09-01-2022 James Vaughn - Section 31 — Rancho Mirage City Council, September 1, 2022 (part 6 of 9)

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 (NCAG), 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 wash es, 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.

Public comments and questions included the following:
• On slide 14, you mention working with Tribes on a shared set of objectives. What are those shared objectives and what are the names of the Tribes you worked with? o The GSAs have been consistently working and meeting with five Tribes in the Plan Area through the SGMA Tribal Workgroup. The GSAs are committed to continue coordinating with the Tribes. The Tribes include: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, and Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians.
• On groundwater quality - PFAS was in the headline in the NYT today. How are you addressing current or potential PFAS or PFOA in groundwater? It wasn't part of the list of constituents.

4 o This is included in the Alternative Plan Update. Though it is not on the list of eight constituents of concern, these are emerging constituents of concern. The GSAs will continue to monitor evolving regulations.
• Have you considered what impact a potential lithium brine mining at the Salton Sea might have on water levels and quality?
o The planning team is unaware of potential lithium brine mine that is within the Plan Area of the Alternative Plan Update.
• Impressed with the turnaround in groundwater levels in the 2000s. What caused this, and is it sustainable given concerns with drought and less water from alternative sources? o The turnaround in groundwater levels is due to supplemental supply and source substitution. The agencies brought additional supplies to decrease reliance on groundwater pumping, acquired new water supplies for increased replenishment, leveraged additional non-potable water supplies, and connected agricultural users to Colorado River water.
• Is aquifer the same as groundwater storage?
o The Indio Subbasin is a groundwater basin, meaning that it is an area that produces groundwater (as opposed to the mountainous areas that do not support groundwater production). There are aquifers (i.e., permeable areas) within the basin. An aquifer is a geologic term for distinct water bearing areas with permeability like sands and gravels. Groundwater storage refers to groundwater in storage in the basin. • East Coachella Valley groundwater levels are still very close to their all-time lows. This likely means that subsidence is more likely to impact small wells in these areas. What accounts for the continued depletion of groundwater in East Coachella Valley, and what efforts are being made to increase the availability of municipal water supply for East Coachella Valley residents?
o There are multiple replenishment facilities in the mid-Valley area. The GSAs are continuing to work on groundwater replenishment and consolidation of SWS with water quality issues. USGS has not studied subsidence on the individual systems, just at a regional scale and found that in most areas subsidence had stopped, been reversed, or significantly slowed down.
• We have only regained up to 25% of the groundwater that was lost as of 2019. Is the next presentation going to talk about how we build all the way up? o The Subbasin does not necessarily have to regain all of the groundwater since there are multiple water sources. Though more groundwater in storage is always good, this plan is looking at the overall dynamic operation of the Subbasin.

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

5 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.

Public comments and questions included the following:
• Why is recycled water still so low in 2045? It doesn't seem recycled water use is growing. o The GSAs are committed to investing in and expanding recycled water. • Do you assess a scenario in which Colorado River water decreases, and does not get bumped back up to full allocation?
o Yes, the simulated scenarios assume less than the full entitlement will be delivered. • Do you have a similar chart for reduction in the Colorado River supply if that happens? This still shows Colorado River water increasing.
o Colorado River supplies are still ramping up due to negotiated transfers that peak in 2027. The plan scenarios assume less than the full entitlement will be delivered. • How many surf parks and beaches did you include? And is there any way to find out the breakdown of "other" amounts today versus 2045?
o There is a table of other projected demands in Chapter 6, but this is not broken down by specific categories.
o There are 4 proposed surf parks in permitting phases, plus one 34 acre and one 20- acre swimming beaches that are included under the Other category.

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 year s 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.

6 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.

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.

Public comments and questions included the following:
• If SWP declines are 45% over the last 14 years, what has the allocation over the last one to two years? The point was made it was from a high of 80% of contract amount received to a low of 5%.
o SWP allocations for the past two years have been 20% and 5%. The 45% assumption looks at a combination of wet and dry years. DWR is modeling long-term reliability at 58%, but the Plan is choosing to go with the lower, more conservative 45%. • Iris mentioned that we expect the operation of groundwater to be dynamic and will likely get down to the Minimum Threshold (MT). At that point, does that mean groundwater pumping would need to be curtailed?
o There are no plans to curtail groundwater pumping. After looking at all the scenarios and available supplies, the Subbasin is no longer in overdraft and remains above the MTs.
• Governor Newsom declared a drought emergency and is calling for everyone to voluntarily reduce water use by 15%, including Riverside County. How does this affect the Plan? o The Alternative Plan Update includes conservation as part of the PMAs. Conservation includes everything from turf rebates to toilet replacements, which are being done by the GSAs. All water conservation will be tracked by the GSAs and reported in the Annual Reports.
• What do you see as the biggest risks and challenges in executing the Plan? You mentioned that cost management is one of the goals. How will this impact water rates in the foreseeable future?
o From a cost-effectiveness perspective, the GSAs are aware of the costs associated with the PMAs in their Capital Improvement Plans and how this may impact their rate structure. The GSAs’ governing bodies decide which projects will be implemented.

For reference, the 2010 Plan Update was created at a time when the Valley was anticipated to grow explosively, so there were a lot of projects planned. However, a lot of the projects were not implemented because regional growth did not materialize.

The Alternative Plan Update will take an adaptive management approach and implement projects as needed while tracking population growth and development.

Challenges include the uncertainties associated with demands and supplies.

7 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 public 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.

Public comments and questions included the following:
• Given the large amount of information provided in the Plan, 30 days is too short for a comment period; 45 days seems more appropriate.
o The Alternative Plan Update is due to the State by the end of December 2021. The planning team understands that 30 days is a short period, but the comment period needs to close to finalize the Plan and submit it to the GSAs for their Boards to approve in early December 2021.

This page intentionally left blank.

APPENDIX 1-E

PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED AND RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

This page intentionally left blank.

Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update
Public Comment and Response Matrix

Page 1 of 24 ends

# Commenter
Name
Commenter
Organization Comment Response
1 Leslie MacNair,
Regional
Manager
California
Department
of Fish and
Wildlife
(CDFW)
Sampling: Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems
Within the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan, the Indio Subbasin, along with lands beyond the Subbasin that are, or in the future may be, reliant on groundwater pumped from the Subbasin are included (Plan Area). The Plan Area is geographically divided into West Valley and E ast Valley (refer to Attachment A). It is indicated that DWR recommended that an update be provided that identifies GDEs in the Indio Subbasin, with this bei ng accomplished “using best available information (including data available from DWR) and by applying the expertise of a profession al wetland scientist (emphasis added)”. DWR provides the Natural Communities Commonly Associated with Groundwater (NCCAG) dataset through the onli ne SGMA data portal. This NCCAG dataset was used for initial identification of potential GDEs in the Subbasin”. The NCCAG dataset locations were assessed by a licensed wetlands biologist that included a review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ecoregions and a preliminary r eview of special- status (threatened and endangered) species. The desktop assessment used publicly available statewide and regional data layers and involved visual review of 1,045 individual locations to determine potential GDE status. The biologist then selected 15 locations for GDE field assessme nt with 13 sites being accessible. Upon completion of the in-person field verification, the preliminary desktop GDE assessment was refined into three categories: Probable GDEs, Probable non-GDEs, and Playa Wetland Communities (Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Section 4.6 Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems).

Probable GDEs were defined as areas with apparent dense riparian and wetland vegetative communities along mapped drainage sys tems with potential for deep-rooted phreatophytes and/or visible, natural surface water flow. Fifty (50) of the 1,045 si tes (5%) were determined to be Probable GDEs. Probable Non-GDEs were classified as “areas that appeared incorrectly mapped based on current land development and land -use or that otherwise appeared to be dry upland areas, cultivated and/or flooded agricultu ral land, obvious humanmade ponds, lakes, and other features, channelized drains, and areas with no other indicators of groundwater presence near the surface. It should be noted that dry washes, arroyos, bajadas, and other ephemeral conveyances where water only flows in response to heavy precipitation events were classified as Probable Non-GDEs”. Of the 1,045 sites, 932 sites (89%) were determined to be Probable non- GDEs. A Playa Wetland Community included “areas of wetland habitat along the Salton Sea exposed seabed (playa) generally downstream of stream, agricultural drain, or stormwater channel outlets. The receding of the Sa lton Sea is exposing thousands of acres of playa each year and water from irrigation ditches and other drainages that previously fl owed directly into waters of the Sea now spreads out on the exposed playa of the Sea where new vegetation and wetlands currently exist as a result”. Of the 10 45 sites, 63 (6%) were determined to be Playa Wetland Communities.

A Technical Memorandum, Indio Subbasin Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Study (Woodard & Curran, 2021) was provided in Appendix 4 -B and reviewed by CDFW. While DWR may encourage “best available information”, CDFW tries to rely on credible science in all resourc e management decisions. [FGC § 703.3.] Accordingly, CDFW expects groundwater/alternative plans and supporting documentation to follow ‘best available s cience’ practices. For more information on the application of scientific concepts that can improve the likelihood that a groundwate r plan will avoid impacts to fish and wildlife beneficial uses and users of groundwater, GDEs, and ISW, please visit: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation /Watersheds/Groundwater.

While the use of a large sample size that is well distributed may be adequate, CDFW is not clear on what publicly available statewide and regional layers were visual reviewed to determine the 1,045 reference GDE sites used for the baseline data. CDFW downloaded the NCCAG dataset (Klausmeyer et al., 2018) from ESRI ArcGIS online (See Attachments B and C). Eleven (11) types of wetland habitat were identified within the Indio Subbasin Area, including:
• Lacustrine, Limnetic, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded • Lacustrine, Limnetic, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded, Hyperhaline • Lacustrine, Littoral, Unconsolidated Shore, Sand, Seasonally Flooded • Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Broad-Leaved- Evergreen, Semipermanently Flooded • Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Broad-Leaved- Evergreen, Seasonally Flooded • Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Seasonally Saturated
• Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Seasonally Flooded
• Palustrine, Forested, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Saturated • Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded
• Palustrine, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded • Warm Semi-Desert/Mediterranean Alkali–Saline Wetland
There were also several vegetation communities identified as NCCAG within the Indio Subbasin (Alkaline Mixed Scrub, Alkaline Mixed Grasses, Alkali Desert Scrub, Blue Palo Verde, Desert Riparian, Desert Willow, Desert Mixed Wash Shrub, California Sycamore, Catclaw Acacia, Common Elderberry, Fremont Cottonwood, Honey Mesquite, Riparian Mixed Hardwood, Riversidean Alluvial Scrub, Scalebroom, and Tamarisk). After com paring and The Alternative Plan, composed of the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update and companion Bridge Document, was approved by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in June 2019. The Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs) assessment in this Alternative Plan Update, Appendix 4-B, improves on the content of the Alternative Plan. During their review of the Alternative Plan, DWR’s recommendation was to provide “an identification of GDEs in the Subbasin” (Recommended Action 7).

The Natural Communities Commonly Associated with Groundwater (NCCAG) dataset provided by DWR was used to complete the GDE assessment. All NCCAG polygons were included in the assessment.

The intent of the preliminary assessment was to evaluate and screen the polygons in the NCCAG dataset, using other State and federal datasets related to sensitive species, habitats, vegetation, and protected areas, to determine which were probable vs non- probable GDEs. This evaluation resulted in a map of identified probable GDEs. Given limited time during the planning process presented by the deadline to submit an Alternative Plan Update by January 1, 2022, we then selected a handful of representative sites to evaluate in the field and confirm the findings of our desktop study. The field assessment considered multiple sites within all three categories (probable GDEs, probable non-GDEs, and playa wetlands) to confirm the methodology for categorizing NCCAG polygons. Note that access to several representative sites was denied.

Appendix 4-B, page 6, includes a list of publicly available statewide and regional layers that were visually reviewed to determine the 1,045 reference GDE sites used for the baseline data. The wetland biologist leading the GDEs assessment attempted to contact CDFW Inland Deserts Region 6 (via telephone calls) in November 2020 and January 2021 to request input on GDEs Assessment, with no response.

The probable GDEs identified in the northwestern portion of the Indio Subbasin were defined as such due to the presence of seeps and springs at those locations. There is very little, if any, groundwater pumping near the probable GDEs within the canyon areas. Although there is no available groundwater data in those canyon areas, water is, in fact, surfacing at those locations and supporting small wetlands habitats before that surfacing water then infiltrates into the stream channel. The playa wetlands identified in the southeastern portion of the Indio Subbasin were defined as such because they are not natural wetland communities dependent on surfacing groundwater. Those playa wetlands only exist due to the agricultural tile drains discharging to the Salton Sea playa; without the drains, the vegetation would not persist.

Under SGMA, the GSAs lack authority over surface water. Instead, the GSA’s focus on groundwater management, including whether

Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update
Public Comment and Response Matrix

Page 2 of 24 ends

# Commenter
Name
Commenter
Organization Comment Response
reviewing the information provided on the NCCAG, CDFW is concerned that the analysis within the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan is not scientifically robust and would like clarification regarding why areas mapped as NCCAG are not part of the 1,045 GDE reference sites in the Plan Area, as well as why only field visits were performed for 13, or 1%, of the possible GDE locations.

It should be noted that DWR cautions that because the NCCAG dataset was not verified, a more thorough evaluation of NCCAG -identified locations should occur. The NCCAG dataset is also limited due to “a comprehensive understanding of geology, hydrology, and biology not being available at the statewide scale; thus…. further investigation and verification of the connection and dependence between groundwater and mappe d vegetation and wetlands at a local scale may be needed for water managers in sustainable groundwater management planning.” (Klausmeyer et al., 2018). Finally, Figure 4-36 GDE Assessment (refer to Attachment D) illustrates that a disproportionate number of GDEs occur in the southe rn half of the Indio Subbasin, yet most of the probable GDEs were determined to be within the canyons in the northern portion of the subbasin. For even the few that were classified as ‘Probable GDEs’, it is suggested that these may not be groundwater depen dent, but rather, “may be associated with surface runoff, snowmelt, or springs and seeps from up-gradient sources”. Conversely, it does disclaim that “due to their location in upper canyons where groundwater extraction is generally not occurring, the specific areas in the Indio Subbasin where Probable GDEs were identified do not have existing groundwater data available for review”. Again, CDFW would like a more scientific, detailed analysis and discussion on GDEs gi ven the importance of these state resources.
groundwater conditions occurring throughout the Subbasin causes undesirable results such as “depletions of interconnected surface water [caused by groundwater conditions] that have significant and unreasonable adverse conditions on beneficial uses of the surface water.” (Water Code, §10721(x).)

2 Leslie MacNair,
Regional
Manager
CDFW
Sampling: Representative Wells
Fifty-three (53) key wells were chosen (Attachment E) to monitor groundwater levels with respect to a Minimum Threshold (MT), or an established threshold that when crossed, an undesirable result occurs. For the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan, the MT was defined by the GSA as “five consecutive low season monitoring events in 25% of wells across the subbasin (Section 10.1.1.1 Spatial and Vertical Coverage).

The inclusion of key wells in the groundwater level monitoring program included the following factors:
• Spatial distribution and density of wells, accounting for variable geographic conditions including topography, hydrology, geo logic structures, aquifer characteristics, confined and unconfined conditions, pumping patterns, management activities (including replenishment), and p otential impacts to beneficial uses/users.
• Length, completeness, and reliability of historical groundwater level record. • Well depth and information on well construction.
• Regular access to the well for measurements.

CDFW would like to understand how the GSA determined 25% of wells over five consecutive low seasons as a MT, whether this wil l this be further analyzed, and if there is adaptive management that is proposed. CDFW also encourages that when choosing reference wells, GDEs, ISWs, and/or areas of biological concern/interest be considered, including whether the MT is sufficient to detect deleterious impacts to these a reas.

As discussed in Chapter 9, Sustainable Management (Section

9.3.3.3), undesirable results are based on exceedances of MT levels including how they occur, where and when. The GSAs selected 25% of wells to allow distinction of local groundwater level declines and to alert the GSAs to undesirable declines of Subbasin-wide significance. The 25% value (equivalent to 14 wells of 57) is based on consideration of the potential extent of declines due to severe and prolonged drought, climate change, reduction of imported water supply, or increased groundwater pumping, and is protective of the Subbasin as a whole. The five consecutive low seasons are based on consideration of time needed to identify, confirm, and respond to groundwater level declines in Key Wells given variable hydrology and periodic droughts. Note that groundwater levels are currently above the MTs, that GSAs will provide annual reporting and public presentation of groundwater levels at key wells, and that GSAs are planning projects to maintain levels above MTs. Adaptive management has been integral to local water management and is being continued whereby the GSAs regularly assess groundwater conditions, evaluate and apply appropriate projects and management actions, and report regularly to the public. The MTs and key wells will be evaluated further as part of ongoing adaptive management.
3 Leslie MacNair,
Regional
Manager
CDFW
State Sensitive Species
The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), a joint powers authority of elected representatives, completed a Mult ispecies Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP; United States Fish and Wildlife 10(a)(l)(B) incidental take permit # R8-AES) and Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP; Permit No. 2835-2008-001-06) in 2008 (termed herein as ‘CVMSHCP/NCCP’). The CVWD, as a Permittee of the CVMSHCP/NCCP, has incidental take for its operations and maintenance covered activities for twenty-seven (27) species within the CVMSHCP/NCCP Plan Area. Any other activities/actions that are not a covered activity of the CVMSHCP/NCCP, or is performed by a non-participant, that may take a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) listed species is prohibited, except as authorized by state law (Fish and Game Code, §§ 2080 & 2085). CDFW recommends that the GSA, or an individual water agency, seek appropriate authorization prior to implementation. This may include an incidental take permit (ITP) or a c onsistency determination (Fish & Game Code, §§ 2080.1 & 2081). Also, Fish and Game Code section 3503 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. F ish and Game Code section 3503.5 The projects and management actions (PMAs) considered as “projects” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will go through CEQA and CDFW permitting processes and receive necessary approvals. CEQA compliance will be addressed for individual projects at the time of implementation by the individual GSAs. Compliance with the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CV-MSHCP), as needed, will be addressed at that time. Additionally, the GSAs have obtained or will obtain necessary CDFW permits for any other regulated activity that are part of the Plan’s projects and management actions.

Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update
Public Comment and Response Matrix

Page 3 of 24 ends

# Commenter
Name
Commenter
Organization Comment Response
makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds -of-prey) to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except as provided by the rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.). 4 Leslie MacNair,
Regional
Manager
CDFW
Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Impact Analysis
Within the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan, wells that had long -term water level data were selected to analyze groundwater conditions (elevations, flows, trends over time, vertical groundwater gradients and depth to groundwater, and regional groundwater level changes). Since groundwater elevations of the principal aquifer are averaged over the water year; the most current representative, or the 2018 -2019 water year, was selected “as local groundwater levels do not exhibit strong seasonal trends” (Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Section 4.1.1 Groundwater Elevations, Flow, and Trends). Thirty (30) of these monitoring and production wells were used to calibrate the Indio Subbasin model by looking at t he water level residual (differences between observed and simulated levels) trends (Section 7.3.3.2 Observed vs. Simulated Hydrographs).

CDFW examined potential suitable habitat for state sensitive riparian birds (least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), summ er tanager (Piranga rubra), southern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), and yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens)) and wetland (California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus), Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensil)), amphibi ans (arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus)), and fish (desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius)) using GIS shapefiles available from the CVMSHCP/NCCP. Given that the simulated water levels are “gen erally very well matched with the observed groundwater trends for all shallow and deep wells across the Indio Subbasin” (Section 7.3.3.1 Simulated Groundwater Elevation Contour Maps), as well as there are not strong seasonality water fluctuations, CDFW also chose a representative cal ibration well from each subarea that was closest to each of the biological resource of interest. The calibrated well groundwater elevation hydrographs and the C VMSHCP/NCCP biological resources are shown in Attachment F.

A brief description of each subarea is summarized below.

A. West Valley/Palm Springs Subarea - This subarea showed dynamic fluctuations (i.e., over 300 feet in response to very large recharge years associated with recharge events), with large water level mounding and recovery cycles. Model-simulated levels were very closely matched with observed levels, both with respect to peak and valley magnitudes and timing.

B. and C. Mid-Valley/Thousand Palms to Indian Wells Area - Observed levels at this location exhibited declines from 1997 through 2010, then were characterized by relatively stabilized levels through 2019. The model simulates these trends generally well, although the simulated levels were lower than observed in two of the wells near the City of Indio. This was speculated to be due to sources of error in the numerical simulation, underestimation of return flow recharge in local areas, or inaccuracies in other model parameters. Regardless, th e model “generally captures the measured levels in this area showing declines through 2010 followed by stable trends”.

D. East Valley/ Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility Area - Observed levels exhibited declines from 1997 through 2009, then rapidly increased through 2019 in response to initiation of the Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility (TEL -GRF) operations. The model simulated trends well, with it responding to recharge operations and simulated levels and observed being well -matched.

E. East Valley/Mecca, Oasis, and Salton Sea Areas - The observed levels were relatively stable between 1997 through around 2010, then increased through 2019, likely in response to source substitution and in response to initiation of TEL -GRF operations. The model simulates these trends well.

Conversely, the NDVI from these areas illustrated small areas where the NDVI decreased (Attachment I and J), with the primary decline being between the latter five (5) years, or from 2014-2018 (Attachments K and L). CDFW believes that analyzing the NDVI in relation to water gain/loss could be useful within the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan and advocates for further investigation to th e causes of this decrease in vegetation canopy (e.g., water stress).

Thank you for your careful review of the Alternative Plan Update and for your comments about the new GDE Pulse tool. The GDEs assessment in Appendix 4-B (page 5) considered the evaluation criteria (shallow aquifer, depth to groundwater, and known seeps/springs) recommended in The Nature Conservancy’s
Guidance. Any future analysis of GDEs will consider use of GDE Pulse and NVDI review.

See also Response to Comment No. 1.

Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update
Public Comment and Response Matrix

Page 5 of 24 ends

# Commenter
Name
Commenter
Organization Comment Response
• Studying the fitness and various water sources to plants (relationships between incremental growth, branch growth, productivi ty, and canopy condition and hydrologic variables) to determine water sources and needs for phreatophytic vegetation. • Understanding the relationship between plant age or developmental stage, root morphology, and water acquisition since vulnerability to wate r stress may decline as a function of age or developmental stage for many species. • Using stable isotopes that can trace the water source to understand how many years it takes for woody plant seedlings or saplings to develop roots deep enough to acquire groundwater, or to determine the proportion of rain -recharged soil water that typical phreatophytes utilize (Stromberg and Patten 1991).

CDFW also contends that the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan should include field measurements to determine water sources and needs for phreatophytic vegetation (Stromberg and Patten 1991, 1996; Lite and Stromberg 2005). Good plant morphological measure ments can be useful in assessing riparian and wetland health and tracking changes in condition through time. For example, it is also expected that v ariation in the sources of water used by different tree species has important ramifications for riparian forest water balances. A study of tree transpiration water derived from the unsaturated soil zone and groundwater in a riparian forest was quantified for Fremont cottonwoods, Gooding’s willows, and vel vet mesquite (Prosopis velutina) across a gradient of groundwater depth and streamflow regime (San Pedro River, AZ). The proportion of tree transpiration derived from different potential sources was determined using oxygen and hydrogen stable isotope analysis in conjunction with two - and three-compartment linear mixing models. Comparisons of tree xylem water with that of potential water sources indicated that Gooding’s willows did not take up water in the upper soil layers during the summer rainy period, but instead used only groundwater, even at an ephemeral stre am site where depth to groundwater exceeded 4 meters. Conversely, Fremont cottonwoods, a dominant ‘phreatophyte’ in semi -arid riparian ecosystems, also used mainly groundwater, but at the ephemeral stream site during the summer rainy season, measurements of transpiration flux combined with stable isotope data revealed that a greater quantity of water was taken from upper soil layers compared to the perennial stream site.

Many vegetation attributes are supported by, and respond directly to, water availabilit y. Both plant characteristics, as well as population and community attributes can assist in assessing the health and sensitivity to altered water availability so that informed decisi ons on proposed water extraction, groundwater pumping, and prescriptive and managed hydrologic regimes can be made.

Some recommendations include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Study specific parameters at certain locations, including vegetation volume, canopy height, woody plant stem and root density and woody plant basal area/ analysis of stomatal conductance and/or xylem pressure. • Monitor wetted depth (e.g., piezometers with data loggers) within riparian corridors at various points from the main channel (e.g., furthest edge from main flowline).
• Perform aerial photographic analysis (e.g., small-unmanned aircraft systems) of canopy, vegetation diversity, distribution, and general riparian conditions including overall health at set locations of interest and control locations in spring and fall. • Document lateral/spatial extent of GDEs over time.
• Perform field monitoring at established permanent grids and control sites that includes plant characteristics (water status, transpiration, rooting depth, and incremental growth) and population and community attributes (fitness, vuln erability to pathogens and herbivores, fecundity, competitive ability and productivity, population structure, and community composition and richness). 6 Leslie MacNair,
Regional
Manager
CDFW
Artificial Drainages – Irrigation Canals
CDFW recognizes that groundwater levels in the Indio Subbasin East Valley have recovered as irrigation from the Colorado Rive r water has been relied upon for farming rather than groundwater. Conversely, it stands to reason that as future urbanization and drought conditions increase, groundwater may be needed.

The Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan (Section 4.1.2 Vertical Groundwater Gradients (Artesian Conditions)) identifies artesian conditions in the Eastern Valley as:
“Historically, eastern portions of the Indio Subbasin experienced artesian conditions with sufficient pressure to cause groun dwater levels in wells to rise above the ground surface; such artesian-flowing wells attracted early settlers to farm in this area. Artesian conditions declined in the late 1930s as a result of increased local groundwater pumping. The completion of the Coachella Canal by the United States Bureau of Reclama tion (USBR) in 1949 brought Colorado River water to the eastern Coachella Valley for agricultural irrigation purposes. Artesian conditions returne d in the early 1960s The demand forecast in the Alternative Plan Update (Chapter 5, Demand Forecast) considers projected future urbanization, including conversion of agricultural lands to urban land uses, and associated water demands. The supply analysis (Chapter 6, Water Supply and Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios) considers future climate conditions under historical and climate change conditions. Groundwater is one component of the GSA’s supply portfolio.

Due to recovering groundwater levels over the last decade, artesian conditions have returned to the East Valley. These conditions do

Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update
Public Comment and Response Matrix

Page 6 of 24 ends

# Commenter
Name
Commenter
Organization Comment Response
through the 1980s, as imported Colorado River water was substituted for groundwater production. Beginning in t he late 1980s, groundwater use increased again, resulting in declining water levels and loss of artesian conditions. Groundwater water management programs (including groundwater replenishment, source substitution, and water conservation) are restoring loca l groundwater levels, and artesian conditions have recurred in the eastern Indio Subbasin. Benefits associated with artesian conditions include reduced groundwater pumping costs and water qual ity protection of the deeper, confined production zone aquifers”.

Because the depth to groundwater provides a general indication of locations where gaining streams and/or GDEs may be present, if the wells are near larger tributaries/ water bodies (i.e., Whitewater River, Salton Sea), water supply wells, which typically screen deep in the aquifer, should be noted and the groundwater elevation (potentiometric head) difference at the depth of the well screen and the water table (upper surface of the saturated zone) be recorded and tracked. Also, because recharge occurs at the land surface and pumping occurs at depth, the water level information can potentially underestimate the locations where the water table is shallow enough to support phreatophytic vegetation. Further, water extra ction from wells could extend into a nearby water source (stream, canal, pond, or lake), causing it to become dry.

Desert pupfish are the only native fish species in the Salton Sea, and they can be found not only in natural creeks, but in s horeline pools, a few artificial refuge ponds, and agricultural drains in the Eastern Valley. CDFW would like clarification on what measures are proposed within the Indio Subbasin to identify, address, and manage (avoid and/or monitor any wells within 0.25 miles of known desert pupfish occupied or suitable areas) any well extraction effects (induced recharge, cone of depression/influence) on irrigation or sensitive areas that have, or could cont ain, the desert pupfish. benefit the deeper, confined production zone aquifer by exporting salts from the shallower aquifer through the agricultural drains.

We agree with CDFW that there are multiple sources of inflow to shallow groundwater and surface channels in the East Valley. Note that surface water flows in Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (CVSC) only below the first discharging wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). The CVSC flows are from WWTPs and agricultural drains.

The agricultural drains are supported by agricultural return flows and intercept shallow groundwater collected into the tile drain system. A Drain Flow Study, described in Chapter 12, Plan Evaluation and Implementation, is planned to better understand the relationships between groundwater levels in the various aquifers, current and historical crop water application, and flows and salt export through the drain system. CVWD is working with CDFW and Coachella Valley Conservation Committee (CVCC) on an evaluation of desert pupfish associated with the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CV-MSHCP).

7 Leslie MacNair,
Regional
Manager
CDFW
Ephemeral Desert Washes/Aeolian Desert Dunes
CDFW is uncertain that the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan is relying on the common assumption that in ephemeral streams wher e an unsaturated zone exists beneath a stream, that the interaction between surface water and groundwater is unidirectional and the refore, does not contribute significantly to transmission losses. However, a recent study (Quichimbo 2020) has illustrated that bi‐directional stream –aquifer hydraulic interactions in arid ephemeral streams may be greater than previously assumed and “groundwater and surface water should be considered as connected systems for water resource management unless there is clear evidence to the contrary”.

Aeolian processes support a variety of flora and fauna (i.e., Coachella fringe-toed lizard (Uma inornate) and Coachella Valley milk vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae)) that are specially adapted to blow sand deposits within harsh desert environments. The sedimen t-delivery system that creates these active sand dunes consists of fluvial depositional areas, with sediment being delivered during infrequent large winter storm events within larger drainages (e.g., Whitewater – San Gorgonio Rivers and Mission Creek – Morongo Wash) originating in the local surrounding mountains, or in smaller ephemeral drainages during intense summer thunderstorms. The particle -size distribution of sediments transported by these ephemeral streams varies depending on the transport process, with most sediment transported by streamflow ranging in size from sand to small gravel. Previous studies of sediment supply have evaluated the long-term sand budget in the northern Coachella Valley and how it might change given modifications to the major watercourses that provide sand to the aeolian system (USGS, 2002). While quantifying sand tr ansport rates has been attempted with various results, CDFW is concerned that water management practices that impact not only large washes/rivers (e.g., retention basins, levees), but also smaller tributaries, could reduce the sand supply, potentially stabilizing the dunes and degrading habitat. Therefore, CDFW strongly recommends that the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan include an analysis of the sediment aeolian processes (e.g., entrainment, sediment yield, sediment -transport modeling, etc.) where sand dunes could be impacted (Attachment N).

We appreciate the complexity of groundwater-surface water interactions, which vary dynamically in vertical direction and magnitude both spatially and through time. The cited study, which involved a series of numerical model experiments using idealized two-dimensional channel-transects, contributes to the extensive science on arid area hydrology. However, this experimental study is not sufficient to effectively consider ephemeral streams as connected systems for water resources management in the Coachella Valley.

The Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update presents the projects and management actions (PMAs) that are directed toward
groundwater sustainability. PMAs considered “projects” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will go through CEQA and CDFW permitting processes and receive necessary approvals.

CEQA compliance, including potential impacts to sediment aeolian processes, will be addressed for individual projects at the time of implementation by the individual GSAs.
8 Leslie MacNair,
Regional
Manager
CDFW
Conserved Lands
According to the CVMSHCP/NCCP (Section 1.4.4 Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan):
“The Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) (CVAG, 2016) is a multiagency conservation plan for the entire Coachella Valley and surrounding mountains to address State and Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance in the region. The CVMS HCP, last amended in 2016, defines a shared regional vision for balanced growth to enhance and maintain biological diversity and ecosystem processes while also foster ing economic growth. The CVMSHCP protects 240,000 acres of open space and 27 species; enhances infrastructure without environment al conflicts; offers opportunities for recreation, tourism, and job creation; and ensures the survival of endangered species (CVAG, 2016). The CVM SHCP was considered in the development of this Alternative Plan Update, with emphasis in the groundwater dependent ecosystem analysis (emphasis added)”.

The GDEs assessment included in the Alternative Plan Update, Appendix 4-B, considered the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CV-MSHCP) conservation areas, including those owned by CDFW, in its analysis. These areas were evaluated and there are no anticipated impacts to these reserves from implementation of the Alternative Plan Update.

Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update
Public Comment and Response Matrix

Page 7 of 24 ends

# Commenter
Name
Commenter
Organization Comment Response
CDFW has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, restoration, enhancement and management of fish, wildlife, native pl ants and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species under the CESA (California Fish and Game Code §§ 2050 et seq.), the California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code §§ 1900 et seq.), the California Natural Community Conservation Pl anning Act (“NCCP Act”) (California Fish and Game Code §§ 2800 et seq.) and other relevant state laws.

CDFW has worked with the Permittees of the CVMSHCP/NCCP to apply principles of conservation biology that capture the reserve design tenets described in the NCCP General Process Guidelines and NCCP Act (CDFG 1998). These reserve design tenets provided a framework for the conservation planning process and include:
• conserve focus species and their Habitats throughout the Plan Area; • conserve large habitat blocks;
• conserve habitat diversity;
• keep reserves contiguous and connected; and
• protect reserves from encroachment and invasion by non-native species.

Although the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan does consider the CVMSHCP/NCCP, CDFW advises that the various land use managemen t plans governing state and federal lands, species management plans approved by state and/or federal agencies, and habitat conservation plans i n adjoining or overlapping areas also be considered. More specifically, CDFW manages approximately 27,700 acres of land within the Indio Subbasin and CVMSHCP/NCCP Reserve System for the conservation of state sensitive resources. Using the CVMSHCP/NCCP GIS mapping tool, the c onserved lands in relation to the Indio Subbasin are included in Attachment O.

The Santa Rosa Wildlife Area is approximately 101,500 acres with very steep terrain habitat for the largest herd of peninsular bighorn sheep. The Magnesia Spring Ecological Reserve, an approximately 3,800-acre property, and the Carrizo Canyon Ecological Reserve, approximately 1,000-acre, also have similar terrain that includes several narrow canyons. Both properties were acquired and designated an ecological reserve by the Fish and Game Commission to preserve a historic water supply and to maintain and improve habitat for this sp ecies. Similarly, the 485-acre Oasis Spring Ecological Reserve, which is located along the Salton Sea below the historical high- water mark, was designated as an ecological reserve by the Fish and Game Commission to provide habitat for the desert pupfish. CDFW also manages lands in the Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard Preserve to protect aeolian processes that support a variety of flora and fauna (i.e., Coachella fringe-toed lizard (Uma inornate) and Coachella Valley milk vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae)) that are specially adapted to blow sand deposits within harsh desert environments.

CDFW recommends that the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan focus on impacts to conserved lands to ensure that they function and provide benefits as intended in perpetuity.
9 Leslie MacNair,
Regional
Manager
CDFW
Data Gaps: Geological
The Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan includes a numerical groundwater flow model and associated water budget with updated inflow and outflow data through 2019 that were used to assess groundwater conditions and future sustainability within the Plan Area. Other improvemen ts include: (1) updated Salton Sea elevations; (2) more accurate land surface elevations and Salton Sea bathymetry; (3) more details regarding the Garnet Hill subarea; and (4) updated subsurface inflow boundary conditions from adjacent subbasins.

Collectively, these cross sections incorporate hydrogeologic information from the five main subareas of the Indio Subbasin, w ith cross section B-B’ crossing the Palm Springs Subarea in the south and the Garnet Hill Subarea and the Mission Creek Subbasin in the north, and cross section E -E’ intersecting the Oasis and Thousand Palms Subareas of the Indio Subbasin in the southwest and the Desert Hot Springs Subbasin s in the northeast (Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Section 3.5 Hydrogeologic Cross Sections). Refer to Attachment P for more details.

CDFW found this technique useful in providing information for the entire Subbasin (e.g., greatest depths to water were observ ed in the northwestern portion of the subbasin that was generally greater than 200 feet, depths to groundwater generally decreased to about 100 to 250 feet in the mid - subbasin area and then to zero or above the ground surface in artesian wells near the Salton Sea), but is unclear whether mor e specific details can be gained regarding the Salton Sea. Cross sections A’’ – A’’’ and E-E’ just north of the Salton Sea show the boundary between the upper and lower aquifers with shallow depths to water (Section 3.5.2 Perpendicular Cross Sections). In addition to relatively shallow or artesian conditions, this subarea Update of the numerical groundwater flow model was completed according to the recommendations in DWR’s Modeling Best Management Practices (BMPs) guidebook (available at:
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/SGMA- Groundwater-Management/Best-Management-Practices-and-
Guidance-Documents). Model documentation is provided in Appendix 1-A, within the context that the model has been used since the 1990s and updated multiple times as part of ongoing Subbasin management. The model code is public domain open source MODFLOW, one of the most widely used codes in the United States. The model is based on field data, consistent with the hydrogeological conceptual model (HCM) and the water budget.

The modeling tool is demonstrably well calibrated and applicable to the scenarios as documented in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios.

The Alternative Plan Update has not identified any data gaps relative to geology, monitoring, or modeling that significantly affect the understanding of the basin setting or limit the ability to assess whether a basin is being sustainably managed. Nonetheless, the

Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update
Public Comment and Response Matrix

Page 8 of 24 ends

# Commenter
Name
Commenter
Organization Comment Response
(Thermal) is characterized by a shallow semi-perched aquifer (Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Section 4.1.3 Groundwater Occurrence (Depth to Water)), as shown in Attachment Q. The Indio Subbasin Alternate Plan (Figure 3-2 Groundwater Subareas of the Indio Subbasin and Section 3.5.2 Perpendicular Cross Sections) concludes that the Barton Canyon subareas, which is located west of the northern shore of the S alton Sea, are “semi- water bearing and generally lack subsurface information”. CDFW concurs with this observation given the lack of well information in this region. For example, with over 345 monitoring wells (52 CASGEM and 293 other) in the Plan Area, roughly only 12 appear to be within close proximity to this area (Please see Attachment R: Figure 2-11 Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Well Locations).

CVWD is a founding member of the Salton Sea Authority, with two members currently serving on its board. CDFW strongly recomme nds the GSA continue to address the concerns of the Salton Sea and its ecological value by closely monitoring and evaluating the elevational sea level changes, as well as the receding/increasing shoreline vegetation/water and the effects to the adjacent habitat along the northwestern sho re of the Salton Sea.

Finally, major changes to the modeling included correcting the initial 1997 conditions in the Garnet Hill Subarea. In doing t his, the effect of the Garnet Hill Fault was seen in the abrupt change in groundwater levels across the fault. Subsurface in flow across the Banning and San Andreas faults were also discussed from the Mission Creek and Desert Hot Springs Subbasins into the Indio Subbasin (Section 7.2.5.1 Subsurface Inflows ). The Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan did express the need to conduct future analyses of the San Gorgonio and Mission Creek Subbasin boundaries to better estimate subsurface inflows from adjacent Subbasins. To update and improve the numerical model, the study will consider subsurface flo w at faults and to the Garnet Hill Subarea, as well as adjacent groundwater Subbasins and their numerical models through coordination with other GSAs (Section 12.2.8.3 Subsurface Flow Study). CDFW suggests that if the available groundwater monitoring wells are not already appropriately locate d or constructed for the purpose of performing detailed high-quality evaluations of the effects of faults throughout the Subbasin faults (e.g., San Gorgonio Pass, San Jacinto Fault) under a variety of groundwater conditions, that this occurs and is incorporate d into the updated analysis.

GSAs continue to improve monitoring and analyze information.

Chapter 12, Plan Evaluation and Implementation (Section 12.2.8) includes multiple studies that have been prioritized by the GSAs to refine Subbasin understanding:
• Drain Flow Study
• Subsidence Study
• Subsurface Flow Study
Data from these studies, as well as groundwater level and quality measurements collected as part of this Plan implementation, may be useful for agencies that are leading the effort to implement the Salton Sea Management Plan. Additionally, through both this Alternative Plan Update and the Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (CV-SNMP), the GSAs will fill 23 monitoring gaps that were identified (including six wells in the perched aquifer system, with four located along the Salton Sea) in the CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program Workplan. The GSAs goal is to continue improving Subbasin information as needed to ensure sustainable groundwater management.

The Garnet Hill fault (among others) has long been recognized as a flow barrier. The model uses the MODFLOW HFB Package to simulate the effects of the fault on flow between the subareas. As described in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios, changes were made to initial 1997 conditions in Garnet Hill and historical pumping inputs were revised with improved pumping records. While this represents a local improvement in a boundary area, it is not a major change to the model which was, and is, well calibrated.

See also Response to Comment No. 1.
10 Leslie MacNair,
Regional
Manager
CDFW
Data Gaps: Sub/Surface Water
The Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan acknowledges that uncertainty exists in the actual amounts of inflow at the Indio Subbasin eastern boundary, with the subsurface outflow at the San Gorgonio Pass (SGP) Subbasin representing one of the largest unknowns in the water budget a nd groundwater modeling. CDFW appreciates that the Indio Subbasin GSA plans to reconcile the differ ences and refine outflow/inflow as a part of the next 5-Year Alternative Plan update to include: (1) a Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis using the SGP Subbasin MODFLOW model; (2) review upcoming data from three nested monitoring well clusters near the Subbasin boundary, followed by evaluation and model calibration to recent (and future) water level trends; and (3) include sensitivity simulations in the model using a range of subsurface inflows. CDFW also recommends that t he monitoring network for groundwater-surface water interaction be enhanced to not only incorporate the use of existing stream gaging and groundwater level monitor ing networks, but also include monitoring along ephemeral and intermittent water bodies (e.g., streams/washes, springs, seeps). Particularly, monitoring should entail a rigorous assessment that encompasses baseline data, control area(s), and/or similar reference watersheds (e.g ., elevation, faulting, geomorphology, size, etc.) of water bodies and/or GDEs/ISWs that have high biolo gical value. Some suggestions include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Determining the safe yield (water balance) in the sub-watershed containing the extraction points with inputs (precipitation gaging, groundwater inflow, and infiltration) and outputs (evapotranspiration gaging, overland flow, surface water outflow, and groundwater outflow including extraction), as well as a gridded surface water-groundwater model. Note: Building and calibrating a fractured mountain-front hydrogeologic model is a longer-term goal given the lack of baseline data and the multiple parameters needed.

The Alternative Plan Update has not identified any data gaps relative to subsurface or surface water that significantly affect the understanding of the basin setting or limit the ability to assess whether a basin is being sustainably managed. Data will continue to be collected and input into the numerical model over time.

Chapter 12, Plan Evaluation and Implementation (Section 12.2.2) includes six components of the GSAs monitoring program:
• groundwater levels
• climate, streamflow, and drain flow
• groundwater production
• subsidence
• water quality
• seawater intrusion
The numerical model used to simulate groundwater conditions in the Alternative Plan Update uses best available data to develop inflows and parameters. The inflow from neighboring basins was

Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update
Public Comment and Response Matrix

Page 9 of 24 ends

# Commenter
Name
Commenter
Organization Comment Response
• Performing stable isotope analysis through water sampling to measure travel time through the system to assess potential diffe rences in recharge elevation and groundwater flo w paths.

Also, the Indio Subbasin GSA should be aware that Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires an entity to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may do one or more of the following: (1) Substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any riv er, stream or lake; (2) Substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or (3) Deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream or lake. This includes "any river, stream o r lake" that are intermittent (i.e., those that are dry for periods of time) or perennial (i.e., those that flow year-round) with surface, or subsurface, flow. estimated using previous numerical models, neighboring models, water level data, and aquifer parameters.

The subsurface flow across the San Gorgonio Pass (SGP) boundary may represent one of the largest unknowns in the SGP Basin water budget and groundwater modeling (because the SGP basin is relatively small) but it does not represent a large unknown for the Indio Subbasin. For Indio, the subsurface inflow is relatively small compared to other inputs and it remains at similar volumes in all future scenarios. New monitoring wells in the area will provide additional data to further calibrate the model and inflow from neighboring basins.

Groundwater-surface water interaction was also developed using available watershed data including local watershed precipitation, recharge/runoff relationships, evapotranspiration (both measured and estimated), and measured streamflow. Mountain front recharge was estimated annually by watershed and runoff routed through the model domain depending on surface water flow conditions. The methodology is consistent with previous water management plans and utilizes the available data to greatest extent possible.

SGMA requires an examination of the “sustainable yield” of the Subbasin and water balance, but not the “safe yield” of the whole surface watershed (California Code of Regulations §354.18(b)(7)).

The Indio Subbasin water budget, as modeled under several different scenarios in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios, is primarily dominated by imported water recharge and return flows. As such, the water budget is a more appropriate tool for determining sustainability in this Subbasin.
11 Leslie MacNair,
Regional
Manager
CDFW
In conclusion, though the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan does address certain species and their habitat as identified in the CVMSHCP/NCCP, it does not comply with all aspects of SGMA statutes and regulations, and CDFW deems it insufficient in its consideration of fish and wildlife beneficial uses and users of groundwater and interconnected surface waters. CDFW recommends that the GSA address the above comments for the follo wing reasons derived from regulatory criteria for GSP/Alternative Plan evaluation:

1. The assumptions, criteria, findings, and objectives, including the sustainability goal, undesirable results, minimum threshol ds, measurable objectives, and interim milestones are not reasonable and/or not supported by the best available information and best available science (23 CCR § 355.4(b)(1)). (See Comments in Sections #1 – 6)

2. It does not identify reasonable measures and schedules to eliminate data gaps. (23 CCR § 355.4(b)(2)) (See Comments in Section #6)

3. The sustainable management criteria and projects and management actions are not commensurate with the level of understanding of the basin setting, based on the level of uncertainty. (23 CCR § 355.4(b)(3)) (See Comments in Sections #1-6)

4. The interests of the beneficial uses and users of groundwater in the basin, and the land uses and property interests potentially affected by the use of groundwater in the basin, have not been considered. (23 CCR § 355.4(b)(4)) (See Comments in Section # 5) The Alternative Plan was approved by DWR in 2019 and this Alternative Plan Update addresses DWR’s specific
recommendations.

Please see Response to Comments No. 1-10 above.
12 Nataly
Escobedo
Garcia, Policy
Coordinator
Leadership
Counsel for
Justice and
Accountability
Transparency and Brown Act in the Indio Subbasin and Coachella Valley Water District GSA Transparency is a critical function of public agencies, particularly those engaged in managing such a critical resource as wa ter. Unfortunately, the Indio subbasin agencies have consistently failed to hold meetings or make decisions in a transparent and accessible way. Furthermore, we are al armed to note ongoing violations of the Brown Act. We have expressed these concerns to agency staff and have noted no change. Some of the agencies’ barriers All GSA decisions related to SGMA have been and will continue to be conducted at public meetings subject to the Brown Act. For example, following is a list of publicly noticed meetings where SGMA has been addressed in the last two years:

Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update
Public Comment and Response Matrix

Page 10 of 24 ends

# Commenter
Name
Commenter
Organization Comment Response
Sarah Spinuzzi,
Senior Staff
Attorney
Coachella
Valley
Waterkeeper
to accessibility and transparency occurred before the COVID-19 epidemic, and some have arisen during the epidemic. We urge you to make the suggested changes below so that ongoing decisions about critical water resources are made i n a transparent and accessible way.

All SGMA-related decisions must be made at public meetings of the GSA The Brown Act requires that legislative agencies such as the Indio Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) discus s and decide upon subject matter within their jurisdiction at public meetings only.1 The Indio Subbasin GSAs have begun to conduct workshops around the Alternative Plan Update to be submitted next year. However, during this process, to the best of our knowledge, CVWD GSA has not h eld any board meetings in which it has publicly discussed or taken action related to the Draft Plan Update. We know that the individual GSAs within the Indio subbasin are each making decisions about the Alternative Plan Update, yet no GSA board meetings have been held where such decisions are discussed and available for public comment.
• December 17, 2019 – DWA Board approval for Sustainable Groundwater Management Grant Program application
• March 3, 2020 – CVWD Board Update on Alternative Plan Update and Annual Report
• March 9, 2021 – CVWD Board Update on Alternative Plan Update and Annual Report
• August 3, 2021 – DWA Board Update on Alternative Plan Update
• August 3, 2021 – CVWD Board Study Session on Alternative Plan Update
• October 26, 2021 – CVWD Board approval to submit
Technical Support Services application for monitoring wells • December 7, 2021 – DWA Board to consider Plan adoption • December 7, 2021 – CVWD Board to consider Plan
adoption
• December 8, 2021 – CWA Board to consider Plan adoption • December 15, 2021 – IWA Board to consider Plan adoption

13 Nataly
Escobedo
Garcia, Policy
Coordinator
Sarah Spinuzzi,
Senior Staff
Attorney
Leadership
Counsel for
Justice and
Accountability
Coachella
Valley
Waterkeeper
Transparency and Brown Act in the Indio Subbasin and Coachella Valley Water District GSA Public meetings of the GSA must be noticed effectively
As we have previously expressed, the CVWD GSA does not publicly notice and agendize its GSA meetings. The Brown Act states th at "[a]t least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the legislative body of the local agency...shall post an agenda containing a brie f general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session." For this reason, we do not believe that current meeting structures are in compliance with the Brown Act.

Coachella Valley Water District, Desert Water Agency, Coachella Water Authority, and Indio Water Authority may be making SGMA -related decisions at their separately noticed board meetings. However, it is important that decisions regarding SGMA implementation be s eparately noticed as GSA board meetings. We saw this issue arise for several GSAs in the San Joaquin Valley where existing agencies assumed the responsibili ties of GSAs and began to make SGMA-related decisions at their regular board meetings. GSAs in the S an Joaquin Valley resolved this issue in several different ways. For example, the Westlands GSA continues to include SGMA as an item on its regular Westlands Water District board meeting agenda, but main tains a list of interested parties for SGMA purposes and sends a separate notice to that email list, informing them about the SGMA agenda item at the upcoming Westlands board meeting. The Madera County GSA follows a similar method, separately noticing their list of SGMA interested pa rties before any Madera County Board of Supervisors meetings at which decisions related to SGMA are to be made. The Central Kings GSA, also the board of Consolidated Irrigation District, separated its GSA meetings from its Consolidated Irrigation District meetings, separately n oticing and agendizing both and holding them back to back. We encourage the CVWD GSA to hold separate GSA and CVWD meetings, or state a specific time for the SGMA items at their regular board meetings, and separately agendize and notice the SGMA items, so tha t stakeholders are able to plan their time and participate in the relevant moment. Many residents are only able to take specific hours off of work, and need to be able to plan their days accordingly. Additionally, GSAs must provide a complete description of the items to be discussed, for example “Discussion/Decision Regarding Minimum Thresholds for Groundwater Levels,” rather than a general “SGMA update,” so that stakeholders may come prepared knowing what topic will be d iscussed.

Furthermore, on the Indio Subbasin website it is stated that there is a Management Committee composed of its four member GSAs that is leading the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan update. Because this is a meeting of agency members deciding on matters within their SGMA jur isdiction, any meetings this committee holds must be made public according to the Brown Act. It is important for the public to be able to give feedba ck and engage at every point of the plan update process. To the point in the above section, public meetings are critic al to agency transparency and therefore agency decisions must be made in a public meeting only..

Based on this information, our recommendations on ways to ensure accessible and transparent public GSA meetings are as follow s:

All GSA Board of Directors meetings are open to the public and follow Brown Act requirements by their respective agencies (CVWD, CWA, DWA, and IWA). All public workshops held to engage stakeholders in the Alternative Plan Update planning effort were noticed approximately 30 days in advance with an email
announcement in English and Spanish, followed by a reminder and circulation of the agenda 72-hours in advance in English and Spanish. All 72-hour announcements contain the website link and remind stakeholders that agendas and presentations are posted to the website and available for review. Workshop agendas include specific topical areas that will be discussed, including an agenda item titled “public comments”. While the public workshops are not subject to the Brown Act, the GSAs followed noticing practices that enhance transparency and encourage stakeholder engagement.

Thank you for your suggestion to notify stakeholders when SGMA topics are addressed in GSA Board meetings. As described in Response to Comment No. 12, all GSA decisions related to SGMA have been and will continue to be conducted at public meetings subject to the Brown Act. However, as water agencies guided by the Alternative Plan Update, nearly all of the GSA Board meetings will address items related to or included in the Plan Update. For example, award of design or construction contracts for the proposed non-potable connections listed in Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions are, by default, part of the agencies Plan Update implementation efforts. To manage communications and workload, the GSAs will send stakeholders an announcement through the tribal and stakeholder email lists when the GSA Boards

Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update
Public Comment and Response Matrix

Page 11 of 24 ends

# Commenter
Name
Commenter
Organization Comment Response
• Notify the public of all hearing/meeting times, topics, and detailed information regarding participation. All translated prep aratory materials and documents should be made available at the time meeting notices are posted as well. Notices should be easy to find on state or local jurisdiction websites, and disseminated at least 72 hours in advance. Notices must clearly show how public comments will be received. • Give ample time for the public to submit comments prior to the meeting’s start time, such as via a dedicated phone number. Comments should be accepted starting from the time the notices are disseminated. Written or voice message comments should be allowed up until the start of the meeting, as well as live comments throughout the meeting. o Do not limit opportunities to comment only to email and avoid implementing arbitrary word limits on email comments. Limiting comments only to email leaves room for them to remain unheard and ignored. Allow email comments to be read aloud on the recor d by staff during the live meeting, for transparency and consideration by the full board/commission. o Allow the public to leave voice message comments, which can be limited to 3 minutes, and played during the comment period of the meeting. Ensure that these messages, as well as the emails, can be received in multiple languages and interpreted as needed. • During the meeting, provide multiple options for teleconferencing, with two -way communication options that allows either computer-users or phone-users to engage and provide public comment. Webcasting does not constitute a public meeting, as it does not provide the opportunity for public comment and dialogue between the agency and constituents. o Each teleconferencing medium will offer benefits and limitations, ranging from professio nal options such as Zoom, GoToMeeting, and WebEx, as well as wide-reaching mediums for video streaming like YouTube and Facebook Live. For live-streamed meetings, the public should be allowed to comment in real time, through a combination of phone and vide o, chat boxes, and/or email. o Ensure that there is time for public comment after each agenda item during the meeting, and allow sufficient time for live co mments to be submitted either electronically or via telephone. • For members of the public that may not have access to the internet or a computer, or who are unable to use video applications, consistently provide an adequate telephone option–available in multiple languages–and ensure that comments can be made via phone. addresses SGMA-specific items, such as Plan adoption, future Plan updates, and presentation of the Annual Reports.

There is no Management Committee in the Indio Subbasin. While the staffs of the four GSA agencies coordinate on data sharing, analysis, and reporting, there is no Management Committee. The website text was in error and has been corrected.

We are happy to report that the Indio Subbasin GSAs implemented a majority of your recommendations during the planning process.

Our public workshop presentations, available starting 72-hours prior to each workshop, contain an email address for submittal of comments. No word limit or deadline was issued, and comments were accepted at any time. For each public workshop, a Spanish interpreter and separate phone were made available for any interested stakeholders. This Spanish translation line was advertised in email announcements and announced at the beginning of each workshop verbally and in the “Chat”. Our public workshops were held via the GoToMeeting platform, which allowed stakeholders to access online and via phone line. In both cases, communication was two-way and stakeholders could either type questions and comments into the Chat or unmute and ask questions and
comments verbally. Stakeholders did comment at each public workshop – their input is summarized in the meeting notes posted on the website. Stakeholder input was used to refine the climate change assumptions used for local Whitewater River watershed hydrology and all sources of imported water (see Section 7.5.1 in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios).
14 Nataly
Escobedo
Garcia, Policy
Coordinator
Sarah Spinuzzi,
Senior Staff
Attorney
Leadership
Counsel for
Justice and
Accountability
Coachella
Valley
Waterkeeper
Insufficient Community Engagement and Outreach
SGMA requires that a GSA “shall consider the interests of all beneficial uses and users of groundwater,” which expressly includes “[h]olders of overlying rights” and “[d]isadvantaged communities, including, but not limited to, those served by private domestic w ells or small community water systems.” The emergency regulations similarly require that a Draft GSP summarize and identify “opportunities for public engagement and a discussion of how public input and response will be used.” The GSA thus must engage “diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within the basin.”
We acknowledge that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted everyone’s ability to engage in person with communities and we appreciate the virtual workshops that were held by the CVWD GSA in-lue of in-person meetings. However, these workshops were all held during business hours, which are not accessible to many of the communities we work with. Additionally, CVWD GSA actively points to their Disadvantaged Communi ties Infrastructure Committee Meetings as a space for community engagement. These meetings are not open to the public and are held at hours inaccessibl e to many of the residents we work with, and were not held for an entire year, between February 2020 until January 2021.

To address concerns over public engagement, transparency, and inclusivity, the GSAs must meaningfully consult with all beneficia l user groups to shape policies that reflect the priorities of all beneficial user groups in the GSA area. Then recirculate a new D raft GSP for the public to review.

The GSAs led all stakeholder outreach and communications in accordance with a Communications Plan that was developed at program onset and considered and incorporated all comments received to the extent possible given COVID-19 restrictions (see Appendix 1-B).

The GSAs conducted an extensive outreach effort to ensure that all beneficial user groups were engaged in the development of the Alternative Plan Update. The five local tribal governments in Indio Subbasin were engaged through a SGMA Tribal Workgroup
coordinated by the GSAs. Stakeholders with interest in water management—including agency representatives, municipalities, agricultural representatives, golf course industry representatives, Homeowners Associations, other large irrigators, environmental justice groups, and other non-governmental organizations—are a primary audience for the Alternative Plan Update. The general public was engaged throughout the planning process to share information about the Indio Subbasin and water management decisions and solicit input. Stakeholders were encouraged to subscribe to the stakeholder email list to receive email updates and announcements. Public workshop announcements, agendas, and

Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update
Public Comment and Response Matrix

Page 12 of 24 ends

# Commenter
Name
Commenter
Organization Comment Response
materials were posted on the website in advance of each meeting.

To encourage stakeholder involvement in the planning process, the GSAs also provided outreach documents, including the program website and all workshop announcements, in both English and Spanish to accommodate the primary languages of many
community members.

The adopted Alternative Plan Update must be submitted to DWR by January 1, 2022.
15 Nataly
Escobedo
Garcia, Policy
Coordinator
Sarah Spinuzzi,
Senior Staff
Attorney
Leadership
Counsel for
Justice and
Accountability
Coachella
Valley
Waterkeeper
The Water Budget is Inadequate
Under SGMA, the “[c]urrent water budget information shall quantify current inflows and outflows for the basin using the most recent hydrology, water supply, water demand, and land use information.” Based on our review, the Draft Plan Update’s Water Budget is incomplete, as it has failed to include the consolidation of unpermitted parks to their water budget.

We are pleased to see that the ECV Water Supply Master Plan was incorporated into the water budget. However, this plan only included permitted mobile home parks. The ECV has very few permitted parks in comparison to the nearly 500 unpermitted parks. Excluding these pa rks from consolidation planning, massively under-estimates the amount of water needed to address drinking water needs in the ECV. The water budget is central to establishing effective policies for sustainable groundwater management in the GSA area, as such the drinking water needs of these groups must be incorporated into the water budget. Before it can submit an adequate Alternative Plan, the CVWD GSA must integrate data on groundwater use in unincorporated parks into water budget calculations in order to include drinking water needs of unpermitted parks in t he ECV.

The water budget that is incorporated in the numerical model includes all metered pumping and additional estimated pumping (1,500 AFY) to account for domestic wells and small unmetered community water systems.

In the water budget, the pumping component included demand projections for all housing units within Plan Area, including MHPs regardless of permitting status. The municipal demand projections were described in detail in Chapter 5: Demand Projections. We accounted for all potential water use, plus a 10% municipal demand buffer in evaluation of projected available supplies against the demand forecast (see Chapter 12, Plan Evaluation and
Implementation).
16 Nataly
Escobedo
Garcia, Policy
Coordinator
Sarah Spinuzzi,
Senior Staff
Attorney
Leadership
Counsel for
Justice and
Accountability
Coachella
Valley
Waterkeeper
The Monitoring Network Is Inadequate With Respect to Groundwater Quality GSAs must monitor impacts to groundwater for drinking water beneficial users,9 including disadv antaged communities on domestic wells,10 and must avoid disparate impacts on protected groups pursuant to state law.11 The GSA’s monitoring network does not comply with SGMA r egulations, and fails to capture drinking water impacts to disadvantaged communities and domestic wells. The GSA has therefore not considered the interests of this beneficial user group and is likely to cause a disparate impact on protected groups who are dependent on domestic wells in th e GSA area.

SGMA regulations require that Alternative Plans create a groundwater quality monitoring network that will “collect sufficient spatial and temporal data from each applicable principal aquifer to determine groundwater quality trends for water quality indicators, as determined by the Agency, to address known water quality issues.”
Despite having identified many known water quality issues in the Groundwater Conditions chapter,13 the Draft Plan Update fail s to comprehensively analyze whether the sites being monitored by existing programs will adequately “address known water quality issues” and their impacts on all beneficial users in the GSA area. As proposed, the monitoring does not sufficiently monitor groundwater quality in the Easter n Coachella Valley, where as noted in the Draft Plan Update, there are high levels of groundwater contaminants.

Therefore the monitoring network as written violates the GSA’s responsibility to collect sufficient data to determine trends and address known water quality issues affecting beneficial users in the GSA area. As written, the monitoring network would allow severe drinking water impacts to occur on domestic well users and in unincorporated communities.

To ensure that the representative wells within the monitoring network accurately monitor impacts to groundwate r management for drinking water beneficial users, the following revisions are required:
• The GSA must analyze whether the groundwater quality monitoring network adequately captures increases in the extent and conce ntration of all known contaminants in the GSA area that are harmful to human health, and ensure that it does so. • The GSA must ensure that the groundwater quality monitoring network will detect impacts from groundwater quality on all types of beneficial users, most importantly drinking water users who have limited financial ability to treat their drinking water sources. To thi s end, the GSA must ensure that existing representative wells are in or near such communities or domestic wells, or that it has a concrete plan f or installing new monitoring wells that will detect these impacts or working with domestic well users to regularly test their wells and incorporate that data into SGMA regulations require monitoring of static groundwater elevation at “sufficient density” to characterize the groundwater table (California Code of Regulations §354.34). The representative monitoring well network established in the Alternative Plan Update are sufficient for tracking and determining sustainability under SGMA.DWR’s Monitoring Networks and Identification of Data Gaps BMP manual (available at: 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) provides guidance for monitoring well density. The BMP manual confirms that the necessary monitoring point density for groundwater management depends on local geology, extent of groundwater use, and how the GSAs define undesirable results.

DWR provides relevant references, one of which (Heath, 1976) suggests 0.2 to 10 wells per 100 square miles. As documented in the Alternative Plan Update, groundwater levels are monitored in 345 wells across the Indio Subbasin area of 525 square miles, within the guidelines. Of these, the GSAs also have defined 57 key wells, approximately 10.8 wells per 100 square miles.

Additionally, as documented in Section 10.1.4, the GSAs are developing a CV-SNMP to further monitor and assess groundwater quality. The CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Workplan (which has been added as Appendix 2-A of the Alternative Plan Update) includes a network of 187 existing wells and 23 new wells to

Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update
Public Comment and Response Matrix

Page 13 of 24 ends

# Commenter
Name
Commenter
Organization Comment Response
its monitoring network. Monitoring wells must detect groundwater quality issues in shallow groundwater near disadvantaged com munities. A particular focus must be small mobile home parks in the Eastern Coachella Valley that rely on small water systems. • The GSA must prioritize constructing new monitoring wells in the Eastern Coachella Valley in order to ensure the region is be ing properly monitored for all primary drinking water contaminants, and in particular arsenic, chrom-6, and uranium. monitor water quality. The resulting data will be incorporated into future Alternative Plan Updates.

The CV-SNMP Agencies, which include the Indio Subbasin GSAs, recently conducted an evaluation of the monitoring network for the CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Workplan (which has been added as Appendix 2-A of the Alternative Plan Update). The network of deep aquifer wells in the Workplan approved by RWQCB was found to be adequate, and the GSAs will continue to monitor these wells. The network of available shallow aquifer wells was found to be limited due to a lack of wells screened in the shallow aquifer and the GSAs are working on funding and installing additional monitoring wells. The CV-SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Workplan further describes these data gaps. The GSAs are considering monitoring other constituents (Arsenic, Cr-6, and Fluoride) in these monitoring network wells once constructed, in addition to the monitoring that is already conducted for water quality, as described in Chapter 10, Monitoring Program (Section

10.1.4).
17 Nataly
Escobedo
Garcia, Policy
Coordinator
Sarah Spinuzzi,
Senior Staff
Attorney
Leadership
Counsel for
Justice and
Accountability
Coachella
Valley
Waterkeeper
The Alternative Plan Update Must Address Groundwater Quality Impacts Caused By Recharge Or Overpumping SGMA charged GSAs with the responsibility to protect water quality from further degradation due to groundwater management pra ctices, and requires GSAs to establish sustainable management criteria to prevent degraded groundwater quality.15 The proposed SMCs are inadequate in protecting communities in the ECV from further groundwater quality degradation. This is particularly concerning for contaminants such as arsenic and chrom-6, which are a widespread issue in the ECV, as noted in the Draft Plan Update.16 Further, it is not adequate to simply defer to infrastructure programs that include consolidating water systems or treating drinking water — the Alternative must protect sources of drinking water from contamination caused by groundwater management activities. In order to comply with SGMA and its regulations, which require the GSA to set s ustainable management criteria that will avoid undesirable results res ulting from degraded water quality for all beneficial users in the basin, and avoid disparate impacts on protected groups, the Draft Plan Update must include the following:
• Set a protective minimum threshold, measurable objective, and interim milestones fo r all constituents with primary drinking water standards that may be impacted by groundwater management activities, or failure to manage groundwater in a way that does not negatively impact groundwater quality.
• A detailed explanation as to how the groundwater quality minimum threshold, measurable objectives, and interim milestones will result in the protection of groundwater for disadvantaged communities and other drinking water users in the subbasin.

The Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan was approved by DWR with recommendations for the Five-Year Update. With regard to groundwater quality, these included recommendations to provide maps showing the areas affected by the primary water quality constituents including fluoride, arsenic, chromium-6, and DBCP.

These maps were provided along with maps for additional constituents. The Alternative Plan Update also included substantial collection of water quality data into a database and mapping of the four recommended constituents plus TDS, nitrate, uranium, and perchlorate. Water quality monitoring is addressed in Chapter 10, Monitoring Program (Section 10.1.4) and water quality protection is in addressed in Chapter 11, Projects and Management Actions (Section 11.6). Water management projects like Oasis and non- potable water connections will work to reduce pumping and therefore, potential mobilization. Simultaneously recharging with Colorado River water helps reduce these naturally occurring contaminants. The Alternative Plan Update presents sustainable management criteria (SMCs) for groundwater levels, storage, and subsidence. Groundwater quality SMCs will be included in the next Five-Year Plan Update that integrates the findings of the CV -SNMP groundwater monitoring program and development activities currently underway. The CV-SNMP is being developed in
collaboration with the RWQCB, who has primary authority over water quality issues in the Subbasin.

See also Response to Comment No. 29.
18 Nataly
Escobedo
Leadership
Counsel for
The Alternative Plan Update Should Ensure No Further Land Subsidence USGS and CVWD have a long history of investigating and tracking subsidence in the Coachella Valley, and the collaborative studies are continuing.

Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update
Public Comment and Response Matrix

Page 14 of 24 ends

# Commenter
Name
Commenter
Organization Comment Response
Garcia, Policy
Coordinator
Sarah Spinuzzi,
Senior Staff
Attorney
Justice and
Accountability
Coachella
Valley
Waterkeeper
As currently written, the sustainable management criteria for land subsidence are vague and do not protect for impacts on disadvantaged co mmunities or domestic well users. The GSA must set sustainable management criteria that reflect the needs of all the stakeholders i n the subbasin and protect all types of beneficial users from impacts from further land subsidence in the area.

The GSA must define the undesirable results for subsidence in a way that avoids subsidence that substantially interferes with surface land uses.17 The GSA must consider the interests of all beneficial user groups, including domestic well users and disadvantaged communities, i n determining its undesirable result for land subsidence.

The CVWD GSA has decided to use groundwater levels as a proxy for land subsidence and accordingly apply the same sustainable management criteria.

While we are not disputing using groundwater levels as proxy, we want to ensure the SMCs for land subsidence also includes im pacts to critical infrastructure. The SMC for land subsidence does not show whether they will protect critical infrastructure such as roads, drinking water wells, distribution lines, housing, septic systems,. These surface land uses must also be taken into account in establishing the SMC for land subsidence.

To comply with its obligations under state law, CVWD GSA must:
• Analyze the impact of land subsidence on all beneficial user groups, including potential impacts on drinking water wells, hom es, distribution lines, roads, etc.
• Define a local undesirable result for subsidence that takes into account the critical infrastructure needs of all beneficial user groups, including domestic well owners, and specifically impacts to homes, piping, and wells.

The magnitude of subsidence has been relatively small compared to areas in the Central Valley that experienced tens of feet of subsidence. To be specific, Coachella Valley experienced less than two inches of subsidence between 1995 and 2010, with the most subsidence occurring along the southwestern margin of the valley near Palm Desert and mostly between Indian Wells and La Quinta.

As indicated in Sections 4.3 and 9.2, the most recent USGS study (Sneed and Brandt, 2020) documented that, although a few areas subsided (albeit at a slower rate), most areas stopped subsiding from 2010 to 2017 and some even uplifted. In Coachella Valley, subsidence has been stopped as groundwater levels have increased in response to water resource management action including replenishment, source substitution, and conservation. The MTs were set at levels where no significant undesirable results related to subsidence have occurred, and the MTs are protective of all uses and users.

Chapter 9, Sustainable Management (Section 9.5.1) lists undesirable results of land subsidence to include “disruption of surface drainage, water supply conveyance, and flood control facilities; damage to infrastructure such as pipelines, airport runways, railroads, roads, and highways; and potential subsidence around a production well, disrupting wellhead facilities.”
Thanks for your additions – the following has been added to Section

9.5.1 to include “housing, septic systems, distribution lines, and piping.”
19 Nataly
Escobedo
Garcia, Policy
Coordinator
Sarah Spinuzzi,
Senior Staff
Attorney
Leadership
Counsel for
Justice and
Accountability
Coachella
Valley
Waterkeeper
Projects and Management Actions Must Benefit All Beneficial Users and Avoid Disparate Impacts The GSA must consider the interests of all beneficial users including domestic well owners and disadvantaged communities and avoid disparate impacts on protected groups. We commend CVWD GSA for including small water system consolidation as planned management actions. However, we are concerned these management actions exclude important groups, specifically unpermitted mobile home parks, from planned actions . Additionally, no timeline was put forward for implementing this management action and as currently written, it appears implementation is dependent on state funding, which can be an extremely drawn out process.

Given the groundwater quality issues in the ECV and aging infrastructure, CVWD GSA needs to set a proactive timeline for cons olidating small water systems in the ECV and must modify their water budget to reflect consolidation of unpermitted parks. Furtherm ore, we would like to reiterate that waiting for state funding to move forward on consolidation in the ECV will lead to an extremely drawn out process. CVWD GSA m ust strengthen proposed management actions to include direct investment from its annual budget to support water system consolidation.

Please see the response to the comment on the water budget; small water systems are addressed using best available data.

Due to state laws governing use of funds, such as Proposition 218, and other laws and issues, domestic water and sewer consolidations are dependent on state and federal funding – we also recognize that it is a drawn-out process, but the GSAs are working toward these consolidations in partnership with the funding entities. The GSAs will continue to pursue the consolidations as aggressively as possible in collaboration with DAC Infrastructure Task Force.

The GSAs need Leadership Counsel’s support and advocacy for State funding programs that would support these consolidations, specifically around drought funding which is less competitive given that Coachella Valley has managed water effectively over the last few decades. Please help support funding for Coachella Valley. 20 Nataly
Escobedo
Garcia, Policy
Coordinator
Leadership
Counsel for
Justice and
Accountability
The Draft Plan Update Conflicts with the Reasonable And Beneficial Use Doctrine The “reasonable and beneficial use” doctrine is codified in the California Constitution. It requires that “the water resourc es of the State be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable, and that the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and that the conservation of such waters is to be exercised with a view to the reasonable and beneficial use there of in the interest of the people and for the public welfare.” The doctrine applies to all water users, regardless of the basis of the water right, and all water rights and methods As described in Chapter 6: Water Supply, the Colorado River supply projection does not use an assumption 100% of CVWD’s
Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) entitlement will be available under future conditions. CVWDs allocations are still increasing due to transfers (by 5,000 AFY every year through 2027), and the Plan Update does not account for all of it in projections.

Given anticipated climate changes and the 20-year drought in the

Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update
Public Comment and Response Matrix

Page 15 of 24 ends

# Commenter
Name
Commenter
Organization Comment Response
Sarah Spinuzzi,
Senior Staff
Attorney
Coachella
Valley
Waterkeeper
of diversion. A determination of reasonableness of a use “cannot be resolved in vacuo isolated from statewide considerations of transcendent importance.”
The reliance on imported water to support sustainable groundwater aquifers cannot be avoided when addressing issues around be neficial use. As is made clear by the Draft Plan Update, the primary source of water for the GSA area is the Colorado River, accounting for approximately 62% of the total water supply.24 We are deeply concerned that each Plan Scenario assumes that the GSA will receive its full allocation of Colo rado River water, and that the total delivery will actually increase from 402,800 AFY to 436,050 AFY through 2045. This assumption appears to be based on CVWD’s high-priority position regarding Colorado River Allocations and CVWD’s success in legal challenges to the QSA. Relia nce on priority positioning and past legal successes ignores the reality of the Colorado River.

The Colorado River becomes increasingly imperiled every single year due to drought and overdraft as over 40 million people re ly upon it for drinking water, agriculture, and power.29 There is no acknowledgement that the Colorado River is already at or near critically low elevations in Lakes Powell and Mead. The current level of Lake Mead is 1,067.15 feet MSL. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) has declared a water sho rtage for the first time in the Basin’s history. Lake Powell could fall below the minimum power pool elevation of 3,490 feet as early as July 2022, wh ile Lake Mead is projected to be less than one foot above 1,050 feet by the end of 2022.31 USBR further projects that there is a 62% probability that Lake Mead’s elevation falls below 1,025 feet by 2026 – approximately the same time the Draft Plan Update assumes that water transfers from the Colorado River will increase from 424,000 AFY to 459,000 AFY.

Water levels dropping below these critical thresholds means that millions of people will be without the electricity generated by hydropower on the Colorado River. Under these extreme emergency situations, which are becoming more of a statistical certainty, the GSAs cannot continue to rely on its status as a senior water rights holder without a contingency plan for a decrease in delivery from the Colorado River. The ove r allocation of water from the Colorado is a mathematical certainty that needs to be accounted for in at least som e of the plan scenarios.

Each new non-essential water use in the desert has the potential to negatively impact groundwater recharge. While courts wield an extraord inary amount of power, they have yet to cause precipitation events to reverse the course of climate change, and there is no reliable indication that CVWD’s use of imported water for surf parks, fake beaches, and new golf courses will continue to take priority over the generation o f power and food for millions of people.

The GSAs must ensure that Alternative Plan Update’s water allocations are consistent with the reasonable and beneficial use d octrine. In doing so, the GSAs must prioritize domestic use of water resources over irrigated agriculture36 and ensure that SGMA implementation furthers the human right to safe and affordable drinking water — both statewide considerations of transcendent importance. In other words, a plan that allows use of water for non-essential water use at the expense of use of water for domestic purposes is not consistent with the reasonable and beneficial use doctrine. It is also inconsistent with the reasonable and beneficial use doctrine to allow agricultural uses at the expense of the domestic u ses of water for drinking, cooking, and basic sanitation.

The reasonable and beneficial use doctrine applies here given the potential negative impacts of the Plan on groundwater susta inability which are likely to unreasonably interfere with the use of groundwater for drinking water and other domestic uses. As the Draft Plan Update authorizes waste and Colorado River basin, the Alternative Plan Update assumes that CVWD will contribute water to Lake Mead under the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan. The Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan is described in detail in Chapter 6: Water Supply. Those assumptions are then reflected in the Plan scenarios described in Chapter 7: Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios.

The 5-Year Plan with Climate Change scenario is based on the GSAs adopted 5-Year CIPs to identify specific projects. We agree those projects are in various phases of permitting, design, and construction. If only the current suite of projects in the agencies’ respective 5-year CIP is implemented, the Indio Subbasin would remain in a sustainable condition. As water supplies are needed to meet water demands, identified future supply, source substitution, or conservation projects will be moved forward under the adaptive management framework described in Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation. That includes the active conservation programs being implemented by the agencies, as described in Chapter 11: Projects and Management Actions. The GSAs are proactively pursuing additional supplies to ensure sustainability beyond the planning horizon, to ensure reliability of supplies under drought and climate change conditions, and pursuing voluntary conservation programs to encourage conservation to the s ame ends.

The GSAs do not approve of projects that involve waste and unreasonable use of water. All of the Plan Scenarios modeled in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios assume reduced Colorado River water deliveries; this was part of our planning assumptions described in Chapter 6, Water Supply. The Baseline and Five-Year Plan scenarios both assume that not all of the GSAs planned projects meet their supply goals on time. The GSAs commit to protecting drinking water as the highest and best use of water.

Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update
Public Comment and Response Matrix

Page 16 of 24 ends

# Commenter
Name
Commenter
Organization Comment Response
unreasonable use, and indeed does not even analyze the reasonable and beneficial use doctrine at all, it conflicts with the r easonable and beneficial use doctrine and the California Constitution.

In order to ensure the Draft Update is not in conflict with the Reasonable and Beneficial Use Doctrine, we make the following suggestions:
• The GSAs must commit to disapproval of projects that involve waste and unreasonable use. • The GSAs must revise the Draft Plan Update to include scenarios where the full allotment of Colorado River water cannot be deli vered. • The GSAs must account for scenarios where some or all of the planned projects fail to meet their supply goals on time. • The GSAs must commit to ensuring that access to drinking water is protected as the highest and best use of water. 21 Nataly
Escobedo
Garcia, Policy
Coordinator
Sarah Spinuzzi,
Senior Staff
Attorney
Leadership
Counsel for
Justice and
Accountability
Coachella
Valley
Waterkeeper
The Draft Plan Update Conflicts with the Public Trust Doctrine The Public Trust doctrine applies to the waters of the State, and establishes that “the state, as trustee, has a duty to preserve this t rust property from harmful diversions by water rights holders” and that thus “no one has a vested right to use water in a manner ha rmful to the state's waters.” The Public Trust doctrine has recently been applied to groundwater where there is a hydrological connection between the groun dwater and a navigable surface water body. In Environmental Law Foundation v. State Water Resources Control Board (“ELF”), the court held that the public trust doctrine applies to “the extraction of groundwater that adversely impacts a navigable waterway” and that the government has a n affirmative duty to take the public trust into account in the planning and allocation of water resources. Under ELF, the Public Trust doctrine imposes an affirmative and independent obligation to consider the public trust that applies to DWR’s decisions regarding submitted GSPs, imposing a lega l duty on DWR to not only consider the potential adverse impacts of groundwater extractions on navigable waterways but also “to protect public trust uses wh enever feasible.” The court also specifically held that SGMA does not supplant the requirements of the common law public trust doct rine.

Notably, the public trust doctrine applies to both currently navigable surface water bodies and surface water bodies that wer e historically navigable at the time of statehood. Further, certain rivers like the San Joaquin River have been declared navi gable in statute.

In contrast to these requirements, the GSP does not consider impacts on public trust resources, or attempt to avoid, insofar as feasible, harm to the public’s interest in those resources. The GSAs must (1) identify any public trust resour ces within the basin; (2) identify any public trust uses within the basin; (3) identify and analyzing potential adverse impacts of groundwater extractions on public trust resources and uses; an d (4) determine the feasibility of protecting public trust uses and protect such uses whenever feasible.

Comment noted. The GSAs are complying with the Public Trust Doctrine.

See also Response to Comments No. 1-10.

22 Nataly
Escobedo
Garcia, Policy
Coordinator
Sarah Spinuzzi,
Senior Staff
Attorney
Leadership
Counsel for
Justice and
Accountability
Coachella
Valley
Waterkeeper
The Draft Alternative Plan Update Lacks A Coordination Agreement.

Pursuant to Water Code, § 10733.6, “[i]f groundwater sustainability agencies develop multiple groundwater sustainability plans for a basin,” there must be a joint submittal to DWR of several items, including “[a] copy of the coordination agreement between the groundwater sustainability agencies to ensure the coordinated implementation of the groundwater sustainability plans for the entire basin.” This requirement applies to Alternative Plans as well, which must satisfy “the objectives” of SGMA, including coordinated groundwater management for entire groundwater bas ins.

The Alternative Plan Update covers the entire Indio Subbasin.

Coordination with Mission Creek Subbasin and San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin is occurring through staff of the GSAs.

Based on the quoted text, we believe that the reference to Water Code §10733.6 is not correct and can actually be found in Water Code §10733.4(b)(3). Water Code §10733.4(b)(3) applies when two or more groundwater sustainability agencies develop multiple groundwater sustainability plans for a basin. The Alternative Plan for the Indio Subbasin approved by DWR is a single plan covering the entire Indio Subbasin and did not require a coordination agreement for submittal or approval.
23 Margaret Park,
Chief Planning
Officer
Agua Caliente
Water
Authority
Tribal Workgroup and Stakeholder Outreach
The GSAs hosted numerous public meetings during the development of the Alt Plan Update. They also hosted tribal meetings during the Work Group.

The GSAs provided information that they deemed appropriate and relevant for the public. Unfortunately, they did not provide any meaningful backup data or other technical information prior to or during any meeting that would enable the Authority to evaluate the methodology or assumptions of the Alt Plan. This is the first time the Authority has seen this new Plan and yet we are only allowed 30 days to provide substantive comments on this highly technical document consisting of a 476-page Plan and a 422-page Appendix.

Presentations at each SGMA Tribal Workgroup and public workshop showed graphics and data on all technical aspects of the Plan Update. Those presentations were available on the website before, during, and after the workshops. The SGMA Tribal meetings were intended to be a working group and included additional requests for data and input from both the Tribes and GSAs. Because of the January 1, 2022 deadline to submit the Alternative Plan Update to DWR, the GSAs were unable to provide a longer review period. The GSAs are committed to continuing the SGMA Tribal Workgroup

Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update
Public Comment and Response Matrix

Page 17 of 24 ends

# Commenter
Name
Commenter
Organization Comment Response
meetings as stated in Chapter 1, Introduction (Section 1.5.5) of the Alternative Plan Update.
24 Margaret Park,
Chief Planning
Officer
Agua Caliente
Water
Authority
Treating the Indio Subbasin as a Uniform Source
The Alt Plan Update presents most water information at a basin-wide level. Generalizing this information as if the Basin operates uniformly can be misleading. The Plan acknowledges that the Numerical Model uses many data inputs, assumptions and identification of hydrologic subsets to inform the numerical model but it doesn’t present the information most relevant to the public in a way that informs public decision -making.

In the spirit of transparency and clarity, please amend the Alt Plan to include a detailed map that overlays and shows the boundaries of these areas:

1. West Whitewater River Subbasin Management Area

2. West Whitewater River Area of Benefit

3. DWA West Area of Benefit

4. CVWD West Area of Benefit

5. West Valley Management Area

6. Palm Springs Subbasin

7. Thermal Subbasin
These terms are used throughout the document but for different p urposes and within varying contexts. It would be helpful to the Authority to understand where the Reservation is located relative to these areas. It is impossible to understand the impacts of water management actions such as raw water replenishment and salt loading on the Reservation without more granular information.

The Authority also requests that the Alt Plan be amended to include the following information broken down in four ways: a) by West Whitewater River Subbasin Management Area, b) by West Whitewater River Area of Benefit, c) by DWA West Area of Benefit, d) by CVWD West Area of Benefit:

1. A table showing return flows

2. The quantity of groundwater that constitutes the historical depletion of the aquifer

3. Model Inflows and Outflows

4. Water Balance

5. Combined Return Flows

6. Salt Loading by source: natural sources, return flows from agricultural and landscape irrigation, recharge of imported Colora do River water, wastewater discharge and subsurface inflows from other basins.

7. Table 5-27 (Municipal Demand Forecast for the Plan Area)

8. Table 5-28 (Municipal Demand Forecast for GSA Areas)

9. Table 5-35 (Total Projected Water Demands in Plan Area)

10. Table 6-1 (Indio Subbasin Groundwater Balance)
Under SGMA, Indio Subbasin is a single subbasin and must be managed as such. The 2010 CVWMP Update, which is the approved Alternative Plan, did not designate management areas and this Plan Update continues addressing the needs of the entire Subbasin without designating management zones. Management areas can be established, for example, as a basis for differing MTs and MOs; this Alternative Plan Update establishes one cohesive set of MTs for groundwater levels, groundwater storage, and subsidence for the entire Subbasin.

The hydrogeologic information presented in Chapter 3,
Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions (including geologic cross-sections and groundwater contours) indicates that the Subbasin as a whole is hydraulically connected from one end to the other. This is reflected in the numerical model. Institutional boundaries are presented in Chapter 2, Plan Area and subarea boundaries (e.g., Palm Springs and Thermal) are described in Chapter 3,
Hydrogeological Conceptual Model.

25 Margaret Park,
Chief Planning
Officer
Agua Caliente
Water
Authority
Projects and Management Actions
The Alt Plan includes a final list of 29 possible PMAs by 4 GSAs. It is disappointing to see that very few projects are led by DWA in support of its customers. Please explain why DWA has not implemented tiered rates as most other water district do despite this being an effective way to reduce water usage.

On page 8-5, Section 8.1.3 the Plan notes: “In the Plan Area, recycled water is a significant and reliable local resource used to help offset groundwater pumping.” Yet recycled water accounts for only 2% of the Subbasin’s water supply (Section 6.9.4). The Plan discusses the water recycling gains that are planned for the basin but the focus of recycling efforts seems to be the East Valley. By 2045, the GSAs plan to generate 20,213 AFY of recycled water to offset other water sources which will be only 3% of the Subbasin’s water supply.

Table 6-13 shows the recycled water supply (2018-19) based on wastewater flows. DWA shows that of the 6,613 AFY it receives from the City of Palm Springs WWTP, recycled water use is at 3,413 AFY. In Section 6.6.2, the Plan notes that DWA could produce 2,014 AFY of additional supply. With the 3,200 AFY of unused capacity + 2,014 of additional supply, DWA has unused capacity of 5,214 AFY. Further, in Section 11.5.2.6 the Plan notes: “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.” How will DWA identify new customers and reach its goal of maximum use of recycled water? Has DWA prepared a Plan of Service or similar document that can be included as an appendix to this Alt Plan? DWA has developed a recycled water program and included a project in Chapter 11, Projects and Management Actions to expand it with outside funding. Two years ago, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) cancelled an agreement previously executed with DWA for the delivery of recycled water to two golf courses operated by ACBCI, and began pumping groundwater from the Subbasin for turf irrigation. DWA has advised ACBCI of the adverse impacts to water conservation efforts and adverse impacts to groundwater quality. ACBCI has continued to use groundwater to irrigate the courses, leaving DWA with unused capacity in its recycled water facilities. With a shared commitment to groundwater sustainability and as an existing recycled water customer interested in protection of water quality, DWA respectfully requests ACBCI to cooperate to restore and increase its recycled water use.

Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update
Public Comment and Response Matrix

Page 18 of 24 ends

# Commenter
Name
Commenter
Organization Comment Response
DWA is also actively pursuing and implementing other conservation programs. There are many ways to reduce water use; DWA has successfully implemented extensive conservation programs instead of tiered rates. As documented in the 2020 Regional UWMP, the local GSAs have achieved water use reductions consistent with the State’s SBx7-7 reductions. Notably, during the last drought, DWA was able to achieve substantial levels of water conservation without the use of tiered rates. Whether DWA uses a tiered rate structure is beyond the scope of SGMA regulations.

The Alternative Plan Update specifically includes the GSAs’ commitment to recycled water and source substitution, but only includes recycled water delivery assumptions for projects that are sufficiently developed. For example, the recycled water projections in the Plan Update do not include recycling of WRP-4 wastewater in modeling projections because, although a change petition for that WRP has been filed, it has not yet been approved (see Chapter 6, Water Supply (Section 6.6.5)). CVWD has plans to construct tertiary treatment at this facility to offset water use in the East Valley by delivering recycled water to irrigation customers, but did not include those recycled water flows in the supply projections due to uncertainty with the final outcome of the change petition that is underway. This is a conservative approach when evaluating ability to meet projected water demands and groundwater sustainability.

CVWD is committed to recycling 100% of wastewater available where and when it is needed, feasible and cost-effective to the community.
26 Margaret Park,
Chief Planning
Officer
Agua Caliente
Water
Authority
Projects and Management Actions
The Alt Plan notes that an Adaptive Management process will be used for project implementation. Will there be a public process associated with this Process? [ES-18]

Yes, there will be a public process associated with the adaptive management process described in Chapter 11, Projects and Management Actions (Section 11.1.1). 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 at least annually to present the findings of the Annual Reports, including reporting on monitoring data and sustainability criteria established in this Alternative Plan Update.

The Indio Subbasin website will be updated as needed to feature meeting agendas and materials, so that tribes and stakeholders have access to past and current materials related to Plan implementation. As new materials are added to the website or workshops are held, the tribal and stakeholder email lists will be notified.

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. As the GSA Boards consider SGMA decisions, the tribal and stakeholder email lists will be notified.

Additionally, the GSAs will continue to provide updates at their Boards of Directors/Council meetings annually, at a minimum, for review and discussion of results from the Annual Reports. Board/Council meetings are publicly noticed and open to all stakeholders to participate. As the GSA Boards consider SGMA decisions, the tribal and stakeholder email lists will be notified.

Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update
Public Comment and Response Matrix

Page 19 of 24 ends

# Commenter
Name
Commenter
Organization Comment Response
The GSAs will continue to coordinate SGMA Tribal Workgroup meetings during Plan implementation. New text has been added to Section 1.5.5 to clarify this. Tribal governments and stakeholders will also be notified when the next Five Year Plan Update is initiated.
27 Margaret Park,
Chief Planning
Officer
Agua Caliente
Water
Authority
Projects and Management Actions
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.” Is this water used in the DWA service area? How is this water transferred from the WWR-GRF to the CVWD Service Area? Does it flow under the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation? [11-19 11.5.3.3] This comment inquires about replenished water in both hydrologic and institutional terms. In strictly hydrologic terms, water replenished at WWR-GRF is added to Subbasin groundwater flow that may flow under CVWD’s service area, DWA’s service area, and/or the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation. All imported water under the 2003 QSA belongs to CVWD.
28 Margaret Park,
Chief Planning
Officer
Agua Caliente
Water
Authority
SGMA Tools
The Authority strongly encourages the GSAs to use all tools available to them under SGMA to comprehensively and completely manage and track all groundwater pumping in the basin. The Authority acknowledges the work of the GSAs but as a native sovereign nation with rights to groundwater, the Tribe needs to have more transparency and information to ensure its federally reserved water right is not being infringed upon. Comprehensive use of all SGMA powers gives the Authority confidence that its water rights will be respected and its water secured. [1.1.5 (1-6)] Please provide groundwater production numbers and detailed maps of locations of all wells by AOB so that the Authority can determine the impact of pumping on the Reservation. The Authority strongly encourages the Districts to meter all wells producing 2 AF-Yr as is allowed by SGMA. It is difficult to have confidence that water is properly managed in the basin when the Districts have incomplete data on minimal pumpers. [(12.2.7.2) (10-7 10.1.2)] The GSAs understand the benefits of gathering pumping data throughout the Indio Subbasin beyond the authority provided to CVWD and DWA, in their respective water code authorities to replenish groundwater. As described in Chapter 12: Plan Evaluation and Implementation, the GSA agencies will each be considering expanding well registration and metering for all wells not defined as de minimis extractors by SGMA.
29 Margaret Park,
Chief Planning
Officer
Agua Caliente
Water
Authority
Water Quality and Salt & Nutrient Management Planning
3-12 3.5.1 & Fig 4-3, 4-7 4.1.4: Please add a discussion of the impacts of groundwater level fluctuations on Agua Caliente Indian Reservation water resources.
8-5 8.1.2 Antidegradation Policy – Please see the letter to the Districts from the Regional Board dated February 19, 2020. The Authority is concerned that recharge with untreated Colorado River water is not for maximum benefit of the people and results in water quality lower than standards. 9-22 9.8.1 “…salt migration through the groundwater system (both vertical and horizontal) is driven by dynamics of groundwater recharge and discharge and thus influenced not only by recharge/percolation, but also by groundwater pumping…” And this is why the Authority needs to see analysis for the West Valley Management Area to determine the impacts to the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation.

Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions (Section

4.1) presents graphics and text on groundwater elevations, flow, and trends for the Indio Subbasin. The groundwater level fluctuation discussion is presented (for space convenience) in terms of West Valley and East Valley (Figures 4-3 and 4-4) and artesian wells (Figure 4-5) and shows well locations, but is not presented in terms of specific jurisdictions. We are not aware of any impacts to Agua Caliente Indian Reservation from groundwater level fluctuations.

As documented in Chapter 10, Monitoring Program (Section 10.1.4), the GSAs and other collaborating agencies will be developing an update to the CV-SNMP based on the CV-SNMP Development
Workplan approved by the RWQCB on October 4, 2021 (which has been added as Appendix 2-A of the Plan Update). As defined in the CV-SNMP Development Workplan, groundwater modeling will consider sources of recharge and discharge (e.g., pumping), as well as completing an antidegradation analysis in accordance with the Antidegradation Policy.
30 Margaret Park,
Chief Planning
Officer
Agua Caliente
Water
Authority
9-23 9.8.3 “The analysis also will include characterization of current groundwater quality in all Subbasin areas/Subareas (with delineation of Management Zones…” The Authority asks that this work be prioritized based on its impacts to the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation as the closest community downstream of the WWR-GRF.

The CV-SNMP Development Workplan (which has been added as Appendix 2-A of the Plan Update) has been approved by the RWQCB and has a schedule for completion. A Request for Proposals from qualified firms is currently being developed.
31 Margaret Park,
Chief Planning
Officer
Agua Caliente
Water
Authority
Chapter 3 – Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model (HCM)
This section of the Alt Plan does not provide the foundation required to support the use and application of the numerical model described in Section 7.

For example, the Alt Plan’s description of surface water bodies and the interaction of surface water and groundwater lacks the required detail to The request for additional documentation of watershed, surface water is noted. The HCM summarizes available understanding of surface water bodies and flow, but the Alternative Plan Update does not attempt to reproduce previously presented or compiled

Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update
Public Comment and Response Matrix

Page 20 of 24 ends

# Commenter
Name
Commenter
Organization Comment Response
support the model’s numerical analysis. The HCM states “The Whitewater River is the major stream channel contributing recharge with additional infiltration along other channels such as Snow and Falls Creek in the upper valley and several smaller streams in the lower portion of the valley that only flow during wet years”.

However, the numerical model states that there are 24 watersheds and stream channels that contribute recharge to the groundwater basin. Detailed calculations by subwatershed and by year, of how the authors link the surface water in the HCM (Chapter 3) to water supply (Chapter 6) and the model input (Chapter 7) is required to validate the available 52,500 AFY (Figure 7-22) of surface water. Additionally, the Alt Plan should contain a map(s) that identify the locations of all named perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral surface water bodies (i.e., Andreas, Chino, Deep, Murray, Palm, Tahquitz, and Unnamed Watershed #2) described in the text.

information (see Bridge Document for Alternative Plan
documentation). Rather, the Plan Update applies the information to groundwater sustainability analyses and documentation.

Accordingly, information on streams is introduced in the HCM and then subsequent chapters provide additional information on surface water supplies (Chapter 6, Water Supply), modeling (Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios) and monitoring (Chapter 10, Monitoring Program). The numerical model is an update of the numerical model originally developed in the 1990s and updated as part of the 2010 CVWMP Update. The previous modeling developed analytical methodology to estimate surface water inflow; this Plan Update uses the same methodology with recent data to estimate flow into the model. Stream recharge is described in Section 7.2.5.2 and stream recharge cells are shown on Figure 7-8.
32 Margaret Park,
Chief Planning
Officer
Agua Caliente
Water
Authority
The HCM also lacks a qualitative discussion regarding the interaction between surface water and groundwater throughout the different subareas of the Indio Subbasin. Does mountain front recharge impact the shallow and deep portions of the aquifer? At what depth does groundwater occur and is it found in confined or unconfined conditions? Section 3.2.2 of the HCM’s recital from the 1964 DWR Bulletin 108 leaves the reader confused regarding recent fanglomerate and the Ocotillo Conglomerate formations since these geologic units have not yet been introduced. These fundamental descriptions of groundwater occurrence and movement are required to support the use of four layers simulated in the model (Chapter 7).

The HCM should address the relationship between groundwater pumping and the various aquifers that are identified in the hydrogeologic cross sections (Section 3.4.2.3). Although there are water supply and quality data provided in Chapters 4 and 6, the HCM does not provide the reader with a conceptual description of how natural and imported water sources move from areas of recharge to various portions (i.e., vertical distribution) of the aquifer. For example, do return flows from septic systems, wastewater percolation, and outdoor domestic applications impact (quality and quantity) the portions of the aquifer that are used for drinking water sources? Which portions of the aquifer are relied on for drinking water, agricultural, and other sources? While the HCM introduces vertical barriers to groundwater flow in the Thermal subarea, how do these geologic impediments impact the available resources from both a water quantity and water quality perspective? The HCM introduces the geologic setting, subareas, recharge and discharge areas, and hydrogeologic cross sections with text describing groundwater occurrence and flow. Figure 3-4 is generalized and illustrative of local geology and is not intended to represent model layers, which vary in thickness and extent across the Subbasin. Additional information on groundwater levels, flow, and quality is provided in Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions, while Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios provides information on recharge, including mountain front recharge, return flows, and effects of fault barriers to groundwater flow. The Subbasin areas relied on for groundwater supply are shown on Figure 2-13 in terms of groundwater production per square mile.
33 Margaret Park,
Chief Planning
Officer
Agua Caliente
Water
Authority
Chapter 4
Chapter 4 of the Alt Plan addresses salt loading and TDS in the Indio Subbasin. It acknowledges that, “Elevated TDS and nitrate concentrations are linked to current and historic water and wastewater management, agricultural activity, urban land use, septic systems, and natural conditions” (p. 4- 16). The Alt Plan describes the general sources of salts in the Subbasin but does not quantify the amount of salt loading by source or even as a total.

Because the CV-SNMP is still in development, an estimate of the salt loading may not be available at this time, but sources of salt may still be explored in more detail. While it is stated that, “Irrigation results in evaporative concentration of TDS in shallow groundwater,” and “Water use for domestic purposes results in salt loading to wastewater,” (p. 4-44), notably absent from the Plan is acknowledgement or quantification of how the increased salt may affect water demands in the Subbasin. Increasing salt in the Subbasin would impact future water demands, especially in the agricultural sector.

Increased salts may increase demands due to higher leaching requirements but may also affect crop selection and distribution. As stated in the Alt Plan, “Agricultural demand varies by farmed parcel, depending on crop type and sequencing” (p. 5 -36). The agricultural demand forecast does not include a consideration of the potential impacts of increased salt in the Basin.

In Chapter 9, Sustainable Management (Section 9.8), the Alternative Plan Update summarizes work toward estimation of salt loading, which includes collection and organization of water quality data into a database; evaluation of the sources, areal extent, vertical distribution, and time trends for TDS.

As described in Chapter 2, Plan Area (Section 2.8.5), the CV-SNMP Development Workplan (included as Appendix 2-A of the Plan Update), has been approved by RWQCB and will be used as the basis to update the CV-SNMP and address salt and nutrient management in the Coachella Valley.

As appropriate, future updates of the Alternative Plan can evaluate changes in demand (increases/decreases) from any changes to conservation legislation or other changing conditions. Currently, as shown in Chapter 5, Demand Projections (Figure 5-11), agricultural water demands, although annually variable, have been stable over the last decade.
34 Margaret Park,
Chief Planning
Officer
Agua Caliente
Water
Authority
Chapter 6
Chapter 6 of the Alt Plan details water supply but does not specify quantities of supply broken down by source or location. For example, the Alt Plan lists sources of groundwater inflow as watershed runoff, subsurface inflows, return flow of applied water, treated wastewater, and septic, and Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios documents the numerical model components. Section 7.2.5 and Figure 7-6 illustrates where recharge occurs in the model from both artificial

Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update
Public Comment and Response Matrix

Page 21 of 24 ends

# Commenter
Name
Commenter
Organization Comment Response
imported water recharge. However, it does not go on to detail the quantities of these inflows by source. The average amount of natural infiltration for 2010-2019 is 28,800 AFY, “as measured or simulated in the numerical model” but it is unclear how much of that infiltration comes from each watershed, or how it is distributed throughout the basin. Similarly, the average return flow is estimated to be 162,000 AFY but the Alt Plan does not specify how much of that may be due to wastewater percolation, irrigation return flows, etc. even though “irrigation return flows and imported water recharge are now the major source of inflows to the Indio Subbasin.” Documentation of these major sources of inflow and outflow is essential to transparent and effective planning for the Subbasin.
and natural sources (e.g., mountain front and stream channel).

Section 7.2.5.5 goes on to describe the components of return flows and how they are distributed throughout the Subbasin. Section 7.5 includes more detailed quantification related to the inflows and outflows associated with each of the Plan Scenarios and PMA implementation. See the supply balance graphics in Figures 7-22 to 7-26.

The primary tributary watersheds are gaged by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), as shown in Chapter 2, Plan Area (see Figure 2-9).

This data is available on the USGS website (National Water Information System [NWIS]) and reported daily.
35 Margaret Park,
Chief Planning
Officer
Agua Caliente
Water
Authority
Chapter 7
The use of the 2000 and 2010 models to establish the Alt Plan’s management actions and goals is questionable since the Alt Plan Model has not been peer reviewed. Updates to boundary conditions and the availability of new hydrogeologic data suggest the need for the development of a steady-state model, possible application of parameter estimation techniques, and the need for an updated calibrated model. The authors should not only address the need for a new calibrated model, but also add a section to the Alt Plan regarding the use and limitation of the existing model. While the Alt Plan clearly identifies the uncertainty of the inflow from San Gorgonio Pass, there are hydrogeologic uncertainties associated with the model’s previous parameter estimation. Although the Alt Plan model is described as an update to the previous models, it does not excuse it from the need to undergo rigorous scientific peer review since it is the basis for a State approved Alt Plan. The authors should describe which parameters have the biggest effect on the model accuracy and discuss the certainty of the values used for these parameters. For example, which parameters were determined from calibration and which were determined from physical measurements. A section of the report describing model uncertainty and application of sensitivity analysis to determine how the uncertainty cou ld impact the model results would be informative. Until scientific peer review can be performed, we recommend that the model and Alt Plan be characterized as interim or provisional.

The Alt Plan does not clearly show the impact of each future model scenario on a spatial or temporal basis. For example, Figures 7-32 shows the change in groundwater levels for the 2009 to 2045 Baseline Scenario that includes 12 years of historical data and 25 years of model simulated data. As shown in the water level hydrographs (Figure 7-30), model simulated groundwater levels in the Palm Springs Subarea are declining during the 2020-2069 period. The 2009 through 2020 actual data reflect MWD advanced deliveries to the WWR-WRF and account for much of the groundwater storage increase in the Palm Springs Subarea. Without the inclusion of these 12 years of actual data, the color flood maps would only reflect the impact of the management scenarios and show different results. Similarly, Figures 7-33 and Figure 7-39 show a pattern of declining groundwater levels in the Palm Springs Subarea during the simulation period for the Baseline with Climate Change option.

The Alt Plan states that the 2009 period was “selected as the period for comparison because it generally reflects historically low groundwater elevations in most of the Subbasin, and these values are used as sustainability criteria for groundwater levels.” Although Chapter 9 discusses the use of 2005 vs 2009 as a minimum threshold, it is not clear why historical and accumulated advanced MWD deliveries are used to show recovery from minimum water levels when comparing results from simulated future management scenarios. Although the model recognizes that MWD advanced deliveries are depleted by 2035, it is difficult to assess the impact of each scenario over the initial 25-year period. It would be more appropriate to spatially view the impact of each model scenario consistent with the water budget shown in the table on Page 7 -12.

Disappointingly, the updated SGMA Alternative Plan continues a long history by the water agencies of obfuscation and a stubborn unwillingness to provide the public a clear and comprehensive record that verifies their hollow claims of responsible management of the aquifer in the Coachella Valley.

The development of the numerical model is described in Appendix 1-A, Alternative Plan Assessment, Evaluation of Existing Model and Recommendations. As described, the numerical model was
developed in the 1990s by Graham Fogg and Associates and subsequently extended (peer reviewed at the time) for the 2002 and 2010 CVWMPs. As described in Appendix 1-A, the model was reviewed and evaluated by Daniel Craig, PG, CHG, a senior hydrogeologist/modeler with Todd Groundwater with over 30 years of experience, as an initial task of the Alternative Plan Update. The model assessment results were presented at a tribal work group meeting and a public workshop on May 21, 2020. As documented in Appendix 1-A, the model was deemed suitable for update and application to scenarios. Section 7 provides documentation of the water level calibration results for the updated model, which satisfy American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
recommendations. SGMA requirements for GSPs, while not directly applicable to Alternative Plans, are instructive about State expectations. These include use of public domain software, use of field measurements and calibration against specified field data, and provision of supporting documentation. This model is based on the publicly available and widely accepted USGS MODFLOW software, is calibrated with field-measured groundwater level data (and other data), and is documented in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios. Peer review is not a requirement for a GSP or for an Alternative Plan.

No additional Advance Deliveries from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) were assumed in the Plan scenarios as described in Section 7.5. In addition, assumptions were made in the model to zero out the existing Advance Delivery account credits by reducing future SWP deliveries, also explained in Section 7.5.

That Advance Delivery water is, in fact, in the Indio Subbasin and contributing to the current water levels. As such, past deliveries must be accounted for to ensure a well calibrated model. 36 Alena
Callimanis
La Quinta
Residents for
The first thing I would like to address is the reasonable and beneficial use doctrine and that three surfing parks, 6.7 acres , 16.7 acres and 20 acres, plus a 34 acre swimming lagoon are not reasonable and beneficial use. I know it is not up to CVWD to ap prove a project, but rather say if there is enough As noted in the comment, GSAs do not approve development projects because we are not land use agencies. The GSAs cooperate

Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update
Public Comment and Response Matrix

Page 22 of 24 ends

# Commenter
Name
Commenter
Organization Comment Response
Responsible
Development
water. Given the reality of the drought and climate change, I think it is important to give guidance to the cities that are bringing this forward. The two largest surf parks are private. That only gives “benefit” to wealthy people and not to the Coachella Community at large. You talk about your leadership in conserving water. Your estimates for these four water features for water use for the year is 431.5 acre feet. We have do ne calculations using the EPA evaporation estimates which take into consideration wind, humidity, surface temperature, and heat and we have determined that the yearly water use would be 6 times as much or 2,589 acre-feet per year. I request that CVWD recalculate yearly water usag e for Thermal Surf Park, Grand Oasis Crystal Lagoon, Coral Mountain Surf Resort and DSRT SRF and use these recalculated figures into the “Other” water use compone nt. with land use planners and complete water supply assessments (WSAs) for proposed development projects. The GSAs considered WSA projected demands as part of “Other” demands in the Alternative Plan Update is demand forecast. CVWD has included estimated water use for these projects based on approved WSAs.

These estimates are based on reasonable and best available information at the time the WSA preparation. As stated in the WSAs, the assessment does not relieve the Project from complying with all applicable state, county, city, and local ordinances or regulations, including the CVWD Landscape Ordinance and indoor water use performance standards provided in the California Water Code. This includes complying with Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) budget, which was the basis for the water use estimates for these water features.

See also Response to Comment No. 20.
37 Alena
Callimanis
La Quinta
Residents for
Responsible
Development
Second, I would like to address your percentage of 45% used to calculate water supply from SWP Exchange. The last two years y ou have only received 5% of your allocation. It is invalid to use the 14 year average, 45% figure, given the current state of the Colorado River. The charts should be recalculated using the 5% number.

The use of a 45% reliability assumption for State Water Project (SWP) deliveries, based on the 14-year average from 2007 – 2020, is conservative. The longer-term average reliability that is projected by DWR in their 2019 Delivery Capability Report is 58%. Prudent water resources planning does not base supply forecasting on 1 to 2 years of data, as there are cycles of wet and dry hydrology. As such, the GSAs have considered the average reliability since recent environmental and legal constraints were instituted. Additionally, we have further reduced this SWP reliability assumption based on DWR climate change factors. See Chapter 6, Water Supply for a detailed description of these assumptions.
38 Alena
Callimanis
La Quinta
Residents for
Responsible
Development
Third, I would like to address the Colorado River entitlement. It should be lowered starting in 2022 at least at the level o f the first allocation decrease when we hit the California trigger number. All indications are that will happen next year. So these charts which show cont inuing increase or leveling of Colorado River allocations must be adjusted to show a decrease in the Colorado River allocations.

As described in Chapter 6, Water Supply (Section 6.4.4), the Colorado River supply projection does not use an assumption of 100% of CVWD’s Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) entitlement will be available under future climate change conditions. CVWDs allocations are still increasing due to transfers (by 5,000 AFY every year through 2027),and the Plan Update does not account for all of it in future project scenarios. Sections 6.4.2 and 6.4.4 have been revised to better explain the Colorado River entitlements and how those were adjusted for scenario modeling in the Plan Update. Given anticipated climate changes and the 20-year drought in the Colorado River basin, the Alternative Plan Update assumes that CVWD will contribute water to Lake Mead under the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan. The Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan is described in detail in Section 6.4.3. Those assumptions are then reflected in the Plan scenarios described in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios.
39 Alena
Callimanis
La Quinta
Residents for
Responsible
Development
Fourth, many of the assumptions in this document are based on future water projects coming on line. For example, the amount of recycled water available is less than the first cut to our Colorado River allocations. You must accelerate grant requests and g et appropriate timings of these new supplies so you can accurately project how future projects will help supply. With the Governor’s 15% cuts, that will further impact revenue generation which may cause more of these projects to not come on-line.

The GSAs used their 5-year CIPs to estimate timing of future non- potable and source substitution projects. Those connections within the 5-year CIPs are included in current funding plans. The Alternative Plan Update specifically includes the GSAs’ commitment

Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update
Public Comment and Response Matrix

Page 23 of 24 ends

# Commenter
Name
Commenter
Organization Comment Response
to recycled water and source substitution, but only includes recycled water delivery assumptions for projects that are sufficiently developed. For example, the recycled water projections in the Plan Update do not include recycling of WRP-4 effluent. See also Response to Comment No. 25.

In the meantime, the GSAs are committed to aggressively pursuing state and federal grant funding for future non-potable connections. 40 Alena
Callimanis
La Quinta
Residents for
Responsible
Development
Fifth, the future modeling scenarios should not be based on past drought and resupply conditions over the past 25 years. What has been happening these past two years must be the basis for the future modeling of our conditions, not relying on past numbers.

Hydrology in the Indio Subbasin is dynamic with periods of wet and dry years. Prudent water resources planning does not base supply forecasting on 1 to 2 years of data. Using only the last two dry years would not accurately capture the observed hydrology in the Subbasin. Chapter 6, Water Supply (Section 6.3.1) describes the two hydrology scenarios used in the planning process. While a baseline scenario was run to understand conditions under historical hydrology, the future scenarios were run assuming climate change conditions. Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios (Section

7.5.1) describes the climate change assumptions used in the modeling for both local and imported water sources.
41 Alena
Callimanis
La Quinta
Residents for
Responsible
Development
Sixth, climate change impacts are minimized. When you discuss up to 40,000 AFY impact, that is an underestimation based on the hott er summers and hotter years we are experiencing. This amount cannot even be covered by recycled water. With this increasing heat, higher evapotranspiration rates, etc., projections must show this higher impact starting in 2022; golf course usage can be curtailed. Surf park and swimming lagoon usage cannot be curtailed or these features must close. We and the country rely on agric ulture. With growing heat, agriculture must be protected as our nation’s food supplier.

Seven, subbasin storage has only recovered up to 45% of its decline. This was due mostly to Colorado River allocations. You cannot rely on future Colorado River allocations even though CVWD has senior rights to the water. We will start seeing very quickly outflow greater than inflow as th is drought persists. The modeling in this document must be revised to reflect the true water situation in our valley.

The climate change assumptions applied in the Alternative Plan Update go beyond those recommended by DWR and simulate more recent, drier conditions. The GSAs are committed to
implementation of their water conservation programs for all water users in the Subbasin.

See Response to Comment No. 38 regarding Colorado River entitlements.
42 Javin Moore,
Superintendent
United States
Department
of the Interior
– Bureau of
Indian Affairs
A. Comments on Alternative Plan

1. Tribal entities are referred to as stakeholders, rather than sovereign nations with Federally Reserved Water Rights. These rights should be explicitly identified.

Tribes were identified in the Alternative Plan Update as a group separate from stakeholders. Chapter 1, Introduction (Section 1.5.5) describes the SGMA Tribal Workgroup and participation by the five tribes within the Subbasin and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) staff.

In Water Code § 10720.5, SGMA dictates that the groundwater planning process shall not determine or modify water rights. The extent of tribal water rights are currently in litigation and have not been quantified.
43 Javin Moore,
Superintendent
United States
Department
of the Interior
– Bureau of
Indian Affairs

2. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is concerned that the Basin Salt Nutrient Management Plan has not been released for public comme nts, and an Agency and Regional request to receive copy has not been acknowledged. As the first year of the SNMP is currently being monitored, will the plan be provided for input prior to it’s initial first year report?
The CV-SNMP was prepared and submitted to the RWQCB in 2015.

Work to update the CV-SNMP has not yet begun. The CV-SNMP Development Workplan (included as Appendix 2-A to the
Alternative Plan Update), which will guide the update to the CV- SNMP, was recently completed and approved by RWQCB in October 2021. The Colorado River RWQCB considered the Workplan during a public meeting on September 14, 2021. The work to update the CV- SNMP in accordance with the CV-SNMP Development Workplan will be completed as indicated in the schedule that is part of this Workplan.

Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update
Public Comment and Response Matrix

Page 24 of 24 ends

# Commenter
Name
Commenter
Organization Comment Response
44 Javin Moore,
Superintendent
United States
Department
of the Interior
– Bureau of
Indian Affairs

3. On figures, differentiate between model projections and calculated, current, and measured values. Lack of data segregation re sults in inaccuracies and is subject to interpretative bias.

Thank you for your comment. Our modeling team will review and consider the figure labeling. We recognize the importance of distinguishing between observed and simulated data. Please consider Figures 7-30 and 7-31 in Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios with both measured and simulated hydrograph data. 45 Javin Moore,
Superintendent
United States
Department
of the Interior
– Bureau of
Indian Affairs
B. Goals of 2002 water management plan were not included within the current Alternative Plan, however are still relevant. The 20 02 Water Management Plan explicitly identified 2015 as a marker for salt loading in terms of aquifer degradation.

In order to evaluate the potential for water quality degradation, the projected salt balance in 2015 and 2035 is compared to current condition s. The current net salt addition in the Coachella Valley is 265,000 tons per year. By 2035, Alternative 1 would result in the highe st rate of salt addition to the Coachella Valley of 504,000 tons per year—a dramatic increase compared to 1999 conditions. The net salt addition in 2035 would decrease compared to current conditions under Alternative 2 (68,000 tons per year) and Alternative 4 (155,000 tons per year) with Alternative 2 best minimizing the water quality degradation. Table 6-6 showed a net decrease by 2035.

What is current salt loading and how does the salt loading from 2015 compare to model projections? In Section 9.8, the Alternative Plan Update summarized work toward estimation of salt loading, which included collection and organization of water quality data into a database; evaluation of the sources, areal extent, vertical distribution, and time trends for TDS; and improvement of the monitoring program relative to TDS.

As described in Chapter 2, Plan Area (Section 2.8.5), the CV-SNMP Development Workplan (included as Appendix X of the Plan Update), which has been approved by RWQCB, will be used as the basis to update the CV-SNMP and address salt and nutrient management in the Coachella Valley.
46 Javin Moore,
Superintendent
United States
Department
of the Interior
– Bureau of
Indian Affairs
Comments on Errata
Cumulative Baseline measurements should be determined from date of minimum storage, 2009 according to the report, to indicate potential crossing of minimal levels.

The future scenarios and simulated water budgets in the Executive Summary and Chapter 7, Numerical Model and Plan Scenarios are shown relative to the simulated period of 2020 - 2069. Chapter 4, Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions (Section 4.2) describes changes in groundwater storage over time. As shown in Figure 4-9, the Indio Subbasin has gained approximately 840,000 acre-feet in storage between 2010 and 2019.

State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Inland Deserts Region
3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite C-220
Ontario, CA 91764
www.wildlife.ca.gov

Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870

October 29, 2021

Via Electronic Mail

Zoe Rodriguez del Rey
Coachella Valley Water District
Water Resources Manager
[email protected].

[email protected]

Subject: California Department of Fish and Wildlife Comments to the draft Water Management Plan Update to the Alternative Plan

Dear Zoe Rodriguez del Rey:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the draft Water Management Plan Update to the Alternative Plan (Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan) prepared pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).

On December 29, 2016, the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), Coachella Water Authority (CWA), Desert Water Agency (DWA), and Indio Water Authority (IWA), collectively referred to as the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), submitted to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan, or CVWMP Update (CVWD, 2012a), accompanied by a Bridge Document (Indio Subbasin GSAs, 2016), as an Alternative Plan to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the Indio Subbasin (as per Water Code Section 10733.6 (b)). On July 17, 2019, DWR approved the 2010 CVWMP Update as an Alternative Plan (referred herein as ‘Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan). In compliance with SGMA, the Plan must be updated every 5 years.

As trustee agency for the State’s fish and wildlife resources, CDFW has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and the habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of such species (Fish & Game Code §§ 711.7 and 1802). Development and implementation of GSPs under SGMA represents a new era of California groundwater management. CDFW has an interest in the sustainable management of groundwater, as many sensitive ecosystems, species, and public trust resources depend on groundwater and interconnected surface waters (ISWs), including ecosystems on CDFW -owned and managed lands within SGMA-regulated basins.

SGMA and its implementing regulations afford ecosystems and species specific statutory and regulatory consideration, including the following:

 GSPs must consider impacts to groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs) (Water Code § 10727.4(l); see also 23 CCR § 354.16(g));
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021

Page 2 of 37 ends

 GSPs must consider the interests of all beneficial uses and users of groundwater, including environmental users of groundwater (Water Code § 10723.2) and GSPs must identify and consider potential effects on all beneficial uses and users of groundwater (23 CCR §§ 354.10(a), 354.26(b)(3), 354.28(b)(4), 354.34(b)(2), and 354.34(f)(3));
 GSPs must establish sustainable management criteria that avoid undesirable results within 20 years of the applicable statutory deadline, including depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water (23 CCR § 354.22 et seq. and Water Code §§ 10721(x)(6) and 10727.2(b)) and describe monitoring networks that can identify adverse impacts to beneficial uses of interconnected surface waters (23 CCR § 354.34(c)(6)(D)); and
 GSPs must account for groundwater extraction for all water use sectors, including managed wetlands, managed recharge, and native vegetation (23 CCR §§ 351(al) and 354.18(b)(3)).

Furthermore, the Public Trust Doctrine imposes a related but distinct obligation to consider how groundwater management affects public trust resources, including navigable surface waters and fisheries. Groundwater hydrologically connected to surface waters is also subject to the Public Trust Doctrine to the extent that groundwater extractions or diversions affect or may affect public trust uses. (Environmental Law Foundation v. State Water Resources Control Board (2018), 26 Cal. App. 5th 844; National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983), 33 Cal. 3d 419.) The GSA has “an affirmative duty to take the public trust into account in the planning and allocation of water resources, and to protect public trust uses whenever feasible.” (National Audubon Society, supra, 33 Cal. 3d at 446.) Accordingly, groundwater plans should consider potential impacts to and appropriate protections for ISWs and their tributaries, and ISWs that support fisheries, including the level of groundwater contribution to those waters.

In the context of SGMA statutes and regulations, and Public Trust Doctrine considerations, groundwater planning should carefully consider and protect environmental beneficial uses and users of groundwater, including fish and wildlife and their habitats, GDEs, and ISWs.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CDFW is writing to support ecosystem preservation and enhancement in compliance with SGMA and its implementing regulations based on CDFW expertise and best available information and science. CDFW is providing the comments and recommendations below.

1. Sampling

Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems
Within the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan, the Indio Subbasin, along with lands beyond the Subbasin that are, or in the future may be, reliant on groundwater pumped from the Subbasin are included (Plan Area). The Plan Area is geographically divided into West Valley and East Valley (refer to Attachment A). It is indicated that DWR recommended that an update be provided that identifies GDEs in the Indio Subbasin, with this being accomplished “using best available DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021

Page 3 of 37 ends

information (including data available from DWR) and by applying the expertise of a professional wetland scientist (emphasis added)”. DWR provides the Natural Communities Commonly Associated with Groundwater (NCCAG) dataset through the online SGMA data portal.

This NCCAG dataset was used for initial identification of potential GDEs in the Subbasin”. The NCCAG dataset locations were assessed by a licensed wetlands biologist that included a review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ecoregions and a preliminary review of special- status (threatened and endangered) species. The desktop assessment used publicly available statewide and regional data layers and involved visual review of 1,045 individual locations to determine potential GDE status. The biologist then selected 15 locations for GDE field assessment with 13 sites being accessible. Upon completion of the in-person field verification, the preliminary desktop GDE assessment was refined into three categories: Probable GDEs, Probable non-GDEs, and Playa Wetland Communities (Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Section

4.6 Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems).

Probable GDEs were defined as areas with apparent dense riparian and wetland vegetative communities along mapped drainage systems with potential for deep-rooted phreatophytes and/or visible, natural surface water flow. Fifty (50) of the 1,045 sites (5%) were determined to be Probable GDEs. Probable Non-GDEs were classified as “areas that appeared incorrectly mapped based on current land development and land-use or that otherwise appeared to be dry upland areas, cultivated and/or flooded agricultural land, obvious humanmade ponds, lakes, and other features, channelized drains, and areas with no other indicators of groundwater presence near the surface. It should be noted that dry washes, arroyos, bajadas, and other ephemeral conveyances where water only flows in response to heavy precipitation events were classified as Probable Non-GDEs”. Of the 1,045 sites, 932 sites (89%) were determined to be Probable non- GDEs. A Playa Wetland Community included “areas of wetland habitat along the Salton Sea exposed seabed (playa) generally downstream of stream, agricultural drain, or stormwater channel outlets. The receding of the Salton Sea is exposing thousands of acres of playa each year and water from irrigation ditches and other drainages that previously flowed directly into waters of the Sea now spreads out on the exposed playa of the Sea where new vegetation and wetlands currently exist as a result”. Of the 1045 sites, 63 (6%) were determined to be Playa Wetland Communities.

A Technical Memorandum, Indio Subbasin Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Study (Woodard & Curran, 2021) was provided in Appendix 4-B and reviewed by CDFW . While DWR may encourage “best available information”, CDFW tries to rely on credible science in all resource management decisions. [FGC § 703.3.] Accordingly, CDFW expects groundwater/alternative plans and supporting documentation to follow ‘best available science’ practices. For more information on the application of scientific concepts that can improve the likelihood that a groundwater plan will avoid impacts to fish and wildlife beneficial uses and users of groundwater, GDEs, and ISW, please visit: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Watersheds/Groundwater .

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021

Page 4 of 37 ends

 Lacustrine, Limnetic, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded  Lacustrine, Limnetic, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded, Hyperhaline  Lacustrine, Littoral, Unconsolidated Shore, Sand, Seasonally Flooded  Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Broad-Leaved- Evergreen, Semipermanently Flooded  Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Broad-Leaved- Evergreen, Seasonally Flooded  Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Seasonally Saturated
 Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Seasonally Flooded
 Palustrine, Forested, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Saturated  Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded
 Palustrine, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded  Warm Semi-Desert/Mediterranean Alkali–Saline Wetland

There were also several vegetation communities identified as NCCAG within the Indio Subbasin (Alkaline Mixed Scrub, Alkaline Mixed Grasses, Alkali Desert Scrub, Blue Palo Verde, Desert Riparian, Desert Willow, Desert Mixed Wash Shrub, California Sycamore, Catclaw Acacia, Common Elderberry, Fremont Cottonwood, Honey Mesquite, Riparian Mixed Hardwood, Riversidean Alluvial Scrub, Scalebroom, and Tamarisk). After comparing and reviewing the information provided on the NCCAG, CDFW is concerned that the analysis within the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan is not scientifically robust and would like clarification regarding why areas mapped as NCCAG are not part of the 1,045 GDE reference sites in the Plan Area, as well as why only field visits were performed for 13, or 1%, of the possible GDE locations.

It should be noted that DWR cautions that because the NCCAG dataset was not verified, a more thorough evaluation of NCCAG-identified locations should occur. The NCCAG dataset is also limited due to “a comprehensive understanding of geology, hydrology, and biology not being available at the statewide scale; thus…. further investigation and verification of the connection and dependence between groundwater and mapped vegetation and wetlands at a local scale may be needed for water managers in sustainable groundwater management planning.” (Klausmeyer et al., 2018). Finally, Figure 4-36 GDE Assessment (refer to Attachment D) illustrates that a disproportionate number of GDEs occur in the southern half of the Indio Subbasin, yet most of the probable GDEs were determined to be within the canyons in the northern portion of the subbasin. For even the few that were classified as ‘Probable GDEs’, it is suggested that these may not be groundwater dependent, but rather, “may be associated with surface runoff, snowmelt, or springs and seeps from up-gradient sources”. Conversely, it does disclaim that “due to their location in upper canyons where groundwater extraction is generally not occurring, the specific areas in the Indio Subbasin where Probable GDEs were identified do not have existing groundwater data available for review”. Again, CDFW would like a more scientific, detailed analysis and discussion on GDEs given the importance of these state resources.

Representative Wells
Fifty-three (53) key wells were chosen (Attachment E) to monitor groundwater levels with respect to a Minimum Threshold (MT), or an established threshold that when crossed, an undesirable result occurs. For the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan, the MT was defined by the GSA as “five consecutive low season monitoring events in 25% of wells across the subbasin (Section 10.1.1.1 Spatial and Vertical Coverage).

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021

Page 5 of 37 ends

The inclusion of key wells in the groundwater level monitoring program included the following factors:

 Spatial distribution and density of wells, accounting for variable geographic conditions including topography, hydrology, geologic structures, aquifer characteristics, confined and unconfined conditions, pumping patterns, management activities (including replenishment), and potential impacts to beneficial uses/users.  Length, completeness, and reliability of historical groundwater level record.  Well depth and information on well construction.
 Regular access to the well for measurements.

CDFW would like to understand how the GSA determined 25% of wells over five consecutive low seasons as a MT, whether this will this be further analyzed, and if there is adaptive management that is proposed. CDFW also encourages that when choosing reference wells, GSEs, ISWs, and/or areas of biological concern/interest be considered, including whether the MT is sufficient to detect deleterious impacts to these areas.

2. State Sensitive Species

The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), a joint powers authority of elected representatives, completed a Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP; United States Fish and Wildlife 10(a)(l)(B) incidental take permit # R8-AES) and Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP; Permit No. 2835-2008-001-06) in 2008 (termed herein as ‘CVMSHCP/NCCP’). The CVWD, as a Permittee of the CVMSHCP/NCCP, has incidental take for its operations and maintenance covered activities for twenty-seven (27) species within the CVMSHCP/NCCP Plan Area. Any other activities/actions that are not a covered activity of the CVMSHCP/NCCP, or is performed by a non-participant, that may take a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) listed species is prohibited, except as authorized by state law (Fish and Game Code, §§ 2080 & 2085).

CDFW recommends that the GSA, or an individual water agency, seek appropriate authorization prior to implementation. This may include an incidental take permit (ITP) or a consistency determination (Fish & Game Code, §§ 2080.1 & 2081). Also, Fish and Game Code section 3503 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3503.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except as provided by the rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.).

3. Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Impact Analysis

Within the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan, wells that had long-term water level data were selected to analyze groundwater conditions (elevations, flows, trends over time, vertical groundwater gradients and depth to groundwater, and regional groundwater level changes). Since DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021

Page 6 of 37 ends

groundwater elevations of the principal aquifer are averaged over the water year; the most current representative, or the 2018-2019 water year, was selected “as local groundwater levels do not exhibit strong seasonal trends” (Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Section 4.1.1 Groundwater Elevations, Flow, and Trends). Thirty (30) of these monitoring and production wells were used to calibrate the Indio Subbasin model by looking at the water level residual (differences between observed and simulated levels) trends (Section 7.3.3.2 Observed vs. Simulated Hydrographs).

CDFW examined potential suitable habitat for state sensitive riparian birds (least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), summer tanager (Piranga rubra) , southern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), and yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens)) and wetland (California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus), Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensil)), amphibians (arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus)), and fish (desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius)) using GIS shapefiles available from the CVMSHCP/NCCP. Given that the simulated water levels are “generally very well matched with the observed groundwater trends for all shallow and deep wells across the Indio Subbasin” (Section 7.3.3.1 Simulated Groundwater Elevation Contour Maps), as well as there are not strong seasonality water fluctuations, CDFW also chose a representative calibration well from each subarea that was closest to each of the biological resource of interest. The calibrated well groundwater elevation hydrographs and the CVMSHCP/NCCP biological resources are shown in Attachment F.

A brief description of each subarea is summarized below.

(A) West Valley/Palm Springs Subarea - This subarea showed dynamic fluctuations (i.e., over 300 feet in response to very large recharge years associated with recharge events), with large water level mounding and recovery cycles. Model-simulated levels were very closely matched with observed levels, both with respect to peak and valley magnitudes and timing.

(B) and (C) Mid-Valley/Thousand Palms to Indian Wells Area - Observed levels at this location exhibited declines from 1997 through 2010, then were characterized by relatively stabilized levels through 2019. The model simulates these trends generally well, although the simulated levels were lower than observed in two of the wells near the City of Indio. This was speculated to be due to sources of error in the numerical simulation, underestimation of return flow recharge in local areas, or inaccuracies in other model parameters.

Regardless, the model “generally captures the measured levels in this area showing declines through 2010 followed by stable trends”.

(D) East Valley/ Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility Area - Observed levels exhibited declines from 1997 through 2009, then rapidly increased through 2019 in response to initiation of the Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility (TEL-GRF) operations. The model simulated trends well, with it responding to recharge operations and simulated levels and observed being well-matched.

(E) East Valley/Mecca, Oasis, and Salton Sea Areas - The observed levels were relatively stable between 1997 through around 2010, then increased through 2019, likely in response to source substitution and in response to initiation of TEL-GRF operations. The model simulates these trends well.

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021

Page 7 of 37 ends

For areas that have been mapped as a GDE, spectral characteristics of satellite imagery, including the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), can be used to illustrate how plant canopy absorbs and reflects light using the accompanying online mapping tool, GDE Pulse (The Nature Conservancy, Version 2.0: https://gde.codefornature.org/#/home) . CDFW reviewed the NDVI for the Indio Subbasin from 1985 through 2018 along with the reference well hydrograph findings (Attachments G and H). Most notably, the TEL-GRF (D) and Mecca, Oasis, and Salton Sea Areas (E) in the East Valley showed a water decline (D) or stable (E) period from 1997 through 2009, with both regions having a rapid increase in water from 2009 to 2019. Conversely, the NDVI from these areas illustrated small areas where the NDVI decreased (Attachment I and J), with the primary decline being between the latter five (5) years, or from 2014-2018 (Attachments K and L). CDFW believes that analyzing the NDVI in relation to water gain/loss could be useful within the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan and advocates for further investigation to the causes of this decrease in vegetation canopy (e.g., water stress).

4. Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems/Interconnected Surface Waters Biological Importance Considerations

Numerous sensitive plant communities are known to occur in southern California. While all these unique plant communities are important, other habitats that are often not traditionally considered “riparian” or “wetlands” need to be considered. Because Southern California GDE habitats vary widely regarding species composition, geomorphology, and hydrologic regimes, three habitat types/water features have been focused on in the Indo Subbasin: springs (with or without associated vegetation), artificial drainages, and ephemeral desert washes/aeolian desert dunes.

Springs and Associated Habitat
There are different types of springs – artesian, gravity, perennial, intermittent and seepage.

Artesian springs usually occur along faults, or in areas of great topographic relief (i.e., cliffs or valleys). Groundwater pumping that causes aquifer levels to drop may result in different types of springs drying out, even if the amount of groundwater stored in the aquifer is still very large (Danielopol et al. 2003; Strayer 2006). There are also various natural and anthropogenic mechanisms that can cause groundwater declines that stress GDEs, but little quantitative information exists on the nature of plant responses to different magnitudes, rates, and durations of groundwater decline. In places where unsustainable groundwater extraction has depleted aquifers and caused springs to dry up, spring dwelling and groundwater-dependent species have gone extinct (Danielopol et al. 2003; Strayer 2006). Many water dependent state listed species rely on mountain spring fed water for their existence including, but not limited to desert pupfish, mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa), and arroyo toad. Further, many terrestrial species also depend on spring water for their survival. For example, Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelson), a state endangered species, are thought to migrate seasonally during the hot season, where they center their activity near standing water (5-year Review for Peninsular bighorn sheep, 2011). Refer to Attachment M for more details.

Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021

Page 8 of 37 ends

may be without vegetation but still provide a valuable water source, while others may have vegetation that is atypical (i.e., Honey Mesquite) of those that are traditionally classified as ‘riparian’ (i.e., Cottonwood Forest). Further, although using a depth to water of less than 30 feet near stream channels is a standard threshold used as a screening tool for identifying possible phreatophyte areas, plant reactions can be highly variable, with other factors, such as soil texture and stratigraphy, availability of precipitation-derived soil moisture, physiological and morphological adaptations to water stress, and tree age; all, or in part, contributing to a plants’ response to its hydrologic environment.

Because springs and their associated GDEs sustain a number of important landscape functions (Cohen et al. 2016), and are globally-recognized biodiversity hotspots (Murphy et al. 2015) that support locally endemic species, focus on sustaining these areas is vital. Data regarding springs/seeps is often lacking, with smaller ones frequently being undetected or overlooked because their discharges are inconsequential to the overall water budget of the area. Hydrologic connectivity between surface water and groundwater, as well as groundwater accessibility to terrestrial vegetation, is complex and any conclusions reached should be well-supported. This complexity is especially evident if the surface water is in between, or transitional, the surface waters are hydraulically connected to the underlying aquifer by a capillary fringe. Due to the capillary fringe connection, water table elevation changes can still affect the exchange rate of surface waters. Because lowering the groundwater elevation under a streambed without a continuous saturated connection to the underlying aquifer may in some cases increase the rate of loss from the surface water body into the underlying aquifer, the potential for increased loss rates during transitional states can ultimately increase the area or flow-duration of stream reaches that may be perceived as ‘disconnected.’

Certain species may be more adept at taking advantage of groundwater and soil water at different times of the year (Busch and Smith 1995). Therefore, CDFW believes that more focus in identifying the water sources used by phreatophytic plants is also critical to understanding their link to, and degree of dependency upon, groundwater. For example, a study that observed groundwater dynamics and the response of Fremont cottonwoods (Populus fremontii), Gooding’s willows (Salix gooddingii), and salt cedar (Tamarix ramosissima) saplings, all of which can occur within the Basin, showed that where the lowest groundwater level was observed (-1.97 meters in 1996 vs. -

0.86 meters in 1995), 92 to 100% of the native tree saplings died, whereas only 0 to 13% of the nonnative salt cedar stems were compromised. Alternatively, where the absolute water table depths were greater, but experienced less change from the previous year conditions (-2.55 meters in 1996 compared to 0.55 meters in 1995), cottonwoods and willows experienced less mortality and increased basal area. Excavations of the sapling roots suggested that root distribution was related to the groundwater history, with a decline in the water table relative to the condition under which roots developed causing plant roots to be stranded where they could not obtain sufficient moisture (Shafroth et al. 2000). CDFW stresses that focused, scientifically driven studies, should be part of the groundwater monitoring to establish sustainable management criteria that avoid undesirable results to GDEs and ISWs. Some recommendations include, but are not limited to:

 Studying the fitness and various water sources to plants (relationships between incremental growth, branch growth, productivity, and canopy condition and hydrologic variables) to determine water sources and needs for phreatophytic vegetation.

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021

Page 9 of 37 ends

 Understanding the relationship between plant age or developmental stage, root morphology, and water acquisition since vulnerability to water stress may decline as a function of age or developmental stage for many species.  Using stable isotopes that can trace the water source to understand how many years it takes for woody plant seedlings or saplings to develop roots deep enough to acquire groundwater, or to determine the proportion of rain-recharged soil water that typical phreatophytes utilize (Stromberg and Patten 1991).

CDFW also contends that the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan should include field measurements to determine water sources and needs for phreatophytic vegetation (Stromberg and Patten 1991, 1996; Lite and Stromberg 2005). Good plant morphological measurements can be useful in assessing riparian and wetland health and tracking changes in condition through time. For example, it is also expected that variation in the sources of water used by different tree species has important ramifications for riparian forest water balances. A study of tree transpiration water derived from the unsaturated soil zone and groundwater in a riparian forest was quantified for Fremont cottonwoods, Gooding’s willows, and velvet mesquite (Prosopis velutina) across a gradient of groundwater depth and streamflow regime (San Pedro River, AZ). The proportion of tree transpiration derived from different potential sources was determined using oxygen and hydrogen stable isotope analysis in conjunction with two- and three-compartment linear mixing models. Comparisons of tree xylem water with that of potential water sources indicated that Gooding’s willows did not take up water in the upper soil layers during the summer rainy period, but instead used only groundwater, even at an ephemeral stream site where depth to groundwater exceeded 4 meters. Conversely, Fremont cottonwoods, a dominant ‘phreatophyte’ in semi-arid riparian ecosystems, also used mainly groundwater, but at the ephemeral stream site during the summer rainy season, measurements of transpiration flux combined with stable isotope data revealed that a greater quantity of water was taken from upper soil layers compared to the perennial stream site.

Many vegetation attributes are supported by, and respond directly to, water availability. Both plant characteristics, as well as population and community attributes can assist in assessing the health and sensitivity to altered water availability so that informed decisions on proposed water extraction, groundwater pumping, and prescriptive and managed hydrologic regimes can be made.

Some recommendations include, but are not limited to, the following:

 Study specific parameters at certain locations, including vegetation volume, canopy height, woody plant stem and root density and woody plant basal area/ analysis of stomatal conductance and/or xylem pressure.
 Monitor wetted depth (e.g., piezometers with data loggers) within riparian corridors at various points from the main channel (e.g., furthest edge from main flowline).  Perform aerial photographic analysis (e.g., small-unmanned aircraft systems) of canopy, vegetation diversity, distribution, and general riparian conditions including overall health at set locations of interest and control locations in spring and fall.  Document lateral/spatial extent of GDEs over time.

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021

Page 10 of 37 ends

 Perform field monitoring at established permanent grids and control sites that includes plant characteristics (water status, transpiration, rooting depth, and incremental growth) and population and community attributes (fitness, vulnerability to pathogens and herbivores, fecundity, competitive ability and productivity, population structure, and community composition and richness).

Artificial Drainages - Irrigation Canals
CDFW recognizes that groundwater levels in the Indio Subbasin East Valley have recovered as irrigation from the Colorado River water has been relied upon for farming rather than groundwater.

Conversely, it stands to reason that as future urbanization and drought conditions increase, groundwater may be needed.

The Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan (Section 4.1.2 Vertical Groundwater Gradients (Artesian Conditions)) identifies artesian conditions in the Eastern Valley as:

“Historically, eastern portions of the Indio Subbasin experienced artesian conditions with sufficient pressure to cause groundwater levels in wells to rise above the ground surface; such artesian-flowing wells attracted early settlers to farm in this area. Artesian conditions declined in the late 1930s as a result of increased local groundwater pumping. The completion of the Coachella Canal by the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) in 1949 brought Colorado River water to the eastern Coachella Valley for agricultural irrigation purposes. Artesian conditions returned in the early 1960s through the 1980s, as imported Colorado River water was substituted for groundwater production. Beginning in the late 1980s, groundwater use increased again, resulting in declining water levels and loss of artesian conditions. Groundwater water management programs (including groundwater replenishment, source substitution, and water conservation) are restoring local groundwater levels, and artesian conditions have recurred in the eastern Indio Subbasin. Benefits associated with artesian conditions include reduced groundwater pumping costs and water quality protection of the deeper, confined production zone aquifers”.

Also, because recharge occurs at the land surface and pumping occurs at depth, the water level information can potentially underestimate the locations where the water table is shallow enough to support phreatophytic vegetation. Further, water extraction from wells could extend into a nearby water source (stream, canal, pond, or lake), causing it to become dry.

Desert pupfish are the only native fish species in the Salton Sea, and they can be found not only in natural creeks, but in shoreline pools, a few artificial refuge ponds, and agricultural drains in the Eastern Valley. CDFW would like clarification on what measures are proposed within the Indio Subbasin to identify, address, and manage (avoid and/or monitor any wells within 0 .25 miles of known desert pupfish occupied or suitable areas) any well extraction effects (induced recharge, cone of depression/influence) on irrigation or sensitive areas that have, or could contain, the desert pupfish.

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021

Page 11 of 37 ends

Ephemeral Desert Washes/Aeolian Desert Dunes
CDFW is uncertain that the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan is relying on the common assumption that in ephemeral streams where an unsaturated zone exists beneath a stream, that the interaction between surface water and groundwater is unidirectional and therefore, does not contribute significantly to transmission losses. However, a recent study (Quichimbo 2020) has illustrated that bi‐directional stream–aquifer hydraulic interactions in arid ephemeral streams may be greater than previously assumed and “groundwater and surface water should be considered as connected systems for water resource management unless there is clear evidence to the contrary”.

Aeolian processes support a variety of flora and fauna (i.e., Coachella fringe-toed lizard (Uma inornate) and Coachella Valley milk vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae)) that are specially adapted to blow sand deposits within harsh desert environments. The sediment-delivery system that creates these active sand dunes consists of fluvial depositional areas, with sediment being delivered during infrequent large winter storm events within larger drainages (e.g., Whitewater – San Gorgonio Rivers and Mission Creek – Morongo Wash) originating in the local surrounding mountains, or in smaller ephemeral drainages during intense summer thunderstorms. The particle-size distribution of sediments transported by these ephemeral streams varies depending on the transport process, with most sediment transported by streamflow ranging in size from sand to small gravel. Previous studies of sediment supply have evaluated the long-term sand budget in the northern Coachella Valley and how it might change given modifications to the major watercourses that provide sand to the aeolian system (USGS, 2002). While quantifying sand transport rates has been attempted with various results, CDFW is concerned that water management practices that impact not only large washes/rivers (e.g., retention basins, levees), but also smaller tributaries, could reduce the sand supply, potentially stabilizing the dunes and degrading habitat. Therefore, CDFW strongly recommends that the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan include an analysis of the sediment aeolian processes (e.g., entrainment, sediment yield, sediment-transport modeling, etc.) where sand dunes could be impacted (Attachment N).

5. Conserved Lands

According to the CVMSHCP/NCCP (Section 1.4.4 Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan):

“The Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CV MSHCP) (CVAG, 2016) is a multiagency conservation plan for the entire Coachella Valley and surrounding mountains to address State and Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance in the region. The CVMSHCP, last amended in 2016, defines a shared regional vision for balanced growth to enhance and maintain biological diversity and ecosystem processes while also fostering economic growth. The CVMSHCP protects 240,000 acres of open space and 27 species; enhances infrastructure without environmental conflicts; offers opportunities for recreation, tourism, and job creation; and ensures the survival of endangered species (CVAG, 2016). The CVMSHCP was considered in the development of this Alternative Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021

Page 12 of 37 ends

Update, with emphasis in the groundwater dependent ecosystem analysis (emphasis added)”.

CDFW has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, restoration, enhancement and management of fish, wildlife, native plants and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species under the CESA (California Fish and Game Code §§ 2050 et seq.), the California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code §§ 1900 et seq.), the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act ("NCCP Act") (California Fish and Game Code §§ 2800 et seq.) and other relevant state laws.

 conserve focus species and their Habitats throughout the Plan Area;  conserve large habitat blocks;
 conserve habitat diversity;
 keep reserves contiguous and connected; and
 protect reserves from encroachment and invasion by non-native species.

Although the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan does consider the CVMSHCP/NCCP, CDFW advises that the various land use management plans governing state and federal lands, s pecies management plans approved by state and/or federal agencies, and habitat conservation plans in adjoining or overlapping areas also be considered. More specifically, CDFW manages approximately 27,700 acres of land within the Indio Subbasin and CVMSHCP/NCCP Reserve System for the conservation of state sensitive resources. Using the CV MSHCP/NCCP GIS mapping tool, the conserved lands in relation to the Indio Subbasin are included in Attachment O.

The Santa Rosa Wildlife Area is approximately 101,500 acres with very steep terrain habitat for the largest herd of peninsular bighorn sheep. The Magnesia Spring Ecological Reserve, an approximately 3,800-acre property, and the Carrizo Canyon Ecological Reserve, approximately 1,000-acre, also have similar terrain that includes several narrow canyons. Both properties were acquired and designated an ecological reserve by the Fish and Game Commission to preserve a historic water supply and to maintain and improve habitat for this species. Similarly, the 485-acre Oasis Spring Ecological Reserve, which is located along the Salton Sea below the historical high- water mark, was designated as an ecological reserve by the Fish and Game Commission to provide habitat for the desert pupfish. CDFW also manages lands in the Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard Preserve to protect aeolian processes that support a variety of flora and fauna (i.e., Coachella fringe-toed lizard (Uma inornate) and Coachella Valley milk vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae)) that are specially adapted to blow sand deposits within harsh desert environments.

CDFW recommends that the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan focus on impacts to conserved lands to ensure that they function and provide benefits as intended in perpetuity.

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021

Page 13 of 37 ends

6. Data Gaps

Geological
The Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan includes a numerical groundwater flow model and associated water budget with updated inflow and outflow data through 2019 that were used to assess groundwater conditions and future sustainability within the Plan Area. Other improvements include: (1) updated Salton Sea elevations; (2) more accurate land surface elevations and Salton Sea bathymetry; (3) more details regarding the Garnet Hill subarea; and (4) updated subsurface inflow boundary conditions from adjacent subbasins.

The improved model was applied to simulate transient three-dimensional groundwater flow within and between the shallow and deep aquifer zones, with a contiguous 50-mile cross section oriented along the central longitudinal axis of the Indio Subbasin ( labeled A-A’, A’-A’’, and A’’- A’’’) starting in the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin in the northwest and ending at the northern shore of the Salton Sea in the southeast. Cross sections B-B’, C-C’, D-D’, and E-E’ (Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Figures 3-10 through 3-13) were constructed perpendicular to the main axis of the Indio Subbasin. Collectively, these cross sections incorporate hydrogeologic information from the five main subareas of the Indio Subbasin, with cross section B-B’ crossing the Palm Springs Subarea in the south and the Garnet Hill Subarea and the Mission Creek Subbasin in the north, and cross section E-E’ intersecting the Oasis and Thousand Palms Subareas of the Indio Subbasin in the southwest and the Desert Hot Springs Subbasins in the northeast (Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Section 3.5 Hydrogeologic Cross Sections). Refer to Attachment P for more details.

CDFW found this technique useful in providing information for the entire Subbasin (e.g., greatest depths to water were observed in the northwestern portion of the subbasin that was generally greater than 200 feet, depths to groundwater generally decreased to about 100 to 250 feet in the mid-subbasin area and then to zero or above the ground surface in artesian wells near the Salton Sea), but is unclear whether more specific details can be gained regarding the Salton Sea. Cross sections A’’ – A’’’ and E-E’ just north of the Salton Sea show the boundary between the upper and lower aquifers with shallow depths to water (Section 3.5.2 Perpendicular Cross Sections). In addition to relatively shallow or artesian conditions, this subarea (Thermal) is characterized by a shallow semi-perched aquifer (Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Section 4.1.3 Groundwater Occurrence (Depth to Water)), as shown in Attachment Q. The Indio Subbasin Alternate Plan (Figure 3-2 Groundwater Subareas of the Indio Subbasin and Section 3.5.2 Perpendicular Cross Sections) concludes that the Barton Canyon subareas, which is located west of the northern shore of the Salton Sea, are “semi-water bearing and generally lack subsurface information”. CDFW concurs with this observation given the lack of well information in this region. For example, with over 345 monitoring wells (52 CASGEM and 293 other) in the Plan Area, roughly only 12 appear to be within close proximity to this area (Please see Attachment R: Figure 2-11 Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Well Locations).

CVWD is a founding member of the Salton Sea Authority, with two members currently serving on its board. CDFW strongly recommends the GSA continue to address the concerns of the Salton Sea and its ecological value by closely monitoring and evaluating the elevational sea level DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021

Page 14 of 37 ends

changes, as well as the receding/increasing shoreline vegetation/water and the effects to the adjacent habitat along the northwestern shore of the Salton Sea.

Finally, major changes to the modeling included correcting the initial 1997 conditions in the Garnet Hill Subarea. In doing this, the effect of the Garnet Hill Fault was seen in the abrupt change in groundwater levels across the fault. Subsurface inflow across the Banning and San Andreas faults were also discussed from the Mission Creek and Desert Hot Springs Subbasins into the Indio Subbasin (Section 7.2.5.1 Subsurface Inflows). The Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan did express the need to conduct future analyses of the San Gorgonio and Mission Creek Subbasin boundaries to better estimate subsurface inflows from adjacent Subbasins. To update and improve the numerical model, the study will consider subsurface flow at faults and to the Garnet Hill Subarea, as well as adjacent groundwater Subbasins and their numerical models through coordination with other GSAs (Section 12.2.8.3 Subsurface Flow Study). CDFW suggests that if the available groundwater monitoring wells are not already appropriately located or constructed for the purpose of performing detailed high-quality evaluations of the effects of faults throughout the Subbasin faults (e.g., San Gorgonio Pass, San Jacinto Fault) under a variety of groundwater conditions, that this occurs and is incorporated into the updated analysis.

Sub/Surface Water
The Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan acknowledges that uncertainty exists in the actual amounts of inflow at the Indio Subbasin eastern boundary, with the subsurface outflow at the San Gorgonio Pass (SGP) Subbasin representing one of the largest unknowns in the water budget and groundwater modeling. CDFW appreciates that the Indio Subbasin GSA plans to reconcile the differences and refine outflow/inflow as a part of the next 5-Year Alternative Plan update to include: (1) a Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis using the SGP Subbasin MODFLOW model; (2) review upcoming data from three nested monitoring well clusters near the Subbasin boundary, followed by evaluation and model calibration to recent (and future) water level trends; and (3) include sensitivity simulations in the model using a range of subsurface inflows. CDFW also recommends that the monitoring network for groundwater-surface water interaction be enhanced to not only incorporate the use of existing stream gaging and groundwater level monitoring networks, but also include monitoring along ephemeral and intermittent water bodies (e.g., streams/washes, springs, seeps). Particularly, monitoring should entail a rigorous assessment that encompasses baseline data, control area(s), and/or similar reference watersheds (e.g., elevation, faulting, geomorphology, size, etc.) of water bodies and/or GDEs/ISWs that have high biological value. Some suggestions include, but are not limited to, the following:

 Determining the safe yield (water balance) in the sub-watershed containing the extraction points with inputs (precipitation gaging, groundwater inflow, and infiltration) and outputs (evapotranspiration gaging, overland flow, surface water outflow, and groundwater outflow including extraction), as well as a gridded surface water-groundwater model. Note:

Building and calibrating a fractured mountain-front hydrogeologic model is a longer-term goal given the lack of baseline data and the multiple parameters needed.  Performing stable isotope analysis through water sampling to measure travel time through the system to assess potential differences in recharge elevation and groundwater flow paths.

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021

Page 15 of 37 ends

This includes "any river, stream or lake" that are intermitt ent (i.e., those that are dry for periods of time) or perennial (i.e., those that flow year-round) with surface, or subsurface, flow.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, though the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan does address certain species and their habitat as identified in the CVMSHCP/NCCP, it does not comply with all aspects of SGMA statutes and regulations, and CDFW deems it insufficient in its consideration of fish and wildlife beneficial uses and users of groundwater and interconnected surface waters. CDFW recommends that the GSA address the above comments for the following reasons derived from regulatory criteria for GSP/Alternative Plan evaluation:

1. The assumptions, criteria, findings, and objectives, including the sustainability goal, undesirable results, minimum thresholds, measurable objectives, and interim milestones are not reasonable and/or not supported by the best available information and best available science (23 CCR § 355.4(b)(1)). (See Comments in Sections #1 – 6)

2. It does not identify reasonable measures and schedules to eliminate data gaps. (23 CCR § 355.4(b)(2)) (See Comments in Section #6)

CDFW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan.

Please contact Kim Romich at (760) 937-1380 or at [email protected]) with any questions.

Sincerely,

Leslie MacNair
Regional Manager

Enclosures (Literature Cited; Attachments A-R)

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021

Page 16 of 37 ends

ec: California CDFW of Fish and Wildlife

Kim Freeburn, Supervisor
Habitat Conservation - Inland Deserts Region
[email protected]

Joshua Grover, Branch Chief
Water Branch
[email protected]

Robert Holmes, Environmental Program Manager
Statewide Water Planning Program
[email protected]

Angela Murvine, Statewide SGMA Coordinator
Groundwater Program
[email protected]

Scott Wilson, Environmental Program Manager
Habitat Conservation - Inland Deserts Region
[email protected]

California Water Resources

Craig Altare, Supervising Engineering Geologist
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program
[email protected]

Vic Nguyen, Region Manager
Southern Region
[email protected]

Brian Moniz, Regional Coordinator
Southern Region
[email protected]

State Water Resources Control Board

Natalie Stork, Chief
Groundwater Management Program
[email protected]
DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resource Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
October 29, 2021

Page 17 of 37 ends

Literature Cited

Busch, David & Smith, Sd. (1995). Mechanisms Associated with Decline of Woody Species in Riparian Ecosystems of the Southwestern U.S. Ecological Monographs. 65. 10.2307/2937064.

Cohen MJ, Creed IF, Alexander L, Basu NB, Calhoun AJ, Craft C, D’Amico E, DeKeyser E, Fowler L, Golden HE, Jawitz JW, Kalla P, Kirkman LK, Lane CR, Lang M, Leibowitz SG, Lewis DB, Marton J, McLaughlin DL, Mushet DM, Raanan-Kiperwas H, Rains MC, Smith L, Walls SC (2016) Do geographically isolated wetlands influence landscape functions? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:1978–1986.

Danielopol, D., Griebler, C., Gunatilaka, A., & Notenboom, J. (2003). Present state and future prospects for groundwater ecosystems. Environmental Conservation, 30(2), 104-130. doi:10.1017/S0376892903000109.

Murphy NP, Guzik MT, Cooper SJ, Austin AD (2015) Desert spring refugia: museums of diversity or evolutionary cradles? Zool Scr 44:693–701.

Quichimbo, A., MB Singer, MO Cuthbert. Characterising groundwater–surface water interactions in idealised ephemeral stream systems. Hydrological Processes. 2020;34:3792– 3806.

Strayer, D. (2006). Challenges for freshwater invertebrate conservation. J N Am Benthol Soc 25:271–287.

Shafroth, P. B., Stromberg, J. C., & Patten, D. T. 2000. Woody Riparian Vegetation Response to Different Alluvial Water Table Regimes. Western North American Naturalist, 60(1), 66–76. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41717015

The Nature Conservancy, California. 2021. GDE Pulse v2.0.0. San Francisco, California. https://gde.codefornature.org . (Date Accessed).

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Attachment A:

Indio Subbasin Plan Area

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Attachment B:

Natural Communities Commonly Associated with Groundwater (NCCAG) within the East Valley.

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Attachment C
Natural Communities Commonly Associated with Groundwater (NCCAG) within the West Valley.

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Attachment D:

Assessment for Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs)

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Attachment E:

Key Wells Chosen to Monitor Long-term Groundwater within the Indio Subbasin.

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Attachment F:

Representative calibration well hydrographs from each subarea along with CVMSHCP/NCCP biological resources. Observed levels are shown as black points on the graphs, while simulated levels are shown as the orange lines.

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Attachment G(1):

Overview of Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) within the West Valley.

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Attachment G(2):

Overview of Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) within the West Valley.

Attachment H:

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Overview of Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) within the East Valley.

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Attachment I:

Finer Scale View of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)Trend within the East Valley at TEL-GRF Area (D) from 2009-2018.

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Attachment J:

Finer Scale View of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)Trend within the East Valley at Mecca, Oasis, and Salton Sea Area (E) from 2009-2018.

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Attachment K:

Finer Scale View of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)Trend within the East Valley at TEL-GRF Area (D) from 2014 -2018.

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Attachment L:

Finer Scale View of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)Trend within the East Valley at Mecca, Oasis, and Salton Sea Area (E) from 2014-2018.

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Attachment M:

Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Suitable Habitat Along with Riparian Areas as Identified in the Coachella Valley HCP/NCCP.

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Attachment N:

Sand Source and Transport areas identified in the Coachella Valley HCP/NCCP.

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Attachment O:

Conservation Areas Identified in the Coachella Valley HCP/NCCP

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Attachment P:

Transient Three-Dimensional Groundwater Flow Cross Sections

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Attachment Q:

Location of Artesian Water within the East Valley.

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

Attachment R:

The Location of the Groundwater Monitoring Wells in the Indio Subbasin.

DocuSign Envelope ID: FC97DF65-4430-48EC-A7DF-B516AE085C7C

October 29, 2021
Board Member John Aguilar - Division One
Board Member Anthony Bianco - Division Two
Board President John Powell Jr. - Division Three
Board Member Peter Nelson - Division Four
Board Vice President Cástulo R. Estrada - Division Five Sent via email
Re:Comments on Coachella Valley Water District GSA Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update
Dear Coachella Valley Water District GSA Board of Directors, Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability works alongside low income communities of color in the Eastern Coachella Valley and San Joaquin Valley.As is most relevant here,we work in partnership with community leaders in the communities of Oasis,Thermal,Mecca and North Shore to to address community priorities including safe and affordable drinking water and wastewater,affordable housing,land use,effective and safe transportation,clean renewable and affordable energy, green spaces, and clean air.

The mission of Coachella Valley Waterkeeper (“CVWK” or “Waterkeeper”) is to protect and enhance the water quality of Coachella Valley watersheds, ensuring that our desert communities have access to clean and sustainable water resources. Waterkeeper, together with Orange County Coastkeeper and Inland Empire Waterkeeper (our associated programs), represents over 1,355 members who support this mission. CVWK is also an affiliate of the Waterkeeper Alliance, a worldwide association of Waterkeeper organizations that advocate for clean water throughout the world, and the California Coastkeeper Alliance, a statewide association of Waterkeepers that advances policies and programs for healthy and clean waters throughout the state.

We have been engaged in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) implementation process because most of the communities we work with are wholly dependent on groundwater for their drinking water supplies,and many have already experienced groundwater quality issues.Communities we work have not been included in decision-making about their precious water resources,and their needs are not at the forefront of such decisions.In 2012, California recognized the Human Right to Water for domestic purposes,and required that state agencies consider this human right in their activities.State law also requires that GSAs avoid disparate impacts on protected classes.SGMA’s requirements for a transparent and inclusive process presents an opportunity in the context of groundwater management to meaningfully 1 include disadvantaged communities in decision-making,and to create groundwater management plans that understand their unique vulnerabilities,are sensitive to their drinking water needs,and avoid causing disparate negative impacts on low-income communities of color.

We submit these comments to elevate our concerns that the draft Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update (Draft Plan Update)is incomplete and does not adequately consider drinking water impacts in its policy decisions about groundwater management.Our review shows that the Draft Plan Update neither adequately analyzes nor incorporates input from disadvantaged communities and domestic well users,and will create a disparate impact on protected classes unless modified to protect drinking water resources for disadvantaged communities unless significant changes are made.We include herein our comments with respect to deficiencies in the Draft Plan Update as well as recommendations for improvements. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
A.Transparency and Brown Act in the Indio Subbasin and Coachella Valley Water District GSA
Transparency is a critical function of public agencies,particularly those engaged in managing such a critical resource as water.Unfortunately,the Indio subbasin agencies have consistently failed to hold meetings or make decisions in a transparent and accessible way.Furthermore,we are alarmed to note ongoing violations of the Brown Act.We have expressed these concerns to agency staff and have noted no change.Some of the agencies’barriers to accessibility and transparency occurred before the COVID-19 epidemic,and some have arisen during the epidemic.We urge you to make the suggested changes below so that ongoing decisions about critical water resources are made in a transparent and accessible way. i. All SGMA-related decisions must be made at public meetings of the GSA The Brown Act requires that legislative agencies such as the Indio Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs)discuss and decide upon subject matter within their jurisdiction at public meetings only.1 The Indio Subbasin GSAs have begun to conduct workshops around the Alternative Plan Update to be submitted next year.However,during this process,to the best of our knowledge,CVWD GSA has not held any board meetings in which it has publicly discussed or taken action related to the Draft Plan Update.We know that the individual GSAs within the Indio subbasin are each making decisions about the Alternative Plan Update,yet no GSA board meetings have been held where such decisions are discussed and available for public comment. ii. Public meetings of the GSA must be noticed effectively As we have previously expressed,the CVWD GSA does not publicly notice and agendize its GSA meetings.The Brown Act states that "[a]t least 72 hours before a regular meeting,the legislative body of the local agency...shall post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting,including items to be 1 Gov Code Sec. 54952.2(b)(1).
2 discussed in closed session."2 For this reason,we do not believe that current meeting structures are in compliance with the Brown Act.

The Madera County GSA follows a similar method,separately noticing their list of SGMA interested parties before any Madera County Board of Supervisors meetings at which decisions related to SGMA are to be made.The Central Kings GSA,also the board of Consolidated Irrigation District,separated its GSA meetings from its Consolidated Irrigation District meetings, separately noticing and agendizing both and holding them back to back.We encourage the CVWD GSA to hold separate GSA and CVWD meetings,or state a specific time for the SGMA items at their regular board meetings,and separately agendize and notice the SGMA items,so that stakeholders are able to plan their time and participate in the relevant moment.Many residents are only able to take specific hours off of work,and need to be able to plan their days accordingly.Additionally,GSAs must provide a complete description of the items to be discussed,for example “Discussion/Decision Regarding Minimum Thresholds for Groundwater Levels,”rather than a general “SGMA update,”so that stakeholders may come prepared knowing what topic will be discussed.

Furthermore,on the Indio Subbasin website it is stated that there is a Management Committee composed of its four member GSAs that is leading the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan update.

Because this is a meeting of agency members deciding on matters within their SGMA jurisdiction,any meetings this committee holds must be made public according to the Brown Act.It is important for the public to be able to give feedback and engage at every point of the plan update process.To the point in the above section,public meetings are critical to agency transparency and therefore agency decisions must be made in a public meeting only..

Based on this information,our recommendations on ways to ensure accessible and transparent public GSA meetings are as follows:
●Notify the public of all hearing/meeting times,topics,and detailed information regarding participation.All translated preparatory materials and documents should be made available at the time meeting notices are posted as well.Notices should be easy to find on state or local jurisdiction websites,and disseminated at least 72 hours in advance.

Notices must clearly show how public comments will be received. 2 Gov Code Sec. 54954.22(a)(1)
3 ●Give ample time for the public to submit comments prior to the meeting’s start time,such as via a dedicated phone number.Comments should be accepted starting from the time the notices are disseminated.Written or voice message comments should be allowed up until the start of the meeting, as well as live comments throughout the meeting. ○Do not limit opportunities to comment only to email and avoid implementing arbitrary word limits on email comments.Limiting comments only to email leaves room for them to remain unheard and ignored.Allow email comments to be read aloud on the record by staff during the live meeting,for transparency and consideration by the full board/commission.
○Allow the public to leave voice message comments,which can be limited to 3 minutes,and played during the comment period of the meeting.Ensure that these messages,as well as the emails,can be received in multiple languages and interpreted as needed.
●During the meeting,provide multiple options for teleconferencing,with two-way communication options that allows either computer-users or phone-users to engage and provide public comment.Webcasting does not constitute a public meeting,as it does not provide the opportunity for public comment and dialogue between the agency and constituents.
○Each teleconferencing medium will offer benefits and limitations,ranging from professional options such as Zoom,GoToMeeting,and WebEx,as well as wide-reaching mediums for video streaming like YouTube and Facebook Live.

For live-streamed meetings,the public should be allowed to comment in real time, through a combination of phone and video, chat boxes, and/or email. ○Ensure that there is time for public comment after each agenda item during the meeting,and allow sufficient time for live comments to be submitted either electronically or via telephone.
●For members of the public that may not have access to the internet or a computer,or who are unable to use video applications,consistently provide an adequate telephone option–available in multiple languages–and ensure that comments can be made via phone.

B.Insufficient Community Engagement and Outreach
SGMA requires that a GSA “shall consider the interests of all beneficial uses and users of groundwater,”which expressly includes “[h]olders of overlying rights”and “[d]isadvantaged communities,including,but not limited to,those served by private domestic wells or small community water systems.”3 The emergency regulations similarly require that a Draft GSP summarize and identify “opportunities for public engagement and a discussion of how public 3 Water Code § 10723.2.
4 input and response will be used.”4 The GSA thus must engage “diverse social,cultural,and economic elements of the population within the basin.”5 We acknowledge that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted everyone’s ability to engage in person with communities and we appreciate the virtual workshops that were held by the CVWD GSA in-lue of in-person meetings.However,these workshops were all held during business hours, which are not accessible to many of the communities we work with.Additionally,CVWD GSA actively points to their Disadvantaged Communities Infrastructure Committee Meetings as a space for community engagement.These meetings are not open to the public and are held at hours inaccessible to many of the residents we work with,and were not held for an entire year, between February 2020 until January 2021.

To address concerns over public engagement,transparency,and inclusivity,the GSAs must meaningfully consult with all beneficial user groups to shape policies that reflect the priorities of all beneficial user groups in the GSA area.Then recirculate a new Draft GSP for the public to review.

C.The Water Budget is Inadequate
Under SGMA,the “[c]urrent water budget information shall quantify current inflows and outflows for the basin using the most recent hydrology,water supply,water demand,and land use information.”6 Based on our review,the Draft Plan Update’s Water Budget is incomplete,as it has failed to include the consolidation of unpermitted parks to their water budget.

We are pleased to see that the ECV Water Supply Master Plan was incorporated into the water budget.However,this plan only included permitted mobile home parks.The ECV has very few permitted parks in comparison to the nearly 500 unpermitted parks.7 Excluding these parks from consolidation planning,massively under-estimates the amount of water needed to address drinking water needs in the ECV.The water budget is central to establishing effective policies for sustainable groundwater management in the GSA area,as such the drinking water needs of these groups must be incorporated into the water budget.8 Before it can submit an adequateAlternative Plan,the CVWD GSA must integrate data on groundwater use in unincorporated parks into water budget calculations in order to include drinking water needs of unpermitted parks in the ECV.

D.The Monitoring Network Is Inadequate With Respect to Groundwater Quality GSAs must monitor impacts to groundwater for drinking water beneficial users,9 including disadvantaged communities on domestic wells,10 and must avoid disparate impacts on protected groups pursuant to state law.11 The GSA’s monitoring network does not comply with SGMA regulations,and fails to capture drinking water impacts to disadvantaged communities and 11 Gov. Code § 11135; Gov. Code § 65008; Government Code §§ 12955, subd. (l). 10 Water Code § 10723.2.
9 23 CCR § 354.34
8 23 CCR § 354.18
7 https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-mar-26-me-trailerpark26-story.html 6 23 CCR § 354.18(c)(1).
5 Guidance Document for Groundwater Sustainability Plan; Stakeholder Communication and Engagement, p. 1. 4 23 CCR 354.10(d).
5 domestic wells.The GSA has therefore not considered the interests of this beneficial user group and is likely to cause a disparate impact on protected groups who are dependent on domestic wells in the GSA area.

SGMA regulations require that Alternative Plans create a groundwater quality monitoring network that will “collect sufficient spatial and temporal data from each applicable principal aquifer to determine groundwater quality trends for water quality indicators,as determined by the Agency, to address known water quality issues.”12
Despite having identified many known water quality issues in the Groundwater Conditions chapter,13 the Draft Plan Update fails to comprehensively analyze whether the sites being monitored by existing programs will adequately “address known water quality issues”and their impacts on all beneficial users in the GSA area.14 As proposed,the monitoring does not sufficiently monitor groundwater quality in the Eastern Coachella Valley,where as noted in the Draft Plan Update, there are high levels of groundwater contaminants.

Therefore the monitoring network as written violates the GSA’s responsibility to collect sufficient data to determine trends and address known water quality issues affecting beneficial users in the GSA area.As written,the monitoring network would allow severe drinking water impacts to occur on domestic well users and in unincorporated communities.

Monitoring wells must detect groundwater quality issues in shallow groundwater near disadvantaged communities.A particular focus must be small mobile home parks in the Eastern Coachella Valley that rely on small water systems. ●The GSA must prioritize constructing new monitoring wells in the Eastern Coachella Valley in order to ensure the region is being properly monitored for all primary drinking water contaminants, and in particular arsenic, chrom-6, and uranium. 14Water Code § 10723.2.(b)(2)
13 Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update pgs. 4-1;4-51 12 23 CCR § 354.34(c)(4)
6 E.The Alternative Plan Update Must Address Groundwater Quality Impacts Caused By Recharge Or Overpumping
SGMA charged GSAs with the responsibility to protect water quality from further degradation due to groundwater management practices,and requires GSAs to establish sustainable management criteria to prevent degraded groundwater quality.15 The proposed SMCs are inadequate in protecting communities in the ECV from further groundwater quality degradation.

This is particularly concerning for contaminants such as arsenic and chrom-6,which are a widespread issue in the ECV,as noted in the Draft Plan Update.16 Further,it is not adequate to simply defer to infrastructure programs that include consolidating water systems or treating drinking water —the Alternative must protect sources of drinking water from contamination caused by groundwater management activities.In order to comply with SGMA and its regulations,which require the GSA to set sustainable management criteria that will avoid undesirable results resulting from degraded water quality for all beneficial users in the basin,and avoid disparate impacts on protected groups, the Draft Plan Update must include the following:
●Set a protective minimum threshold,measurable objective,and interim milestones for all constituents with primary drinking water standards that may be impacted by groundwater management activities,or failure to manage groundwater in a way that does not negatively impact groundwater quality.
●A detailed explanation as to how the groundwater quality minimum threshold, measurable objectives,and interim milestones will result in the protection of groundwater for disadvantaged communities and other drinking water users in the subbasin.

F.The Alternative Plan Update Should Ensure No Further Land Subsidence As currently written,the sustainable management criteria for land subsidence are vague and do not protect for impacts on disadvantaged communities or domestic well users.The GSA must set sustainable management criteria that reflect the needs of all the stakeholders in the subbasin and protect all types of beneficial users from impacts from further land subsidence in the area.

The GSA must define the undesirable results for subsidence in a way that avoids subsidence that substantially interferes with surface land uses.17 The GSA must consider the interests of all beneficial user groups,including domestic well users and disadvantaged communities,in determining its undesirable result for land subsidence.

The CVWD GSA has decided to use groundwater levels as a proxy for land subsidence and accordingly apply the same sustainable management criteria.18 While we are not disputing using groundwater levels as proxy,we want to ensure the SMCs for land subsidence also includes impacts to critical infrastructure.The SMC for land subsidence does not show whether they will protect critical infrastructure such as roads,drinking water wells,distribution lines,housing, septic systems,.These surface land uses must also be taken into account in establishing the SMC for land subsidence.
18 Indio Subbasin Alternative Management Plan, pg.9-14
17 Water code §10721.(x)(5)
16 Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update pg 4-47
15 Water Code § 10721(w)(4); 23 CCR § 354.28(c)(4).
7 To comply with its obligations under state law, CVWD GSA must:
●Analyze the impact of land subsidence on all beneficial user groups,including potential impacts on drinking water wells, homes, distribution lines, roads, etc. ●Define a local undesirable result for subsidence that takes into account the critical infrastructure needs of all beneficial user groups,including domestic well owners,and specifically impacts to homes, piping, and wells.

G.Projects and Management Actions Must Benefit All Beneficial Users and Avoid Disparate Impacts
The GSA must consider the interests of all beneficial users including domestic well owners and disadvantaged communities19 and avoid disparate impacts on protected groups.We commend CVWD GSA for including small water system consolidation as planned management actions20.

However,we are concerned these management actions exclude important groups,specifically unpermitted mobile home parks,from planned actions.Additionally,no timeline was put forward for implementing this management action and as currently written,it appears implementation is dependent on state funding, which can be an extremely drawn out process.

Given the groundwater quality issues in the ECV and aging infrastructure,CVWD GSA needs to set a proactive timeline for consolidating small water systems in the ECV and must modify their water budget to reflect consolidation of unpermitted parks.Furthermore,we would like to reiterate that waiting for state funding to move forward on consolidation in the ECV will lead to an extremely drawn out process.CVWD GSA must strengthen proposed management actions to include direct investment from its annual budget to support water system consolidation.

G. The Draft Plan Update Conflicts with the Reasonable And Beneficial Use Doctrine The “reasonable and beneficial use”doctrine is codified in the California Constitution.It requires that “the water resources of the State be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable,and that the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented,and that the conservation of such waters is to be exercised with a view to the reasonable and beneficial use thereof in the interest of the people and for the public welfare.”21 The doctrine applies to all water users,regardless of the basis of the water right,and all water rights and methods of diversion.22 A determination of reasonableness of a use “cannot be resolved in vacuo isolated from statewide considerations of transcendent importance.”23 The reliance on imported water to support sustainable groundwater aquifers cannot be avoided when addressing issues around beneficial use.As is made clear by the Draft Plan Update,the primary source of water for the GSA area is the Colorado River,accounting for approximately 23 Joslin v. Marin Municipal Water Dist. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 132, 140. 22 Peabody v.Vallejo (1935)2 Cal.2d 351,367,372;Light v.State Water Resources Control Board,(2014)226 Cal.

App. 4th 1463, 1479.
21 Cal Const,Art.X §2;see also Water Code §100;United States v.State Water Resources Control Bd.(1986)182 Cal.App.3d 82,105 [“…superimposed on those basic principles defining water rights is the overriding constitutional limitation that the water be used as reasonably required for the beneficial use to be served.”]. 20 Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update pg. 11-21 19 Water Code § 10723.2.
8 62%of the total water supply.24 We are deeply concerned that each Plan Scenario assumes that the GSA will receive its full allocation of Colorado River water,and that the total delivery will actually increase from 402,800 AFY to 436,050 AFY through 2045.25 This assumption appears to be based on CVWD’s high-priority position regarding Colorado River Allocations and CVWD’s success in legal challenges to the QSA.26 Reliance on priority positioning and past legal successes ignores the reality of the Colorado River.

Supply reliability of the Colorado River is addressed in two sentences,where it is acknowledged that “Colorado River supplies face a number of challenges to long-term reliability including the extended Colorado River Basin drought and shortage sharing agreements,endangered species and habitat protection,and climate change.”27 Yet,there is no acknowledgement that even under long term historical natural flow (which does not account for climate change),the Basin is over-apportioned.28
The Colorado River becomes increasingly imperiled every single year due to drought and overdraft as over 40 million people rely upon it for drinking water,agriculture,and power.29 There is no acknowledgement that the Colorado River is already at or near critically low elevations in Lakes Powell and Mead.The current level of Lake Mead is 1,067.15 feet MSL.30 The U.S.Bureau of Reclamation (USBR)has declared a water shortage for the first time in the Basin’s history.Lake Powell could fall below the minimum power pool elevation of 3,490 feet as early as July 2022,while Lake Mead is projected to be less than one foot above 1,050 feet by the end of 2022.31 USBR further projects that there is a 62%probability that Lake Mead’s elevation falls below 1,025 feet by 2026 –approximately the same time the Draft Plan Update assumes that water transfers from the Colorado River will increase from 424,000 AFY to 459,000 AFY.32 Water levels dropping below these critical thresholds means that millions of people will be without the electricity generated by hydropower on the Colorado River.Under these extreme emergency situations,which are becoming more of a statistical certainty,the GSAs cannot continue to rely on its status as a senior water rights holder without a contingency plan for a decrease in delivery from the Colorado River.The over allocation of water from the Colorado is a mathematical certainty that needs to be accounted for in at least some of the plan scenarios.

Moreover,the Draft Plan Updates’forecasts of water supply for its 5-year plans with climate change scenarios all rely on the timely completion of numerous water supply projects in order to meet forecasted demand.33 These projects are in various stages of permitting,design,and 33 Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update, Sections 7.5.4-7.5.6 32 Five Year Probabilistic Projections,U.S.Bureau of Reclamation,October 2021. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/riverops/crss-5year-projections.html 31 Reclamation Releases Updated Projections of Colorado River System Conditions,U.S.Bureau of Reclamation, October 2021. https://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/#/news-release/4013 30 http://mead.uslakes.info/level.asp
29 See, Id. at Fn 1
28 Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Executive Summary,U.S.Bureau of Reclamation,December 2012.
https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/bsp/docs/finalreport/ColoradoRiver/CRBS_Executive_Summary_FINAL.pdf 27 See, Draft Plan Update Section 6.4.3
26 Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update Sections 6.4.3, 6.4.3.1 25 Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update Table 6-3 24 Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update Table 12-2, 5-Year Plan with Climate Change. 9 construction,with many currently existing only on paper.The Draft Plan Update acknowledges that failure to implement these projects is unsustainable with climate change.34 To account for loss of Colorado River deliveries,we encourage the GSAs to look for conservation opportunities in the categories of water use with the least overall importance –namely new development of water-intense recreational developments such as surf parks, beach clubs, and new golf courses.

There is a new wave of recreation coming to a crest in the Indio Subbasin that requires significant amounts of clean water:surf lagoons.There are currently three proposed projects to build man-made pools that generate surfable waves hundreds of miles from any coastline:DSRT Surf Resort,Thermal Beach Club,and Coral Mountain in La Quinta,CA.Surf lagoons rely on water from Colorado River allocations.Unlike golf courses,which are also not a priority over the generation of electricity and food,surf lagoons require the use of potable water and cannot rely on recycled water supplies.Each new non-essential water use in the desert has the potential to negatively impact groundwater recharge.While courts wield an extraordinary amount of power,they have yet to cause precipitation events to reverse the course of climate change,and there is no reliable indication that CVWD’s use of imported water for surf parks,fake beaches, and new golf courses will continue to take priority over the generation of power and food for millions of people.

The GSAs must ensure that Alternative Plan Update’s water allocations are consistent with the reasonable and beneficial use doctrine.35 In doing so,the GSAs must prioritize domestic use of water resources over irrigated agriculture36 and ensure that SGMA implementation furthers the human right to safe and affordable drinking water37 —both statewide considerations of transcendent importance.In other words,a plan that allows use of water for non-essential water use at the expense of use of water for domestic purposes is not consistent with the reasonable and beneficial use doctrine.It is also inconsistent with the reasonable and beneficial use doctrine to allow agricultural uses at the expense of the domestic uses of water for drinking,cooking,and basic sanitation.

The reasonable and beneficial use doctrine applies here given the potential negative impacts of the Plan on groundwater sustainability which are likely to unreasonably interfere with the use of groundwater for drinking water and other domestic uses.As the Draft Plan Update authorizes waste and unreasonable use,and indeed does not even analyze the reasonable and beneficial use doctrine at all,it conflicts with the reasonable and beneficial use doctrine and the California Constitution.

In order to ensure the Draft Update is not in conflict with the Reasonable and Beneficial Use Doctrine, we make the following suggestions:
37 Water Code § 106.3.
36 Water Code §106 [“It is hereby declared to be the established policy of this State that the use of water for domestic purposes is the highest use of water and that the next highest use is for irrigation”];United States v.State Water Resources Control Board (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 82, 103 . 35 Water Code §275 [“The department and board shall take all appropriate proceedings or actions before executive, legislative,or judicial agencies to prevent waste,unreasonable use,unreasonable method of use,or unreasonable method of diversion of water in this state”]; Light, 226 Cal.App.4th at 1482-83 [same]. 34 Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update, Section 7.8 10 ●The GSAs must commit to disapproval of projects that involve waste and unreasonable use.
●The GSAs must revise the Draft Plan Update to include scenarios where the full allotment of Colorado River water cannot be delivered.
●The GSAs must account for scenarios where some or all of the planned projects fail to meet their supply goals on time.
●The GSAs must commit to ensuring that access to drinking water is protected as the highest and best use of water.

H. The Draft Plan Update Conflicts with the Public Trust Doctrine The Public Trust doctrine applies to the waters of the State,and establishes that “the state,as trustee,has a duty to preserve this trust property from harmful diversions by water rights holders”and that thus “no one has a vested right to use water in a manner harmful to the state's waters.”38
The Public Trust doctrine has recently been applied to groundwater where there is a hydrological connection between the groundwater and a navigable surface water body.39 In Environmental Law Foundation v.State Water Resources Control Board (“ELF”),the court held that the public trust doctrine applies to “the extraction of groundwater that adversely impacts a navigable waterway”and that the government has an affirmative duty to take the public trust into account in the planning and allocation of water resources.40 Under ELF,the Public Trust doctrine imposes an affirmative and independent obligation to consider the public trust that applies to DWR’s decisions regarding submitted GSPs,imposing a legal duty on DWR to not only consider the potential adverse impacts of groundwater extractions on navigable waterways but also “to protect public trust uses whenever feasible.”41 The court also specifically held that SGMA does not supplant the requirements of the common law public trust doctrine.42 Notably,the public trust doctrine applies to both currently navigable surface water bodies and surface water bodies that were historically navigable at the time of statehood.43 Further,certain rivers like the San Joaquin River have been declared navigable in statute.44 44 Harb.&Nav.Code s.105 [affirmatively declaring the San Joaquin River to be navigable “between its mouth and Sycamore Point.”]..
43 See San Francisco Baykeeper,Inc.v.State Lands Com.(2015)242 Cal.App.4th 202,232 citing Western Oil & Gas Asso.v.State Lands Com.(1980)105 Cal.App.3d 554,562 [“When California became a state in 1850 it succeeded to sovereign ownership of various tidelands and submerged lands under the terms of common law trust doctrine….”];PPL Montana,LLC v.Montana (2012)565 U.S.576,592 [“For state title under the equal-footing doctrine,navigability is determined at the time of statehood...and based on the ‘natural and ordinary condition’of the water.”] [internal citation omitted].
42 Id. at 862-870.
41 Id. at 865.
40 Id. at 856-62.
39 Environmental Law Foundation v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 844, 844. 38 United States v.State Water Resources Control Bd.(1986)182 Cal.App.3d 82,106;see also Nat'l Audubon Soc'y v.Superior Court (1983)33 Cal.3d 419,426 [“before state courts and agencies approve water diversions they should consider the effect of such diversions upon interests protected by the public trust,and attempt,so far as feasible,to avoid or minimize any harm to those interests.”].
11 In contrast to these requirements,the GSP does not consider impacts on public trust resources,or attempt to avoid,insofar as feasible,harm to the public’s interest in those resources.The GSAs must (1)identify any public trust resources within the basin;(2)identify any public trust uses within the basin;(3)identify and analyzing potential adverse impacts of groundwater extractions on public trust resources and uses;and (4)determine the feasibility of protecting public trust uses and protect such uses whenever feasible.

I.The Draft Alternative Plan Update Lacks A Coordination Agreement.

Pursuant to Water Code,§10733.6,“[i]f groundwater sustainability agencies develop multiple groundwater sustainability plans for a basin,”there must be a joint submittal to DWR of several items,including “[a]copy of the coordination agreement between the groundwater sustainability agencies to ensure the coordinated implementation of the groundwater sustainability plans for the entire basin.”This requirement applies to Alternative Plans as well,which must satisfy “the objectives”of SGMA,including coordinated groundwater management for entire groundwater basins.

Here,though the draft Alternative Plan does not itself cover the entire basin,no coordination agreement is provided.To comply with SGMA,a coordination agreement must be submitted to DWR with the Alternative Plan Update.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan Update must protect the most vulnerable drinking water users in the GSA area.We welcome the opportunity to discuss our recommendations with the CVWD GSA board,staff and consultants to ensure compliance with state law.We are also in communication with the Department of Water Resources about current Alternative Plan update activities in the Eastern Coachella Valley,and hope to successfully work with GSAs, communities and DWR to ensure that groundwater management is equitable and sufficiently protective of vital drinking water resources.

Sincerely,
/s/
Nataly Escobedo Garcia
Policy Coordinator
Leadership Counsel for Justice and
Accountability
Sarah Spinuzzi
Senior Staff Attorney
Coachella Valley Waterkeeper
Inland Empire Waterkeeper
Orange County Coastkeeper
12 October 29, 2021

Emailed to: [email protected]

Coachella Valley Water District Desert Water Agency Attention: General Manager/Chief Engineer Attention: General Manager P.O. Box 1058 1200 Gene Autry Trail Coachella, CA 92236 P.O. Box 1710
Palm Springs, CA 92263

To Whom it May Concern:

The Agua Caliente Water Authority has reviewed the SGMA Alternative Plan submitted by the groundwater sustainability agencies here in the Coachella Valley. The Authority continues to have fundamental concerns over the implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) and the Alternative Plan (Alt Plan) submitted in lieu of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP).

Groundwater sustainability and management in the Coachella Valley, and thus the SGMA Alternative Plan, are of paramount importance to Agua Caliente. The Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) formed by Desert Water Agency (DWA) and Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) include within their boundaries the overwhelming majority of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation. The Agua Caliente Reservation, in turn, overlies a substantial amount of groundwater that the United States reserved and holds for the benefit of the Tribe pursuant to the doctrine set forth in Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908), and its progeny. Agua Caliente relies almost entirely on that groundwater to meet its water needs.

Agua Caliente has laid out, in prior comment letters and court filings, its position concerning its own water rights and the fundamental legal and practical inadequacy of any SGMA plan or Alternative Plan that fails to account for those rights and the Tribe’s concomitant role in groundwater management. While the Tribe’s position and related concerns remain valid and relevant, the Authority will not belabor them here. These comments focus instead on procedural and substantive scientific/technical issues with the SGMA Alternative Plan.

P a g e | 2

Tribal Workgroup and Stakeholder Outreach

The GSAs hosted numerous public meetings during the development of the Alt Plan Update. They also hosted tribal meetings during the Work Group. The GSAs provided information that they deemed appropriate and relevant for the public. Unfortunately, they did not provide any meaningful backup data or other technical information prior to or during any meeting that would enable the Authority to evaluate the methodology or assumptions of the Alt Plan. This is the first time the Authority has seen this new Plan and yet we are only allowed 30 days to provide substantive comments on this highly technical document consisting of a 476-page Plan and a 422-page Appendix.

Treating the Indio Subbasin as a Uniform Source

The Alt Plan Update presents most water information at a basin-wide level. Generalizing this information as if the Basin operates uniformly can be misleading. The Plan acknowledges that the Numerical Model uses many data inputs, assumptions and identification of hydrologic subsets to inform the numerical m odel but it doesn’t present the information most relevant to the public in a way that informs public decision -making.

In the spirit of transparency and clarity, please amend the Alt Plan to include a detailed map that overlays and shows the boundaries of these areas:

1. West Whitewater River Subbasin Management Area

2. West Whitewater River Area of Benefit

3. DWA West Area of Benefit

4. CVWD West Area of Benefit

5. West Valley Management Area

6. Palm Springs Subbasin

7. Thermal Subbasin

These terms are used throughout the document but for different purposes and within varying contexts. It would be helpful to the Authority to understand where the Reservation is located relative to these areas. It is impossible to understand the impacts of water management actions such as raw water replenishment and salt loading on the Reservation without more granular information.

The Authority also requests that the Alt Plan be amended to include the following information broken down in four ways: a) by W est Whitewater River Subbasin Management Area, b) by West Whitewater River Area of Benefit, c) by DWA West Area of Benefit, d) by CVWD West Area of Benefit:

1. A table showing return flows

2. The quantity of groundwater that constitutes the historical depletion of the aquifer

3. Model Inflows and Outflows

4. Water Balance

5. Combined Return Flows

P a g e | 3

6. Salt Loading by source: natural sources, return flows from agricultural and landscape irrigation, recharge of imported Colorado River water, wastewater discharge and subsurface inflows from other basins.

7. Table 5-27 (Municipal Demand Forecast for the Plan Area)

8. Table 5-28 (Municipal Demand Forecast for GSA Areas)

9. Table 5-35 (Total Projected Water Demands in Plan Area)

10. Table 6-1 (Indio Subbasin Groundwater Balance):

Projects and Management Actions

The Alt Plan includes a final list of 29 possible PMAs by 4 GSAs. It is disappointing to see that very few projects are led by DWA in support of its customers. Please explain why DWA has not implemented tiered rates as most other water district do despite this being an effective way to reduce water usage.

The Alt Plan notes that an Adaptive Management process will be used for project implementation. Will there be a public process associated with this Process? [ES -18]

“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.” Is this water used in the DWA service area? How is this water transferred from the WWR-GRF to the CVWD Service Area? Does it flow under the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation? [11-19 11.5.3.3]

P a g e | 4

SGMA Tools

The Authority strongly encourages the GSAs to use all tools available to them under SGMA to comprehensively and completely manage and track all groundwater pumping in the basin. The Authority acknowledges the work of the GSAs but as a native sovereign nation with rights to groundwater, the Tribe needs to have more transparency and information to ensure its federally reserved water right is not being infringed upon.

Comprehensive use of all SGMA powers gives the Authority confidence that its water rights will be respected and its water secured. [1.1.5 (1-6)]

Please provide groundwater production numbers and detailed maps of locations of all wells by AOB so that the Authority can determine the impact of pumping on the Reservation. The Authority strongly encourages the Districts to meter all wells producing 2 AF-Yr as is allowed by SGMA. It is difficult to have confidence that water is properly managed in the basin when the Districts have incomplete data on minimal pumpers. [(12.2.7.2) (10-7 10.1.2)]

Water Quality and Salt & Nutrient Management Planning

3-12 3.5.1 & Fig 4-3, 4-7 4.1.4: Please add a discussion of the impacts of groundwater level fluctuations on Agua Caliente Indian Reservation water resources.

8-5 8.1.2 Antidegradation Policy – Please see the letter to the Districts from the Regional Board dated February 19, 2020. The Authority is concerned that recharge with untreated Colorado River water is not for maximum benefit of the people and results in water quality lower than standards.

9-22 9.8.1 “…salt migration through the groundwater system (both vertical and horizontal) is driven by dynamics of groundwater recharge and discharge and thus influenced not only by recharge/percolation, but also by groundwater pumping…” And this is why the Authority needs to see analysis for the West Valley Management Area to determine the impacts to the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation.

9-23 9.8.3 “The analysis also will include characterization of current groundwater quality in all Subbasin areas/Subareas (with delineation of Management Zones…” The Authority asks that this work be prioritized based on its impacts to the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation as the closest community downstream of the WWR-GRF.

Chapter 3 – Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model (HCM)

This section of the Alt Plan does not provide the foundation required to support the use and application of the numerical model described in Section 7. For example, the Alt Plan’s description of surface water bodies and the interaction of surface water and groundwater lacks the required detail to support the model’s numerical analysis. The HCM states “The Whitewater River is the major stream channel contributing recharge with additional infiltration along other channels such as Snow and Falls Creek in the upper valley and

P a g e | 5

several smaller streams in the lower portion of the valley that only flow during wet years ”.

However, the numerical model states that there are 24 watersheds and stream channels that contribute recharge to the groundwa ter basin. Detailed calculations by sub- watershed and by year, of how the authors link the surface water in the HCM (Chapter 3) to water supply (Chapter 6) and the model input (Chapter 7) is required to validate the available 52,500 AFY (Figure 7-22) of surface water. Additionally, the Alt Plan should contain a map(s) that identify the locations of all named perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral surface water bodies (i.e., Andreas, Chino, Deep, Murray, Palm, Tahquitz, and Unnamed Watershed #2) described in the text.

The HCM also lacks a qualitative discussion regarding the interaction between surface water and groundwater throughout the different subareas of the Indio Subbasin. Does mountain front recharge impact the shallow and deep portions of the aquif er? At what depth does groundwater occur and is it found in confined or unconfined conditions? Section 3.2.2 of the HCM’s recital from the 1964 DWR Bulletin 108 leaves the reader confused regarding recent fanglomerate and the Ocotillo Conglomerate formations since these geologic units have not yet been introduced. These fundamental descriptions of groundwater occurrence and movement are required to support the use of four layers simulated in the model (Chapter 7).

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 of the Alt Plan addresses salt loading and TDS in the Indio Subbasin. It acknowledges that, “Elevated TDS and nitrate concentrations are linked to current and historic water and wastewater management, agricultural activity, urban land use, septic systems, and natural conditions” (p. 4-16). The Alt Plan describes the general sources of salts in the Subbasin but does not quantify the amount of salt loading by source or even as a total. Because the CV-SNMP is still in development, an estimate of the salt loading may not be available at this time, but sources of salt may still be explored in more detail.

While it is stated that, “Irrigation results in evaporative concentration of TDS in shallow groundwater,” and “Water use for domestic purposes results in salt loading to wastewater,” (p. 4-44), notably absent from the Plan is acknowledgement or quantification of how the increased salt may affect water demands in the Subbasin. Increasing salt in the Subbasin would impact future water demands, especially in the agricultural secto r.

P a g e | 6

Increased salts may increase demands due to higher leaching requirements but may also affect crop selection and distribution. As stated in the Alt Plan, “Agricultural demand varies by farmed parcel, depending on crop type and sequencing ” (p. 5-36). The agricultural demand forecast does not include a consideration of the potential impacts of increased salt in the Basin.

Chapter 6

Chapter 6 of the Alt Plan details water supply but does not specify quantities of supply broken down by source or location. For example, the Alt Plan lists sources of groundwater inflow as watershed runoff, subsurface inflows, return flow of applied water, treated wastewater, and septic, and imported water recharge. However, it does not go on to detail the quantities of these inflows by source. The average amount of natural infiltration for 2010-2019 is 28,800 AFY, “as measured or simulated in the numerical model” but it is unclear how much of that infiltration comes from each watershed, or how it is distributed throughout the basin. Similarly, the average return flow is estimated to be 162,000 AFY but the Alt Plan does not specify how much of that may be due to wastewater percolati on, irrigation return flows, etc. even though “irrigation return flows and imported water recharge are now the major source of inflows to the Indio Subbasin.” Documentation of these major sources of inflow and outflow is essential to transparent and effect ive planning for the Subbasin.

Chapter 7

The use of the 2000 and 2010 models to establish the Alt Plan’s management actions and goals is questionable since the Alt Plan Model has not been peer reviewed. Updates to boundary conditions and the availability of new hydrogeologic data suggest the need for the development of a steady-state model, possible application of parameter estimation techniques, and the need for an updated calibrated model. The authors should not only address the need for a new calibrated model, but also add a section to the Alt Plan regarding the use and limitation of the existing model. While the Alt Plan clearly identifies the uncertainty of the inflow from San Gorgonio Pass, there are hydrogeologic uncertainties associated with the model’s previous parameter estimation. Although the Alt Plan model is described as an update to the previous models, it does not excuse it from the need to undergo rigorous scientific peer review since it is the basis for a State approved Alt Plan. The authors should describe which parameters have the biggest effect on the model accuracy and discuss the certainty of the values used for these parameters.

For example, which parameters were determined from calibration and which were determined from physical measurements. A section of the report describing model uncertainty and application of sensitivity analysis to determine how the uncertainty could impact the model results would be informative. Until scientific peer review can be performed, we recommend that the model and Alt Plan be characterized as interim or provisional.

The Alt Plan does not clearly show the impact of each future model scenario on a spatial or temporal basis. For example, Figures 7-32 shows the change in groundwater levels

P a g e | 7

for the 2009 to 2045 Baseline Scenario that includes 12 years of historical data and 25 years of model simulated data. As shown in the water level hydrographs (Figure 7 -30), model simulated groundwater levels in the Palm Springs Subarea are declining durin g the 2020-2069 period. The 2009 through 2020 actual data reflect MWD advanced deliveries to the WWR-WRF and account for much of the groundwater storage increase in the Palm Springs Subarea. Without the inclusion of these 12 years of actual data, the color flood maps would only reflect the impact of the management scenarios and show different results. Similarly, Figures 7-33 and Figure 7-39 show a pattern of declining groundwater levels in the Palm Springs Subarea during the simulation period for the Baseline with Climate Change option.

The Alt Plan states that the 2009 period was “selected as the period for comparison because it generally reflects historically low groundwater elevations in most of the Subbasin, and these values are used as sustainabilit y criteria for groundwater levels.” Although Chapter 9 discusses the use of 2005 vs 2009 as a minimum threshold, it is not clear why historical and accumulated advanced MWD deliveries are used to show recovery from minimum water levels when comparing resu lts from simulated future management scenarios. Although the model recognizes that MWD advanced deliveries are depleted by 2035, it is difficult to assess the impact of each scenario over the initial 25-year period. It would be more appropriate to spatially view the impact of each model scenario consistent with the water budget shown in the table on Page 7 -12.

Regards,

Margaret Park, AICP
Chief Planning Officer

AGUA CALIENTE

WATER AUTHORITY

This page intentionally left blank.

1 Vanessa De Anda
From:Alena Callimanis
Sent:Friday, October 29, 2021 1:14 PM
To:IndioSubbasinSGMA
Subject:Comments on Indio Subbasin Water Management 2022 Alternative Plan Update Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Indio Subbasin Water Management 2022 Alternative Plan Update.

The first thing I would like to address is the reasonable and beneficial use doctrine and that three surfing parks, 6.7 acres, 16.7 acres and 20 acres, plus a 34 acre swimming lagoon are not reasonable and beneficial use. I know it is not up to CVWD to approve a project, but rather say if there is enough water. Given the reality of the drought and climate change, I think it is important to give guidance to the cities that are bringing this forward. The two largest surf parks are private. That only gives “benefit” to wealthy people and not to the Coachella Community at large. You talk about your leadership in conserving water. Your estimates for these four water features for water use for the year is 431.5 acre feet. We have done calculations using the EPA evaporation estimates which take into consideration wind, humidity, surface temperature, and heat and we have determined that the yearly water use would be 6 times as much or 2,589 acre-feet per year. I request that CVWD recalculate yearly water usage for Thermal Surf Park, Grand Oasis Crystal Lagoon, Coral Mountain Surf Resort and DSRT SRF and use these recalculated figures into the “Other” water use component.

Second, I would like to address your percentage of 45% used to calculate water supply from SWP Exchange. The last two years you have only received 5% of your allocation. It is invalid to use the 14 year average, 45% figure, given the current state of the Colorado River. The charts should be recalculated using the 5% number.

Third, I would like to address the Colorado River entitlement. It should be lowered starting in 2022 at least at the level of the first allocation decrease when we hit the California trigger number. All indications are that will happen next year. So these charts which show continuing increase or leveling of Colorado River allocations must be adjusted to show a decrease in the Colorado River allocations.

Fourth, many of the assumptions in this document are based on future water projects coming on line. For example, the amount of recycled water available is less than the first cut to our Colorado River allocations. You must accelerate grant requests and get appropriate timings of these new supplies so you can accurately project how future projects will help supply. With the Governor’s 15% cuts, that will further impact revenue generation which may cause more of these projects to not come on-line.

Fifth, the future modeling scenarios should not be based on past drought and resupply conditions over the past 25 years. What has been happening these past two years must be the basis for the future modeling of our conditions, not relying on past numbers.

Sixth, climate change impacts are minimized. When you discuss up to 40,000 AFY impact, that is an underestimation based on the hotter summers and hotter years we are experiencing. This amount cannot even be covered by recycled water. With this increasing heat, higher evapotranspiration rates, etc., projections must show this higher impact starting in 2022; golf course usage can be curtailed. Surf park and swimming lagoon usage cannot be curtailed or these features must close. We and the country rely on agriculture. With growing heat, agriculture must be protected as our nation’s food supplier.

Seven, subbasin storage has only recovered up to 45% of its decline. This was due mostly to Colorado River allocations. You cannot rely on future Colorado River allocations even though CVWD has senior rights to the water. We will start seeing very quickly outflow greater than inflow as this drought persists. The modeling in this document must be revised to reflect the true water situation in our valley.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

2 Respectfully,

Alena Callimanis
La Quinta Residents for Responsible Development
Bachelor in Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Masters Physics, State University of NY StonyBrook
81469 Rustic Canyon Dr
La Quinta, CA 92253
919 606-6164
[email protected]

United States Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
Southern California Agency
1451 Research Park Drive, Suite 100
Riverside, California 92507

[email protected]

Attn: Project Manager:

The Bureau of Indian Affairs, Southern California Agency (Agency) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Indio Subbasin Alternative Plan for the tribes under the agencies jurisdiction, and additionally in the interest of self-governance tribes and tribes under the Palm Springs Agency. The Agency recognizes tribal sovereignty and holds all government entities to the same standard as identified within Section 8 of the United States Constitution. Comments made by the Bureau of Indian Affairs reflect the Bureau’s fiduciary duty as a trustee for tribal lands held by the Federal Government, and attempt to ensure recognition of the tribal sovereign status and additionally ensure maximum protection of trust assets. The following comments should be evaluated from the above context:

A) Comments on Alternative Plan:

1) Tribal entities are referred to as stakeholders, rather than sovereign nations with Federally Reserved Water Rights. These rights should be explicitly identified.

2) The Bureau of Indian Affairs is concerned that the Basin Salt Nutrient Management Plan has not been released for public comments, and an Agency and Regional request to receive copy has not been acknowledged. As the first year of the SNMP is currently being monitored, will the plan be provided for input prior to it’s initial first year report?

3) On figures, differentiate between model projections and calculated, current, and measured values. Lack of data segregation results in inaccuracies and is subject to interpretative bias.

B) Goals of 2002 water management plan were not included within the current Alternative Plan, however are still relevant. The 2002 Water Management Plan explicitly identified 2015 as a marker for salt loading in terms of aquifer degradation.

In order to evaluate the potential for water quality degradation, the projected salt balance in 2015 and 2035 is compared to current conditions. The current net salt addition in the Coachella Valley is 265,000 tons per year. By 2035, Alternative 1 would result in the highest rate of salt addition to the Coachella Valley of 504,000 tons per year—a dramatic increase compared to 1999 conditions. The net salt addition in 2035 would decrease compared to current conditions under Alternative 2 (68,000 tons per year) and Alternative 4 (155,000 tons per year) with Alternative 2 best minimizing the water quality degradation. Table 6-6 showed a net decrease by 2035.

What is current salt loading and how does the salt loading from 2015 compare to model projections?

C) Comments on Errata:

Cumulative Baseline measurements should be determined from date of minimum storage, 2009 according to the report, to indicate potential crossing of minimal levels.

If there are any questions, please contact Patrick Taber, Agency Hydrologist, at (951) 276-6624 ext. 256.

Sincerely,

Javin Moore
Superintendent

APPENDIX 1-F

PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AND SUPPORT LETTERS

This page intentionally left blank.

INDIAN , WELLS
CALI TOR NJi A
December 1,2021
Coachella Valley Water District
P.O. Box 1058
Coachella, CA92236
Subject: Commentsfor Indio Subbasin & Mission Creek Subbasin SGMA Alternative Plans Dear Coachella Valley Water District Board of Directors:

The City of Indian Wells is grateful for the opportunity to provide comments on the Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Updates for the Indio Subbasin and Mission Creek Subbasin Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Alternative Plans. SGMA passed the legislature in20l4 to halt overdraft and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge.

The stakeholder process was one of engagement and the City of Indian Wells appreciated the invitation to provide comment and feedback throughout this multi-year process.

The Alternative Plan Update will build on the work that has already been accomplished to sustainably manage the Indio Subbasin.

We are supportive of the process and data collected coming to the sound conclusion that the basins are being effectively managed. Groundwater management programs have replenished 4 million acre-feet of imported water into the Coachella Valley Basin. Over the past I0 years, groundwater levels have increased or stabilized over most of the Indio Subbasin - a sign that the plan is working.

In closing, Indian Wells commends Coachella Valley Water District and its partners in their sustainable water management over the years to ensure that our residents and community members have an adequate supply of water for current and future generations.

Best Regards,
Development Director
44-950 Eldorado Drive - lndian Wells, California 92210-7497 - V (760) 346-2489 F (760) 346-0407

This page intentionally left blank.

68700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero | Cathedral City | California | 92234 www.cathedralcity.gov December 6, 2021
Coachella Valley Water District
P.O. Box 1058
Coachella, CA 92236
Subject: Comments for Indio Subbasin & Mission Creek Subbasin SGMA Alternative Plans Dear Coachella Valley Water District Board of Directors:

The City of Cathedral City is grateful for the opportunity to provide comments on the Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Updates for the Indio Subbasin and Mission Creek Subbasin Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Alternative Plans. SGMA passed the legislature in 2014 to halt overdraft and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge.

The stakeholder process was one of engagement and Cathedral City appreciated the invitation to provide comment and feedback throughout this multi-year process.

The Alternative Plan Update will build on the work that has already been accomplished to sustainably manage the Indio Subbasin.

We are supportive of the process and data collected coming to the sound conclusion that the basins are being effectively managed. Groundwater management programs have replenished 4 million acre-feet of imported water into the Coachella Valley Basin. Over the past 10 years, groundwater levels have increased or stabilized over most of the Indio Subbasin - a sign that the plan is working.

The Indio Subbasin is under the cities of Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, La Quinta, Indio and Coachella, and the unincorporated communities of Thousand Palms, Thermal, Bermuda Dunes, Oasis and Mecca. The Mission Creek Subbasin is under Desert Hot Springs and the unincorporated area of Indio Hills. Cathedral City looks to support the GSAs in meeting current and future water demands in a cost effective and sustainable manner.

In closing, the City of Cathedral City commends Coachella Valley Water District and its partners in their sustainable water management over the years to ensure that our residents and community members have an adequate supply of water for current and future generations.

Cordially,
John A. Corella, P.E.

Director of Engineering/Public Works

This page intentionally left blank.

APPENDIX 1-G

ADOPTION RESOLUTIONS

This page intentionally left blank.

RESOLUTION NO. WA-2021-10

COACHELLA WATER AUTHORITY GROUNDWATER
SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY ADOPTION OF THE 2022 INDIO
SUBBASIN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE: SGMA

ALTERNATIVE PLAN

WHEREAS, the California Legislature enacted a statewide framework for sustainable groundwater management, known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (California Water Code section 10720 et seq.), pursuant to Senate Bill 1168, Senate Bill 1319, and Assembly Bill 1739, which was approved by the Governor and Chaptered by the Secretary of St ate on September 16, 2014; and

WHEREAS, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) went into effect on January 1, 2015; and

WHEREAS, SGMA requires all medium- and high-priority groundwater basins, as designated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 118, to be managed by a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) or multiple GSAs; and

WHEREAS, the Indio Subbasin of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin has been designated by DWR as a medium-priority basin (DWR Bulletin 118 No. 7-021.01); and

WHEREAS, Coachella Water Authority elected on March 9, 2016 to become a GSA for the Indio Subbasin of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin; and

WHEREAS, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated October 5, 2016 was entered into among the Partners to this MOU, namely, 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 SGMA (Water Code, Part 2.74, Section 10720 et s eq.) in the Indio Subbasin; and

WHEREAS, each of the Partners has become a GSA for its service area overlying the Indio Subbasin; and

WHEREAS, on December 29, 2016, the Partners collaboratively submitted an Alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Alternative Plan) for the Indio Subbasin to DWR in accordance with Water Code section 10733.6; and

WHEREAS, on July 17, 2019, DWR determined that the Alternative Plan for the Indio Subbasin satisfies the objectives of SGMA and notified the Indio Subbasin GSAs that the Alternative Plan was approved, and that they would be required to submit an assessment and update of the Alternative Plan by January 1, 2022, and every five years thereafter; and

Resolution No. WA-2021-10

Page 2 ends

Rancho Mirage City CouncilSeptember 1, 2022

Rancho Mirage City Council
September 1, 2022