2045 with urban demands increasing with urban growth and agricultural demands decreasing as a result of land conversions.
Ms. Prickett presented the supply portfolio for the Subbasin, which includes groundwater, SWP exchange water, Colorado River water, recycled water, surface water, and other supplies. There is an estimated 10% increase in anticipated future supplies accounting for planned projects. Climate change is anticipated to reduce available water projections by up to 40,000 AFY. The total available and planned supplies are presented in the Alternative Plan Update.
There were no Workgroup comments.
Numerical Model, Plan Scenarios, and Projects and Management Actions (PMAs) Ms. Priestaf presented the updates to the groundwater model. The calibration hydrographs show that the actual and simulated data points align, and therefore this model is deemed to accurately simulate shallow and deep groundwater levels in the Subbasin. The model can be used to predict future water level and storage changes under different inflow and outflow scenarios for 50 years into the future.
The model presents a forecast of future drain flows, Salton Sea flow, and water budget conditions.
Calibration hydrographs and simulation hydrographs are available in the Alternative Plan Update.
Ms. Prickett reviewed the simulation results from the five Plan scenarios. The results of the Baseline scenarios are not realistic because additional projects are already planned by the GSAs. However, the Baseline scenarios provide a comparison of future conditions with and without climate change/drought. The additional three scenarios simulate the implementation of 5-year (i.e., near- term) projects, future projects, and/or expanded agriculture.
The model incorporates climate change assumptions. For local inflow, the Baseline scenario uses long-term hydrology and previously estimated annual recharge volumes. The climate change scenarios use repeated historical conditions only for the period 1995-2019 that include multiple droughts. Additionally, the availability of imported water for direct delivery and groundwater replenishment was reduced consistent with reduced SWP deliveries in the past 14 years as a result of legal, environmental, and drought conditions, and with potential reductions in CVWD’s Colorado River water supply if Lake Mead reservoir levels continue to decline, as stipulated in the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan.
Ms. Prickett presented the differing suites of projects and management actions (PMAs). The GSAs established priorities in the selection of PMAs, which are broken down into four categories: Water Conservation, Water Supply Development, Source Substitution and Replenishment, and Water Quality Protection. The Plan scenarios reflect varying water supplies and suite of PMAs. The PMAs have varying assumptions of total supply availability and the timeframe in which these supplies will be available. The Alternative Plan Update includes supply graphics showing how much water will be available and where the water will flow. The simulation results show that the Baseline scenarios will likely result in a negative cumulative change in storage and will not achieve Subbasin sustainability.
5 In comparison, the three project scenarios show an increasing cumulative change in groundwater storage and groundwater levels. Therefore, it is concluded that the 5-year PMAs are needed to achieve a supply-demand balance in the Subbasin. Additional future PMAs will be needed for reliability in the face of climate change and uncertainty with future water supplies and demands.
Workgroup comments and questions included the following:
• The model works great regionally. Can you pull out a prism for the Augustine Band showing what is going into and out of the Tribe’s boundaries? Also, is everything grouped to one production well per square mile? How accurate are the estimates if they are lumped into one well?
o The way the numerical model works is that all groundwater pumping in a cell is grouped as one point. This is a regional model that is meant to simulate groundwater in the Subbasin, not locally. Local models require a smaller grid size and data at a more refined spatial scale. This model can be used to look at inflows and outflows for the Tribe, but need to remember that this is a regional model with a wide grid cell.
Plan Evaluation and Implementation
Ms. Prickett presented the implementation activities that the GSAs will employ as part of the Alternative Plan Update. Implementation activities include, but are not limited to, GSA program management, monitoring programs, tribal coordination, stakeholder outreach, and annual reports.
The GSAs have established a list of priorities, listed in the Alternative Plan Update, that will guide the implementation of PMAs.
Ms. Prickett presented the key takeaway from the Alternative Plan Update, which is that with the implementation of the PMAs, the three project scenarios have adequate supplies to meet the projected demand forecast. The water budgets for the three project scenarios show that each scenario has an average inflow higher than outflow, which will result in a cumulative increase in groundwater storage. The Alternative Plan Update demonstrates that the GSAs can meet the established goal and the Subbasin can be sustainable. The GSAs will continue to monitor trends in demand and supply availability and implement the PMAs as needed.
There were no Workgroup comments.
Next Steps
Ms. Priestaf presented the next steps for the Alternative Plan Update. The Draft Alternative Plan Update can be downloaded at http://www.indiosubbasinsgma.org/ . Public comments are due on October 29, 2021. Comments should be submitted via email to [email protected]. The GSAs will review all comments submitted and incorporate revisions as appropriate. The Final Alternative Plan Update will be prepared and released for adoption by the GSA governing bodies in early December. The GSAs will submit the Alternative Plan Update to the State for review and approval before January 1, 2022.
Other Planning Efforts
Ms. Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, CVWD, provided updates on the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP). The Monitoring Program Workplan was approved by the Regional Board in February 2021.
The SNMP Development Workplan was submitted to the Regional Board in May 2021 and was presented to the Regional Board on September 14, 2021. The Regional Board approved the SNMP Development Workplan on October 4, 2021. The GSAs will coordinate over the next six months to select a consultant for technical support and outreach and to begin implementing the SNMP
6 Development Workplan. The GSAs are working collaboratively to implement the Monitoring Program Workplan and the Development Workplan.
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Public Workshops
Example Email Notification
This page intentionally left blank.
1 Vanessa De Anda
From:IndioSubbasinSGMA
Sent:Monday, August 23, 2021 5:14 PM
To:IndioSubbasinSGMA
Subject:REMINDER: You're Invited/Estas Invitado! Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update Public Workshop #6: August 26
Attachments:Indio_Public Workshop 6_Agenda.pdf; Indio Go To Meeting Instructions_26Aug21.pdf
Indio Subbasin Stakeholders –
Reminder, our sixth public workshop for the 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update is this Thursday, August 26.
The 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update serves as a comprehensive update of the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update. We are inviting local community members, municipal agency staffers, non- profit organizations, farmers, landowners, business owners, tribes, and any other interested local stakeholders to attend. This is a great opportunity to get involved, learn about the planning process, and provide input on the future of groundwater management in the Indio Subbasin. This meeting will be held virtually due to COVID-19 concerns. Our meeting materials, including the PowerPoint presentation, will be available on our website ( www.IndioSubbasinSGMA.org) . The agenda is attached.
Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update – Public Workshop #6 Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm
GoToMeeting
Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/262772877
You can also dial in using your phone: +1 (646) 749-3122, Access Code: 262-772-3122 Discussion topics will include:
· Alternative Plan Status
· Groundwater Model
· Plan Scenarios & Projects and Management Actions
· Simulation Results
To accommodate stakeholders who wish to participate in the meeting and need interpreter services, please email Arthella at [email protected] at least 24 hours before the start of the meeting.
It is important that we hear your voice, as this Alternative Plan Update will be used to reliably meet current and future water demands in a cost-effective and sustainable manner within your area. Your participation is greatly appreciated.
2 If you have any questions, feel free to contact us by phone at 213-223-9463 or email [email protected].
Thank You,
Indio Subbasin GSAs
Learn more at www.IndioSubbasinSGMA.org
Partes Interesadas de la Subcuenca de Indio –
Invitamos a miembros de la comunidad, personal de agencias municipales, organizaciones no lucrativas, agricultores, terratenientes (persona que posee tierras), propietarios de negocios, tribus, y cualquier otro grupo local interesado para que asistan al tercer taller público para la actualización del plan de alternativa de la Subcuenca de Indio del 2022 (por 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update), una actualización completa del Plan de Gestión del Agua del Valle de Coachella de 2010 (por 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update), el cual fue aprobado como plan de alternativa para cumplir con la Ley de Gestión Sostenible del Agua Subterránea (por Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, SGMA). Esta es una gran oportunidad para involucrarse, conocer del proceso de planificación, y contribuir en el futuro de la gestión del agua subterránea de la Subcuenca de Indio. La reunión se celebrará virtualmente debido a las preocupaciones causadas por COVID-19. Visite nuestra página web ( www.IndioSubbasinSGMA.org) para tener acceso a los materiales de la reunión.
Actualización del plan alternativa de la Subcuenca de Indio – Taller Público #6 Jueves, 26 de agosto de 2021 de 2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
(207) 558-4270, 119-495-611#
Partes interesadas que deseen participar en la reunión y necesiten servicios de interpretación, por favor de enviar un correo electrónico a Arthella a [email protected] con el mínimo de 24 horas antes del inicio de la junta.
Los temas de discusión incluirán:
· Estatus del plan de alternativa
· Modelo de agua subterránea
· Escenarios del plan y accciones de proyectos y gestión · Resultados de la simulación
3 Es importante que se oiga su voz, ya que esta actualización del plan de alternativa se usará para cumplir fidedignamente con las necesidades actuales y futuras de manera asequible y sostenible dentro de su área. Le agradecemos enormemente su participación.
Por favor de contactarnos por teléfono con cualquier pregunta que tenga, llame al 213-223-9463 o por correo electrónico [email protected]
Gracias,
GSA(s) de la Subcuenca de Indio
www.IndioSubbasinSGMA.org
From: IndioSubbasinSGMA
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 4:33 PM
To: IndioSubbasinSGMA
Subject: You're Invited/Estas Invitado! Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update Public Workshop #6: August 26
Indio Subbasin Stakeholders –
New workshop date! Our sixth public workshop for the 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update will be held on Thursday, August 26.
The 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update serves as a comprehensive update of the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update. We are inviting local community members, municipal agency staffers, non- profit organizations, farmers, landowners, business owners, tribes, and any other interested local stakeholders to attend. This is a great opportunity to get involved, learn about the planning process, and provide input on the future of groundwater management in the Indio Subbasin. This meeting will be held virtually due to COVID-19 concerns.
Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update – Public Workshop #6 Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm
GoToMeeting
Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/262772877 .
You can also dial in using your phone: +1 (646) 749-3122, Access Code: 262-772-877 Discussion topics will include:
· Alternative Plan Status
· Plan Scenarios & Water Balance
This page intentionally left blank.
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Public Workshops
Agendas and Meeting Minutes
This page intentionally left blank.
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Public Workshop
AGENDA
February 20, 2020 at 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm
Coachella Valley Water District, Board Room
75-515 Hovley Lane East, Palm Desert, CA 92211
# ITEM TIME
1 Welcome and Introductions
• Introductions
• Agenda
• Meeting Objectives
2:00 pm
2 Overview of Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) • What is SGMA?
• How does SGMA apply to the Indio Subbasin?
• What are the roles/responsibilities of GSAs?
• What is the SGMA Timeline for the Indio Subbasin
2:20 pm
3 Water Management Planning in the Indio Subbasin
• When did water management planning begin and how has it evolved?
• What is the current status of groundwater planning?
2:40 pm
4 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
• What is the Alternative Plan?
• Is the Alternative Plan working?
• What is the strategy and process to update the Alternative Plan? 3:00 pm
5 Public Comment
• Your participation and input are important
3:30 pm
6 Next Steps 3:50 pm
*times are subject to change
This page intentionally left blank.
1 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Public Workshop #1
SUMMARY February 20, 2020 at 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm Coachella Valley Water District, Board Room 75-515 Hovley Lane East, Palm Desert, CA 92211 Welcome and Introductions Mr. Steve Bigley, Coachella Valley Water District, welcomed everyone to the public workshop. Mr. Edwin Lin, Todd Groundwater Inc., presented the meeting objectives and agenda, and introduced the project team working on the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update. The Indio Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) are Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), Coachella Water Authority (CWA), Desert Water Agency (DWA), and Indio Water Authority (IWA). The Consultant team includes Todd Groundwater Inc. and Woodard & Curran Inc.
Overview of Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Mr. Lin presented an overview of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA provides a framework for sustainable management of groundwater basins, promotes local management, and sets regulatory deadlines for submitting plans and reporting progress towards sustainable management. SGMA also offers State assistance in the form of funding, data, and technical support. Local GSAs are required to prepare a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) or submit an Alternative Plan. “Sustainable” management is defined as the management and use of groundwater in a manner that can be maintained without causing undesirable results. Mr. Lin explained that the Indio Subbasin is designated as a medium-priority basin and is subject to SGMA legislation. The State has recognized the existing water management plan, the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (CVWMP), as a functionally equivalent Alternative Plan. The State recommends that the Indio Subbasin GSAs quantify sustainability criteria and incorporate additional elements into the 2022 Alternative Plan Update. SGMA also requires that the Indio Subbasin be sustainably managed within 20 years. Each Indio Subbasin GSA is responsible and has the authority for water management within its respective boundaries. The Indio GSAs have a history of cooperation, which is ongoing. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been executed and establishes an intent to foster cooperation, coordination, and communication regarding management of the Indio Subbasin. The GSAs have also agreed on collaboration and joint submission of the Alternative Plan, Annual Reports, and 5-Year Plan Updates. Mr. Lin presented the current SGMA timeline for the Indio Subbasin. The Indio GSAs formed in June 2017 and the Alternative Plan, submitted in December 2016, was approved by DWR in July 2019. The 2022 Alternative Plan Update must be submitted by January 1, 2022. From then, the GSAs are
2 required to prepare four 5-Year Plan Updates, with the expectation that the Indio Subbasin will achieve groundwater sustainability by 2042.
Water Management Planning in the Indio Subbasin Mr. Lin presented the history of water management in the Indio Subbasin. Multiple sources of water have been developed to ensure a reliable supply for the region. Stormflows from the Whitewater River were captured and used for groundwater recharge beginning in 1918. The Coachella Canal, which imports Colorado River water, was completed in 1949. CVWD and DWA contracts for State Water Project (SWP) water began in 1963. SWP water is exchanged for Colorado River water via the Colorado River Aqueduct as there are no physical SWP facilities to deliver the SWP allocations. Since 1973, this SWP exchange water has been used to recharge the Indio Subbasin at the Whitewater River Groundwater Replenishment Facility. Finally, water recycling within the Indio Subbasin began in 1965. Mr. Lin then presented the history of the CVWMP and other water management plans. The 2010 CVWMP serves as the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan. The Plan assessed future growth and land use changes, estimated future water demands and supplies, and established data collection and monitoring programs to track groundwater conditions and Plan performance. The 2010 CVWMP also identified management actions needed to meet current and future water demands in a cost effective and reliable manner. Mr. Lin then explained that the Alternative Plan shared the same goals and met the requirements of a GSP. Agencies in the Indio Subbasin use a combination of management actions to meet local water demands, including local stormwater water and imported water for direct replenishment of groundwater, non-potable water and recycled water for source substitution, and agricultural, golf, and urban conservation. The Alternative Plan has resulted in a significant increase in groundwater storage across the Indio Subbasin and groundwater levels have increased regionally. More work is needed to ensure continued success of the Alternative Plan.
Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update Mr. Lin described the purpose of the Alternative Plan and outlined the tasks involved in preparing the plan. Tasks include assessing the existing plan, estimating future water demands and supplies, establishing quantifiable sustainability goals, and implementing a stakeholder and public outreach plan. The Alternative Plan Update will include an update of the Coachella Valley groundwater flow model to support the development of current and future water budgets. The process will include eight quarterly public workshops, in which the project team will report on progress, share results and findings, and solicit input and feedback. The 2022 Alternative Plan Update Report Draft is expected to be ready for public review and comment in early Fall 2021. The Final Report will be prepared in Winter 2021. Mr. Lin encouraged workshop participants to visit the Indio Subbasin website ( www.IndioSubbasinSGMA.org) for more information on the planning process and to learn how to get involved. He emphasized that public participation and input are important components to this planning process. The goals of the public outreach task are to keep the public informed about the planning process, engage diverse interested parties, and respond to and incorporate public concerns and feedback.
Public Comment Mr. Lin invited workshop participants to ask questions and provide comments:
• The East Area of Benefit (east of Washington) has been depleted since 2010 and is down 4.5 million acre-feet. SGMA doesn’t necessarily address putting water back into the [Indio Subbasin] and some wells are 200 feet down.
3 • The SWP is dependent on the Delta Conveyance Project (Delta Fix) and may add 22,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of water (8%) in deliveries. However, the cost is $380 million in present value, which is $1 billion over a 30-year timeline. The 2010 CVWMP shows a 14% conservation goal for agriculture and a 20% reduction for Municipal & Institutional demands. Agricultural users have never met their 14% conservation goal. Why would we pay $1 billion for the Delta Fix, when we would save equally as much through agricultural conservation? • CVWD has more water than it knows what to do with. The Palm Desert Groundwater Replenishment Facility was built so that it could store the water. The CVWD Board of Directors has taken the approach to sell water as cheaply as possible to get rid of that water. We need to look more at conservation. Why can’t we bank that water in the groundwater basin or Lake Mead or somewhere else? • Golf irrigation is an “unreasonable use” of water. CVWD’s goal is to get golf courses off groundwater supply and sell Coachella Canal water. • Consumptive returns of agriculture water amount to 90 AFY. However, this water hits the aquitard and doesn’t get back into the aquifer. This should not be counted as “sustainable groundwater.” • The 2010 CVWMP is based on assumptions of 138 golf courses. I would love to see rapid growth of golf, but there is not enough playership to support this kind of growth. o Do we have access to growth projections from the golf industry? We would like this data. • Is the GSP goal for 2042 to get back to 1970s levels? Or is this undetermined at this point? o The goal is to prevent undesirable results. We have not determined “undesirable results” for Indio Subbasin yet. Example goals include maintaining the good trend we are on or not allowing groundwater elevations to reduce further. • Will all six sustainable management criteria identified by DWR be addressed? o Five sustainable management criteria will be addressed. Seawater intrusion is not applicable to Indio Subbasin and will not be addressed. • Why are we not addressing seawater intrusion? We don’t have ocean water, but we do have high salinity water intrusion from the Salton Sea. o We are looking at this issue under the “water quality” criteria. We will evaluate salinity along the margin between the Salton Sea and the Indio Subbasin. • Fifty-two percent of golf courses are connected to the Non-Potable Water (NPW) system. Do we have a list of those golf courses and what is the process for connecting new systems? o CVWD will follow up with the commenter on the process for connecting golf courses to the NPW system. • How will the Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) be incorporated into the Alternative Plan? o The SNMP is currently under review by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB said it is planning additional outreach and studies. We need to move forward with the Alternative Plan Update while waiting on the RWQCB’s decision on the SNMP. The Alternative Plan will report out on the progress of the SNMP for the 2022 Alternative Plan Update.
4 o The SNMP is a Coachella Valley-wide effort and is not specific to the Indio Subbasin. We will need to incorporate all stakeholders. The first SNMP took three years. This Alternative Plan update is due in less than two years. • The RWQCB released findings on Coachella Valley SNMP yesterday. o CVWD has not received notice that the findings were released, but will look for them. o The GSAs are working to address salt and nutrient management issues through the SNMP development process, and DWR is aware of this approach. • The CVWD rate system disincentivizes source substitution – there is a disparity between the Replenishment Assessment Charges (RACs) and Coachella Canal rates. The golf course rates should be modeled after incentives that coastal California water agencies are using. For example, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) based its water budgets on 80% Model Water Efficient Landscape ordinance (MWELO) if signed up for the program. In the program, operations decisions are open/free.
Next Steps Mr. Lin announced to workshop participants that the next Public Workshop will be held on May 21, 2020 from 2:00 – 4:00 PM at a location to be determined. He reminded participants to make sure they’re on the stakeholder email list to receive workshop updates. For additional information, please contact Rosalyn Prickett at: [email protected] or (858) 875-7420.
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Workshop #2
AGENDA May 21, 2020 at 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm GoToMeeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/642252461 or Dial In by Phone: +1 (646) 501-3412; Access Code: 642-252-461 # # ITEM TIME 1 Welcome and Introductions
• GoToMeeting Instructions
• Agenda and Meeting Objectives
• Introductions
2:00 pm
2 Alternative Plan Status
• Overview of SGMA and How it Applies in Indio Subbasin • Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan 2:20 pm
3 Plan Area
• Planning Boundary and Land Use 2:30pm
4 Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model (HCM)
• HCM Components
• Hydrogeologic Cross Sections
• Groundwater Production, Levels, and Quality
• Land Subsidence and GDEs
2:35 pm
5 2010 Plan Assessment
• Population Growth
• Water Demands
• Water Supply
2:50 pm
6 Groundwater Model Assessment & Approach
• 2010 CVWMP Model Assessment
• Groundwater Model Update Approach 3:05 pm
5 Public Comment
• Your participation and input are important
3:15 pm
6 Schedule and Next Steps 3:45 pm
*times are subject to change
This page intentionally left blank.
1 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Public Workshop #2
SUMMARY
May 21, 2020 at 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm
GoToMeeting for Presentation and Microsoft Teams for Spanish Translation Services Members of the Public
• Aaron Rojas, Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission
Indians
• Brian Macy, Mission Springs Water District
• Cathy Sanford, Regional Water Quality Control
Board
• Craig Kessler, Southern California Golf
Association and CVWD Golf and Water Task
Force
• Crystal Sandoval, Cathedral City
• George Cappello, Grimmway
• Jim Schmid, HiLo Desert Golf Course
• Justin Conley, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
• Kevin Fitzgerald – Southern California Golf
Association
• Kimberly Romich, California Department of Fish
& Wildlife
• Margaret Park, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
• Melanie Rivera, Kennedy Jenks
• Michael Magnani, HiLo Golf Course
Superintendents Association
• Nataly Escobedo Garcia, Leadership Counsel for
Justice & Accountability
• Nina Waszak, Coachella Valley Water Keeper
• Parker Cohn, Greener Golf
• Patrick Taber, Bureau of Indian Affairs
• Rolland M. Vaugn, Troon Golf / Shadow Hills Golf
Club
• Ron Buchwald, Valley Sanitary District
• Ryan Zeferino Llamas, Audubon California
• Steven Ledbetter, Mission Springs Water District
• Tom Calabrese, Envirologic Resources
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs)
• Adekunle Ojo, Indio Water Authority (IWA)
• Angela Johnson, Coachella Valley Water
District (CVWD)
• Ashley Metzger, Desert Water Agency (DWA)
• Castulo Estrada, Coachella Water Authority
(CWA)
• David Wilson, CVWD
• Elizabeth Campos, CVWD
• Ivory Reyburn, CVWD
• Jamie Pricer, CVWD
• Jennifer Shimmin, CVWD
• Katie Evans, CVWD
• Melanie Garcia, CVWD
• Mike Nusser, CVWD
• Nancy Munoz, CVWD
• Olivia Bennett, CVWD
• Reymundo Trejo, IWA
• Ruben Rivera, CVWD
• Ryan Molhoek, DWA
• Steve Bigley, CVWD
• Trish Rhay, IWA
• Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, CVWD
Consultant Team
• Arden Wells, Todd Groundwater
• Edwin Lin, Todd Groundwater
• Erica Wolski, Woodard & Curran
• Iris Priestaf, Todd Groundwater
• John Ayres, Woodard & Curran
• Nicole Poletto, Woodard & Curran
• Rosalyn Prickett, Woodard & Curran
2 Welcome and Introductions
Ms. Rosalyn Prickett, Woodard & Curran, welcomed everyone to the public workshop and briefed everyone on how to use the virtual GoToMeeting platform. Ms. Prickett then presented the meeting objectives and agenda, and introduced the project team working on the 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update. The Indio Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) are Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), Coachella Water Authority (CWA), Desert Water Agency (DWA), and Indio Water Authority (IWA). The Consultant team includes Todd Groundwater Inc. and Woodard & Curran, Inc. Ms. Prickett held a roll call for all attendees of the virtual meeting. There were approximately 46 attendees; some callers were unidentified.
Alternative Plan Status
Mr. Edwin Lin, Todd Groundwater, presented an overview of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA provides a framework for sustainable management of groundwater basins, promotes local management, and sets regulatory deadlines for submitting p lans and reporting progress towards sustainable management. SGMA also offers State assistance in the form of funding, data, and technical support. Local GSAs are required to prepare a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) or submit an Alternative to a GSP (Alternative Plan). The GSAs are currently in the process of updating the approved Alternative Plan. “Sustainable” management is defined as the management and use of groundwater in a manner that can be maintained without causing undesirable results. Five undesirable results have been identified; chronic lowering of groundwater levels, reduction of groundwater storage, land subsidence, groundwater quality degradation, and depletion of interconnected surface water.
Mr. Lin explained that the Indio Subbasin is designated as a medium-priority basin by the State and is subject to SGMA legislation. The State has recognized the existing water management plan, the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (CVWMP) Update, as a functionally equivalent Alternative to a GSP (Alternative Plan). The State recommends that the Indio Subbasin GSAs quantify sustainability criteria and incorporate additional elements into the 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update. SGMA also requires that the Indio Subbasin be sustainably managed within 20 years.
Each Indio Subbasin GSA is responsible and has the authority for water management within its respective boundaries. The Indio GSAs have a history of cooperation, which is ongoing. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been executed and establishes an intent to foster cooperation, coordination, and communication regarding management of the Indio Subbasin. The GSAs have also agreed on collaboration and joint submission of the Alternative Plan, Annual Reports, and 5-Year Alternative Plan Updates. The 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update must be submitted by January 1, 2022. From then, the GSAs are required to prepare 5-Year Alternative Plan Updates, with the expectation that the Indio Subbasin will achieve groundwater sustainability by 2042.
The 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update is currently underway. The team has assessed the existing plan and is currently updating and processing datasets and documenting current groundwater conditions. Future tasks will project future supplies and demands, establish quantifiable sustainability goals and criteria, and assess data collection and monitoring programs.
These tasks will be presented at a future meeting, and therefore public participation is important to ensure the best available information is incorporated into the Alternative Plan Update and it responds to the publics concerns.
3 Plan Area
Ms. Prickett presented an overview of the plan area that will be considered in the Alternative Plan Update. The Indio Subbasin planning boundary is slightly larger than the subbasin and extends to the east to include the potential sphere of influence for IWA and CWA in Desert Hot Springs Subbasin, and extends to the South to include portions of CVWD’s service area. This ensures the Alternative Plan Update will more accurately reflect supply and demand. Ms. Prickett then displayed the General Plan Buildout map from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) from the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy. The land uses in map are being used to forecast future water demands.
Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model
Mr. Lin explained that a Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model (HCM) is a collection of maps, cross- sections, figures, and tables that provide a framework for understanding the movement of surface water and groundwater in the Indio Subbasin. The HCM provides context to identify major water budget components and the basis for the development of a numerical groundwater model. The numerical groundwater model has been developed but needs to be updated to include recent data.
This process will help identify data gaps.
There are seven major features of the HCM. All components are currently being processed by the team, and Mr. Lin presented preliminary results for each component. Mr. Lin provided more detail on each component of an HCM:
1. Hydrogeologic Cross Sections: Five cross sections will be used to illustrate basin geometry and subsurface conditions, including major aquifers and aquitard units, the effect of faults, groundwater levels, and production well screen intervals. Three groundwater replenishment facilities in the plan area are active and the cross sections will show them.
2. Surface Water and Natural Recharge: There are 24 recharge points for the plan area where tributary watersheds generate runoff that recharges the Indio Subbasin through stream flow recharge or mountain-front recharge. The team is currently updating runoff/recharge estimates from 18 weather stations and streamflow data from 20 USGS gauge stations.
3. Groundwater Production: Annual groundwater production maps demonstrate production by well and general production volume per square foot.
4. Groundwater Levels: Groundwater level maps compare observed and projected groundwater levels.
5. Groundwater Quality: The Alternative Plan Update will review the same constituents of concern that were evaluated as part of the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update.
6. Land Subsidence: The cooperative agreement between USGS and CVWD has provided good data to evaluate subsidence from 1995 to 2017. In some portions, ground surface elevation levels dropped, but have stabilized since 2010, and even recovered in some places.
7. Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs): GDEs are wetland and riparian habitats that are dependent on the regional aquifer. This component involves a desktop evaluation and biological field assessment.
Plan Assessment
Ms. Prickett explained that the plan assessment will compare projections from the 2010 CVWMP Update to historical demand and supply data through 2019. Part of the work moving forward will be
4 to understand the previous assumptions used, and then to revise them to match current conditions and agreements. Ms. Prickett used the difference in population projections as an example of the updated projections. The population projection for the Alternative Plan Update uses 2020 SCAG data, which is very close to the 1998 SCAG data projections used in the 2002 CVWMP, estimating population in the Coachella Valley to be approximately 615,000 people, instead of over 1.1 million, by 2045. In addition to a lower population projection from the 2010 CVWMP Update, the Alternative Plan Update will also show a lower water demand than projected previously. The 2010 CVWMP Update projected a great deal of urbanization, and that growth was not realized, therefore demand is below the projection. Additionally, several statewide droughts have decreased water use.
Ms. Prickett reviewed the six water supply sources for the plan area, including groundwater, State Water Project (SWP) water, Colorado River water, surface water, and recycled water. Water conservation is considered the sixth water supply source because conservation offsets the need to develop additional supplies. Groundwater replenishment consists of SWP water, Colorado River water, and surface water in the Indio Subbasin. Ms. Prickett discussed each source and its associated 2010 CVWMP Update assumptions.
Groundwater Model Assessment & Approach
Mr. Lin explained the original groundwater model was developed in the late 1990s for the 2002 CVWP, and included a historical calibration period from 1936-1996. Actual data from 1997-2008 was incorporated into the model for the 2010 CVWMP Update, as well as a future predictive period from 2009-2075 to project groundwater pumping, demand, and supplies. Mr. Lin then explained that the team is currently reviewing the model and plans to input additional actual data from 2009 – 2019 to better estimate current and future water budgets, evaluate benefits of proposed management actions, and support identification of appropriate sustainability criteria. The model calibrates well in the eastern Coachella Valley. There is a slight departure in the western Coachella Valley between predictive and observed groundwater levels due to advanced deliveries at the Whitewater River Groundwater Replenishment Facility (GRF).
Public Comment
Ms. Prickett invited workshop participants to ask questions and provide comments:
• Craig Kessler: At the February meeting, the Coachella Valley golf community accepted your offer to provide the market data necessary to address Task 4 (estimated future water demand and supplies). Of course, COVID-19 intervened, putting us behind in getting that information to you. What is the new deadline for submittal of that information? o Mid-July 2020. This information is needed to develop an assumption for the demand forecast. The team is calculating water use factors for residential and commercial users and applying them to land use maps over time from SCAG. At the next workshop, we will talk about the methodology and change in demand use factors and present a draft demand forecast.
• Crystal Sandoval: What does AFY mean?
o AFY = Acre-feet per year
• Parker Cohn: Referring to Slide 38, is golf categorized as agricultural or urban water use? o Urban water use. This is from the 2019 Annual Report. • Parker Cohn: What percentage of urban water users (homeowners) receive their irrigation water from golf irrigation systems? For instance, the pumps that provide pressure to the golf course also provides the pressure to irrigate lawns of HOAs.
5 o We will return to the August meeting with data on this topic when we discuss the demand projections.
o Parker Cohn: Thank you. It would be helpful to distinguish water conservation efforts between urban and golf. There is grey area.
o Craig Kessler: Parker's question goes to the circumstance in which the same water that is used to irrigate the golf course is used to irrigate the common areas and surrounds of an adjoining HOA.
o Parker Cohn: Thanks for clarifying Craig. I have witnessed excessive homeowner/HOA water use in this scenario and that information would help us understand the relationship between golf courses and homeowners/HOAs categorized as "urban water use". o Zoe Rodriguez Del Rey: Most golf courses are on their own private wells and for the most part, irrigation supply and domestic supply is separate. Irrigation is from a mixture of private wells and golf courses that are receiving Canal water directly or recycled water from WRP-4 and WRP-10.
o Parker Cohn: What percentage of homeowners receive their irrigation water by means of a golf course? Adjoining HOAs, homeowners, etc. How many acres, or square feet? This information could help develop a hypothesis that homeowners and HOAs in these areas are much less water conscious than both golf courses and the urban population. • Margaret Park: How will salt and nutrient planning be addressed in the Alternative Plan Update? The existing Alternative Plan assumed the districts would already have a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) in place, but that has not been finalized. How will this Alternative Plan Update incorporate the SNMP?
o Zoe Rodriguez del Rey: The SNMP is separate from the Alternative Plan Update. Due to the tight schedule for the Alternative Plan Update, the Alternative Plan Update and SNMP will be implemented in parallel. The Alternative Plan Update will include information on SNMP progress.
o Zoe Rodriguez del Rey: At our first Public Workshop in February, we discussed that the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) had sent a letter to the three agencies that had submitted the 2015 SNMP (CVWD, DWA, and IWA). In the letter, the RWQCB provided an evaluation of the SNMP and provided recommendations to update the plan prior to approval. The three agencies have met with the RWQCB to determine next steps.
The agencies recommended that the next step would be to move to develop a workplan to develop the SNMP, which the RWQCB found reasonable and asked the agencies to submit a formal request in writing. All agencies within the Coachella Valley that are water or wastewater providers that have a stake in the approved SNMP (about 8 agencies) have agreed to participate in the process. A scope of work was released on Tuesday May 19th to develop the SNMP work plan and schedule. Proposals are due June 9th. • Nataly Escobedo Garcia: How will you look at degradation of groundwater quality in regard to the Salton Sea?
o Groundwater quality and quantity will be characterized as part of the Alternative Plan Update. We would have to look at what the 2010 CVWMP Update impact assumptions were and update them as needed.
• Nataly Escobedo Garcia: How is the Alternative Plan Update incorporating the needs of communities near the Salton Sea (specifically eastern Coachella Valley)? Community impacts
6 include groundwater quality, quantity, and land subsidence. How are these communities taken under consideration to ensure the impacts do not happen in the future? o The purpose of SGMA is to avoid undesirable results, and negative community impacts are undesirable. These communities will be considered when establishing sustainability criteria in the Alternative Plan Update.
• Nataly Escobedo Garcia: Many communities in the eastern Coachella Valley do not have access to broadband/WiFi. How are we planning to host the other public workshops? o Our goal is to host all workshops in person. With the pandemic, we are using technology available to share updates on the work we have been doing. The virtual GoToMeeting platform allows us to use desktop or web video, or phone audio, so all stakeholders can participate. We have also provided Spanish translation on announcements, the website, and for meetings to increase meeting accessibility.
• Nataly Escobedo Garcia: How will the GSAs handle adopting the Alternative Plan Update? Once decisions are made and taken to individual Boards, will the adoption be included in regular board meetings or will separate special GSA meetings be planned? o Zoe Rodriguez del Rey: For CVWD, our decision-making body is our Board. We will provide quarterly updates on the process and agendize when decisions will be made. At the end of the process, the Alternative Plan Update will be considered in its entirety and adopted at a regular or special Board meeting.
o Ashley Metzger: Same process. DWA will approve the plan at a regular or special Board meeting depending on the circumstances on what is on the agenda at that time. o Adekunle Ojo: The process is the same for IWA.
• Nataly Escobedo Garcia: I cannot find any information online on how stakeholders can engage in the GSA Management Meetings.
o The GSAs present all their work through the Public Workshops. • Aaron Rojas: On Slide 45, can you clarify the departure between the groundwater model projection for 2009-2019 and what was actually recharged? o The difference was the Advanced Delivery water that was received and recharged at the Whitewater River GRF, which was much higher than projected in the 2010 CVWMP Update.
Next Steps
Ms. Prickett directed participants to our homepage ( www.IndioSubbasinSGMA.org) and encouraged people to sign up for email updates. She announced to workshop participants that the next Public Workshop will be held on August 27, 2020 from 2:00 – 4:00 PM at a location to be determined, if safe to meet in person. If not, the GSAs will host another meeting virtually. She reminded participants to make sure they are on the stakeholder email list to receive workshop updates. For additional information, please contact Rosalyn Prickett at: [email protected] or (858) 875-7420.
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Workshop #3
AGENDA
November 19, 2020 at 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm
GoToMeeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/208631461 or Dial In by Phone: +1 (872) 240-3212; Access Code: 208-631-461# # ITEM TIME
1 Welcome and Introductions
• GoToMeeting Instructions
• Agenda and Meeting Objectives
• Introductions
2:00 pm
2 Alternative Plan Status
• Process and Plan Update Outline
2:20 pm
3 Plan Area
• Topics to Provide Geographic Context
2:25 pm
4 Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model (HCM)
• Topics to Describe Hydrogeologic Setting
2:35 pm
5 Groundwater Model Update
• Status of Model Update
2:50 pm
6 Demand Forecast
• Municipal, Agricultural, Golf and Other Demands
3:05 pm
7 Supply Analysis
• Available Future Supplies
3:20 pm
8 Next Steps
• Emerging Issues
3:35pm
9 Public Comment
• Your Participation and Input are Important
3:45 pm
10 Get Involved 3:55 pm
*times are subject to change
This page intentionally left blank.
1 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Public Workshop #3
SUMMARY November 19, 2020 at 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm GoToMeeting for Presentation and Microsoft Teams for Spanish Translation Services Members of the Public • Amy McNeill, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Brian Macy, Mission Springs Water District • Cathy Sanford, Regional Water Quality Control Board • Chuck Jachens, Bureau of Indian Affairs • Craig Kessler, Southern California Golf Association and CVWD Golf and Water Task Force • Daniel Carney, Eastern Municipal Water District • Diana Ugarte Navarro, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians • Golf Course Superintendents Association of America • Hector, La Quinta Grower • Jennifer Harkness, United States Geologic Survey (USGS) • John Covington, Morongo Band of Mission Indians • Justin Conley, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians • Kevin Fitzgerald – Southern California Golf Association • Kimberly Romich, California Department of Fish & Wildlife • Kim Taylor, USGS • Manny Rosas, Agua Caliente Water Authority • Margaret Park, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians • Nataly Escobedo Garcia, Leadership Counsel for Justice & Accountability • Nina Waszak, Coachella Valley Water Keeper • Randy Roberts, Palm Desert Resident • Ron Buchwald, Valley Sanitary District • Steven Ledbetter, Mission Springs Water District • Tarren Torres, Egoscue Law Group representing Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians • Tim Bradshaw, La Quinta Grower • Tom Calabrese, Envirologic Resources Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) • Angela Johnson, Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Ashley Metzger, Desert Water Agency (DWA) • Castulo Estrada, Coachella Water Authority (CWA) • Ivory Reyburn, CVWD • Jamie Pricer, CVWD • Jason Lucas, CVWD • Jim Barrett, CVWD • Katie Evans, CVWD • Melanie Garcia, CVWD • Nancy Munoz, CVWD • Reymundo Trejo, IWA • Ryan Molhoek, DWA • Steve Bigley, CVWD • Trish Rhay, IWA • Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, CVWD Consultant Team • Iris Priestaf, Todd Groundwater • Maureen Reilly, Todd Groundwater • Nicole Poletto, Woodard & Curran • Rosalyn Prickett, Woodard & Curran
2 Welcome and Introductions Ms. Rosalyn Prickett, Woodard & Curran, welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made as participants joined the call. Ms. Prickett briefed everyone on how to use the virtual GoToMeeting platform. She reintroduced the project team working on the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update. The Indio Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) are Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), Coachella Water Authority (CWA), Desert Water Agency (DWA), and Indio Water Authority (IWA). The Consultant team includes Todd Groundwater Inc. and Woodard & Curran, Inc. Ms. Prickett held a roll call for all attendees of the virtual meeting. There were approximately 40 attendees; some callers were unidentified. Ms. Iris Priestaf, Todd Groundwater reviewed the meeting objectives and presented the agenda for today’s workshop.
Alternative Plan Status Ms. Priestaf presented an overview of the Alternative Plan Update tasks. Outreach is a key task throughout the Alternative Plan Update process. There are 12 chapters in the Plan and Ms. Priestaf walked attendees through the outline of the document, beginning with information included in the Plan Area chapter. The Plan Area chapter will include maps that note the location of cities and counties, tribal lands, federal and state lands, and disadvantaged communities, etc. The purpose of these maps is to depict the location of agencies that have water management and/or land use planning roles and to understand the region. One map depicts water management facilities including water sources and infrastructure in the region as well as accompanying descriptions. A water resource monitoring networks and programs map introduces climate, streamflow, subsidence, groundwater elevations, surface water and groundwater quality, groundwater pumping, and drain flows. If anyone has any updated information or input for the maps, please let the team know. • Will maps include where DAC communities are located?
o Yes, we have included mapping of DACs.
• Will DAC communities be included on the monitoring networks map? o If this question is asking if there is adequate monitoring for DACs, we can compare the maps. Part of the monitoring program is to assess where monitoring sites are and where additional monitoring sites may be needed. o This may be something that we bring back into our presentation on the monitoring network. While we may not include it in the Plan itself, we could include it in the February workshop. o We could also include small water systems on this map. That would be great!
Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model (HCM) Ms. Priestaf introduced the HCM which establishes the physical framework for the Plan Area. The HCM cross sections allow for a depth view of the basin and depict geology, wells, faults, and groundwater levels to improve understanding of what is below the surface. Ms. Priestaf walked the attendees through a cross-section graphic to explain the constituents that make up the basin. The lighter colored sand and gravel is permeable, and as the constituents get darker, they become less permeable. For example, clay is less permeable compared to sand. Slide 19 indicates how fault zones
3 impact water levels in the basin, decreasing depth to surface and then causing a sudden drop in flow due to faults. Ms. Priestaf also explained groundwater inflow and outflow in the Indio Subbasin. Slide 21 depicts a panoramic view of the topography of the Basin. There are markers along the cross section to let you know where you are located on land. In the upper valley, the basin is permeable, and as you move towards the Salton Sea, there is more clay soil. Groundwater levels near the Salton Sea are much closer to the surface compared to the upper valley. With this information, the groundwater model will simulate the Subbasin.
Groundwater Model Update Ms. Maureen Reilly, Todd Groundwater provided an update on the groundwater model. The HCM shows that the basin has not changed considerably from the previous plan. This model builds upon the consistency of previous estimates, adds new pumping data for all wells, updates subsurface inflow and Salton Sea elevations, and develops recharge estimates for 2010-2019. These updates improve the data and methods used in the 2010 model. First, the team characterized the inflow in the basin from various sources. Inflow included:
• Mountain and Stream - USGS gages help depict mountain front recharge and stream percolation throughout the basin. Mountain flow routes water through the watershed. Mountain flow is typically in the southern end of the basin and subsurface flow exists in the eastern end of the basin. • Golf - The team inventoried golf courses in the basin and identified their water supply sources. Comparing the supply with the expected demand gives return flow. The supply and return flow were similar to the previous analysis in 2010, but improved the spatial variability of irrigation efficiency. • Agricultural - The agricultural return flow was calculated using the Trimester Crop Census. The Census shows what crops are being grown when and where and can help provide an understanding of the amount of water that is being used. It depicts multicropping and permanent crops to allow for detailed temporal change of water use in the Basin. • Municipal – Municipal return flow was calculated looking at outdoor water use. The model was able to vary the local outdoor use spatially. The major outflow in the basin is groundwater pumping. The depth of pumping impacts water conditions. As water use changes, the well depth data can give a better picture of how the basin conditions may change. In order to confirm if the groundwater model simulates reality, observation wells were used to compare simulated and observed values. The team coordinated with neighboring basins in order to ensure consistency. This tool will allow for scenario planning in the future.
Demand Forecast Ms. Prickett noted that the demand forecast results presented are preliminary. Feedback was encouraged to determine if any changes needed to be made. The demand forecast is based on 11 geographic units used to identify the underlying demographic information that included land use and water use patterns in each area. This includes an east and a west unincorporated area in order to analyze the data at a finer scale.
4 Municipal Demands There are five major steps to determine the municipal demands forecast: the regional growth forecast, land use inventories, unit demand factors, projected water loss, and adjustment factors. These steps are discussed in more detail below. 1) Regional Growth Forecast – The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2020 data was used to provide projections for households, employment, and population. SCAG data was used in the previous plans. These growth forecasts are based on the City and County General Plans and other planning documents for the agencies. The SCAG growth forecast projects that for the Plan Area, population will increase by approximately 53%, households will increase 66% and employees will increase 39%. These projections are more in line with the 2002 Plan. Because the Alternative Plan Update is due before the US Census data is released, the SCAG 2020 numbers were used. 2) Land Use Inventories – This is important to project housing units in alignment with demand. SCAG and US Census data helped determine the number of occupied households vs planned. About 30% of the housing units in the Plan Area are vacant or are only occupied seasonally but may continue to have water use and therefore it is important to incorporate. The SCAG land use inventory map shows land use based on the City and County general plans. Over time, a slight shift to multi-family units are expected, but the split between single family and multi-family units will remain relatively equal at the end of the planning horizon. 3) Unit Demand Factors – Unit demand factors use 5-year averages from customer billing data (2015-2019). It is important to note that the demand factors show gallons per housing unit or gallons for employee per day for industrial use, which is not equivalent to gallons per capita per day (GPCD). A demand factor for all GSAs was calculated. CVWD’s single family demand factors were calculated for each of the geographic units within their service area. Water demands for small water systems throughout the eastern unincorporated area were applied to the demand factor for CVWD to accommodate other housing units that are not currently served by CVWD’s domestic system. All of DWAs designated land use meters show up in the Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional (CII) category rather than the designated Landscape category. 4) Projected Water Loss – Water loss is based on audited water loss reports for the water that is lost between delivery and the meters. Water loss is estimated at about 10%. 5) Adjustment Factors –Demands are adjusted by conservation savings estimates for indoor and outdoor water use. Passive conservation includes indoor conservation (e.g. changes in indoor plumbing) and outdoor conservation for only future development (new development efficiencies) and not existing development. Conservation for existing development will be applied separately. In summary, there is a 43% increase in projected municipal demands over time. Each GSA is depicting a projected increase in demand ranging from 28% (DWA) to 190% (CWA). Discussion: What industries are changing? How is residential seasonality changing over time? • Is there a demand forecast for tourism and the impact that will have on water demands? o Yes, tourism was considered in the Commercial, Industrial, Institutional category of the municipal demand forecast
5 Agricultural Demands The forecast process was similar to the municipal demands forecast. Ms. Prickett explained that the team analyzed the regional growth forecast, land use inventories, and unit demand factors. The forecast considered the SCAG 2020 growth projections for households, population, and employment. The land use inventory identified idle and agricultural lands for conversion based on SCAG land use mapping to see which agricultural areas may be going out of service. 5-year averages (2015-2019) from agricultural pumping and Canal delivery data were used to develop unit demand factors. The baseline demand for the 5-year average of 2015-2019 is 205,150 AFY. These projections were applied to the crop census to estimate the total cropped acres and develop demand factors. The average unit demand factors ranged from approximately 4.3 acre-feet/acre to 7.3 acre-feet/acre. This affects the agricultural demand factors because changing agriculture in the future years impact the demand forecast in the geographic units. Within CWA and IWA especially, a total of approximately 14,300 acres are expected to be converted from agricultural or idle land to urban land. The forecast predicts an overall decrease in water demand, even with the addition of approximately another 1,000 acres of agricultural land converted from idle land. Discussion: Is agriculture stable, growing, or shrinking over the next 20 years? What are current trends in local agriculture? What crops are changing and where? • Due to a scheduling conflict, many of the agricultural stakeholders could not attend today’s meeting. CVWD will be following up with them. • How are conservation savings factored into your plan of 42,000 AF? o We are separating passive and active conservation programs in the Alternative Plan Update. This forecast only includes passive conservation. o The goal of 42,000 AF has been deferred for 10 years and I’d like to see it referenced in this plan. I have been bringing this up for multiple years. Conservation goals need to be addressed.
Golf Demands The golf water demands followed a similar format to calculate the baseline demand. It also planned for conservation from future golf courses to comply with CVWD Ordinance No. 1302.4. In the last 10 years, two golf courses were opened, and two very small courses were closed, depicting a potential flat line in the golf industry. Ms. Prickett explained that the team also talked to the Southern California Golf Association to understand projected growth, and they did not project significant growth. The current demand forecast assumes three new golf courses will be constructed before 2045. Discussion: Are you aware of any new or planned golf courses? What are current trends in golf? • We’ve predicted that by 2030 there will be three less golf courses than there are now and we are not projecting any additional future courses. COVID-19 has caused an incredible spike in golf play. The desert is a seasonal and out of town market, and we are waiting to see if the increase in golf play is reflected here. It may be negatively impacted by the restrictions on foreign travel. We are hopeful that a portion of the spike in golf play will remain in the future, but it is unknown. I think you guessed right for the demand forecast. o In the demand forecast, we are assuming conservation only for the new courses, and no passive conservation for existing programs. We are reserving those conservation programs for the Projects and Management Actions to calculate water savings for those programs. Any turf rebate that a golf course would take advantage of would be active savings.
6 • In 2014/2015, Governor Brown mandated a 10% cut back on water usage for golf courses. Golf courses in Coachella Valley are not very drought tolerant and contain “wall to wall” grass on private country clubs. On Google satellite view you can see that golf courses are only a fraction of the water being used to water the surrounding areas of the golf courses. Golf is considered an unreasonable use of water and is a matter of public policy. I’m not seeing anything about conservation for the water use for golf courses outside of the courses themselves that are using 1,000-1200 AFY. o Those surrounding areas are considered in the conservation ordinance calculations on maximum allowable water. I think you are missing what I am saying. The surrounding areas aren’t exactly the golf courses. All of the area surrounding the golf courses (HOAs and country clubs) are considered golf course use. The grass extends for acres that has nothing to do with playing golf. It is very important that it is quantified. It is considered by the golf course as part of their water use. o I will add clarification to Randy Robert's comment, that conservation for existing development by sector will be considered in the Project & Management Actions section of the Plan Update. Stay tuned for more on that topic in upcoming workshops! • Regarding Mr. Roberts' comments about golf's conservation record, I'd like to point out that the 108 courses served by CVWD are currently irrigating at levels significantly below both 2010 and 2013. They can and will do better over time, but to suggest that they are profligate in that use is not sustained by the data. o Thank you both, I know it is a hot topic.
Other Demands The other demands include fish farms, duck clubs, surf parks, polo/turf, and environmental water. Through the review of supply assessments and the Salton Sea pilot project, three new users were identified. The baseline average was approximately 19,000 AF. The demand forecast predicts four new users will be added between 2025 and 2035, adding 2,700 AFY of water demands. Discussion: Are there any other water demands that we should consider? Have all potential users been included in the forecast? • How often will these forecasts be updated? For example, Riverside County just approved the development of the Thermal Beach Club. Is something like that included in this forecast? o SGMA requires a 5-year update and there will most likely be a comprehensive update of the demand forecast in those 5-year updates. We reached out to all of the municipalities in the Plan area to see if there were any current developments that were not included in the SCAG 2020 data. We received information back from those agencies in the Spring of 2020. • The Thermal Beach Club was just approved like 2 weeks ago; so, would that mean it is not included? o Even though the project wasn’t approved yet we had the data to work into the calculations from the Water Supply Assessment/Water Supply Verification (WSA/WSV). o It is included as are all such water uses with approved WSA/WSVs
7 Summary When all demands are rolled together, there is a 7% increase in demand from 2020 to 2045. This is relatively low in comparison to the projected population increase and depicts the impact of changing uses in the Valley. Any input on new or planned demands was requested.
Supply Analysis Ms. Prickett noted that there is uncertainty with the supply sources discussed today. In certain scenarios, these supplies may change. The six buckets of the supply portfolio include groundwater, State Water Project exchange water, Colorado River water, recycled water, surface water, and other supplies. These supplies are discussed in more detail below. The Indio Subbasin provides groundwater storage capacity. Total groundwater storage has increased since 2009. The recovery of the groundwater storage demonstrates the success of the 2002 and 2010 Water Management Plans. The water budget is a work in progress (inflows and outflows) and will be evaluated with the model when the water budget calculations are complete. The difference between the inflow and the outflow is the net return flow that is entering the basin. The groundwater model will give a better estimate of the net return flow number. For the watershed model, the long-term average for net watershed runoff is 42,300 AFY (1931-2019). The high was in 1980 and the low was in 2002. The surface water diversions were removed from the average as well as the amount of flow that goes through the Indio gage to the Salton Sea. DWA and CVWD have contracts for State Water Project Water (SWP). SWP water is exchanged with Metropolitan Water District (MWD) for Colorado River Water and it is annually variable due to Northern California hydrology. The SWP Table A amount assumes a reliability of 58% annually that will decrease to 52% over time. If the Delta Conveyance Facility is constructed, reliability will improve assumedly back to 58% or more. CVWD has a QSA entitlement and MWD SWP transfer. Colorado River water is generally delivered by the Coachella Canal to farmers in the eastern portion of the Valley. The MWD transfer can be delivered to the Canal or Whitewater and can be recharged at Whitewater River GRF. The plan includes a ramp up of QSA entitlement minus conveyance and transfer losses (436,000 AFY at its peak). The supply forecast reflects the ramp up (5,000 AFY per year) in accordance with 2003 QSA, minus conveyance and transfer losses.
Surface water diversions occur at Snow, Falls, Chino Creeks in the San Jacinto Mountains and Whitewater River Canyon. Water is delivered directly to agriculture and municipal users in the West Valley. Forecast is continued delivery of that supply from 2,360 AFY to 6,000 AFY over time.
Recycled water is produced at three Water Reclamation Plants (WRPs) including CVWD’s WRP-7 and WRP-10 and DWA’s WRP. Existing wastewater flow at these plants is 19,400 AFY but current capacity is over 30,000 AFY. About 35% of the available supply is recycled at these plants. The forecast is based on difference of these projected flows. The amount of indoor water use is the projection for available wastewater going forward. If this additional water up to design capacity is recycled, this could be about 32,500 AFY. This is the potential supply but there might not be any infrastructure to distribute. This will be discussed further in the Projects and Management Actions chapter of the GSP. Other supplies include several other transfers and supplies not covered by the other buckets. This includes the Yuba Accord, Rosedale Rio-Bravo, and the construction of Sites Reservoir. Ms. Prickett echoed that the Supply forecast results are preliminary, and feedback is encouraged. The existing supplies forecast totals to about 640,000 AF by 2045. If future additional supplies are added,
8 supplies are over 700,000 AFY. The water supplies for the future are dependent on the implementation of projects based on the projects and management sections of the GSP. • It looks like watershed runoff was below normal since 1996; not just the last 10 years. o Yes, that is correct. When we added in the last 10 years, overall average decreased. • Will this presentation be made available on the Indio Subbasin website? o Yes, the presentation is already available on the website and can be accessed here: http://www.indiosubbasinsgma.org/get-involved-faq/ . • How much of the one million acre feet gain in groundwater storage is advanced deliveries? o CVWD tracks the advanced delivery account; unsure of the volume at this time. • Where is groundwater pumping accounted for in this water supply? o It is not accounted for in the supply; pumping is included in demands. • Beside PFAS, are there other concerns for groundwater contaminants in groundwater (nitrate, arsenic)? o Yes, we have both ongoing issues and emerging issues.
Next Steps Ms. Priestaf reviewed next steps for the team for the next few months. This includes the documentation of groundwater dependent ecosystems, completing the update of the groundwater model, quantifying the Indio Subbasin water budget, identifying projects and management actions, developing proposed sustainability criteria, and identifying emerging issues. For the context of emerging issues, SGMA identifies six undesirable results, which serve as the indicators for what sustainable management within the basin means. The team needs to determine what the criteria are to maintain sustainable management goals. The emerging issues identified in 2010 need to be updated. These issues included specific water quality constituents, water conservation, seismic risk, subsidence, invasive species, climate change. What are some emerging issues that concern you now? Emerging issues identified by attendees include:
• Salt and Nutrient Management Plan
• Chromium-6 has been recognized for a while but standards change, and that may have an impact on our systems.
Get Involved Ms. Priestaf encouraged attendees to sign up for the stakeholder list on the Indio Subbasin website and mark the calendar for the next public workshop scheduled for February 2021. The workshop will be held from 2:00-4:00 p.m. and will most likely be virtual due to COVID-19. For any additional information, please contact Rosalyn Prickett at [email protected].
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Workshop #4
AGENDA March 3, 2021 at 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm
English: GoToMeeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/691894997 or Dial In by Phone: +1 (646) 749-3122; Access Code: 691-894-997# Español: Llamar al (207) 558-4270, código de acceso: 744-554-134# # ITEM TIME 1 Welcome and Introductions
• GoToMeeting Instructions
• Agenda and Meeting Objectives
• Introductions
2:00 pm
2 Alternative Plan Status
• Process and Plan Update Outline 2:20 pm
3 Groundwater Conditions
• Topics to Characterize Groundwater Conditions 2:25 pm 4 Sustainable Management Criteria
• Orientation
• Groundwater Levels, Storage, and Subsidence
2:40 pm
5 Groundwater Model Status
• Status of Model Update 3:00 pm
6 Projects and Management Actions
• Proposed List of PMAs
• Scenario Planning 3:10 pm
7 Public Comment
• Your Participation and Input are Important
3:45 pm
8 Get Involved 3:55 pm
*times are subject to change
This page intentionally left blank.
1 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Public Workshop #4
SUMMARY March 3, 2021 at 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm Virtual Meeting Members of the Public • Alan Pace, Petra Geosciences • Amy McNeill, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Amanda Monaco, Leadership Counsel for Justice & Accountability • Ben Olson, Olsen Engineering • Cathy Sanford, Regional Water Quality Control Board • Craig Kessler, Southern California Golf Association and CVWD Golf and Water Task Force • George Cappello, Grimway Farms • Johnathan Abadesco, High Desert Water District • Karina Jaquez • Kevin Fitzgerald, Southern California Golf Association • Kim Taylor, USGS • Kimberly Romich, California Department of Fish & Wildlife • Margaret Park, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians • Mark Meeler, Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company • Nina Waszak, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians • Ron Buchwald, Valley Sanitary District • Sergio Sandoval • Steven Ledbetter, Mission Springs Water District • Tarren Torres, Egoscue Law Group representing Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians • Tom Calabrese, Envirologic Resources Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) • Castulo Estrada, CWA • Jamie Pricer, CVWD • Jesse Ruiz, CVWD • Jim Barrett, CVWD • Katie Evans, CVWD • Lauren Chase, CVWD • Mark Krause, DWA • Melanie Garcia, CVWD • Nancy Munoz, CVWD • Reymundo Trejo, IWA • Ryan Molhoek, DWA • Steve Bigley, CVWD • Trish Rhay, IWA • Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, CVWD Consultant Team • Iris Priestaf, Todd Groundwater • John Ayres, Woodard & Curran • Maureen Reilly, Todd Groundwater • Nicole Poletto, Woodard & Curran • Rosalyn Prickett, Woodard & Curran • Vanessa De Anda, Woodard & Curran Welcome and Introductions Ms. Rosalyn Prickett, Woodard & Curran, welcomed everyone to the meeting, and introductions were made as participants joined the call. Ms. Prickett briefed everyone on how to use the virtual GoToMeeting platform and notified attendees that the conference would be recorded. She then
2 presented the meeting objectives and agenda and reintroduced the project team working on the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update, including the Indio Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) and Consultant team. Ms. Prickett reviewed the meeting objectives.
Alternative Plan Status Ms. Iris Priestaf, Todd Groundwater, presented an overview of the Alternative Plan Update tasks. Outreach is a key task throughout the Alternative Plan Update process. There are 12 chapters in the Plan and Ms. Priestaf walked attendees through the outline of the document, beginning with the information included in the Plan Area chapter.
Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater Levels Ms. Priestaf presented a map of the groundwater level contours in the Indio Subbasin (Subbasin). The Subbasin has a robust monitoring program that consists of 345 wells. Monitoring data from these wells was used to develop the groundwater level contour map. The groundwater levels range from 1,100 feet in the northeastern part of the Subbasin and decrease to 200 feet below mean sea level (msl) toward the Salton Sea. Groundwater flow is perpendicular to the contours, so groundwater flows from northwest to southeast in the Subbasin. Ms. Priestaf presented a map showing the change in groundwater levels from 2009 through 2019. The map indicates that groundwater levels have primarily increased during the past decade, and the largest increases have occurred near the groundwater replenishment facilities (GRF). These increases in groundwater levels are the result of recharge in the GRFs, implementation of source substitution programs (e.g., recycled water to offset groundwater use), and conservation programs. Ms. Priestaf presented four hydrographs showing groundwater levels from 2009 through 2020, though she noted that numerous hydrographs in the Subbasin are available. The hydrographs show a consistent pattern of overall groundwater level increases from 2009. The hydrographs also show large increases near recharge at the GRFs and smaller increases at locations distant from the GRFs. Overall, the hydrographs show recovery from overdraft since 2009.
Change in Groundwater Storage Ms. Priestaf presented a graph showing the cumulative change in storage from 1970 through 2019. The hydrograph starts a “running total” of groundwater storage in 1970 as this was right before the Whitewater River GRF began operation in 1973. The hydrograph starts with a net change in storage of 0 acre-feet (AF) in 1970 and shows a significant decline in groundwater storage happening in the mid-1980s through 2009. The year 2009 marked a historical low for groundwater storage, and overdraft has started to reverse since then with a net storage increase of 840,000 AF. Increased groundwater storage is important as it can be used during a water shortage such as drought.
Land Subsidence Ms. Priestaf presented land subsidence, or the sinking of the ground surface, in the Subbasin. In this case, land subsidence is not caused by tectonics and action in the San Andreas fault, but rather as a result of the compaction of sediments that occur with groundwater level declines. Clay layers in the Subbasin float in groundwater, so if groundwater levels decline, the clay layers settle and compact, causing the ground surface to also decline. The Subbasin is susceptible to land subsidence which may disrupt conveyance facilities and facilities on the ground surface. Land subsidence in the Subbasin has been studied since 1995 by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and CVWD. USGS research shows a correlation between land subsidence and groundwater declines, reaching up to 2 feet of subsidence in parts of the Subbasin between 1995 and 2010. USGS has documented stabilization of
3 land surface and even uplift in some areas of the Subbasin since 2010 as a result of increasing groundwater levels. For comparison, land subsidence in the Central Valley is as much as 30 feet and is still ongoing.
Sustainable Management Criteria Mr. John Ayres, Woodard & Curran, presented the Sustainable Management Criteria (SMC) for the Alternative Plan Update. To define the SMC, DWR recommends setting thresholds for groundwater levels and using these thresholds as a proxy for the storage and subsidence indicators. The GSAs have an overarching objective to avoid undesirable results of a significant and unreasonable loss of yield from existing production wells. SGMA does not define “significant” and “unreasonable” as these are determined at the local level. Representative monitoring will occur throughout the Subbasin, but not every well will be monitored. Subbasin management will only include management activities that the GSAs can influence.
Sustainability Management Criteria Mr. Ayres explained that SMCs can be qualitative. For the Subbasin, the Sustainability Goals are defined as the conditions in the absence of undesirable results within the next 20 years. Undesirable Results are qualitative and descriptive; these are conditions that should be avoided in the Subbasin. In comparison, Measurable Objectives (MO) are specific, quantifiable goals for the maintenance or improvement of specified groundwater conditions to achieve the sustainability goal. Minimum Thresholds (MT) are numeric values for each sustainability indicator used to define undesirable results. Interim Milestones (IM) are quantitative target values representing measurable groundwater conditions in increments of five years; these will be updated during every Plan update. A graphic illustrating the quantitative criteria was presented to the group. The Alternative Plan goal is “to reliably meet current and future water demands cost-effectively and sustainably.” The draft SGMA Sustainability Goal is to “maintain a locally managed, economically viable, sustainable groundwater resource for existing and future beneficial use in the Indio Subbasin by managing groundwater to avoid undesirable results.” The SGMA Sustainability Goal only focuses on groundwater and is nested within the Alternative Plan goal, which is broader and encompasses all water supplies. This meeting focuses on three of the six SMC, which include: 1) chronic lowering of groundwater levels, 2) reduction of groundwater storage, and 3) land subsidence. The draft undesirable result statements were phrased broadly for these three SMC to give the GSAs local control over what is significant and unreasonable, as well as drive the monitoring networks and thresholds.
Groundwater Levels Mr. Ayres explained that the undesirable results for the chronic lowering of groundwater levels indicator include impacts to shallow wells, and maintenance of municipal and industrial water supply. Public comments and questions included the following:
• Drinking water is the primary beneficial use of water in California, but the Sustainability Goal references only the economic use of water. Ms. Amanda Monaco, a representative from Leadership Counsel who works with several vulnerable communities in the Subbasin, requested that a reference to protecting drinking water also be included. o This comment was noted and will be addressed.
4 • Regarding land subsidence, reviewing impacts to only water infrastructure may ignore impacts to other development like roads. Ms. Amanda Monaco suggested that language for land subsidence be less restrictive to only water conveyance infrastructure. o This comment was noted and will be addressed Ms. Priestaf provided the consultant team’s recommendations on setting MTs for groundwater levels, storage, and subsidence. SGMA defines a groundwater level MT as a groundwater elevation measured at a representative monitoring site. There will not be MTs or monitoring conducted for every single pumping well in the Subbasin, just for the representative sites. There are two options for setting groundwater elevation MTs, as described below: 1. Use historical low groundwater levels. The groundwater levels reached a historical low in 2009. The historical low occurred recently without any reported significant problems that impacted the beneficial uses of water wells. In comparison, historical groundwater level lows in the Central Valley led to community water systems and wells drying up. This option is recommended because the historical low groundwater levels are conservative and protective of the Subbasin based on the best available information. 2. Document construction of all production wells, select criteria per diverse well characteristics, relate private wells to representative “Key Wells.” This option would protect production wells; however, it requires documentation of the construction of all production wells (including but not limited to the well location, bottom depth of the well, etc.). To implement this option, extensive data collection and decision-making would be required to define the selection criteria. It is recommended that the Subbasin develops a well inventory in the future as a way to refine the MTs. Ms. Priestaf presented hydrographs showing the suggested MTs corresponding with the lowest groundwater elevations measured at Key Wells. These MTs will guide management in the Subbasin. Ms. Priestaf stated that there are 757 wells in the Subbasin. Of these wells, 57 wells were selected as representative wells in the Key Well network because they have well construction data, are easily accessible (though this may change in the future if they are abandoned or replaced), have an extensive monitoring record and current data, are distributed throughout the Subbasin near other production wells and small water systems that are vulnerable to groundwater level declines, and are representative of all GSAs. Public comments and questions included the following:
• What is a production well, and does it include private wells? o It is a pumping well for beneficial use (e.g., industrial, drinking water, municipal, agricultural) Ms. Priestaf stated that the SMC will assume that undesirable results will occur if groundwater levels remain consistently below the MTs. It is recommended that an undesirable result be defined when the MT is crossed in five low season monitoring events (i.e., October) in 25% of the monitoring wells across the subbasin. Annual reporting will include MT hydrographs to identify potential problems, analyze what will happen as groundwater management actions change in that area, and determine if the Subbasin will recover. Public comments and questions included the following:
• What is an example of five consecutive low-season monitoring events? o These are five consecutive years, likely in October; not consecutive monitoring events, which might be quarterly.
5 Groundwater Storage Ms. Priestaf explained that using levels as a proxy for groundwater storage is recommended for the Subbasin as groundwater level monitoring generally matches the long-term change in storage. Based on previous monitoring, it is expected that the groundwater level MTs are protective of groundwater storage and will not lead to significant and unreasonable conditions in storage.
Land Subsidence Ms. Priestaf explained that using levels as a proxy for subsidence is also recommended for the Subbasin. Based on previous monitoring, it is expected that the groundwater level MTs are protective of land subsidence and will not lead to significant and unreasonable conditions. Undesirable results may include disruption of surface drainage, water supply conveyance and flood control facilities, damage to other critical infrastructure, and earth fissures.
Groundwater Model Status Ms. Priestaf presented the groundwater model status. The model provides a numerical simulation of the Subbasin. The model was updated with recent inflow and outflow data and coordinated with models for adjacent basins for consistency. The model is in the process of final calibration, and a chapter for the model is underway. The model will continue to provide a reliable tool to simulate future conditions and scenarios.
Projects and Management Actions Ms. Prickett presented the projects and management actions (PMAs) which are required under SGMA to achieve sustainability. The project team previously presented the water supply portfolio, which will be packaged into different scenarios and modeled when the model calibration is finalized. The PMAs have been grouped into two major categories: 1) SGMA implementation to comply with the SGMA requirements, and 2) PMAs. 1. SGMA implementation activities to support SGMA compliance. 2. The PMAs are actions that support sustainable water management. These PMAs are different from, but support, the water supplies that were discussed in the last workshop. Many PMAs help to convey, deliver, and recharge regional supplies. PMAs 1 that will be included in the Alternative Plan Update are grouped into the following five categories:
o Water Conservation
o Water Supply Development
o Source Substitution and Replenishment
o Water Quality Improvements
o Other Studies and Programs Ms. Prickett presented the objectives of scenario modeling. Scenario modeling will consider how uncertainties may affect the ability to sustainability manage water resources, as well as help the Subbasin meet SGMA regulations for balancing the water budget and avoiding groundwater overdraft. Ms. Prickett explained there are several uncertainties for the water demand projections. Land use agencies may experience development at rates greater than anticipated, resulting in higher water demands than projected. There may also be increased agricultural water demands resulting from an 1 Please refer to the meeting presentation for a list of PMAs considered for the Subbasin.
6 influx of new farmers from neighboring subbasins that have experienced significant decreases in pumping due to SGMA. To account for these uncertainties, there was a 10% buffer added to the total municipal demand (i.e., 110% of total municipal demand), and the potential new acreage for agriculture was doubled (i.e., 1,000 acres of new agriculture). Ms. Prickett explained there are also many uncertainties for the supply projections. Climate change may change the local hydrology, which would reduce watershed runoff, as well as lead to additional reductions in water supplies from the Colorado River and State Water Project (SWP). SWP supplies may also decline if the Delta Conveyance project is delayed or not constructed. Other sources of uncertainty include imported water disruptions as a result of natural disasters or regulatory constraints, groundwater changes in storage and outflows, and recycled water constraints from evolving regulations and project delays. The Sites Reservoir and Lake Perris Seepage projects may also not be constructed or delayed. Ms. Prickett presented five scenarios that are underway. These include: 1) No Project – assumes growth but no additional water supplies, 2) Baseline – assumes supplies and facilities in the Capital Improvement Program, 3) Future Projects – assumes all planned supplies and facilities including new SWP supplies, the buildout of nonpotable system, and source substitutions, 4) Future Projects with Climate Change – assumes planned supplies & facilities, limited by climate change, and 5) Future Projects with Drought – assumed planned supplies and facilities limited by reoccurring drought. Public comments and questions included the following:
• These 5 scenarios are logical since they factor in climate change. It is encouraging that Indio is already working on drinking water and consolation projects, which gives GSAs the ability to collaborate. • There is a need for enhanced land use planning that is coordinated with water planning. There are a lot of uncertainties with land use, so coordination will be vital. o The consultant team coordinated with land use planning agencies during development of the demand forecast. The consultant team used the SCAG 2020 forecast as the basis and then asked the city and county municipalities for confirmation that their planned future developments and General Plan developments were correctly included in that forecast. • There needs to be coordination with local permitting agencies on future agricultural lands and their wells.
Next Steps Ms. Prickett presented the next steps for February through April 2021. The consultant team will develop scenarios and determine how they will be input into the groundwater model. Results will be presented at the next meeting, which will be held on May 19 from 2 to 4 pm. The consultant team will also complete fieldwork and surveys for Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs), finalize proposed PMAs and sustainability criteria based on input from Tribal and public workshops, and quantify Indio Subbasin water budget. Finally, the consultant team will finalize the 2020 Annual Report and submit to DWR by April 1. The 2020 Annual Report will be presented to the CVWD Board on March 9 and uploaded to the CVRMWG website ( http://www.cvrwmg.org/) . Ms. Prickett invited participants to offer any additional comments or questions. For any additional information, please contact Rosalyn Prickett at [email protected].
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Workshop #5
AGENDA June 24, 2021 at 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm
English: GoToMeeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/346450773 or Dial In by Phone: +1 (571) 317-3122; Access Code: 346-450-773# Español: Llamar al (207) 558-4270, código de acceso: 256 242 646# # ITEM TIME 1 Welcome and Introductions
• GoToMeeting Instructions
• Agenda and Meeting Objectives
• Introductions
2:00 pm
2 Alternative Plan Status
• Process and Plan Update Outline 2:20 pm
3 Groundwater Conditions
• Groundwater Quality, Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems 2:25 pm 4 Sustainable Management
• Groundwater Quality, Seawater Intrusion, Interconnected Surface Waters 2:55 pm
5 Groundwater Model and Plan Scenarios
• Status of Model Update
• Scenario Planning 3:25 pm
6 Public Comment
• Your Participation and Input are Important
3:45 pm
7 Get Involved 3:55 pm
*times are subject to change
This page intentionally left blank.
1 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Public Workshop #5
SUMMARY
June 24, 2021 at 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm
Virtual Meeting
Members of the Public
• Alena Callimanis, City of Indian Wells
• Cathy Sanford, Regional Water Quality Control
Board
• Craig Kessler, Southern California Golf
Association and CVWD Golf and Water Task
Force
• Dina Purvis, City of Indian Wells
• Douglas Garcia, US Bureau of Indian Affairs
• Gwen Atherton, Coachella Valley WaterKeeper
• Jennifer Harkness, USGS
• Kevin Fitzgerald, Southern California Golf
Association
• Kimberly Romich, California Department of Fish
& Wildlife
• Nina Waszak, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
• Nataly Escobedo Garcia, Leadership Council
• Ron Buchwald, Valley Sanitary District
• Tarren Torres, Egoscue Law Group representing
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs)
• Ashley Metzger, DWA
• Elizabeth Campos, CVWD
• Jamie Pricer, CVWD
• Jim Barrett, CVWD
• Ivory Reyburn, CVWD
• Katie Evans, CVWD
• Mark Krause, DWA
• Robert Cheng, CVWD
• Ryan Molhoek, DWA
• Steve Bigley, CVWD
• Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, CVWD
Consultant Team
• Iris Priestaf, Todd Groundwater
• Maureen Reilly, Todd Groundwater
• Nicole Poletto, Woodard & Curran
• Rosalyn Prickett, Woodard & Curran
• Vanessa De Anda, Woodard & Curran
• William Medlin, Woodard & Curran
Welcome and Introductions
Ms. Rosalyn Prickett, Woodard & Curran, welcomed everyone to the meeting, and introductions were made as participants joined the call. Ms. Prickett briefed everyone on how to use the virtual GoToMeeting platform and notified attendees that the conference would be recorded. She then presented the meeting objectives and agenda and reintroduced the project team working on the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update, including the Indio Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) and Consultant team.
Alternative Plan Status
Ms. Prickett presented an overview of the Alternative Plan Update tasks. Outreach is a key task throughout the Alternative Plan Update process. There are 12 chapters in the Plan and Ms. Priestaf walked attendees through the outline of the document, beginning with the information included in the Plan Area chapter. The public review period is anticipated in September or October 2021.
2 Groundwater Conditions: Water Quality
Ms. Priestaf, Todd Groundwater, presented the groundwater conditions for water quality in the Indio Subbasin. The water quality analysis involved compiling data from various databases and mapping the following eight constituents: salinity (TDS), nitrate, arsenic, hexavalent chromium (Cr-6), fluoride, perchlorate, uranium, and DBCP. The constituents were mapped from 1990 to 2019 to see geographic patterns, distribution, and trends. The cross-sections for TDS, nitrate, arsenic, Cr-6 show vertical variation, and the time concentration plots for TDS and nitrate show trends over time.
Ms. Priestaf presented a series of maps showing the range of contaminant concentrations overtime throughout the Subbasin.
The highest TDS concentrations are located near the Salton Sea and along the eastern edge potentially from seawater intrusion, and along the Subbasin margins potentially from return flows and subsurface inflow. The lower concentrations are found along the deeper center of the Subbasin.
Shallow wells are more variable and have higher TDS concentrations because they are more influenced by recharge and other processes. Since 1990, TDS concentrations have increased in the deeper zones in the central and eastern Thermal subarea. Sources of TDS include natural sources, return flows from agricultural and landscape irrigation, imported water recharge, septic and wastewater disposal, subsurface inflow, and historical inflow from the Salton Sea.
Public comments and questions included the following:
• Groundwater sampled from 300 feet, is that below ground surface or mean sea level? o Ms. Priestaf responded that this is from the ground surface Public comments and questions included the following:
• How was the depth of specific concentrations determined? Well perforations? o Yes, depth is an approximation of well screening.
• The samples came from water drawn from the whole length of the colored zones? o Yes, when the well is pumped, water is sampled from the whole screened area. Water was not sampled at discrete layers for this analysis.
The Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for nitrate is 45 mg/L, but the majority of the Subbasin is below 10 mg/L. Some particular areas with higher nitrate reflect multiple sources, including natural mesquite sources and loading from historical agriculture, landscaping, septic and wastewater disposal. In general, shallow wells have higher nitrate concentrations and are more variable.
The MCL for arsenic is 10 μg/L. Though the majority of the Subbasin is below 5 μg/L, there are areas with concentrations higher than 50 μg/L due to anoxic (low oxygen) conditions in the East Valley near the Salton Sea and geothermal factors. The higher concentrations tend to be found at greater depths.
The MCL for total chromium is currently 50 μg /L, and Cr-6 is just one element of the total chromium standard for drinking water. The SWRCB had previously established an MCL for Cr-6 of 10 μg/L but has since rescinded this regulation. The drinking water standard for Cr-6 of 10 μg/L may be reinstated in the near term. The source of Cr-6 is likely natural, and higher concentrations are found at greater depths. Cr-6 levels are stable in most wells and decrease near groundwater replenishment facilities.
The MCL for uranium is 20 pCI/L, and the Subbasin primarily ranges from 5-10 pCI/L. Uranium in the Subbasin is likely from natural geologic sources such as granitic rocks in the northwestern portion of the Subbasin.
3 The MCL for fluoride in drinking water is 2 mg/L. Fluoride in the Subbasin is naturally occurring and is associated with faulting, such as the San Andreas Fault, and geothermal areas along the Salton Sea.
The MCL for perchlorate in drinking water is 6 μg/L. Perchlorate is largely undetected throughout the Subbasin, except for a few wells in the upper northwestern part of the Subbasin at levels below the MCL. Sources for perchlorate include industrial sources, fertilizer, and natural sources.
The MCL for DBCP is 0.2 μg/L. There have been DBCP detections in three private irrigation wells in the central portion of the Subbasin at levels below 0.1 μg/L. DBCP is associated with pesticides that were banned in 1979.
The GSAs are tracking water quality constituents of concern. The large water systems meet drinking water standards for the eight constituents presented. The domestic wells and small water systems may be affected by nitrate, Cr-6, and arsenic.
Public comments and questions included the following:
• Did you do any volume corrections?
o The analyses are not dependent on volume, and the data comes from other monitoring programs collected by multiple agencies.
• Was any data included from State Small Water Systems and domestic wells? o Yes, the analysis included all available water quality data from State databases.
Groundwater Conditions: Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs) Mr. Will Medlin, Woodard & Curran, presented the groundwater dependent ecosystem (GDE) analysis required by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). GDEs are ecological communities or species that depend on groundwater emerging from aquifers or groundwater occurring near the surface. The GDEs Assessment considered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Level III and IV ecoregions, the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) conservation areas, and special status (threatened and endangered) species. The MSHCP covers almost all of the Subbasin in Riverside County. The MSHCP was approved in 2008 and most recently amended in August 2016. The MSHCP is administered by the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission and is intended to conserve sensitive habitats and species through mitigation of impacts and issuance of take permits for species. CVWD, CWA, and IWA are permittees and signatories to the MSHCP.
The GDE assessment was limited to federal and state-listed “threatened and endangered species”.
There are 17 listed species in Subbasin, of which 6 have direct reliance on groundwater and 7 have indirect reliance.
The preliminary GDE Assessment started in 2020 with a desktop analysis based on the Natural Communities Commonly Associated with Groundwater (NCCAG) datasets. After completing the desktop GDE Assessment, the project team performed field surveys to verify the analysis in January 2021. The following was concluded from the field survey:
• Probable GDE: 1% (1 site)
o I.e., water or other saturation or wetland vegetation or aquatic or semiaquatic • Probable Non-GDE: 69% (9 sites)
o I.e., uplands, developed areas, mis-mapped areas, human-made or otherwise modified features that would typically include water is present like golf courses, ponds, reservoirs, and fields
• Playa Wetlands: 23% (3 sites)
o I.e., wetland vegetation where water has receded such as along the Salton Sea
4 Public comments and questions included the following:
• What water year is shown in the aerial photo of the Salton Sea shoreline boundary? Has the Salton Sea shoreline decreased with the receding of the Salton Sea water level? o Aerial imagery was from 2019/2020. Aerial photography of the Salton Sea shows recession, and vegetation has grown at the Grant Street and Johnson Street drains, as they drain out onto the exposed seabed.
Out of the 882 NCAG wetlands identified through the desktop analysis, 1,045 points were analyzed to assess whether GDEs were present. Out of those 1,045, 50 points were probable GDEs, 932 points were probable non-GDEs, and 63 points were playa wetlands. Probable GDEs exist in the mountain from canyons and may rely partially on surface water or snowmelt. Playa wetlands occur along the Salton Sea exposed seabed near the drain and surface water outlets.
Public comments and questions included the following:
• Are there any GDEs along the base of Coral Mountain near the La Quinta area? o Based on the NCAG polygons, these are most likely probable non-GDEs. • Has the Clapper Rail habitat been diminished, and if so, by how much? o The playa wetlands and areas around the Salton Sea could potentially be habitat for Clapper Rail, but the team is unable to answer if they have been diminished or impacted.
• Where is the one probable GDE located that was visited in the field? o The probable GDE is located in the northern-most cluster of Probable-GDEs on the map, near the Tram.
Sustainable Management
Ms. Priestaf presented an overview of DWR recommendations on Sustainable Management Criteria (SMC), which included setting thresholds for groundwater levels and using those as a proxy for storage and subsidence. Minimum threshold (MT) for groundwater levels is set at the historical low as measured at 57 Key Wells. The historical low was selected because undesirable results (such as production wells drying) were not reported, meaning that the historical low is protective against undesirable results. An undesirable result will occur when the MT is exceeded in 5 consecutive low- season monitoring events in 25 percent of wells across the Subbasin. The GSAs will monitor and report groundwater levels in Annual Reports.
Public comments and questions included the following:
• What can be attributed to the increase in water levels on the hydrograph? o Groundwater level increases can be attributed to the GSAs' groundwater management activities such as source substitution, managed aquifer recharge, and water conservation.
Ms. Priestaf presented DWR recommendations to the GSAs for water quality, seawater intrusion, and GDEs. DWR also recommended GSAs: 1) continue to study the rate and level of increased salt contents in groundwater due to the importation of Colorado River Water, and 2) incorporate the Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (CV-SNMP) into future iterations of the Alternative Plan.
In response, the Alternative Plan includes maps, cross-sections, and time concentration plots, as well as a discussion of significance, sources, and distribution factors of salts and nitrates in the Subbasin.
Development of Alternative Plan Update has also been coordinated with the CV-SNMP effort since 2020. The Subbasin has applied for funding from DWR to install additional monitoring wells.
5 Public comments and questions included the following:
• Were there any wells excluded from the analysis and why? o All available data were included in the analysis, though each constituent map only includes wells with relevant data.
DWR requested the GSAs to clarify if there is an MT associated with subsurface drain flow as referenced in the 2002 and 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plans (CVWMP). The 2010 CVWMP recognized the potential degradation of water quality as a result of downward migration of shallow return flows in the East Valley to deep zones. Projects have been able to raise groundwater levels in deep productive levels, which have resulted in upward gradients and flow. High groundwater levels are generally protecting deep zones. Although increasing drain flows are beneficial because they are correlated with groundwater levels, the Alternative Plan Update will not include an MT for drain flows.
Ms. Priestaf presented a map with simulated levels in the shallow aquifer as of 2020. The contour along the Salton Sea is at -220 feet below sea level (BSL), higher than the Salton Sea contour at -238 feet BSL. From 1997-2014, the modeling implies that there was inflow into the Subbasin from the Salton Sea. This has been reversed since 2015 through managed aquifer recharge, source substitution, and conservation. The modeling results match observed groundwater levels.
DWR also recommended that the GSAs identify the GDEs in the Subbasin. The Alternative Plan Update will include an appendix documenting the GDE study.
Public comments and questions included the following:
• Were there any artesian water locations found for this GDE survey? o Site 15 in the field assessment is a spring and could be considered artesian.
Groundwater Model Update
Ms. Priestaf presented the groundwater model update. The original historical simulation from 1936 to 1996 was first updated in 2010 and again recently to include the historical period from 2009 to 2017. The groundwater model is now being actively applied to model future scenarios.
Revised Plan Scenarios
Ms. Prickett presented an update on the revised plan scenarios. Three types of future scenarios will be analyzed, including:
• Baseline: additional demands but no new projects
• Near term projects: additional demands and capital improvement projects (CIP)/programs planned within 5 years
• Future projects: additional demands and all planned projects/programs in the CIP These three scenarios will be modeled with and without climate change.
The baseline scenario assumes a 50-year hydrology mimicking hydrology between 1970 and 2019.
Under climate change, the model assumes the recent 25-year hydrology with multiple dry cycles between 1994 and 2019. The recent 25 years have had 20 percent less mountain-front runoff compared to the 50-year year average.
The baseline scenario assumes SWP water reliability of 45 percent, the historical average since the Wanger decision in 2007. Some years, such as 2021, have experienced reliability as low as 5 percent.
Future projects scenario includes participation in Delta Conveyance Facility (DCF) that may increase SWP reliability up to 58 percent. The climate change scenario will also assume a 1.5 percent factor as projected by DWR.
6 Public comments and questions included the following:
• Is 45 percent SWP allocation a conservative baseline? Is this a "worst-case scenario" planning estimate under climate change assessments?
o 45 percent reliability is a reasonable estimate unless the DCF is constructed. For climate change, DWR has already applied the climate change factor in the projections.
The baseline scenario assumes the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) entitlement minus conveyance losses. The future projects scenario includes additional nonpotable water such as Canal water and recycled water deliveries. Because of the current drought conditions in the Colorado River watershed, the climate change scenario assumes the QSA entitlement minutes conveyance losses, accounting for the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan (DCP) contribution in phases. CVWD’s contribution is 7 percent (approximately 24,000 acre-feet [AF]) of the total for California; this volume will be contributed back to the lakes and storage.
Approximately 30 percent of water demand is assumed to return to sewer. The baseline scenario assumes only the current recycled water supplies will continue with no additional recycled water projects. The near term scenario assumes current supplies as well as projects planned for implementation within the next 5 years, and the long term scenario assumes all planned projects will be implemented. The amount of water available for recycled water is the same across all scenarios with or without climate change.
Next Steps
Ms. Prickett presented the next steps for July through September 2021. The consultant team will finalize Plan Scenarios in groundwater model and quantify water budgets, and results will be presented at the next public workgroup scheduled for August 26, 2021. Ms. Prickett invited participants to offer any additional comments or questions. For any additional information, please contact Rosalyn Prickett at [email protected].
Public comments and questions included the following:
• The 34-acre Crystal Lagoon required 62 gallons of water. The Wilderness Study Area (WSA) concluded that 34 million gallons will be required to refill the Crystal Lagoon over a year.
However, the area has experienced 143 days over 100 degrees, resulting in the evaporation of 1-3 inches, or 1 million gallons, per day. Request to reassess this water feature. o The demand assessment was done with existing data, and the demands associated with Crystal Lagoon have been incorporated into the demand forecast. Evaporative loss is included in the analysis.
• Does the analysis project fewer acres of agriculture? What are the forecasted increases in water demand – domestic, commercial, and industrial?
o The demand forecast relied on changes in land use projected by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) through 2045. This data is a compilation of all general plans, municipal plans, and community plans to identify where growth will occur and how it will be distributed. The project teams coordinated with SCAG to verify the analysis. The analysis projects the conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses.
• Regarding the Colorado River, California does not start making voluntary contributions until the water elevation falls to 1,045 feet, and contributions are a sliding scale to 1,025 feet.
CVWD's reductions start at 14,500 AF and are maxed at 24,500 AF, which is accounted for in the modeling.
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Workshop #6
AGENDA August 26, 2021 at 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm
English: GoToMeeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/262772877 or Dial In by Phone: +1 (646) 749-3122; Access Code: 262-772-877# Español: Llamar al (207) 558-4270, código de acceso: 119 495 611# # ITEM TIME 1 Welcome and Introductions
• GoToMeeting Instructions
• Agenda and Meeting Objectives
• Introductions
2:00 pm
2 Alternative Plan Status
• Process and Plan Update Outline 2:20 pm
3 Groundwater Model
• Overview of Model Features and Updates 2:25 pm
4 Plan Scenarios & Projects and Management Actions (PMAs) • Climate Change Assumptions
• PMAs in each Plan Scenario 2:40 pm
5 Simulation Results
• Comparison of Baseline vs. Baseline with Climate Change • Results of 4 Climate Change Scenarios
2:55 pm
6 Public Comment
• Your Participation and Input are Important 3:25 pm
7 Get Involved 3:45 pm
*times are subject to change
This page intentionally left blank.
1 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Public Workshop #6
SUMMARY
August 26, 2021 at 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm
Virtual Meeting
Members of the Public
• Alena Callimanis, City of Indian Wells
• Amy McNeill, Riverside County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District
• Ben Olson, Olsen Engineering
• Chuck Jachens, Bureau of Indian Affairs
• David Newell, City of Palm Springs
• Lorena Pena, XXXXX
• Kevin Fitzgerald, Southern California Golf
Association
• Kimberly Romich, California Department of Fish
& Wildlife
• Margaret Park, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
• Nina Waszak, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
• Omar Gastelum, Leadership Council
• Nataly Escobedo Garcia, Leadership Council
• Ron Buchwald, Valley Sanitary District
• Stephen Reich, Stetson Engineers
• Steve Ledbetter, TKM Engineering on behalf of
Mission Springs Water District
• Tarren Torres, Egoscue Law Group representing
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs)
• Ashley Metzger, DWA
• Castulo Estrada, CWA
• Jim Barret, CVWD
• Katie Evans, CVWD
• Mark Krause, DWA
• Melanie Garcia, CVWD
• Reymundo Trejo, IWA
• Steve Bigley, CVWD
• Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, CVWD
Consultant Team
• Iris Priestaf, Todd Groundwater
• Daniel Crag, Todd Groundwater
• Maureen Reilly, Todd Groundwater
• Arthella Vallarta, Woodard & Curran
• Rosalyn Prickett, Woodard & Curran
Welcome and Introductions
Ms. Rosalyn Prickett, Woodard & Curran, welcomed everyone to the meeting, and introductions were made as participants joined the call. Ms. Prickett briefed everyone on how to use the virtual GoToMeeting platform and notified attendees that the conference would be recorded. She then presented the meeting objectives and agenda. Ms. Prickett reviewed the meeting objectives and an overview of the Workgroup timeline over the two-year planning period.
Alternative Plan Status
Ms. Iris Priestaf, Todd Groundwater, presented an overview of the tasks and list of chapters for the Alternative Plan Update. Ms. Priestaff reviewed the 2010 CVWMP goal that will be retained in the Plan Update, along with the new Sustainability goal: “to maintain a locally managed, economically viable, • Ke Lorena Pena
2 sustainable groundwater resource for existing and future beneficial uses in the Indio Subbasin by managing groundwater to avoid the occurrence of undesirable results”. She then reviewed the refined Plan objectives being included in and guiding development of the Update, including a new 7th objective: “Reduce vulnerability to climate change and drought impacts”.
There were no public comments.
Groundwater Model
Mr. Daniel Craig, Todd Groundwater, presented an overview of the numerical model construction and model features. The model simulation period was extended through 2019 with updated recharge and pumping data, along with updated subsurface inflow boundary conditions. A calibration assessment was completed, which demonstrates that the model simulations are well matched with the measured levels. The model also compared simulated drain flows with measures flows, which were also well matched. Historical model accurately simulates shallow and deep groundwater levels and can be used to predict future water level and storage changes under different scenarios. The model also provides forecasts of future drain flows, Salton Sea interactions, and other water budget conditions.
Public comments and questions included the following:
• Pre-deliveries of State Water Project water supplies has influence on historic groundwater declines during the last 5 to 10 years. Have you accounted for these pre-deliveries in the model? Without those pre-deliveries, would the ground water continue to decline? o In developing the model, we recognized there is a positive delivery ac count balance right now. We accounted for that, and moving forward, that advanced delivery account balance would be credited down to 0. When we modeled the State Water Project deliveries, we made sure to account for variability in deliveries over time. • It is very concerning the first chart shows the model very far off for January 2020. Why? o Overall, the measured and simulated groundwater elevations are well-matched, but there is some divergence at the end and that has to do with the high recharge at the GRF. There are a lot of reasons why models do not match perfectly, but overall, it does match adequately.
• Is Thomas E Levy mostly Colorado River recharge?
o Yes, replenishment water comes from Coachella Canal.
Plan Scenarios & Projects and Management Actions
Ms. Prickett presented the Five Plan scenarios and described how the model inputs were developed assuming implementation of differing suites of projects and management actions (PMAs). The GSAs established priorities in selection of PMAs, which are broken down into four categories:
1. Water Conservation
2. Water Supply Development
3. Source Substitution and Replenishment
4. Water Quality Protection
The complete list of PMAs will be available in the Alternative Plan Update.
Ms. Prickett also explained the groundwater model’s climate change assu mptions. The model assumes a 50-year period, and future scenarios incorporate recent (drier) patterns. For local inflow, the Baseline scenario uses a long-term hydrology and previously estimated annual recharge volumes.
The climate change scenarios use repeated historical conditions only for the period 1995-2019 that
3 include multiple droughts. Additionally, the availability of imported water for direct delivery and groundwater replenishment was reduced.
The five modeled scenarios include the following:
• Baseline and Baseline with Climate Change - The projects listed in these two scenarios are existing operational activities that are assumed to continue forward. • Five-Year Plan with Climate Change - These are the projects the GSAs are planning to implement in their five-year Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs). Under this scenario, there are more Source Substitution and Replenishment projects compared to the Baseline and Baseline with Climate Change scenarios.
• Future Projects with Climate Change – This scenario includes a variety of additional supply acquisition, source substitution, and replenishment projects. • Expanded Agriculture with Climate Change - This scenario assumes the same suite of future projects as Future Projects with Climate Change, along with a significant amount of new additional agriculture in the East Valley.
Public comments and questions included the following:
• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a new report with worsening effect of climate change, resulting in longer droughts, shorter cold seasons, and more intense heat waves. I am concerned that Colorado River supply assumptions are too high. California will be affected, and agreements will be affected. Simulations should model Colorado River with lower deliveries, showing less water than senior water rights. o Yes, model assumes that CVWD will contribute to the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan (DCP). The Lower Basin DCP is based on tiers, and as levels in Lake Mead drop, different tiers will be implemented. We have modeled the full CVWD contribution to the Lower Basin DCP annually.
• The sustainability goal stated a beneficial use of water. A 62-million-gallong beach resort in Rancho Mirage and two 20-million-gallon surf parks in Thermal and La Quinta do not seem to be beneficial uses of water.
Simulation Results
Mr. Craig presented the simulation results from the five Plan scenarios that Ms. Prickett described.
The results in these scenarios are not realistic because additional projects are already planned by the GSAs. However, the scenarios provide a comparison of future conditions with and without climate change/drought.
Baseline and Baseline with Climate Change
Total inflows for Baseline are higher than in Baseline with Climate Change, especially in peak recharge years. Note that the first 25 years assume addition of new supplies and demand, but the second 25 years do not assume new demands. Cumulative change in storage is much higher in Baseline. Baseline with Climate Change hovers right around zero and even ends negative. The groundwater model simulated forecasted supply and demand for 2020-2044 as required by SGMA, but kept assumptions at the year 2045 levels for 2045-2069. This operates as a stress test for ongoing management of the basin at 2045 levels but does not recognize that demands will continue increasing after 2045.
Future groundwater levels in Baseline with Climate Change in West Valley are about 30-40 feet lower than baseline conditions due to reduced replenishment supplies. In East Valley, the impacts of climate
4 change are less (only 5 feet difference) because most of natural infiltration occurs in the West Valley.
In Baseline, there are larger changes in groundwater levels in the East Valley, while in Baseline with Climate Change, declines are more substantial in the far West Valley near WWR-GRF.
Four Climate Change Scenarios
The groundwater model simulated additional scenarios with five-year CIP projects, future projects, and expanded agriculture. Water budgets show net positive inflows in all three of the project scenarios. Mr. Craig presented simulated pumping, inflows, groundwater levels, and cumulative storage for the four climate change scenarios. In Mid-Valley and East Valley areas, Baseline with Climate Change groundwater levels are declining, but they are increasing for the other three scenarios. All three scenarios show significant declines in far West Valley due to reductions in WWR- GRF replenishment under various future project implementation. Cumulative change in storage for Baseline with Climate Change is net negative after 50 years, while other three climate change scenarios show net positive.
Mr. Craig stated that the scenarios indicate that Five-Year PMAs are needed for supply-demand balance and that future PMAs are needed for reliability in face of climate change and uncertainties in demand past the 25-year planning horizon. He also concluded that for all scenarios (except Baseline with Climate Change) the Subbasin will be sustainable.
Public comments and questions included the following:
• The assumptions for supply and demand in the West and Central Valley need to be explained well in the report. For Baseline and Baseline with Climate change, what are the past and future replenishment and demand assumptions and why are West Valley groundwater levels projected to increase?
o There is a Numeric Model and Plan Scenarios chapter in the Alternative Plan Update, which will explain these scenarios with more detail.
• What does ET cover?
o ET is calculated in areas in the model where groundwater is shallow and rises to rooting depth of plants. Most of ET occurs in East Valley where groundwater is shallow.
o We also calculate ET losses at recharge sites and ET is considered in the return flow methodology.
• The Whitewater River replenishment looks too high.
o The Alternative Plan Update includes a section that explains our assumptions regarding the Whitewater River replenishment. We feel confident that those numbers are appropriate, and we look forward to your review.
Public Comment
Ms. Prickett invited workshop participants to ask questions and provide comments:
• Are the presentation slides going to be available?
o The slides are already available on our website ( www.IndioSubbasinSGMA.org) . All of the meeting materials from workshops are uploaded onto the website. • How will the Five-Year projects be funded?
o These projects are within the GSAs Five-Year CIPs. In some cases, agencies have sought grant funding for implementation of those projects. In some cases, the y are
5 funded using the fund from water rates. It depends on the agencies and the specific projects. It is a combination of different funding mechanisms.
Next Steps
Ms. Prickett directed participants to our homepage ( www.IndioSubbasinSGMA.org) and encourage people to sign up for email updates. She announced to workshop participants that the next Public Workgroup will be held on October 13 from 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM.
Ms. Pricket presented the next steps for completion and submittal of the Alternative Plan Update to DWR. The Draft Plan will be circulated for review for 30 days in late September. Following receipt of comments, a Final Plan will be released for adoption by the GSA governing bodies in early December.
Public comments and questions include the following:
• If we received the email announcement about today’s workshop, will we receive an email about the Draft Alternative Plan Update?
o Yes, we will send an email to notify our stakeholders that the Draft Alternative Plan Update is available.
• How many weeks after the October 13 workshop will public comment continue? o The Public Review Period will be open for 30 days. The October 13 workshop is right in the middle of review period. You will have two weeks before the public workshop to review the draft, and you will have two weeks after the workshop to review the draft.
This page intentionally left blank.
2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Workshop #7
AGENDA October 20, 2021 at 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm
Hybrid Format
In Person: Coachella Valley Water District – Steve Robins Administration Building 75515 Hovley Ln E, Palm Desert, CA 92211 Online: GoToMeeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/647606925 or Dial In by Phone: +1 (646) 749-3122; Access Code: 647-606-925# Español: Llamar al (207) 558-4270, código de acceso: 316 818 074# # ITEM TIME 1 Welcome and Introductions
• GoToMeeting Instructions
• Agenda and Meeting Objectives 2:00 pm
2 Alternative Plan Status
• Subbasin History and Plan Objectives 2:20 pm
3 Groundwater Conditions and Sustainable Management
• Groundwater Conditions and Sustainability Criteria 2:30 pm 4 Water Demands and Supplies
• Demand Forecasts and Supply Portfolio
2:50 pm
5 Numerical Model, Plan Scenarios, and Projects & Management Actions (PMAs)
• Model Features and PMAs in each Plan Scenario 3:10 pm 6 Plan Evaluation and Implementation
• Plan Implementation Activities
3:25 pm
7 Public Comment
• Your Participation and Input are Important
3:40 pm
8 Get Involved 3:55 pm
*times are subject to change
This page intentionally left blank.
1 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update
Public Workshop #7
SUMMARY
October 20, 2021 at 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm
Virtual Meeting
Members of the Public
• Alena Callimanis, resident
• Amy McNeill, Riverside County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District
• Ben Olson, Olson Engineering
• Benjamin Whittle, student, UC Irvine
• Cathy Sanford, RWQCB
• Craig Kessler, Southern California Golf
Association
• Dale Tyerman, resident
• Kevin Fitzgerald, Southern California Golf
Association
• Kimberly Romich, California Department of Fish
& Wildlife
• Marion Champion, Mission Springs Water
District
• Pakiza Chatha, CA Department of Water
Resources
• PJ Iyer
• Sachi Itagaki, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
• Sarah Spinuzzi, Coachella Valley Gatekeeper
• Sheila Warren, resident
• Steve Ledbetter, TKM Engineering on behalf of
Mission Springs Water District
• Tarren Torres, Egoscue Law Group representing
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs)
• Alejandro Lara, CVWD
• Ashley Metzger, DWA
• Berlinda Blackburn, CWA
• Ivory Reyburn, CVWD
• Joseph Mellinger, CVWD
• Katie Evans, CVWD
• Luis Sanchez, CVWD
• Mark Krause, DWA
• Michelle Tse, IWA
• Nancy Munoz, CVWD
• Reymundo Trejo, IWA
• Ryan Molhoek, DWA
• Steve Bigley, CVWD
• Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, CVWD
Consultant Team
• Iris Priestaf, Todd Groundwater
• Maureen Reilly, Todd Groundwater
• Rosalyn Prickett, Woodard & Curran
• Vanessa De Anda, Woodard & Curran
Welcome and Introductions
Ms. Rosalyn Prickett, Woodard & Curran, greeted participants as they joined the call. Ms. Prickett welcomed everyone to the workshop and reviewed how to use the virtual GoToMeeting platform.
She then reviewed the meeting objectives and provided an overview of the project team. She noted that this is the final public workshop specific to the 2022 Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update (Alternative Plan Update) before submittal to the State in December 2021.
2 Alternative Plan Status
Ms. Iris Priestaf, Todd Groundwater, presented an overview of the Alternative Plan Update. Ms.
Priestaff reviewed the methods in which people have been engaged, which included seven public workshops, seven SGMA Tribal Workgroups, a website with monthly updates, and regular email announcements and updates. The four GSAs are developing the Alternative Plan Update for the Indio Subbasin (Subbasin) and areas that are, or are likely to be, supplied groundwater from the Subbasin.
The importance of supplemental supply to alleviate groundwater overdraft has been noted for decades. The water supply portfolio includes capture and recharge of stormflows, completion of the Coachella Canal, acquirement of State Water Project (SWP) contracts, and use of recycled water.
Ms. Priestaf reviewed the Alternative Plan Update goal: “To reliability meet current and future water demands in a cost-effective and sustainable manner”. She also reviewed the refined objectives being included in and guiding the development of the Alternative Plan Update, including a new 7th objective:
“Reduce vulnerability to climate change and drought impacts”. Plan implementation has resulted in significant groundwater levels increases regionally and cumulative groundwater storage increases across the Subbasin.
Public comments and questions included the following:
• What kind of water can be substituted in exchange for the Colorado River water? o There is a contractual element to the exchange. Both DWA and CVWD receive SWP water, but they exchange it for Colorado River water through Metropolitan Water District. At this point, there is no physical way to get SWP water to the Valley.
Groundwater Conditions and Sustainable Management
Ms. Priestaf presented an overview of the Subbasin and groundwater flows, noting that it extends from the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin to the Salton Sea. Groundwater flow moves downhill through the Subbasin supplying wells and discharging into the Salton Sea.
Ms. Priestaf presented an overview of undesirable results for six sustainability indicators, which are all addressed in the Alternative Plan Update and listed below. A minimum threshold (MT) is a numeric value used to define undesirable results.
Groundwater Levels
Undesirable results include significant and unreasonable reduction in the long-term viability of domestic, agricultural, municipal, or environmental uses, and impacts to relatively shallow wells, including small water systems and private drinking water supply wells. Hydrographs in the Alternative Plan Update show declining groundwater level trends in the Subbsain from the 1990s to around 2009. As such, the MTs have been defined as the historical lows measured at 57 Key Wells in around 2009 with no reported shortages. An undesirable result has been defined to o ccur when the MT is crossed in five consecutive low-season monitoring events in at least 25% of wells across the Subbasin.
Groundwater Storage and Land Subsidence
The MTs for groundwater levels have a strong correlation with, and are therefore a proxy for, the groundwater storage and land subsidence sustainability indicators. The change in groundwater storage indicated declines between 1987 to 2009, and reversal of overdraft and increase of storage in 2009. This correlates with the change of groundwater levels seen across the Subbasin around 2009. Since then, there has been an increase of about 840,000 AF in storage that can be used during periods of drought. Similarly, the Subbasin experienced up to 2 feet of land subsidence between 1995
3 to 2010 correlated with groundwater declines due to groundwater pumping. Stabilization and uplift have been documented in the Subbasin since 2010 with increasing groundwater levels.
Groundwater Quality
The GSAs are tracking numerous water quality constituents. Large water systems meet all drinking water standards, but small water systems and domestic wells may be affected by some constituents like nitrate from multiple sources and naturally occurring hexavalent chromium and arsenic. The GSAs are coordinating with community representatives and domestic systems to ensure access to high-quality water. The Alternative Plan Update provides a comprehensive assessment of groundwater quality that incorporates an extensive discussion of eight constituents of concern, including maps, cross-sections, and time concentration plots. As an example, Ms. Priestaf presented a map showing total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations in the Subbasin to provide an overview of groundwater quality. The map shows TDS concentrations are below the recommended levels in the majority of the Subbasin, but higher concentrations are found along the Subbasin boundaries and near the Salton Sea. The Alternative Plan Update resulted in an improved basis to study the rate and level of increased salt in groundwater from all sources. Coordination with the Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (CV-SNMP) will start in 2022.