The team explored a hybrid approach to improve upon the discrepancy between flows produced using CalSim II and perturbation factors, while accounting for some change in reservoir operations. In this approach, change factors are generated from the difference between the simulated future climate change CalSim II scenario for 2070 climate conditions and a “without climate change” CalSim II run. This “without climate change” run is the CalSim II 1995 Historical Detrended simulation run. The generated change factors from these two runs were then used to perturb the regulated river inflows simulated in the ESJWRM projected conditions scenario. For the purposes of simplicity, this method is referred to throughout the rest of the document as CalSim II Generated Perturbation Factors (CGPF). The CGPF method presents limitations given that the resulting flows are not directly obtained from an operations model.
The actual mass balance on the reservoirs is not tracked in the estimates of the flows and, instead, the method relies on CalSim II tracking storage and managing the reservoir based on the appropriate rule curves.
Figure 2-92 through Figure 2-97 provide a comparison of project baseline condition and the results of the CGPF method described above. Exceedance curves are included for each of the CGPF flows against the project baseline flows.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-157
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
Figure 2-92: Calaveras River Perturbed Hydrograph
Figure 2-93: Calaveras River Exceedance Curve
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-158
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
Figure 2-94: Stanislaus River Hydrograph
Figure 2-95: Stanislaus River Exceedance Curve
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-159
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
Figure 2-96: San Joaquin River Hydrograph
Figure 2-97: San Joaquin River Exceedance Curve
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-160
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
2.3.7.3.2 Precipitation and Evapotranspiration under Climate Change Projected precipitation and evapotranspiration (ETo) change factors were calculated using a climate period analysis based on historical precipitation and ETo from January 1915 to December 2011 (CA DWR, 2018b). DWR used a macroscale hydrologic model that solves the water balance of a watershed, called the VIC Model. Change factors provided by DWR were calculated as a ratio of the value of a variable under a “future scenario” divided by a baseline.
That baseline data is the 1995 Historical Temperature Detrended scenario downscaled from GCM climate data. The “future scenario” corresponds to VIC outputs of the simulation of future conditions using GCM forecasted hydroclimatic variables as inputs. These change factors are thus a simple perturbation factor that corresponds to the ratio of a future with climate change divided by the past without it. Change factors are available on a monthly time step and are spatially defined by the VIC model grid. Supplemental tables with the time series of perturbation factors are available from DWR for each grid cell. DWR has made accessible a Desktop GIS tool for both IWFM and MODFLOW to process these change factors (CA DWR, 2018c).
2.3.7.3.2.1 Applying Change Factors to Precipitation
DWR change factors were multiplied by historical precipitation to generate projected precipitation under the 2070 central tendency future scenario using the Desktop IWFM GIS tool (CA DWR, 2018c). The tool calculates an area weighted precipitation change factor for each model grid geometry. This model grid geometry was based on polygons generated around the PRISM nodes within the model region used to specify rainfall depths.
However, the DWR tool only includes change factors through 2011. The remaining 6 years of the time series were synthesized according to historically comparable water years. The perturbation factor from the corresponding month of the comparable year was applied to the baseline of the missing years (2012-2018) to generate projected values.
Months with no precipitation in the baseline were assumed to have a monthly precipitation of 1 mm under climate change to account for increased precipitation that cannot be calculated from a baseline of 0 mm for these synthesized years. The comparable years that were used can be found in Table 2-24. These comparable years were determined by comparing total San Joaquin Valley runoff, DWR year type index, and total annual Subbasin precipitation.
Table 2-24: Comparable Water Years (Precipitation)
The resulting perturbed precipitation values and the baseline precipitation values for the representative historical period can be found in Figure 2-98. The exceedance plot for these two times series can be found in Figure 2-99.
Water Year Not
Available in DWR
Tool
Comparable Water Year
2012 2001
2013 1991
2014 1987
2015 1977
2016 2002
2017 1983
2018 1983
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-161
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
Figure 2-98: Perturbed Precipitation Under Climate Change Figure 2-99: Perturbed Precipitation Exceedance Curve
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-162
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
2.3.7.3.2.2 Applying Change Factors to Evapotranspiration Potential ETo in the Subbasin varies geographically and by land use. The tool provided by DWR to process ETo was not used because of the minimal spatial variation in ETo in the Subbasin. DWR provides change factors for ETo that vary spatially based on the VIC model grid as described above. Change factors for November 1, 1964 through December 1, 2011 were averaged. For the purposes of this analysis, a localized averaged change factor of 1.082 or
1.084 was used depending on the crop type.
This average ETo change factor was then applied to the historical ETo time series for each crop type. Because there is currently no interannual variability in ETo in ESJWRM, the same perturbed time series was applied across all simulation years. Refinement to the simulated evapotranspiration of almonds, walnuts, and cherries under 2070 climate conditions is shown in Figure 2-100 through Figure 2-103.
Figure 2-100: Monthly Evapotranspiration Variability for Almonds EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-163
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
Figure 2-101: Monthly Evapotranspiration Variability for Walnuts Figure 2-102: Monthly Evapotranspiration Variability for Cherries EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-164
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
Figure 2-103: Monthly Evapotranspiration Variability for Vineyards
2.3.7.4 Eastern San Joaquin Water Budget Under Climate Change A climate change scenario was developed for the ESJWRM to evaluate the hydrological impacts under these climate change conditions. The analysis was based on the projected conditions scenario with climate change perturbed inputs for streamflow, precipitation, and ETo. Under the climate change scenario, the average annual precipitation is 11 percent higher than the projected conditions scenario, increasing from 984,000 AF/year to 1,090,000 AF/year.
Similarly, the average annual volume of evapotranspiration is 6 percent higher than the projected conditions scenario, increasing to 1,476,000 AF/year from 1,394,000 AF/year. Despite there being higher flows in streams, the monthly timing of the flows meant that surface water diversions were not expected to change due to both availability of water in the stream and water rights agreements limiting diversion months. With a similar surface water supply and increased water demands under the climate change scenario, private groundwater production is simulated to increase approximately 11 percent, from 801,000 AF/year to 887,000 AF/year. Under climate change conditions, the depletion in aquifer storage is expected to increase by about 68 percent to an average annual storage change of 57,000 AF/year, from 34,000 AF/year in the projected conditions scenario. A graphical representation of simulated changes to precipitation, evapotranspiration, and groundwater pumping are presented in Figure 2-104 though Figure 2-106, and complete water budgets for the climate change scenario are shown in Figure 2-107 and Figure 2-108.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-165
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
Figure 2-104: Simulated Changes in Precipitation due to Climate Change Note: Negative indicates projected conditions scenario value was larger and positive indicates climate change scenario was larger. The climate change scenario largely has more precipitation than the projected conditions scenario.
Figure 2-105: Simulated Changes in Evapotranspiration due to Climate Change Note: Climate change scenario evapotranspiration is always larger than the projected conditions scenario for all simulated years.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-166
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
Figure 2-106: Simulated Changes in Groundwater Pumping due to Climate Change
Note: Climate change scenario groundwater pumping is always larger than the projected conditions scenario for all simulated years.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-167
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
Figure 2-107: Land and Water Use Budget – Climate Change Scenario Note: Figure shows simplified annual climate change scenario land and water use budget results for the 50 years of the simulation. Water supplies are positive and are balanced by negative water demands and any water supply in excess of the demand.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-168
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
Figure 2-108: Groundwater Budget – Climate Change Scenario Notes:
1. Figure shows annual climate change scenario groundwater budget results for the 50 years of the simulation
2. “Other Recharge” includes managed aquifer recharge, recharge from unlined canals and/or reservoirs, and recharge from ungauged watersheds.
3. “Storage Depletion” is placed to balance the water budget. For instance, if annual outflows (-) are greater than inflows (+), there is a decrease in storage, but this would be shown on the positive side of the bar chart to balance out the increased outflows on the negative side of the bar chart.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-169
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
2.3.7.5 Opportunities for Future Refinement
The approach developed for this GSP is based on the methodology in DWR’s guidance document (CA DWR, 2018b) and uses “best available information” related to climate change in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. There are limitations and uncertainties associated with the analysis. One important limitation is that CalSim II does not fully simulate local surface water operations. Thus, the analysis conducted for this GSP may not fully reflect how surface and groundwater basin operations would respond to the changes in water demand and availability caused by climate change. Mokelumne River flows are simulated under climate change as unimpaired in this analysis despite the influence of operations from Pardee and Camanche Reservoirs. This presents an opportunity in future efforts to improve the analysis to better project streamflow. However, for this GSP, use of a local model and the perturbation factor approach were deemed appropriate given the uncertainties in the climate change analysis.Projects and Management Actions Analysis
The ESJGWA received a Consultation Initiation Letter (Letter) from DWR on November 18, 2021 that identified two potential deficiencies with the GSP which may preclude DWR’s approval, as well as potential corrective actions to address each potential deficiency. Potential Deficiency 1 related to the GSP’s requirement of two consecutive non-dry (i.e., below normal, above normal, or wet) water year types and the exclusion of dry and critically dry water-year types in the identification of undesirable results. (Please see Chapter 3, Sustainable Management Criteria, for revisions that address this deficiency). Potential Deficiency 1 also requests additional detail on how projects and management actions, in conjunction with the proposed chronic lowering of groundwater levels sustainable management criteria, will offset drought related groundwater reductions and avoid significant and unreasonable impacts. Specifically, Potential Correction Action 1(b) stated that the GSP "fails to identify specific extraction and groundwater recharge management actions the GSAs would implement or otherwise describe how the Subbasin would be managed to offset...dry year reductions of groundwater storage”. As a Potential Corrective Action, the following is suggested: “The GSP should be revised to include specific projects and management actions the GSAs would implement to offset drought year groundwater level declines.” To address this corrective action, the PCBL and PCBL-CC were revised to include some of the projects and management actions (PMAs) included in Chapter 6, Projects and Management Actions, of this GSP.
As part of the process to respond to the identified deficiency, the ESJGWA worked with each GSA individually to update GSP project descriptions with new information that has become available in the past two years since the GSP was first adopted in 2020. These revised projects were then divided into two categories: Category A projects (projects that are likely to advance in the next five years and have existing water rights or agreements) and Category B projects (projects that are not anticipated to advance in the next five years, but could be leveraged in the future, particularly if Category A projects do not fully achieve stated recharge and/or offset targets or do not produce a response as simulated in the model). Category B projects may be elevated to a Category A project should feasibility studies demonstrate a viable project, if water rights or contracts are firmly identified, if partnerships are formed, and if economic evaluation demonstrate that the projects are cost effective.
The analysis conducted to address the Potential Corrective Action 1(b) focused on the simulation of implementing Category A projects, which includes in lieu and direct recharge projects. In total, 11 Category A projects were identified and simulated in the PCBL and PCBL-CC models (with simulations named PCBL-PMA and PCBL-CC-PMA, respectively). Six of the Category A projects are in-lieu recharge projects, three are direct recharge projects, and two are a combination of in-lieu recharge and direct recharge. Overall, the total additional surface water provided by Category A projects (either by in lieu or direct recharge) varies by water year type and ranges from 36,300 to 96,700 acre-feet per year (AFY) and is a mixture of deliveries to agricultural customers (including assumptions on evaporation and delivery losses), deliveries to urban customers, and direct recharge projects. A summary of the total additional water supply (excluding assumed losses) anticipated from Category A projects is below; detailed assumptions for the 11 Category A projects are summarized in Chapter 6, Projects and Management Actions, of this revised GSP and are documented in Appendix 2-B of this revised GSP.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-170
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
• Additional surface water delivered to the Subbasin for agricultural uses: average of 39,700 AFY (range of 9,500-56,300 AFY)
• Additional surface water delivered to the Subbasin for urban uses: 5,000 AFY or 20,000 AFY in only dry and drought years, respectively
• Additional groundwater stored via direct groundwater recharge: average of 21,200 AFY (range of 6,500- 32,000 AFY)
2.3.7.6 Projected Water Budget with PMAs Estimates
The results of the Subbasin ESJWRM Projected Condition BaseLine with Category A Projects and Management Actions (PCBL-PMA) are summarized below. Detailed results for the PCBL-PMA are included in Appendix 2-B of this revised GSP. As with the PCBL, the projected conditions with projects and management actions scenario of the ESJWRM assumes a 2040 level of development and hydrology from water years 1969-2020. A summary of the 11 Category A PMAs simulated as additional diversions in the PCBL-PMA model is provided in Table 2-25, along with fractions for recoverable loss (i.e., percolation or canal seepage), non-recoverable loss (i.e., evaporation), and delivery (i.e., amount delivered is equal to the total amount minus the recoverable and non-recoverable losses). The remaining 66 PCBL diversions are summarized in a separate document (Woodard & Curran, 2022).
2.3.7.6.1 Land and Water Use Water Budget
The land and water use budget for the PCBL-PMA includes two different versions, agricultural and urban, and represents the balance of the model-calculated water demands with the water supplied. Both the agricultural and urban versions include the same components that make up the water balance:
• Inflows:
o Groundwater pumping
o Surface water deliveries
o Shortage (if applicable)
• Outflows:
o Demand (either agricultural or urban)
o Surplus (if applicable)
The average annual PCBL-PMA water demand for the Subbasin within the 52-year simulation period is 1,256,100 acrefeet per year (AFY), consisting of approximately 1,098,000 AFY of agricultural demand and 158,100 AFY of urban demand. This demand is met by an annual average of 571,100 AFY of surface water deliveries (490,400 AFY of agricultural and 80,700 AFY of urban deliveries) and is supplemented by 704,400 AFY of groundwater production (627,200 AFY of agricultural and 77,200 AFY of urban pumping). Due to uncertainties in the estimation of projected agricultural demand and historical supply records, there is 19,600 AFY of surplus in the Subbasin-scale agricultural water supply, which is insignificant relative to the total volume of water use. Shortage and surplus represent a misalignment between the reported, estimated, or assumed water supply (groundwater pumping and surface water deliveries) and the calculated demands. In the projected conditions, there are uncertainties in the assumptions and parameters used for both monthly supply and demand estimates and/or calculations, resulting in misalignments, which is reported as shortage or surplus. These annual averages are shown in Table 2-26. The annual land and water use budgets across the ESJ Subbasin are shown in Figure Figure 2-109 for the Subbasin as a whole, showing the agricultural and urban, respectively, demands plotted with water supplies.
Table 2-26 also includes the PCBL results and a Category A projects benefit calculated as the PCBL-PMA results minus the PCBL results. The PCBL-PMA has an average of 37,600 AFY more surface water for agricultural purposes and 5,100 AFY more surface water for urban areas compared to the PCBL. For urban areas, this represents a EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-171
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
comparable reduction in groundwater pumping of 5,000 AFY. For agricultural areas, the increased surface water results in 33,400 AFY less groundwater pumping, a number smaller than the amount of surface water provided due to a mismatch between the Category A water supplied and model-calculated agricultural demand on a monthly basis.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-172
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
Table 2-25: Summary of ESJWRM Category A Projects Surface Water Deliveries ID Description Diversion
Location Delivery Area Primary Use
Fraction Average Annual
Diversion*** (acre-feet) RL* NL** Delivery
67 Stockton East WD Lake
Grupe In-Lieu Recharge
Calaveras
River
Approximately 1,750 acres
of orchards surrounding
Lake Grupe in SEWD
Ag 0% 0% 100% 4,300
68 Stockton East WD Surface
Water Implementation
Expansion
Import
(outside of
ESJWRM)
Approximately 6,750 acres
adjacent to surface water
conveyance systems in
SEWD
Ag 0% 0% 100% 13,400
69 Stockton East WD West
Groundwater Recharge
Basin
Import
(outside of
ESJWRM)
Recharge basin near
SEWD water treatment
plant
Recharge 100% 0% 0% 10,200
70 Central San Joaquin WCD
Capital improvement
Program
Import
(outside of
ESJWRM)
CSJWCD Ag 15% 2% 83% 20,300
71 Long-term Water Transfer to
Stockton East WD for M&I
Import
(outside of
ESJWRM)
City of Stockton area
urban users Urban 0% 0% 100% 11,500
72 City of Lodi White Slough
Water Pollution Control
Facility Expansion
Import
(outside of
ESJWRM)
890 acres of agricultural
land surrounding White
Slough Pollution Control
Facility
Ag 4% 2% 100% 3,700
73 North San Joaquin WCD
South System
Modernization
Mokelumne
River NSJWCD South System Ag 50% 0% 50% 5,500
74 North San Joaquin WCD
Tecklenburg Recharge
Project
Mokelumne
River
Recharge basin located in
NSJWCD South System Recharge 100% 0% 0% 4,100
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-173
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
ID Description Diversion
Location Delivery Area Primary Use
Fraction Average Annual
Diversion*** (acre-feet) RL* NL** Delivery
75 North San Joaquin WCD
South System Groundwater
Banking with EBMUD
Mokelumne
River NSJWCD South System Ag 50% 0% 50% 5,600
76 North San Joaquin WCD
North System
Modernization/Lasko
Recharge
Mokelumne
River NSJWCD North System Ag 50% 0% 50% 2,600
77 City of Stockton Delta Water
Treatment Plant
Groundwater Recharge
Improvements Project
Geotechnical Investigation
Import
(outside of
ESJWRM)
Recharge basin adjacent
to Delta Water Treatment
Plant
Recharge 100% 0% 0% 5,000
*RL = Recoverable Loss (canal seepage or recharge)
**NL = Non-Recoverable Loss (evaporation)
*** Averages calculated only for years with diversions occurring (i.e., non-zero average) EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-174
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
Table 2-26: Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Land and Water Use Budget Annual Average Comparison Between the PCBL (Version 2.0) and the PCBL-PMA Land and Water Use Budget Component
Annual Average
PCBL
(Version 2.0) PCBL-PMA PMA Benefit (PCBLPMA minus PCBL) Agricultural Area (thousand acres) 359 359 0
Agricultural Demand (AFY) 1,099,900 1,098,000 -1,900
Agricultural Groundwater Pumping (AFY) 660,600 627,200 -33,400 Agricultural Surface Water Deliveries (AFY) 452,800 490,400 37,600 Agricultural Shortage (AFY)1 -13,500 -19,600 -6,100
Urban Area (thousand acres) 153 153 0
Urban Demand (AFY) 158,100 158,100 0
Urban Groundwater Pumping (AFY) 82,200 77,200 -5,000
Urban Surface Water Deliveries (AFY) 75,600 80,700 5,100 Urban Shortage (AFY)1 300 200 -100
1 Shortage and surplus represent a misalignment between the reported, estimated or assumed water supply (groundwater pumping and surface water deliveries) and the calculated demands. In the historical model, this can occur when there are inaccuracies in the reported water supplies or uncertainties in the methodology and/or parameters used to calculate the demand. In the projected conditions, there are uncertainties in the assumptions and parameters used for both monthly supply and demand estimates and/or calculations, resulting in misalignments, which is reported as shortage or surplus.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-175
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
Figure 2-109: Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Projected Agricultural Demand in the PCBL-PMA Figure 2-110: Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Projected Urban Demand in the PCBL-PMA EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-176
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
2.3.7.6.2 Hydrologic Groundwater Budget
The primary components of the groundwater budget are the same as represented in the historical model.
Corresponding to the major hydrologic processes affecting groundwater flow in the Subbasin, these are:
• Inflows:
o Deep percolation (from rainfall and irrigation applied water) o Gain from stream (or recharge due to stream seepage)
o Boundary inflow (from surrounding groundwater subbasins and the Sierra Nevada Mountains) o Other Recharge (from other sources such as irrigation canal seepage, managed aquifer recharge projects, and reservoir seepage)
• Outflows:
o Groundwater pumping
o Loss to stream (or outflow to streams and rivers)
o Boundary outflow (to surrounding groundwater subbasins) o Change in groundwater storage (can be either an inflow or outflow) Pumping in the PCBL-PMA remains the largest component in the groundwater budget with an annual average 712,900 AFY. The PCBL-PMA offsets this pumping with 290,100 AFY of deep percolation, a net gain from stream of 151,800 AFY, 186,200 AFY of other recharge, and a total subsurface inflow of 90,100 AFY. The cumulative change in groundwater storage can be calculated from the annual change in groundwater storage. Due to inherent uncertainties in model input data, calculations, and calibration, all budget components have a degree of uncertainty. Given this uncertainty, the projected long-term average annual the groundwater storage deficit in ESJ Subbasin in the PCBLPMA is -5,300 AFY, with the negative sign actually indicating an absence of groundwater overdraft and an increase in storage over the 52 years of the PCBL-PMA. These annual averages are shown in Table 2-27 The groundwater budgets, with average cumulative change in storage, are shown for the ESJ Subbasin in Figure 2-111.
Table 2-27 also includes the PCBL results and a Category A projects benefit calculated as the PCBL-PMA results minus the PCBL results. The results indicate that the Category A projects will resolve the PCBL Subbasin overdraft condition when impacts due to climate change are not included. Without projects, the modeling shows an average overdraft of 16,300 AFY over the 52 years of the PCBL simulation. With Category A projects in place, the modelling shows a projected overdraft of -5,300 AFY on average in the PCBL-PMA. The PCBL-PMA shows an average increase of 21,600 AFY of groundwater in storage when compared to the PCBL. Compared to the PCBL, with Category A projects modeled, the PCBL-PMA has 38,400 AFY less groundwater pumping due to the new in-lieu recharge projects, 24,500 AFY more recharge (both direct recharge projects and canal seepage losses for the in-lieu recharge projects), and 28,900 AFY less stream seepage into the groundwater system due to higher groundwater levels. Other hydrologic groundwater budget component differences are small between the PCBL and PCBL-PMA simulations.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-177
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
Table 2-27: Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Hydrologic Groundwater Budget Annual Average Comparison Between the PCBL (Version 2.0) and the PCBL-PMA Hydrologic Groundwater Budget
Component
Annual Average
PCBL
(Version 2.0) PCBL-PMA PMA Benefit (PCBLPMA minus PCBL) Deep Percolation (AF) 282,100 290,100 8,000
Other Recharge (AF) 161,700 186,200 24,500
Net Stream Seepage (AF) 180,700 151,800 -28,900
Net Boundary Inflow (AF) 110,400 90,100 -20,300
Groundwater Pumping (AF) 751,300 712,900 -38,400
Change in Groundwater Storage (AF) 16,300 -5,300 -21,600 Figure 2-111: Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Projected Hydrologic Groundwater Budget in the
PCBL-PMA
2.3.7.7 Projected Water Budget with Climate Change and PMAs Estimates The results of the Subbasin ESJWRM Projected Condition BaseLine with Climate Change and Category A Projects and Management Actions (PCBL-CC-PMA) are summarized below. Detailed results for the PCBL-CC- PMA are included in Appendix 2-B of this revised GSP. As with the PCBL-CC, the projected conditions with climate change and projects and management actions scenario of the ESJWRM assumes a 2040 level of development and hydrology from water years 1969-2020 with the 2070 Central Tendency climate change dataset. A summary of the 11 Category A PMAs simulated as additional diversions in the PCBL-CC- PMA model is provided in Table 2-25, along with fractions EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-178
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
for recoverable loss (i.e., percolation or canal seepage), non-recoverable loss (i.e., evaporation), and delivery (i.e., amount delivered is equal to the total amount minus the recoverable and non-recoverable losses). The remaining 66 PCBL diversions are summarized in a separate document (Woodard & Curran, 2022).
2.3.7.7.1 Land and Water Use Water Budget
The land and water use budget includes two different versions, agricultural and urban, and represents the balance of the model-calculated water demands with the water supplied. Both the agricultural and urban versions include the same components that make up the water balance:
• Inflows:
o Groundwater pumping
o Surface water deliveries
o Shortage (if applicable)
• Outflows:
o Demand (either agricultural or urban)
o Surplus (if applicable)
The average annual PCBL-CC-PMA water demand for the Subbasin within the 52-year simulation period is 1,337,800 AFY, consisting of approximately 1,179,700 AFY of agricultural demand and 158,100 AFY of urban demand. This demand is met by an annual average of 570,700 AFY of surface water deliveries (490,200 AFY of agricultural and 80,500 AFY of urban deliveries) and is supplemented by 785,600 AFY of groundwater production (708,400 AFY of agricultural and 77,200 AFY of urban pumping). Due to uncertainties in the estimation of projected agricultural demand and historical supply records, there is about 19,000 AFY of surplus in the Subbasin scale agricultural water use budget, which is insignificant relative to the total volume of water use. Shortage and surplus represent a misalignment between the reported, estimated, or assumed water supply (groundwater pumping and surface water deliveries) and the calculated demands. In the projected conditions, there are uncertainties in the assumptions and parameters used for both monthly supply and demand estimates and/or calculations, resulting in misalignments, which is reported as shortage or surplus. These annual averages are shown in Table 2-28. The annual land and water use budgets across the ESJ Subbasin are shown in Figure 2-112 and Figure 2-113 for the Subbasin as a whole, showing the agricultural and urban, respectively, demands plotted with water supplies.
Table 2-28 also includes the PCBL-CC results and a Category A projects benefit calculated as the PCBL-CC-PMA results minus the PCBL-CC results. The PCBL-CC-PMA has an average of 37,800 AFY more surface water for agricultural purposes and 5,000 AFY more surface water for urban areas compared to the PCBL-CC. For urban areas, this represents an equivalent reduction in groundwater pumping of 5,000 AFY. For agricultural areas, the increased surface water results in 34,000 AFY less groundwater pumping, a number smaller than the amount of surface water provided due to a mismatch between the Category A water supplied and model-calculated agricultural demand on a monthly basis.
Differences between the amount of surface water supplied for PCBL-PMA and PCBL-CC-PMA are due to differences in the amount of surface water available in streams impacted by climate change. These differences are small (less than 200 AFY) between results in Table 2-26 and Table 2-28.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-179
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
Table 2-28: Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Land and Water Use Budget Annual Average Comparison Between the PCBL-CC and the PCBL-CC-PMA
Land and Water Use Budget Component
Annual Average
PCBL-CC PCBL-CC-PMA
PMA Benefit
(PCBL-CC-PMA
minus PCBL-CC)
Agricultural Area (thousand acres) 359 359 0
Agricultural Demand (AF) 1,181,300 1,179,700 -1,600
Agricultural Groundwater Pumping (AF) 742,400 708,400 -34,000 Agricultural Surface Water Deliveries (AF) 452,400 490,200 37,800 Agricultural Shortage (AF)1 -13,500 -18,900 -5,500
Urban Area (thousand acres) 153 153 0
Urban Demand (AF) 158,100 158,100 0
Urban Groundwater Pumping (AF) 82,200 77,200 -5,000
Urban Surface Water Deliveries (AF) 75,500 80,500 5,000 Urban Shortage (AF)1 400 400 0
Figure 2-112: Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Projected Agricultural Demand in the PCBL-CC-PMA 1 Shortage and surplus represent a misalignment between the reported, estimated or assumed water supply (groundwater pumping and surface water deliveries) and the calculated demands. In the historical model, this can occur when there are inaccuracies in the reported water supplies or uncertainties in the methodology and/or parameters used to calculate the demand. In the projected conditions, there are uncertainties in the assumptions and parameters used for both monthly supply and demand estimates and/or calculations, resulting in misalignments, which is reported as shortage or surplus.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-180
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
Figure 2-113: Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Projected Urban Demand in the PCBL-CC-PMA
2.3.7.7.2 Hydrologic Groundwater Budget
The primary components of the groundwater budget are the same as represented in the historical model.
Corresponding to the major hydrologic processes affecting groundwater flow in the Subbasin, these are:
• Inflows:
o Deep percolation (from rainfall and irrigation applied water) o Gain from stream (or recharge due to stream seepage)
o Boundary inflow (from surrounding groundwater subbasins and the Sierra Nevada Mountains) o Other Recharge (from other sources such as irrigation canal seepage, managed aquifer recharge projects, and reservoir seepage)
• Outflows:
o Groundwater pumping
o Loss to stream (or outflow to streams and rivers)
o Boundary outflow (to surrounding groundwater subbasins) o Change in groundwater storage (can be either an inflow or outflow) Pumping in the PCBL-CC-PMA remains the largest component in the groundwater budget with an annual average 794,100 AFY. The PCBL-CC-PMA offsets this pumping with 293,000 AFY of deep percolation, a net gain from stream of 189,800 AFY, 189,900 AFY of other recharge, and a total subsurface inflow of 105,700 AFY annually. The cumulative change in groundwater storage can be calculated from the annual change in groundwater storage. Due to inherent uncertainties in model input data, calculations, and calibration, all budget components have a degree of uncertainty.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-181
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
Given this uncertainty, the projected long-term average annual the groundwater storage deficit in ESJ Subbasin in the PCBL-CC-PMA is 15,700 AFY, indicating that groundwater overdraft is still occurring even with the Category A projects due to the impacts climate change on the Subbasin. These annual averages are shown in Table 2-29 The groundwater budgets, with average cumulative change in storage, are shown for the ESJ Subbasin in Figure 2-114 Table 2-29 also includes the PCBL results and a Category A projects benefit calculated as the PCBL-PMA results minus the PCBL results. While the groundwater storage deficit in the PCBL is projected to be corrected through the implementation of Category A projects as seen in PCBL-PMA, the modeling shows that when climate change is factored in for the PCBL-CC-PMA, there is still additional work (e.g., projects and/or management actions) that may need to be done to maintain subbasin sustainability. The PCBL-CC has a projected overdraft of 38,100 AFY. When projects are added in, as simulated in PCBL-CC-PMA, this overdraft amount is reduced to 15,700 AFY, but still represents continuing groundwater overdraft in the Subbasin that is not sustainable.
Compared to the PCBL-CC, with Category A projects modeled, the PCBL-CC-PMA has 39,000 AFY less groundwater pumping due to the new in-lieu recharge projects, 24,600 AFY more recharge (both direct recharge projects and canal seepage losses for the in-lieu recharge projects), and 28,300 AFY less stream seepage into the groundwater system due to higher groundwater levels. Other hydrologic groundwater budget component differences are small between the PCBL-CC and PCBL-CC-PMA simulations.
Table 2-29: Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Hydrologic Groundwater Budget Annual Average Comparison Between the PCBL-CC and the PCBL-CC-PMA
Hydrologic Groundwater Budget
Component
Annual Average
PCBL-CC PCBL-CC-PMA
PMA Benefit
(PCBL-CC-PMA
minus PCBL-CC)
Deep Percolation (AF) 285,600 293,000 7,400
Other Recharge (AF) 165,300 189,900 24,600
Net Stream Seepage (AF) 218,100 189,800 -28,300
Net Boundary Inflow (AF) 126,000 105,700 -20,300
Groundwater Pumping (AF) 833,100 794,100 -39,000
Change in Groundwater Storage (AF) 38,100 15,700 -22,400 EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-182
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
Figure 2-114: Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Projected Hydrologic Groundwater Budget in the
PCBL-CC-PMA
For a comparison of the PCBL water budget results with and without PMAs and with and without climate change, please see Appendix 2-B of this revised GSP.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-183
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
References
HCM
Bartow, J. (1992). Contact Relations of the Ione and Valley Springs Formation in the East-Central Great Valley, California. USGS.
Bartow, J. (1985). Maps showing Tertiary stratigraphy and structure of the Northern San Joaquin Valley, California.
United States Geological Survey (USGS).
Bennett, G., Belitz, K., & Milby Dawson, B. (2006). California GAMA Program - Ground-Water Quality Data in the Northern San Joaquin Basin Study Unit. USGS.
Bertoldi, G., Johnston, R., & Evenson, K. (1991). Groundwater in the Central Valley, California - A Summary Report.
USGS.
Bookman-Edmonston (2005) Integrated Reginal Groundwater Management Plan for the Modesto Subbasin.
Stanislaus and Tuolumne River Groundwater Basin Association.
Burow, K. R., Shelton, J. L., Hevesi, J. A., & Wissman, G. S. (2004). Hydrogeologic Characterization of the Modesto Area, San Joaquin Valley, California. USGS.
CA Department of Water Resources (CA DWR). (2019). Station OBB August 1994 through April 2019. California Data Exchange Center (CDEC).
CA DWR. (2006). Bulletin 118: San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin.
CA DWR. (2000). Water Facts, Numbering Water Wells in California, Issue No. 7.
CA DWR. (1967). Bulletin 146, San Joaquin County Investigation.
Chapman, R., & Bishop, C. (1975). Geophysical Investigation in the Ione Area, Amador, Sacramento, and Calaveras Counties, California. Sacramento: California Division of Mines and Geology.
Clark et al. (2012). Groundwater Data for Selected Wells within the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin, California, 2003-8. USGS. Retrieved from: https://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/696/pdf/ds696.pdf Creely, S., & Force, E. (2007). Type Region of the Ione Formation (Eocene), Central California: Stratigraphy, Paleogeography and Relation to Auriferous Gravels. USGS.
Davis, G., Green, J., Olmsted, F., & Brown, D. (1959). Ground-Water Conditions and Storage Capacity in the San Joaquin Valley California. USGS.
Davis, S., & Hall, F. (1959). Water quality of eastern Stanislaus and northern Merced Counties, California. Stanford University Publications, Geological Science 6(1).
Dunn Environmental (DE). (2012). Production Well Installation Report. Farmington Water Company Wells A and B DE. (2007). Source Sufficiency Study for the General Plan Update. City of Riverbank.
Faunt, C. (2009). Groundwater Availability of the Central Valley Aquifer, California. USGS.
Ferriz, H. (2001). Groundwater Resources of Northern California: An Overview.
Freeze, R., & Cherry, J. (1979). Groundwater.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-184
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
Hoffman, R. (1964). Geology of the northern San Joaquin Valley: Selected Papers Presented to San Joaquin Geological Society, v. 2. 30-45.
Holloway, J. M., R. A. Dahlgren, B. Hansen, & W. H. Casey. (1998). Contribution of Bedrock Nitrogen to High Nitrate Concentrations in Stream Water. Nature.
Huber, King N. (1981). Amount and Timing of Late Cenozoic Uplift and Tilt of the Central Sierra Nevada, California - Evidence from the Upper San Joaquin River Basin. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1197.
Izbicki, J., Stamus, C., Metzger, L., Halford, K., Kulp, T., & Benner, G. (2008). Source, Distribution, and Management of Arsenic in Water from Wells, East San Joaquin Ground-Water Subbasin, California. USGS.
Loyd, R. (1983). Mineral Land Classification of the Sutter Creek 15-Minute Quadrangle, El Dorado and Amador Counties, California.
Marchand, D., & Allwardt, A. (1981). Late Cenozoic Stratigraphic Units, Northeastern San Joaquin Valley. USGS.
Metzger, L., Izbicki, J., & Nawikas, J. (2012). Test Drilling and Data Collection in the Calaveras County Portion of the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin, California. USGS.
Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH). (2001). Farmington Groundwater Recharge/Seasonal Habitat Study- Final Report. United States Army Corps of Engineers. Retrieved from: http://sewd.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/1aFarmington-GW-Recharge-Feasibility-2001-Chap-1-to-5.pdf NV5. (2017). City of Manteca Internal Memo on Well 28 and 29 Completion.
Page, R. (1974). Base and thickness of the Post-Eocene continental deposits in the Sacramento Valley, California.
USGS.
Pask, J., & Turner, M. (1952). Geology and Ceramic Properties of the Ione Formation, Buena Vista area, Amador County, California. California Division of Mines and Geology.
Tonkin, M., & Larson, S. (2002). Kriging Water Levels with a Regional-Linear and Point-Logarithmic Drift.
Groundwater.
University of California, Davis. (2018). Soil Agricultural Groundwater Banking Index. Retrieved from:
https://casoilresource.law.ucdavis.edu/sagbi/
Wagner, D., Bortugno, E., & McJunkin, R. (1991). Geologic Map of the San Francisco - San Jose Quadrangle, California 1:250,000. California Division of Mines and Geology.
Wagner, D., Jennings, C., Bedrossian, T., & Bortugno, E. (1981). Geologic Map of the Sacramento Quadrangle, California 1:250,000. California Geological Survey.
Williamson, A. (1989). Ground-Water Flow in the Central Valley, California, Regional Aquifer System Analysis.
USGS.
Woodard & Curran. (2018). Eastern San Joaquin Water Resources Model (ESJWRM) Final Report.
Water Resources and Information Management Engineering, Inc. (WRIME). (2003). Camanche/Valley Springs Area Hydrogeologic Assessment.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-185
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions
CA Department of Water Resources (CA DWR). (2018). Chronological Reconstructed Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley Water Year Hydrologic Classifications Indices.
CA DWR. (1967). Bulletin 146, San Joaquin County Investigation.
Canadell, J., Jackson, R. B., Ehleringer, J. R., Mooney, H. A., Sala, O. E., Schulze, E.-D. (1996). Maximum rooting depth of vegetation types at the global scale.
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB). (2012). Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R5-2012-01016. Retrieved from:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/san_joaquin/r5-2012-0106.pdf CVRWQCB. (2016). Central Valley Region Salt and Nitrate Management Plan. Retrieved from:
https://www.cvsalinity.org/index.php/docs/central-valley-snmp/final-snmp.html CVRWQCB. (2012). Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R5-2012-01016.
EKI Environment & Water. (2015). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the City of Lathrop. Retrieved from:
https://www.ci.lathrop.ca.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/public_works/page/1681/city_of_lathrop_uwmp_20
15.pdf
Lewis, D.C., Burgy, R.H. (1964). The relationship between oak tree roots and groundwater in fractured rock as determined by tritium tracing. J. Geophys. Res. 69(12):2579-2588.
O'Leary, D. R., Izbicki, J. A., & Metzger, L. F. (2015). Sources of high-chloride water and managed aquifer recharge in an alluvial aquifer in California USA. USGS. Retrieved from: https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70155190 % Piper, A., Gale, H., Thomas, H., Robinson, T. (1939). Geology and Ground-Water Hydrology of the Mokelumne Area, California, Water-Supply Paper 780. USGS.
Schenk, H.J., Jackson, R.B. (2002). The Global Biogeography of Roots. Ecological Monographs 72(3): 311-328.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). (2019) 1,2,3, -Trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP). Retrieved from:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/123TCP.html SWRCB. (2018). Maximum Contaminant Levels and Regulatory Dates for Drinking Water U.S. EPA vs California.
The Nature Conservancy. (2019). Plant Rooting Depth Database. Retrieved from:
https://groundwaterresourcehub.org/sgma-tools/gde-rooting-depths-database-for-gdes/ TRE Altamira. (2019). InSAR land surveying and mapping services in support of the DWR SGMA program.
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2019). EPA’s PFAS Action Plan: A Summary of Key Actions.
Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019- 2/documents/pfas_action_factsheet_021319_final_508compliant.pdf Williamson, A. (1989). Ground-Water Flow in the Central Valley, California, Regional Aquifer System Analysis.
USGS.
Water Education Foundation. (2019). Aquapedia: Seawater Intrusion. Retrieved from:
https://www.watereducation.org/aquapedia
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2-186
Basin Setting November 2019; Revised June 2022
Water Budget
CA Department of Water Resources (CA DWR). (2018a). Chronological Reconstructed Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley Water Year Hydrologic Classifications Indices.
CA DWR. (2018b). Guidance for Climate Change Data Use During Groundwater Sustainability Plan Development.
CA DWR. (2018c). SGMA Data Viewer.
CA DWR. (2016). Best Management Practices for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater Water Budget.
CA DWR. (2014). Statewide Crop Mapping. Retrieved from: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer/ CA DWR. (2003). California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118 Update 2003. Retrieved from: https://water.ca.gov/- /media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Bulletin-118/Files/StatewideReports/Bulletin_118_Update_2003.pdf Dogrul, E., Kadir, T., Brush, C. (2017). Integrated Water Flow Model Theoretical Documentation (IWFM-2015), Revision 630. Retrieved from: http://baydeltaoffice.water.ca.gov/modeling/ hydrology/IWFM/IWFM-2015/v2015_0_630/downloadables/IWFM-2015.0.630_Theoretical Documentation.pdf
Northeastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Banking Authority (NSJCGBA). (2004). 2014 Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin Groundwater Management Plan.
Oregon State University (OSU). (2019). PRISM Climate Group. Retrieved from: http://prism.oregonstate.edu./ San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (SJCFCWCD). (2001). San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Water Management Plan.
Woodard & Curran. (2018). Eastern San Joaquin Water Resources Model (ESJWRM) Final Report.
Woodard & Curran. (2022). Eastern San Joaquin Water Resources Model (ESJWRM)Version 2.0 Update, Updated Draft Report.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-1
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019; Revised June 2022
3. SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT CRITERIA
Several requirements of Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) fall under the heading of “Sustainable Management Criteria”. These criteria include:
• Sustainability Goal
• Undesirable Results
• Minimum Thresholds
• Measurable Objectives
The Eastern San Joaquin GSP developed these criteria based on information about the Subbasin developed in the hydrogeologic conceptual model (Section 2.1), the descriptions of current and historical groundwater conditions (Section 2.2), the water budget (Section 2.3), and input from stakeholders during the GSP development process (Section 1.3.4). The sustainable management criteria were developed by working with the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority Board of Directors (ESJGWA Board), Advisory Committee, and Groundwater Sustainability Workgroup (Workgroup) over several months in 2018 and into 2019.
This GSP considers the six sustainability indicators defined by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in the development of sustainable management criteria. SGMA allows several pathways to meet the distinct local needs of each groundwater basin, including development of sustainable management criteria, usage of other sustainability indicators as a proxy, and identification of indicators as not being applicable to the basin. This GSP relies on groundwater levels as a proxy for minimum thresholds and measurable objectives for reduction in groundwater storage, land subsidence, and depletions of interconnected surface water.
3.1 SUSTAINABILITY GOAL
The California Water Code (Water Code) defines sustainable groundwater management as “the management and use of groundwater in a manner that can be maintained during the planning and implementation horizon without causing undesirable results” (CA Water Code §10721). The planning and implementation horizon includes a 20-year implementation period until 2040 where sustainability is achieved and a 50-year planning period where pumping is maintained within the sustainable yield. The sustainability goal reflects this requirement and succinctly states the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies’ (GSAs’) objectives and desired conditions of the Subbasin.
The sustainability goal description for the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin is to maintain an economically-viable groundwater resource for the beneficial use of the people of the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin by operating the Subbasin within its sustainable yield or by modification of existing management to address future conditions. This goal will be achieved through the implementation of a mix of supply and demand type projects consistent with the GSP implementation plan (see Chapter 6: Projects and Management Actions and Chapter 7: Plan Implementation).
Groundwater levels in the Subbasin may continue to decline during the implementation period. However, as projects are implemented and basin operations are modified, sustainable groundwater management will be achieved, and levels will stabilize on a long-term average basis. The Subbasin will be managed to prevent undesirable results throughout the implementation period, despite the possible decline of groundwater elevations. This sustainability goal is supported by locally-defined minimum thresholds that will avoid undesirable results. Demonstration of stable groundwater levels on a long-term average basis combined with the absence of undesirable results will ensure the Subbasin is operating within its sustainable yield (see Section 2.3.6) and the sustainability goal will be achieved.
An explanation of how the goal will be achieved is included in Chapter 6: Projects and Management Actions.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-2
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019; Revised June 2022 Sustainable Management Criteria Definitions
• Undesirable Results – Significant and unreasonable negative impacts associated with each sustainability indicator, avoidance of which is used to guide development of GSP components • Minimum Threshold – Quantitative threshold for each sustainability indicator used to define the point at which undesirable results may begin to occur
• Measurable Objective – Quantitative target that establishes a point above the minimum threshold that allows for a range of active management in order to prevent undesirable results • Interim Milestones – Targets set in increments of 5 years over the implementation period of the GSP to put the basin on a path to sustainability
• Margin of Operational Flexibility – The range of active management between the measurable objective and the minimum threshold
See Figure 3-1 for a graphic that demonstrates the relationship between the Sustainable Management Criteria terms.
Figure 3-1: Sustainable Management Criteria Definitions Graphic (Groundwater Levels Example) EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-3
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019; Revised June 2022
3.2 UPDATES TO SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS
The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (ESJGWA) received a Consultation Initiation Letter (Letter) on November 18, 2021 (Appendix 3-C) from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The Letter identified two potential deficiencies with the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin (Subbasin) Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) which may preclude DWR’s approval, as well as potential corrective actions to address each potential deficiency. The Letter thus initiated consultation between DWR, the Plan Manager, and the Subbasin’s GSAs regarding the amount of time needed to address the potential deficiencies and corrective actions. A subsequent meeting with DWR was held on April 4, 2022 to discuss the Subbasin’s proposed approach to addressing the identified deficiencies.
The revisions to the sustainability indicators and sustainability management criteria, as shown in this revised chapter, represent the response to the Letter based on direction provided by the ESJGWA, the Subbasin GSAs, and DWR. This revised GSP chapter, and new Appendices 2-B and 3-C through 3-F, are intended to address deficiencies in the 2020 Eastern San Joaquin GSP as identified by DWR, and fill potential gaps identified in the Letter.
In their Letter, DWR identified the following two deficiencies:
Potential Deficiency 1 – The GSP lacks sufficient justification for determining that undesirable results for chronic lowering of groundwater levels, subsidence, and depletion of interconnected surface waters can only occur in consecutive non-dry water year types. The GSP also lacks sufficient explanation for its minimum thresholds and undesirable results for chronic lowering of groundwater levels.
Potential Deficiency 2 - The GSP does not provide enough information to support the use of the chronic lowering of groundwater level sustainable management criteria and representative monitoring network as a proxy for land subsidence.
The Letter also provided Potential Corrective Actions. Six potential corrective actions were identified for Deficiency 1, and three potential corrective actions were identified for Deficiency 2. The revisions to this chapter, and to Chapters 2 and 6 of this revised GSP, reflect changes made to the Subbasin sustainability indicators and sustainable management criteria resulting from analyses and decisions made to address these deficiencies. Documentation of modifications made to Subbasin sustainability indicators and sustainable management criteria and additional explanation as to how the Subbasin sustainability indicators and sustainable management criteria were determined can be found in the appendices, with Potential Corrective Actions 1(a) through 1(c) addressed in Appendix 2-B, Potential Corrective Actions 1(d) and 1(e) addressed in Appendix 3-D, Potential Corrective Action 1(f) addressed in Appendix 3-E, and Potential Corrective Actions 2(a) through 2(c) addressed in Appendix 3-F.
3.3 REVISED SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS
3.3.1 Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels
3.3.1.1 Undesirable Results
3.3.1.1.1 Description of Undesirable Results
SGMA defines undesirable results related to chronic lowering of groundwater as:
Chronic lowering of groundwater levels indicating a significant and unreasonable depletion of supply if continued over the planning and implementation horizon. Overdraft during a period of drought is not sufficient to establish a chronic lowering of groundwater levels if extractions and groundwater recharge are managed as necessary to ensure that reductions in groundwater levels or storage during a period of drought are offset by increases in groundwater levels or storage during other periods.
An undesirable result for chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin is experienced if sustained groundwater levels are too low to satisfy beneficial uses within the Subbasin over the planning and EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-4
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019; Revised June 2022 implementation horizon of this GSP (see Section 1.3.1 for a discussion of beneficial uses and users). Potential impacts and the extent to which they are considered significant and unreasonable were determined by the ESJGWA Board with input by the Advisory Committee, Workgroup, and members of the public. During development of the GSP, potential undesirable results identified by stakeholders included a significant and unreasonable:
• Number of wells going dry
• Reduction in the pumping capacity of existing wells
• Increase in pumping costs due to greater lift
• Need for deeper well installations or lowering of pumps • Adverse impacts to environmental uses and users, including interconnected surface waters and groundwaterdependent ecosystems (GDEs)
3.3.1.1.2 Identification of Undesirable Results
An undesirable result is considered to occur during GSP implementation when at least 25 percent of representative monitoring wells used to monitor groundwater levels (5 of 20 wells in the Subbasin) fall below their minimum level thresholds for two consecutive years.
Two consecutive years of minimum threshold exceedances are used to determine if an undesirable result has occurred and to establish a pattern rather than indicate an isolated event. The lowering of groundwater levels during dry or critically-dry years is not considered to be unreasonable unless the levels do not rebound to above the thresholds following wet conditions or are otherwise mitigated through adaptive management or implementation of projects and management actions. While statistically, three data points are required to establish a trend, three years of exceedances was felt to be too extreme, whereas a single exceedance was not sufficient to establish a trend. Therefore, the two consecutive years was selected as part of this definition.
At least 25 percent of representative monitoring wells used to monitor groundwater levels falling below their minimum thresholds for two consecutive years was presented to the Eastern San Joaquin Technical Advisory Committee (ESJ TAC) during the April 10, 2019 meeting and was approved by the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (ESJGWA) Board during the May 8, 2019 meeting. The Eastern San Joaquin Water Resources Model (ESJWRM) results under the projected conditions baseline scenario were used to evaluate minimum threshold exceedances, and the model results considered in determining that a 25 percent exceedance threshold was sufficient to determine that undesirable results would occur subbasin-wide (e.g., were not a localized event).
3.3.1.1.3 Potential Causes of Undesirable Results
The Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin is currently designated as a critically overdrafted subbasin by DWR, a designation originally placed on the subbasin in 1980 (CA DWR, 1980). The Subbasin has experienced undesirable results related to chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the past, which resulted in the deepening of wells. These historical undesirable results, as well as the widespread deepening of Subbasin wells, were identified through anecdotal data provided by GSAs and through review of prior planning documents, including the 2014 Eastern San Joaquin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (ESJ IRWMP), which indicates that water levels fell to “unprecedented levels” in the fall of 1992, and that “many private groundwater users were forced to modify or deepen wells during the prolonged 1986-1992 drought period.” Due to these prior efforts to mitigate low groundwater levels, undesirable results in the Subbasin were remedied. Each ESJGWA member GSA indicated, through multiple meetings, that no current undesirable results exist in their GSA, largely citing these prior large-scale well-deepening efforts and significant undertakings to augment surface water supplies.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-5
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019; Revised June 2022 Future undesirable results could result from insufficient groundwater recharge and/or offset or delays in implementation of GSP programs or projects due to increased demand or regulatory, permitting, or funding obstacles.
3.3.1.1.4 Potential Effects of Undesirable Results
If groundwater levels were to cause undesirable results, effects could include de-watering of a subset of the existing groundwater infrastructure, starting with the shallowest wells, which are generally domestic wells, and adverse effects on GDEs, to the extent connected with the production aquifer. Lowering levels to this degree could necessitate changes in irrigation practices and crops grown and could cause adverse effects to property values and the regional economy.
Additionally, undesirable results due to declining groundwater levels could adversely affect current and projected municipal uses translating into increased costs for potable water supplies.
Potential effects of undesirable results related to GDEs is an area that has been identified as a data gap requiring further study, including through future shallow groundwater monitoring efforts discussed in Section 4.7.
3.3.1.2 Minimum Thresholds
The minimum thresholds for chronic lowering of groundwater levels are the shallower at each representative monitoring well site of the following:
• The deeper of 1992 and 2015-2016 historical groundwater levels with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range applied, or
• The 10th percentile domestic well total depth of wells within a 3-mile radius of the monitoring well. 1,2
To develop these thresholds, members of the ESJGWA Board, Advisory Committee, and Workgroup evaluated the potential for undesirable results based on past, present, and future conditions. In addition to anecdotal on-the-ground data, data from DWR and GSAs, as well as information from reports and planning documents, were used to identify how a given area falls into any one of three general conditions: 1) Areas with significant and unreasonable existing issues, 2) Areas that previously had issues, and 3) Areas that have never had issues. Each of the three conditions correspond to a different pathway to setting minimum thresholds. Areas were considered without undesirable results if no significant and unreasonable issues were identified based on input from GSAs and stakeholders and review of prior planning documents.
• Areas with significant and unreasonable existing issues: these areas are considered to have undesirable results, and minimum thresholds are set to 2015 in accordance with SGMA legislation. No areas were identified by the ESJGWA Board or other stakeholders under this condition within the Subbasin. • Areas that previously had significant and unreasonable issues: for areas with historical but not current significant and unreasonable results (as identified by GSAs, stakeholders, and prior planning documents), historical levels were considered in the development of minimum thresholds in addition to existing basin management criteria. • Areas that have never had significant and unreasonable issues: in areas that have never had issues, discussions on what the ESJGWA would consider to be significant and unreasonable drove identification of potential thresholds, and minimum thresholds were developed based on the preservation of future beneficial uses.
The ESJGWA Board and Advisory Committee reviewed previously adopted groundwater-related planning documents including the 2014 ESJ IRWMP, the 2004 Groundwater Management Plan (GMP), Agricultural Water Management 1 A radius of 2 miles was used for well 03N07E21L003 to reflect domestic well depths in close proximity to the Mokelumne River.
2 In municipalities with ordinances requiring the use of City water (water provided by the City’s municipal wells), the 10th percentile municipal well depth is used in place of the 10th percentile domestic well depth criteria.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-6
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019; Revised June 2022 Plans (AWMPs), and the Mokelumne Watershed Interregional Sustainability Evaluation (MokeWISE) Water Program.
These documents provided a starting point for setting minimum thresholds. The ESJ IRWMP indicates fall 1992 groundwater elevation levels as a historical low benchmark for the Subbasin, stating “The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin contour measured in 1992 is proposed as the basin management framework baseline.
Groundwater fell to its lowest recorded elevation in 1992 following a significant drought period and it is considered undesirable to drop below this level” (Eastern San Joaquin County GBA, 2014). This language, although not developed within the SGMA framework, has served as a starting point for developing minimum thresholds under SGMA.
Fall 1992 groundwater levels were examined and compared to levels following the recent drought (fall 2015-2016) using groundwater elevation data from officially monitored California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) wells, voluntarily monitored CASGEM wells, clustered and nested wells, and San Joaquin County database wells (see Section 2.1.1.1). This examination showed that groundwater levels in some areas of the Subbasin have recovered since 1992, with much of the central portion of the Subbasin showing an increase of greater than 10 feet.
However, groundwater levels in other portions of the Subbasin have further decreased below 1992 levels without undesirable effects, such as a significant and unreasonable number of wells going dry or impact to GDEs, being observed by GSAs and other stakeholders. In many cases, areas that experienced undesirable effects in 1992 put mitigation measures in place, often deepening wells, meaning that 1992 groundwater levels would no longer trigger undesirable effects.
The deepest conditions between fourth quarter 1992 and 2015-2016 groundwater levels were examined to develop a greater understanding of potential impacts to beneficial uses experienced under historical low groundwater levels.
These years were chosen based on the threshold language in the ESJ IRWMP and also to capture the end of the two most recent droughts. Fourth quarter 2014 data were used in the northwest corner of the Subbasin, where data are limited.
Individual GSAs confirmed understanding of the historical lows based on their experience and data, provided feedback on groundwater conditions for their GSAs, and indicated if undesirable results could occur if the minimum threshold was set deeper than the deeper of 1992 and 2015-2016 based on their understanding. GSAs then identified potential wells to be included in the representative monitoring network for the groundwater level sustainability indicator based on the adequate spatial coverage, availability of historical data, and reliability of the monitoring well. For the majority of the Subbasin, GSA representatives identified no undesirable results, even if groundwater were to reach historical low groundwater levels. As a starting point, a potential minimum threshold was considered for each representative monitoring well based on the lower of 1992 or 2015-2016 values unless otherwise indicated. A buffer was subtracted from the minimum 1992 or 2015 groundwater elevation. The buffer was calculated by finding the difference between the minimum and maximum groundwater level over the historical record for each representative monitoring well. The subtraction of the buffer provides a range in which groundwater levels may continue to decline during implementation of projects and management actions until sustainable yield is reached. The buffer allows for flexibility to account for natural fluctuations in groundwater levels but would avoid significant and unreasonable impacts to groundwater levels.
The ESJGWA Board determined that dewatering of domestic wells and impacts to drinking water may be a potential undesirable result that could potentially be used to confirm the adequacy of the minimum threshold methodology.
Domestic wells are generally shallower than agricultural and municipal wells and thus more sensitive to undesirable effects such as wells going dry. Additionally, the loss of a domestic well usually results in a loss of water for consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes, which can often have substantial impacts on the users of the water and can be financially difficult for the well owner to replace. The 10th percentile domestic well depth (i.e., the depth of the top 10th percent most shallow well) was examined within a radius around the monitoring well representative of local conditions. A radius of 3 miles around each representative monitoring well was used to identify the 10th percentile domestic well construction depth. For representative monitoring well 03N07E21L003, a 2-mile radius was used due to variations in groundwater levels due to its proximity to the Mokelumne River. The 3-mile radius of each representative monitoring well (including the 2-mile radius of monitoring well 03N07E21L003), includes an average of 400 domestic wells each, collectively capturing approximately 76 percent of the domestic wells in the Subbasin. In cases where the EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-7
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019; Revised June 2022 10th percentile domestic well depth was shallower than the historical drought low with the buffer, that value was developed as the minimum threshold to prevent undesirable results associated with dewatering wells in the Subbasin.
Domestic well data were retrieved from the Online System for Well Completion Reports (OSWCR) database, which is sparsely populated with information on total casing depth, screening intervals, and the age of the well. The 10th percentile well depth was chosen due to the uncertainty in the database and to account for the fact that domestic wells may have been drilled to a very shallow depth prior to the current well drilling standards enforced by local jurisdictions and/or have reached the end of their lifecycle. The 10th percentile domestic well depth for groundwater levels is protective of approximately 90 percent of the domestic wells in the OSWCR dataset and is used as a criterion for determining if a decline in groundwater levels is significant and unreasonable under SGMA. In municipalities with ordinances requiring the use of City water (water provided by the City’s municipal wells), the 10th percentile municipal well depth is used in place of the 10th percentile domestic well depth criteria.
Figure 3-2 shows the location of groundwater level representative monitoring wells throughout the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. Table 3-1 lists the corresponding numeric minimum thresholds at each representative monitoring well and the basis. Additional data on the monitoring wells and minimum thresholds, including hydrographs of historical observed data and domestic well analysis, are provided in Appendix 3-A and 3-B.
The basis for design and selection of the sustainable management criteria (SMCs) is the lowest drought-related groundwater conditions observed. The ESJGWA and GSAs focused the GSP goals on the long-term sustainability of the Subbasin and implementation of projects that would help all beneficial users to have a reliable and resilient water supply, even in time of drought, and provide the ability to respond to climate change. The ESJGWA and GSAs are supportive of ongoing agricultural, urban, and industrial water conservation efforts and to achieving the highest levels of water use efficiency technically achievable. It should be noted that water conservation programs have been successful in reducing urban and agricultural water demands such that those demands have become “hardened” and are less able to be reduced in time of drought without real impacts to the quality of life or economy. GSP projects and management actions are designed to reduce overdraft, and to provide sustainable supplies through a drought without severe impacts to quality of life or the economy.
The GSP was not targeted toward emergency responses to drought or the short-term impacts associated with drought since this is the focus of the County Office of Emergency Services (OES) and a requirement for the water purveyors.
In addition, the prevailing urban water management plans (UWMPs) and agricultural water management plans (AWMPs) identify water conservation goals and demand reduction targets, including water shortage contingency plans, and the ESJGWA and GSAs are supportive of those plans (and the drought contingency responses) and will encourage the lead agencies for those plans to implement actions and programs consistent with local and state requirements. The ESJGWA will work to better coordinate with the OES and urban purveyors to support emergency drought response efforts. The ESJGWA and GSP development has included representatives from the urban suppliers and will continue to seek opportunities to engage with OES, the urban purveyors and to work to identify mutual goals, objectives and project opportunities.
Additionally, the ESJGWA and GSAs will evaluate other programs as part of an adaptive management strategy, and along with an annual evaluation of Subbasin conditions, will continue outreach efforts to domestic well owners and small water systems regarding information related to forecasted water levels with and without project implementation to inform subsequent investments decisions for well improvement and replacement; produce and distribute current and forecasted groundwater level information to well permit applicants to inform the permitting process; review well standards to evaluate opportunities to establish standards to better reflect current and forecasted groundwater level conditions; and actively promote small systems interties and/or consolidation of their systems to achieve supply reliability.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-8
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019; Revised June 2022 If drinking water impacts are observed during GSP implementation as a result of the established minimum thresholds, the ESJGWA will evaluate the need to revise the minimum threshold methodology and/or implement additional projects or management actions to mitigate such impacts (as described in Appendix 2-B Technical Memorandum No. 1 – Undesirable Result Definition and Projects and Management Actions). The ESJGWA and GSAs will evaluate other programs as part of the adaptive management strategy, and annual program evaluation and reporting.
The future five-year update to the GSP will more closely evaluate and include information on UWMP water shortage contingency plans, and the ESJGWA will coordinate with the County OES to support emergency drought responses and plans.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-9
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019; Revised June 2022 Figure 3-2: Location of Representative Monitoring Wells for Groundwater Levels EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-10
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019; Revised June 2022 Table 3-1: Minimum Thresholds for Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels Narrative Description
The minimum threshold is set at the deeper of 1992 and 2015-2016 groundwater levels with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range applied, or the 10th percentile domestic well depth, whichever is shallower. In municipalities with ordinances requiring the use of City water, the 10th percentile municipal well depth is used in place of the 10th percentile domestic well depth criteria.
Numeric Minimum Thresholds
GSA Well is Located
in1 Well ID
Minimum Threshold
(feet mean sea level
[MSL])
Basis for Threshold
CSJWCD 01S09E05H002 -49.8 10ᵗʰ percentile domestic well depth CSJWCD 01N07E14J002 -114.4 1992 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
City of Lodi Lodi City Well #2 -38.5 1992 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
City of Manteca Manteca 18 -16.0 2016 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
City of Stockton Swenson-3 -26.6 2015 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
Eastside GSA 01S10E26J001M 43.7 2015 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
LCWD 02N08E15M002 -124.1 10ᵗʰ percentile domestic well depth LCSD #3 Bear Creek -72.3 2016 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
NSJWCD 04N07E20H003M -81.7 2016 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
NSJWCD 03N07E21L003 -100.0 1992 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
OID Hirschfeld (OID-8) 8.0 2015 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
OID Burnett (OID-4) 60.7 2015 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
SDWA 02S07E31N001 1.5 1992 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
SSJ GSA 02S08E08A001 0.6 2016 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
SEWD 02N07E03D001 -122.8 10ᵗʰ percentile domestic well depth SEWD 01N09E05J001 -86.8 10ᵗʰ percentile domestic well depth SEWD 02N07E29B001 -130.1 10ᵗʰ percentile domestic well depth WID 04N05E36H003 -31.1 2015 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
WID 03N06E05N003 -35.1 2015 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
WID 04N05E24J004 -31.2 2015 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
1 Acronyms defined: Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District (CSJWCD), Eastside San Joaquin GSA (Eastside GSA), Linden County Water District (LCWD), Lockeford Community Services District (LCSD), North San Joaquin Water Conservation District (NSJWCD), Oakdale Irrigation District (OID), South Delta Water Agency (SDWA), South San Joaquin GSA (SSJ GSA), Stockton East Water District (SEWD), Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID).
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-11
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019; Revised June 2022
3.3.1.3 Measurable Objectives and Interim Milestones
Measurable objectives are quantitative goals that reflect the desired Subbasin condition and allow the Subbasin to achieve its sustainability goal. The measurable objective is set to allow a reasonable margin of operational flexibility between minimum thresholds to allow for active management of the Subbasin during dry periods without reaching the minimum threshold. The margin of operational flexibility is intended to accommodate droughts, climate change, conjunctive use operations, or other groundwater management activities. The margin of operational flexibility is defined as the difference between the minimum threshold and the measurable objective.
The measurable objective for chronic lowering of groundwater levels is defined as the deeper of 1992 or 2015-2016 groundwater level values.
Table 3-2 lists the measurable objectives for each representative monitoring well. The margin of operational flexibility is defined at each well as the difference between the minimum and maximum groundwater level over the historical record for that well.
Table 3-2: Measurable Objective for Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels Narrative Description
The measurable objective is set at the deeper of 1992 and 2015-2016 groundwater levels.
Numeric Measurable Objectives
GSA Well is Located in Well ID Measurable Objective (feet MSL)
CSJWCD 01S09E05H002 -19.6
CSJWCD 01N07E14J002 -70.4
City of Lodi Lodi City Well #2 -3.5
City of Manteca Manteca 18 5.8
City of Stockton Swenson-3 -19.3
Eastside GSA 01S10E26J001M 81.7
LCWD 02N08E15M002 -69.7
LCSD #3 Bear Creek -50.3
NSJWCD 04N07E20H003M -36.7
NSJWCD 03N07E21L003 -57.5
OID Hirschfeld (OID-8) 31.5
OID Burnett (OID-4) 79.7
SDWA 02S07E31N001 13.0
SSJ GSA 02S08E08A001 24.0
SEWD 02N07E03D001 -79.7
SEWD 01N09E05J001 -51.1
SEWD 02N07E29B001 -80.4
WID 04N05E36H003 -5.1
WID 03N06E05N003 -14.1
WID 04N05E24J004 -6.2
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-12
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019; Revised June 2022 To assist the Subbasin in reaching the measurable objective for groundwater levels, interim milestones for 2025, 2030, and 2035 were developed to keep implementation on track. Interim milestones are based on achieving the sustainability goal within the 20-year time period provided by SGMA. Table 3-3 shows the 5-year milestones, which follow a stepwise trend between the current condition and the measurable objective. Fall 2015 groundwater levels were used to define current conditions where data were available. The average of fall 2013, fall 2014, and fall 2016 were used where fall 2015 data were not available.
Table 3-3: Interim Milestones for Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels Narrative Description
5-year milestones are assumed to remain similar to current for the first 10 years and then follow along a linear trend between the current condition and the measurable objective.
Numeric Interim Milestones
GSA Well is
Located in Well ID
Current
Condition
(feet MSL)
Measurable
Objective
(feet MSL)
Interim Milestones
2025 2030 2035
CSJWCD 01S09E05H002 -8.7 -19.6 -8.7 -8.7 -14.2
CSJWCD 01N07E14J002 -49.9 -70.4 -49.9 -49.9 -60.2
City of Lodi Lodi City Well #2 0.6** -3.5 0.6 0.6 -1.5
City of Manteca Manteca 18 9.1 5.8 9.1 9.1 7.5
City of Stockton Swenson-3 -19.3 -19.3 -19.3 -19.3 -19.3 Eastside GSA 01S10E26J001M 81.7 81.7 81.7 81.7 81.7
LCWD 02N08E15M002 -63.2 -69.7 -63.2 -63.2 -66.5
LCSD #3 Bear Creek -49.3 -50.3 -49.3 -49.3 -49.8
NSJWCD 04N07E20H003M -35.5 -36.7 -35.5 -35.5 -36.1
NSJWCD 03N07E21L003 -51.5 -57.5 -51.5 -51.5 -54.5
OID Hirschfeld (OID-8) 31.5 31.5 31.5 31.5 31.5
OID Burnett (OID-4) 79.7 79.7 79.7 79.7 79.7
SDWA 02S07E31N001 13.8** 13 13.8 13.8 13.4
SSJ GSA 02S08E08A001 22.2** 24 22.2 22.2 23.1
SEWD 02N07E03D001 -61.7 -79.7 -61.7 -61.7 -70.7
SEWD 01N09E05J001 -20.2 -51.1 -20.2 -20.2 -35.7
SEWD 02N07E29B001 -49.8** -80.4 -49.8 -49.8 -65.1
WID 04N05E36H003 -5.1 -5.1 -5.1 -5.1 -5.1
WID 03N06E05N003 -14.1 -14.1 -14.1 -14.1 -14.1
WID 04N05E24J004 -6.2 -6.2 -6.2 -6.2 -6.2
**Current Condition is the average of fall groundwater levels for 2013-2016 EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-13
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019; Revised June 2022
3.3.2 Reduction in Groundwater Storage
3.3.2.1 Undesirable Results
3.3.2.1.1 Description of Undesirable Results
The ESJGWA has determined that an undesirable result for the reduction of groundwater storage is experienced if sustained groundwater storage volumes are insufficient to satisfy beneficial uses within the Subbasin over the planning and implementation horizon of this GSP (see Section 1.3.1 for a discussion of beneficial uses and users).
Undesirable results related to groundwater storage in the Subbasin have not occurred historically, are not currently occurring, and are not likely to occur in the future. As discussed in the current and historical groundwater conditions section of this GSP (Section 2.2), there is a large volume (approximately 53 million acre-feet [MAF]) of freshwater in storage. An analysis of groundwater storage using the Eastern San Joaquin Water Resources Model (ESJWRM) was conducted to evaluate groundwater storage conditions between 1996 and 2015. The results of this analysis showed a range of fluctuation from 1996 to 2015 of approximately 0.01 percent per year. See Section 2.2.2 for additional quantification of groundwater storage. A discussion of the geology of the Subbasin can be found in Section 2.1.
3.3.2.1.2 Identification of Undesirable Results
An undesirable result occurs when groundwater storage volumes are insufficient to satisfy beneficial uses within the Subbasin. To identify a volume associated with undesirable results, the ESJWRM was run to estimate the volume of groundwater storage needed to meet beneficial uses. The analysis determined that groundwater demand for beneficial use occurs within the shallowest 23 MAF of the Subbasin, as this is roughly the zone corresponding to the depth at which pumping occurs and is reasonably expected to occur in the future. Based on this analysis, it is estimated that overlying pumpers have limited access equating to approximately the shallowest 23 MAF of groundwater storage in the Subbasin; therefore, an undesirable result would occur if groundwater storage levels were depleted by 23 MAF.
Therefore, undesirable results would occur if groundwater storage were reduced by 23 MAF, to a total volume of 30 MAF.
3.3.2.1.3 Potential Causes of Undesirable Results
While reduction of 23 MAF within the SGMA planning horizon of 2040 is highly unlikely, an event of a catastrophic nature or prolonged and exaggerated increases in the mining of groundwater due to extreme and severe drought or major changes in groundwater management over time could cause a reduction of groundwater storage to a significant and unreasonable level.
Section 7.4.4 references factors that could affect the availability of surface water, including State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) plans to reduce flows available for use by 40-60 percent as part of the Water Quality Control Plan for the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta Plan).
3.3.2.1.4 Potential Effects of Undesirable Results
If groundwater levels were to reach levels causing undesirable results, significant and unreasonable effects could include degradation of produced water quality from groundwater sources; insufficient fresh groundwater to access in drought years; increased cost of access; and reduction in beneficial uses, such as domestic supply and changes to agriculture.
3.3.2.2 Minimum Thresholds
This GSP uses groundwater level minimum thresholds as a proxy for the reduction in groundwater storage sustainability indicator.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-14
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019; Revised June 2022 GSP regulations allow GSAs to use groundwater levels as a proxy metric for any sustainability indicator, provided the GSP demonstrates that there is a significant correlation between groundwater levels and the other metrics. In order to rely on groundwater levels as a proxy, one approach suggested by DWR is to:
Demonstrate that the minimum thresholds and measurable objectives for chronic declines of groundwater levels are sufficiently protective to ensure significant and unreasonable occurrences of other sustainability indicators will be prevented. In other words, demonstrate that setting a groundwater level minimum threshold satisfies the minimum threshold requirements for not only chronic lowering of groundwater levels but other sustainability indicators at a given site (CA DWR, 2017).
Minimum thresholds for groundwater levels will effectively avoid undesirable results for reduction of groundwater storage. As noted above, the amount of groundwater in storage in the Subbasin is approximately 53 MAF and the undesirable results of reducing beneficial uses would not occur until storage is reduced by 23 MAF, to a total of 30 MAF.
The ESJWRM was run to estimate the reduction in groundwater storage that would occur if every representative monitoring well in the Subbasin were to operate at the minimum threshold for the chronic lowering of groundwater levels sustainability indicator. The results of this analysis showed that this scenario would result in a reduction of approximately 1.2 MAF of storage.3 Because undesirable results are anticipated to occur following a reduction of 23 MAF, the minimum thresholds for groundwater levels are protective of beneficial uses. Minimum thresholds and measurable objectives for groundwater levels can therefore be used as a proxy for reduction in groundwater storage, as groundwater levels are sufficiently protective against occurrences of significant and unreasonable reduction in groundwater storage.
3.3.2.3 Measurable Objectives and Interim Milestones
As chronic lowering of groundwater levels is used as a proxy for reduction in groundwater storage, the measurable objectives and interim milestones for the reduction in groundwater storage sustainability indicator are the same measurable objectives and interim milestones as for the chronic lowering of groundwater levels sustainability indicator as set forth in Section 3.2.1.3.
3.3.3 Degraded Water Quality
3.3.3.1 Undesirable Results: Degraded Water Quality
3.3.3.1.1 Description of Undesirable Results
The undesirable result related to degraded water quality is defined in SGMA as:
Significant and unreasonable degraded water quality, including the migration of contaminant plumes that impair water supplies.
An undesirable result for degraded water quality in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin is experienced if SGMA-related groundwater management activities cause significant and unreasonable impacts to the long-term viability of domestic, agricultural, municipal, environmental, or other beneficial uses over the planning and implementation horizon of this GSP.
Salinity is the only water quality constituent for which minimum thresholds are established in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. High salinity in the western portion of the Subbasin has been an area of historical concern, as described in Section 2.2. There is potential for pumping to contribute to the movement of high saline water from the three sources noted by O’Leary et al. (2015): Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) sediments, deep deposits, and irrigation 3 Volumes based on ESJWRM estimates calculated assuming all representative monitoring wells for groundwater levels reached their minimum thresholds across the Subbasin for a conservative estimate of Subbasin storage reduction.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-15
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019; Revised June 2022 return water (see Section 2.2.4.1). Other constituents, including arsenic and nitrate are evaluated in Section 2.2, with monitoring efforts described in Section 4.3. These constituents are managed through existing management and regulatory programs within the Subbasin, such as the Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability (CV-SALTS) and the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP), which focus on improving water quality by managing septic and agricultural sources of salinity and nutrients. Additionally, point-source contaminants are managed and regulated through a variety of programs by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Through new monitoring efforts, the GSP will document trends in these constituents and identify opportunities for coordination with existing programs.
A description of existing regulations and requirements for these constituents is provided in Section 2.2.4. Through coordination with existing agencies and through additional monitoring, the ESJGWA will know if existing regulations are being met or groundwater pumping activities in the Subbasin are contributing to significant and unreasonable undesirable effects related to degraded water quality (see Section 3.2.3.4 for additional information).
Total dissolved solids (TDS) was selected for the evaluation of sustainable management criteria for salinity under this sustainability indicator, as historical data for TDS are more widely available in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin than other constituents used to measure salinity, such as electrical conductivity (EC) or chloride. This decision was made by the ESJGWA Board based on the greater availability of TDS data in the Subbasin. TDS data are available through existing monitoring programs such as the CV-SALTS program and Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program or through monitoring or regulatory agencies such as United States Geological Survey (USGS), DWR, SWRCB, and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) Dairy program. Additionally, GSA members and their affiliates including Cal Water, SJCFCWCD, and the cities of Stockton, Lodi, and Manteca, provided TDS data from existing production wells.
3.3.3.1.2 Identification of Undesirable Results
Undesirable results occur during GSP implementation when more than 25 percent of representative monitoring wells (3 of 10 sites) exceed the minimum thresholds for water quality for two consecutive years and where these concentrations are the result of groundwater management activities.
In addition to the monitoring of changes in groundwater elevations and the potential for those changes to result in undesirable results relative to groundwater quality, the ESJGWA and GSAs will collaborate and share data with other programs monitoring water quality data to observe both ambient and regulated conditions. Programs for coordination include, but are not limited to, the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP) and Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability (CV-SALTS), two existing regulatory programs for the monitoring and regulation of nitrate and salts. The GWA, in coordination with the GSAs, will evaluate changes in groundwater quality on an annual basis to determine if groundwater management has the potential to be a contributing factor to declines in groundwater quality.
If so, the GSA(s) will coordinate with responsible regulatory agency(ies) to establish a plan to alleviate or prevent further degradation. Please see Appendix 3-E for additional information as to how the ESJGWA and Subbasin GSAs will coordinate to identify undesirable results and the potential causes of the decline in groundwater quality, and to develop and implement appropriate management actions to address that degradation.
3.3.3.1.3 Potential Causes of Undesirable Results
Elevated TDS concentrations in the Subbasin are the result of natural processes and overlying land use activities (O’Leary et al., 2015). Pumping in excess of recharge has resulted in declining aquifer water levels and led to an increase of salinity in groundwater wells since the 1950s (O’Leary et al., 2015). Within the Subbasin, there are localized concerns related to salinity along with three primary sources of salinity, as discussed in Section 2.2.4 of this GSP. To this end, potential mechanisms for causes of undesirable results include human-induced contamination and changes in water levels that may influence water quality, including:
• Falling groundwater levels which may cause migration of already-contaminated groundwater from natural sources, nonpoint sources (salt, nitrate), or a plume from a point source.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-16
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019; Revised June 2022 • Rising groundwater levels creating changes in oxidation potential and mobilization of arsenic. • Rising groundwater levels from recharge operations or reduced pumping that could mobilize nitrates or salts in the vadose zone.
3.3.3.1.4 Potential Effects of Undesirable Results
The potential effects of undesirable results related to degraded groundwater quality include: reduction in usable supply of groundwater, increased treatment costs, and required access to alternate supplies, which can be unaffordable for small users. Some water quality issues could potentially cause more impact to agricultural uses than municipal or domestic uses, depending on the impact of the contaminant to these water use sectors. Water quality degradation may cause potential changes in irrigation practices or crops grown, adverse effects to property values, and other economic effects.
3.3.3.2 Minimum Thresholds
The minimum threshold for degraded water quality is 1,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L) TDS at all representative monitoring well locations, shown in Figure 3-3.
Minimum thresholds for this sustainability indicator are focused on addressing the major groundwater quality issue of salinity by monitoring TDS as a representative constituent of salinity and preventing future water quality degradation due to pumping. Additional constituents, including nitrate and arsenic, will be monitored for informational purposes through the water quality monitoring network to identify trends and fill data gaps (see Section 3.3.3.4).
The ESJGWA Board selected a minimum threshold of 1,000 mg/L based on stakeholder concerns for drinking water and agricultural beneficial uses. The minimum threshold reflects input from agricultural and municipal stakeholders, including local drinking water purveyors and the local agricultural community. A meeting was held in fall 2018 with GSA representatives in areas impacted by high salinity. Representatives from San Joaquin County, City of Lodi, City of Manteca, City of Stockton, and Cal Water were in attendance. Additionally, members of the Workgroup who represent agribusiness interests provided input on the salinity levels at which crops begin to become impacted by salinity.
In the development of minimum thresholds, beneficial uses of groundwater as a drinking water supply and as an agricultural supply were considered. For drinking water, the TDS secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) was considered. As noted in Section 2.2, the SWRCB Division of Drinking Water (DDW) has established SMCLs for TDS in drinking water supplies. SMCLs are established for aesthetic reasons such as taste, odor, and color and are not based on public health concerns. For TDS, the SMCL is 500 mg/L (recommended) and the upper limit SMCL is 1,000 mg/L (SWRCB, 2017). The SWRCB has set a short-term limit of 1,500 mg/L (SWRCB, 2017). For agricultural uses, salinity tolerances of major Subbasin crops were considered. As previously stated in Section 1.2.1, dominant Subbasin crops are fruit and nut trees (primarily almonds, cherries, and walnuts), grapes, and alfalfa (USDA, 2015). Salinity tolerances for Subbasin crops range from 900 mg/L TDS (for almonds) to 4,000 mg/L TDS (for wheat) (Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, 2003, adapted from Ayers and Westcott, 1976; Hoffman, 2010). Salinity tolerances of major Subbasin crops are shown in Table 3-4. Because fruit and nut trees and vineyards collectively cover more than half of the acreage of the Subbasin, the minimum threshold was centered on the salinity impact of these crop types. These crop types have lower salinity tolerances, in the range of 900 to 1,000 mg/L TDS. Standards in this range are considered protective of these crop types and therefore the majority of Subbasin crops. TDS values are estimated based on applied irrigation water electrical conductivity values for a 90 percent crop yield potential (Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, 2003, adapted from Ayers and Westcott, 1976).
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-17
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019; Revised June 2022 Table 3-4: Salinity Tolerances of Major Subbasin Crops
Crop Type Salinity Tolerance
(mg/L TDS)
Fruit & Nut Trees - Almonds 900
Fruit & Nut Trees - Apples 1,000
Vineyards - Grapes 1,100
Alfalfa 1,400
Grain - Wheat 4,000
Field Crops - Corn 1,100
Truck Crops - Tomatoes 1,500
Rice 1,700
Figure 3-3: Location of Representative Monitoring Wells for Water Quality EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-18
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019; Revised June 2022 Should an existing groundwater quality impairment or new groundwater quality impact be identified as having a direct impact on groundwater users, the GWA and/or GSAs will coordinate with the appropriate regulatory agency(ies) to communicate the situation to those impacted, and will adaptively work with the regulatory agency(ies) to manage the situation. Additionally, the ESJGWA proposes the following program management actions for the Subbasin GSAs to be coordinated through the ESJGWA:
1. Regular Process for coordination
a. The ESJGWA will hold an annual “groundwater water quality state of the basin” meeting or workshop in January and invite the members of the San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition (Coalition) to present the results of the monitoring program.
b. The ESJ Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) will invite participation and ex officio representation from the CVRWQCB staff to receive regular information regarding ILRP, CV-SALTS and any planned updates or amendments to the Central Valley Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan).
2. Monitoring
a. The ESJGWA will seek to develop monitoring and data sharing agreements with the Coalition. b. ESJGWA staff will work with the local Environmental Health Division and SWRCB Division of Drinking to identify drinking water wells which are nearing or have exceeded MCLs or SMCLs, noting the location, number of wells and the constituents of concern.
3. Data Management. . Where possible, the ESJGWA will include the assessment of water quality data collected via other monitoring networks in their annual assessments, and will use this information to further evaluate trends and any correlations between groundwater levels, the groundwater level MTs, and observed water quality conditions.
4. Annual Report. Beyond the reporting of data from the GSP groundwater level and water quality monitoring network, the ESJ Annual Report will include an expanded groundwater quality discussion to document:
a. The annual results of the Coalition’s monitoring program b. Known impairments identified by the CVRWQCB pursuant to the Basin Plan c. Wells and locations where MCLs have been exceeded as identified by the SWRCB Division of Drinking Water, consumer confidence reports, or the local Environmental Health Department
3.3.3.3 Measurable Objectives and Interim Milestones
The measurable objective for degraded water quality is 600 mg/L TDS at all representative monitoring well locations. 600 mg/L was developed based on the TDS recommended SMCL for drinking water of 500 mg/L and adding a 100 mg/L buffer. 600 mg/L TDS is close to the recommended SMCL of 500 mg/L and significantly below the upper limit SMCL of 1,000 mg/L, and is considered adequate for drinking water and agricultural uses.
Interim milestones for 2025, 2030, and 2035 were developed to keep implementation on track to allow the Subbasin to meet the measurable objective for groundwater quality.
Table 3-5 shows the 5-year milestones, which follow along a linear trend between the current condition and the measurable objective. Interim milestones are based on the measurable objective and will be coordinated with projects and management actions. Current conditions were calculated by averaging TDS values collected from 2015-2018 where data were available. In two cases (for Well 16 and Well 17), current conditions were calculated by averaging TDS values collected from 2012-2018.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-19
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019; Revised June 2022 Table 3-5: Interim Milestones for Degraded Water Quality Narrative Description
5-year milestones follow along a linear trend between the current condition and the measurable objective.
Numeric Interim Milestones
Well ID Current Condition
(mg/L TDS)
Measurable Objective
(mg/L TDS)
Interim Milestones
2025 2030 2035
Well 1 500 600 525 550 575
Well 2 510 600 532.5 555 577.5
Well 3 510 600 532.5 555 577.5
Stockton 10R 322 600 391.5 461 530.5
Stockton 26 350 600 412.5 475 537.5
Stockton SSS8 370 600 427.5 485 542.5
Well 15 300 600 375 450 525
Well 16 280* 600 360 440 520
Well 17 300* 600 375 450 525
119=075-01 300 600 375 450 525
* Current Condition is the average TDS value for 2012-2018
3.3.3.4 Monitoring for Additional Constituents
Increased monitoring is needed to identify water quality trends related to additional constituents including arsenic and nitrate. Arsenic, as well as cations and anions (which include nitrate), will be monitored for informational purposes through the water quality monitoring network (see Section 4.3.2) to identify trends and fill data gaps. Additionally, these constituents are currently regulated in the Subbasin through existing water resources monitoring and management programs, as described in Section 1.2.2. If water quality conditions violate those regulations, or if monitoring efforts indicate concerning trends, the ESJGWA will take steps to coordinate with regulatory agencies and will evaluate establishing minimum thresholds and measurable objectives for these constituents.
Many of the GSAs are drinking water suppliers and are required to provide a consumer confidence report each year.
The ESJGWA will consider requiring GSAs that are drinking water supplies to notify the ESJGWA if constituents of concern exceed their maximum contaminant level (MCL) to assist in identifying potential trends of concern. While these reports do not reflect the water quality of private well owners, it would provide a basin-wide screen to inform basin groundwater quality conditions.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-20
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019; Revised June 2022
3.3.4 Seawater Intrusion
3.3.4.1 Undesirable Results
3.3.4.1.1 Description of Undesirable Results
The undesirable result related to seawater intrusion is defined in SGMA as:
Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion
An undesirable result for seawater intrusion in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin is experienced if sustained groundwater salinity levels caused by seawater intrusion and due to groundwater management practices are too high to satisfy beneficial uses within the basin over the planning and implementation horizon of this GSP.
The Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin is not in a coastal area and seawater intrusion is not currently present. Undesirable results related to seawater intrusion are not currently occurring and are not reasonably expected to occur (see Section
2.2.3). However, this GSP establishes monitoring protocols for the early detection of seawater intrusion, were it ever to occur, so that the ESJGWA can take action to address undesirable results.
There is the possibility of future seawater intrusion due to potential future changes in the Delta that could be caused by sea level rise. This GSP develops minimum thresholds and measurable objectives that include monitoring for chloride and an analysis of isotopic ratios to identify the source of high salinity (see Section 2.2.4.1).
3.3.4.1.2 Identification of Undesirable Results
Undesirable results are considered to occur during GSP implementation when 2,000 mg/L chloride reaches an established isocontour line and where these concentrations are caused by intrusion of a seawater source as a result of groundwater management activity.
3.3.4.1.3 Potential Causes of Undesirable Results
If seawater intrusion does become an issue in the future, the cause of undesirable results would be seawater coming from surface waters in the Delta either due to climate change and associated sea level rise or significant changes in Delta management practices.
3.3.4.1.4 Potential Effects of Undesirable Results
Similar to the effects of undesirable results for degraded water quality, increased salinity due to seawater intrusion could potentially cause a reduction in usable supply to groundwater users, with domestic wells being most vulnerable, as treatment costs or access to alternate supplies can be high for small users. Water quality degradation due to seawater intrusion could cause potential changes in irrigation practices or crops grown, adverse impacts to property values, and other economic effects. It could also adversely affect current and projected municipal uses, and users could have to install treatment systems or seek alternate supplies.
3.3.4.2 Minimum Thresholds
The minimum threshold for seawater intrusion is a 2,000 mg/L chloride isocontour line. 2,000 mg/L chloride is approximately 10 percent of seawater chloride concentrations (19,500 mg/L) and was developed as a minimum threshold based on consideration of existing management practices in other areas of the state including Monterey County and Fox Canyon. This threshold incorporates input from stakeholders from multiple meetings and was reviewed by the ESJGWA Board and Advisory Committee.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-21
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019; Revised June 2022 The 2,000 mg/L chloride isocontour line depicted in Figure 3-4 is a demarcation of where the ESJGWA would consider seawater intrusion has created an undesirable result. As data are collected from wells within the water quality monitoring network (see Section 4.4), an isocontour line can be drawn with the most current data. If the drawn isocontour line representing current data crosses the minimum threshold isocontour line in Figure 3-4 at chloride concentrations 2,000 mg/L or higher, the ESJGWA would consider that an undesirable result had occurred. It is unlikely that the Subbasin will experience an undesirable result due to seawater intrusion during the SGMA planning horizon.
Figure 3-4: Seawater Intrusion Minimum Threshold Chloride Isocontour Line
3.3.4.3 Measurable Objectives and Interim Milestones
The measurable objective for seawater intrusion is 500 mg/L chloride concentrations at the contour line indicated for the minimum threshold.
The 5-year interim milestones follow along a linear trend between the current conditions and the measurable objective.
Interim milestones are based on the measurable objective and will be further developed through water quality monitoring identified in Chapter 4: Monitoring Networks, and coordinated with projects and management actions.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-22
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019; Revised June 2022
3.3.4.4 Trigger and Actions
An action plan is in place as part of this GSP to trigger additional monitoring and analysis at detections of 1,000 mg/L chloride in the monitoring network to confirm seawater source. Assessing high-chloride water sources to determine origin involves determining water type from major-ions, and evaluating stable isotope concentrations (O’Leary et al., 2015). The ratio of chloride to iodide is also used to differentiate high-chloride water sources besides seawater (O’Leary et al., 2015). These assessment tools would be used to provide the GSAs adequate time to develop groundwater management strategies to address any seawater intrusion before the 2,000 mg/L chloride minimum threshold is reached.
3.3.5 Land Subsidence
3.3.5.1 Undesirable Results
3.3.5.1.1 Description of Undesirable Results
The undesirable result related to land subsidence is defined in SGMA as:
Significant and unreasonable land subsidence that substantially interferes with surface land uses.
An undesirable result for land subsidence in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin is experienced if the occurrence of land subsidence substantially interferes with beneficial uses of groundwater and infrastructure within the Subbasin over the planning and implementation horizon of this GSP. Critical infrastructure in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin has been defined in coordination with the San Joaquin County Department of Public Works and the San Joaquin County Office of Emergency Services as the following infrastructure potentially at risk for interference from land subsidence:
• Major highways, roadways, and bridges
• Canals, pipelines, and levees
• Electrical transmission lines
• Schools
• Fire stations
• Hospitals and other medical facilities
• Law enforcement facilities (police stations, jails, correctional facilities) • Water and wastewater treatment, distribution, and storage facilities • Communication facilities
The Subbasin is served by an extensive road network, including major interstate highways. The San Joaquin County Department of Public Works maintains the County’s 120-mile network of underground facilities, over 1,600 miles of roadway, 265 bridges, and 364 minor structures. In addition, San Joaquin County supports air service, a deep water port, transcontinental rail, and commuter trains. Major roadways located within the Subbasin boundary include Interstate 5 (I-5) and multiple State Routes (4, 12, 26, 88, 99, 120). Major bridges in the Subbasin serve both automobile and railroad transport. Major bridges in the subbasin include the San Joaquin River Bridge, Littlejohns Creek Bridge, Mormon Slough Bridge, and the Union Pacific Mossdale Bridge East.
Service buildings within the Subbasin include fire stations, hospitals, jails and correction facilities, police stations, and wastewater plants. The County also maintains 30 water systems with 52 wells, 3 sewage treatment plants, 9 sewage pumping stations, 68 storm drain pumping stations, and over 300 miles of levees and flood channels. In general, major pipelines that run through the County are in areas south of Lodi and southwest of Tracy along the foothills (outside of the Subbasin boundary).
In addition to identifying critical infrastructure at risk for subsidence impacts, the ESJGWA has worked with OES to identify the total subsidence load that critical infrastructure in the Subbasin can tolerate during GSP implementation, and what would be considered an undesirable result. Through input from OES, the critical infrastructure in the Subbasin EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-23
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019; Revised June 2022 can generally tolerate a significant amount of uniform settlement due to subsidence across the Subbasin, though the total amount of settlement that can be tolerated is dependent on the design of the specific infrastructure. Differential settlement across facilities in a locale, on the other hand, will result in more damage. However, it is worth noting that it is less common for subsidence to cause significant local differential sediment. In addition, the San Joaquin County 2017 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies land subsidence as a potential cause for levee breakage; however, the hazard of subsidence is ranked “not likely” to occur.
There are no historical records of significant and unreasonable impacts from subsidence in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin (see Figure 2-64). If land subsidence becomes an area of concern, the ESJGWA will take action to consider monitoring protocols and next steps for understanding potential for undesirable results.
3.3.5.1.2 Identification of Undesirable Results
An undesirable result occurs when subsidence substantially interferes with beneficial uses of groundwater and surface land uses. Subsidence occurs as a result of compaction of subsurface materials due to the dewatering of subsurface materials. Undesirable results would occur when substantial interference with land use occurs, including significant damage to canals, pipes, or other water conveyance facilities.
Undesirable results related to inelastic land subsidence will be identified through data collected from the Subbasin’s representative monitoring network supplemented with land subsidence data collection efforts conducted by individual GSAs, continuous global positioning system (CGPS) data collected and posted by the United States Geological Survey, InSAR datasets collected and posted by DWR, UNAVCO monitoring data collected and posted by UNAVCO’s Plate Boundary Observatory Program, and other publicly available datasets.
3.3.5.1.3 Potential Causes of Undesirable Results
Potential causes of future undesirable results for land subsidence would include significant increases in groundwater production beyond what is currently projected, resulting in dewatering of compressible clays in the subsurface, which are not known to be common in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin, as indicated by historical absence of subsidence.
Corcoran Clay is one type of subsurface material that is potentially predisposed to compression. See Section 2.1.5 for a description of Corcoran Clay extent in the Subbasin.
3.3.5.1.4 Potential Effects of Undesirable Results
If land subsidence conditions were to reach undesirable results, the adverse effects could potentially cause an irrecoverable loss of groundwater storage and damage to infrastructure, including water conveyance facilities and flood control facilities. This could impact the ability to deliver surface water, resulting in increased groundwater use, or could impact the ability to store and convey flood water. These could have adverse effects to property values or public safety.
3.3.5.2 Minimum Thresholds
This GSP uses groundwater level minimum thresholds as a proxy for the land subsidence sustainability indicator. As such, the minimum thresholds for the land subsidence sustainability indicator are the same as the minimum thresholds for the chronic lowering of groundwater levels sustainability indicator.
GSP regulations allow GSAs to use groundwater levels as a proxy metric for any sustainability indicator, provided the GSP demonstrates that there is a significant correlation between groundwater levels and the other metrics. DWR requires the GSP (CA DWR, 2017):
Demonstrate that the minimum thresholds and measurable objectives for chronic declines of groundwater levels are sufficiently protective to ensure significant and unreasonable occurrences of other sustainability indicators will be prevented. In other words, demonstrate that setting a groundwater level minimum threshold EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-24
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019; Revised June 2022 satisfies the minimum threshold requirements for not only chronic lowering of groundwater levels but other sustainability indicators at a given site.
There is significant correlation between groundwater levels and land subsidence, with land subsidence being driven by a lowering of groundwater levels in the aquifer. Further, the use of groundwater levels as a proxy is necessary, given the relative lack of direct monitoring for land subsidence in the Subbasin.
Land subsidence as a result of groundwater extractions can only occur if two conditions are met: 1) subsurface materials are dewatered, and 2) those dewatered subsurface materials are compressible. Historical declines in groundwater levels in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin have not resulted in subsidence (see Section 2.2.5), suggesting that subsurface materials in the geologic units historically affected by groundwater elevation fluctuations are not compressible. If the Subbasin were to operate within the margin of operational flexibility for groundwater levels, future dewatering would continue to occur in the same geologic units historically affected by groundwater elevation fluctuations. Because the deepest groundwater level minimum threshold is 205 feet depth-to-water (well 02N08E15M002), additional declines in groundwater levels are not anticipated to affect dewatered materials at a depth deeper than 205 feet. Geologic materials at this depth are consistent with historical dewatering (see Section 2.1.7 for the five geologic cross sections of the Subbasin), which resulted in no known subsidence. As a result, projected elevation declines are not expected to result in subsidence, and groundwater level minimum thresholds are protective.
The decision to use the groundwater levels representative monitoring network as a proxy for land subsidence was based on the information as discussed above. The GSAs recognize that additional land subsidence data collection and monitoring in the Subbasin over the first few years of GSP implementation will be an important indicator in assessing if the groundwater levels representative monitoring network alone will be sufficient to evaluate potential movement towards significant and unreasonable impacts to infrastructure due to inelastic land subsidence, particularly given that the Subbasin has not historically experienced issues related to land subsidence. For this reason, the Subbasin GSAs have committed to annual collection and evaluation of land subsidence data from publicly available sources, including CGPS, InSAR and other data sources, for assessment with data collected from its representative monitoring network.
Data will be evaluated annually, and if subsidence is apparent, projects and management actions in that area will be triggered. The ESJGWA will establish a trigger value of 0.25 feet (annual rate of vertical displacement) at which point an analysis will occur to determine if the subsidence is directly related to groundwater management, and if deemed so, additional projects and management actions will be triggered. Measurable Objectives and Interim Milestones As chronic lowering of groundwater levels is used as a proxy for land subsidence, the measurable objectives and interim milestones for the land subsidence sustainability indicator are the same measurable objectives and interim milestones as the chronic lowering of groundwater levels sustainability indicator found in Section 3.3.1.3. However, as an additional 5-year interim milestone for this sustainability indicator, the ESJGWA will revisit the Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model (HCM) presented in this GSP after DWR’s Airborne Electromagnetic (AEM) data become available in order to incorporate those results and other new hydrogeologic data into an updated HCM. At that time, the ESJGWA will review and adjust the representative monitoring network and monitoring protocols as needed based on improved basin understanding to refine the Subbasin monitoring for inelastic land subsidence. This analysis, and any subsequent revisions, will be incorporated in the GSP five-year update. In time and as subsequent interim milestones, the ESJGWA will improve the correlation between groundwater levels and subsidence for its representative monitoring networks.
Additionally, in coordination with updates as described above for the 5-year interim milestone and as previously stated, as part of the Subbasin’s annual reporting process and to further supplement the land subsidence data collection efforts put forward in the GSP, CGPS data, InSAR data, and other subsidence data have been, and will continue to be, evaluated annually by the ESJGWA in coordination with the planned use of chronic lowering of groundwater level minimum thresholds as a proxy for land subsidence. These data will be compiled and evaluated each year as part of the data assessment and production of the Annual Report, submitted to DWR each year by April 1st.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-25
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019; Revised June 2022
3.3.6 Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water
Depletions of interconnected surface water are a reduction in flow or levels of surface water caused by groundwater extraction. This reduction in surface water flow or levels, at certain magnitudes or timing, may have adverse impacts on beneficial uses of surface water and may lead to undesirable results. Quantification of depletions is relatively challenging and requires significant data on both groundwater levels near streams and stage information supported by groundwater modeling.
3.3.6.1 Undesirable Results
3.3.6.1.1 Description of Undesirable Results
The undesirable result related to depletions of interconnected surface water is defined in SGMA as:
Depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water.
Major rivers and streams that potentially have a hydraulic connection to the groundwater system in certain reaches are the Calaveras River, Dry Creek, the Mokelumne River, the San Joaquin River, and the Stanislaus River. Many of the smaller creeks and streams are substantially used for the conveyance of irrigation water and these systems have not been considered in the analysis of depletions.
3.3.6.1.2 Identification of Undesirable Results
The undesirable result for depletions of interconnected surface water in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin is depletions that result in reductions in flow or levels of major rivers and streams that are hydrologically connected to the basin such that the reduced surface water flow or levels have a significant and unreasonable adverse impact on beneficial uses and users of the surface water within the Subbasin over the planning and implementation horizon of this GSP.
Beneficial uses and users were identified previously in Section 1.3.1.
3.3.6.1.3 Potential Causes of Undesirable Results
Potential causes of undesirable results would include increased regional groundwater extractions, reduced recharge due to drought, reduced availability of surface water supplies, and increased groundwater extraction along interconnected stream reaches.
3.3.6.1.4 Potential Effects of Undesirable Results
If depletions of interconnected surface water were to reach levels causing undesirable results, effects could include reduced flow and stage within rivers and streams in the Subbasin to the extent that insufficient surface water would be available to support diversions for agricultural or urban uses or to support regulatory environmental requirements. This could result in increased groundwater production, changes in irrigation practices and crops grown, and could cause adverse effects to property values and the regional economy. Reduced flows and stage, along with potential associated changes in water temperature, could also negatively impact aquatic species in the rivers and streams. Such impacts are tied to the inability to meet minimum flow requirements, which are defined for the Mokelumne, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin Rivers, which, in turn, are managed through operations at Camanche Reservoir, Woodbridge Dam, New Melones Reservoir, and other reservoirs.
3.3.6.2 Minimum Thresholds
This GSP uses groundwater level minimum thresholds as a proxy for the depletions of interconnected surface water sustainability indicator. As such, the minimum thresholds for the interconnected surface water sustainability indicator are the same as the minimum thresholds for the chronic lowering of groundwater levels sustainability indicator.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-26
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019; Revised June 2022 GSP regulations allow GSAs to use groundwater levels as a proxy metric for any sustainability indicator, provided the GSP demonstrates that there is a significant correlation between groundwater levels and the other metrics. The following approach from DWR is used to justify the proxy metric (CA DWR, 2017):
Demonstrate that the minimum thresholds and measurable objectives for chronic declines of groundwater levels are sufficiently protective to ensure significant and unreasonable occurrences of other sustainability indicators will be prevented. In other words, demonstrate that setting a groundwater level minimum threshold satisfies the minimum threshold requirements for not only chronic lowering of groundwater levels but other sustainability indicators at a given site.
To use the minimum thresholds for chronic lowering of groundwater levels as a proxy for interconnected surface water, the stream depletions which would occur when undesirable results for groundwater levels are reached must not be significant and unreasonable.
In discussions of interconnected surface water, the ESJGWA Board, Advisory Committee, Workgroup members, and GSA staff did not indicate any current or historical significant and unreasonable depletions. Based on this input, this Plan assumes that historical conditions are protective of beneficial uses related to interconnected surface water.
Therefore, the historical depletions simulated by ESJWRM’s historical calibration (documentation in Appendix 3-A) are assumed to have no associated undesirable results. However, if groundwater levels were to fall lower than historical levels, there is an associated level of additional depletions that would occur, quantified below.
The ESJWRM was used to estimate the volume of additional depletions associated with groundwater levels that would be classified as undesirable results (non-dry year pairings where 25 percent or more wells fall below their minimum thresholds). The sustainable conditions scenario (see Section 2.3.6) does not result in groundwater level undesirable results, but the projected conditions scenario (see Section 2.3.4.3) does result in groundwater level undesirable results.
The additional stream losses that occurred in the projected conditions scenario compared to the historical calibration are estimates of additional depletions as they can be linked directly to simulated increases in groundwater pumping.
The additional depletions in the projected conditions scenario are 50,000 acre-feet per year (AF/year), which is approximately 1 percent of total stream outflows from the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. As the reduction in total stream flows is small, no impact is expected to the beneficial users of interconnected surface water in the Subbasin.
Depletions greater than an increase of 50,000 AF/year would not occur because at this point the sustainability indicators for groundwater levels would be triggered and would be protective of any further depletions. Therefore, groundwater level thresholds are protective of the depletions of interconnected surface water.
3.3.6.3 Measurable Objectives and Interim Milestones
As chronic lowering of groundwater levels is used as a proxy for depletions of interconnected surface water, the measurable objectives and interim milestones for the depletions of interconnected surface water sustainability indicator are the same as the measurable objectives and interim milestones for the chronic lowering of groundwater levels sustainability indicator.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-27
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019; Revised June 2022 References
Ayers, R.S. and Westcot, D.W. (1976). Water Quality for Agriculture, Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
CA Department of Water Resources (CA DWR). (2017). Sustainable Management Criteria BMP. Retrieved from:
https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/groundwater/sgm/pdfs/BMP_Sustainable_Management_Criteria_2017-11-
06.pdf
CA DWR. (1980). Ground Water Basins in California. Bulletin 118-80.
CA State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). (2017). Division of Water Quality - GAMA Program:
Groundwater Information Sheet, Salinity. Retrieved from: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/docs/coc_ Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Basin Authority (Eastern San Joaquin County GBA). (2014). Eastern San Joaquin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update.
Hoffman, G.J. (2010). Salt Tolerance of Crops in the Southern Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Retrieved from:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/bay_delta_plan/water_quality_co ntrol_planning/docs/final_study_report.pdf
O'Leary, D. R., Izbicki, J. A., & Metzger, L. F. (2015). Sources of high-chloride water and managed aquifer recharge in an alluvial aquifer in California USA. USGS. Retrieved from: https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70155190 % salinity.pdf
San Joaquin County. (2017). San Joaquin County 2017 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Texas A&M AgriLife Extension. (2003). Irrigation Water Quality Standards and Salinity Management Strategies.
Retrieved from: https://aglifesciences.tamu.edu/baen/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2017/01/B-1667.-IrrigationWater-Quality-Standards-and-Salinity-Management-Strategies.pdf United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2015). CropScape - Cropland Data Layer.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-28
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019; Revised June 2022 This page is intentionally left blank.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-1
Monitoring Networks November 2019
4. MONITORING NETWORKS
Monitoring networks in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin are dedicated to monitoring short-term, seasonal, and long-term trends in sustainability indicators. There are four networks: a broad network for water levels, a representative network for water levels, a broad network for water quality, and a representative network for water quality. These monitoring networks are tools for the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (ESJGWA) and will allow the ESJGWA to compile data on key sustainability indicators and monitor groundwater trends on a variety of temporal and spatial scales. The objective of these monitoring networks is to detect undesirable results in the Subbasin as described in Chapter 3: Sustainable Management Criteria of this Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). The data and trends will allow the ESJGWA to detect changes in Subbasin conditions, meet sustainability goal, avoid minimum thresholds, and evaluate the effectiveness of projects and management actions implemented. Ultimately, the monitoring network and associated data will guide decisions to prevent undesirable results occurring within the GSP implementation timeframe. Other objectives of the monitoring networks, as defined by the Department of Water Resources (DWR), include:
• Demonstrate progress toward achieving measurable objectives described in the Plan • Monitor impacts to the beneficial uses or users of groundwater • Monitor changes in groundwater conditions relative to measurable objectives and minimum thresholds • Quantify annual changes in water budget components
The monitoring networks are intended to monitor for chronic lowering of groundwater levels, degraded water quality, and seawater intrusion. As discussed in Chapter 3: Sustainable Management Criteria, the following sustainability indicators will be evaluated using groundwater levels as a proxy: reduction in groundwater storage, land subsidence, and depletions of interconnected surface water.
The schedule and costs associated with monitoring and implementation will be discussed in Chapter 7: Plan Implementation of the GSP.
4.1 MONITORING NETWORK FOR CHRONIC LOWERING OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS This section provides information on how the groundwater level monitoring networks were developed, criteria for selecting dedicated monitoring wells, monitoring frequency, spatial density, and summary protocols. The two networks that collect data for groundwater levels include:
• Representative Monitoring Network – These wells will be used to monitor sustainability in the Subbasin.
These wells are used to determine compliance with minimum thresholds and measurable objectives for the groundwater level sustainability indicator.
• Broad Monitoring Network – Additional wells are included as part of the broad monitoring network to collect additional information and to maintain a robust network for evaluation. Wells part of the broad monitoring network are not used to determine compliance with minimum thresholds or measurable objectives.
4.1.1 Representative Monitoring Network for Groundwater Levels Representative monitoring wells represent overall conditions in the production zone in the Subbasin and are reflective of regional groundwater conditions in the vicinity. Table 4-1 identifies and summarizes the 20 representative monitoring wells for groundwater levels. Well locations were shown previously in Figure 3-2 in Chapter 3: Sustainable Management Criteria.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-2
Monitoring Networks November 2019
Table 4-1: Representative Monitoring Wells for Groundwater Levels Local Well ID CASGEM Site Code Monitoring
Agency
Well
Depth (ft.)
Screen
Interval in ft.
bgs
(ft. MSL)
Measurement
Period (years)
Measurement
Count
Swenson-3 380067N1213458W003 San Joaquin
County (SJC)
204 194–204
(-190 to -200)
2014–2018 10
01S09E05H002 378824N1210000W001 SJC 256 148–256
(-41 to -149)
1991–2018 47
Burnett (OID4) 377909N1208675W001 Stanislaus
County
501 168–249
(21 to -60)
2005–2019 26
02N07E03D001 380578N1212017W001 SJC 484 130–484
(-74 to -428)
1990–2018 49
04N07E20H003M 381843N1212261W001 SJC 180 164–180
(-87to -103)
1972–2019 103
02S07E31N001 377136N1212508W001 SJC Unknown Unknown 1991–2018 45 02S08E08A001 377810N1211142W001 SJC 180 50–180
(22 to -108)
1991–2018 47
01N07E14J002 379316N1211665W001 SJC 556 168–556
(-116 to -504)
1991–2018 47
01N09E05J001 379661N1210011W001 SJC 750 100–750
(56 to -594)
2011–2018 12
02N07E29B001 379976N1212308W001 SJC 202 130–202
(-88 to -160)
1989–2018 41
02N08E15M002 380206N1210943W001 SJC Unknown Unknown 2011–2013 5 03N07E21L003 380909N1212153W001 SJC Unknown Unknown 1991–2013 39 03N06E05N003 381317N1213524W001 SJC 292 252–292
(-225 to -265)
1991–2018 44
04N05E36H003 381559N1213727W001 SJC 112 50–112
(-27 to -89)
1971–2018 88
04N05E24J004 381816N1213723W001 SJC 190 150–190
(-128 to -168)
1991–2018 47
#3 Bear Creek Not Part of CASGEM
Program
Lockeford
Community
Services
District (LCSD)
780 0–780
(96 to -684)
2011–2018 23
Lodi City Well #2 Not Part of CASGEM
Program
City of Lodi 315 109–310
(-57 to -258)
1927–2015 89
Hirschfeld (OID8) Not Part of CASGEM
Program
Stanislaus
County
408 88–179
(44 to -47)
2005–2016 23
Well 18 Not Part of CASGEM
Program
City of Manteca 350 109–349
(-65 to -305)
1997–2018 65
01S10E26J001M 378163N1208321W001 California
Statewide
Groundwater
Elevation
Monitoring
(CASGEM)
Unknown Unknown 1950–2019 104
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-3
Monitoring Networks November 2019
Representative groundwater level sites were selected by several different criteria. These include:
1. Adequate Spatial Distribution – Representative monitoring does not require the use of all wells that are spatially “clumped” together within a portion of the Subbasin. Adequately spaced wells will provide sufficient coverage with fewer monitoring sites.
2. Robust and Extensive Historical Data – Representative monitoring sites with a longer period of record and a greater number of historical measurements will provide insight into long-term trends that can provide information about groundwater conditions through varying climatic periods such as droughts and wet periods.
Historical data may also show changes in groundwater conditions through anthropogenic effects as well. While some sites chosen may not have extensive historical data, they may still be selected because there are no wells nearby with longer records.
3. Increased Density in Heavily Pumped Areas – Selection of additional wells in heavily pumped areas such as in the central portion of the Subbasin and other agriculturally intensive areas will provide additional data where the most groundwater change may occur.
4. Increased Density near Areas of Geologic or Hydrologic Uncertainty – Having a greater density of representative wells in areas of uncertainty, such as around faults or large elevation gradients, may provide insight into groundwater dynamics to improve management practices and strategies.
5. Wells with Multiple Depths – The utilization of wells with different screen intervals is important to collect data on the groundwater conditions at different elevations within the aquifer. This can be achieved by using wells with different screen depths that are close to one another, or by using multi-completion wells.
6. Consistency with BMPs – Using published Best Management Practices (BMPs) provided by DWR will promote consistency across subbasins and promote compliance with established regulations.
7. Adequate Well Construction Information – Well information such as perforation depths, construction date, and well depth was considered and encouraged when considering wells to be included.
8. Professional Judgement – Professional judgement is used to make the final decision about each well, particularly when more than one suitable well exists in an area of interest.
9. Maximum Coverage – Monitoring network wells were selected to prioritize spatial and vertical density of monitoring.
4.1.2 Broad Monitoring Network for Groundwater Levels
The broad monitoring network includes 107 wells, distinct from the 20 wells in the representative network, which will monitor groundwater levels (see Figure 4-1). These wells are not used to determine compliance with the measurable objectives and minimum thresholds. Wells that are part of the broad monitoring network will collect groundwater level data for informational purposes and will help maintain a robust groundwater level monitoring network. Data from this network will be available through the Data Management System (see Chapter 5: Data Management System) and will be reported in Annual Reports to DWR.
Of the 107 wells in the broad monitoring network, 76 wells included are wells used in CASGEM, a monitoring program that has tracked seasonal long-term groundwater elevation trends in the Subbasin. CASGEM wells were selected to be included in the broad monitoring network for groundwater level monitoring based on the following key qualifications:
1. The wells were previously determined to be representative of Subbasin groundwater level conditions;
2. Agencies have committed to semiannual monitoring of these wells; EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-4
Monitoring Networks November 2019
3. The wells use an existing data source with a historical data record;
4. The wells provide reliable, consistent data taken with standardized existing monitoring protocols; and
5. The wells are in many cases new, having been constructed within the past 10 years when the CASGEM program was enacted.
The broad monitoring network also includes 16 nested and/or clustered well sites (with more than 45 different screen intervals) monitored as part of the CASGEM program and/or by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). These 16 well sites were selected to be included in the broad monitoring network for groundwater levels for the following reasons:
1. The wells use an existing data source and have a historical data record;
2. Many wells are new, having been constructed within the past 10 years when the CASGEM program was enacted;
3. Construction details, including total depth, hole depth, and screen intervals, for these wells are well documented;
4. Wells are screened at multiple depths and can provide depth-specific data; and
5. Nested and/or clustered wells can be used for the analysis of vertical gradients, which will be valuable in characterizing groundwater conditions
The broad monitoring network also includes 15 identified local water quality wells that are included as part of the groundwater water quality monitoring networks (10 in the representative monitoring network and five in the broad monitoring network). These 15 local water quality wells include San Joaquin County’s Flag City wells and wells located near cities of Lodi, Manteca, and Stockton. These wells will be monitored for groundwater levels as part of the broad monitoring network for groundwater levels. See Appendix 4-A for additional information on the wells in the broad monitoring network for groundwater levels.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-5
Monitoring Networks November 2019
Figure 4-1: Broad Monitoring Network for Groundwater Levels EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-6
Monitoring Networks November 2019
Table 4-2 provides the breakdown on type of wells included in the broad monitoring network for groundwater levels.
Table 4-2: Groundwater Level Monitoring Wells in the Broad Monitoring Well Network Well Type Number of Wells Selected for
Broad Monitoring Network
CASGEM 76
Existing Nested and/or Clustered Well Site 16
Local Water Quality Wells 15
Total 107
4.1.3 Monitoring Protocols for Groundwater Level Data Collection and Monitoring Groundwater monitoring protocols are essential to producing quality data measurements and protecting the water quality of monitoring wells. Existing protocol resources include DWR’s Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines (CA DWR, 2010) and USGS’s National Field Manual for the Collection of Water Quality Data (USGS, var.). Protocols are established to improve consistency in data and ensure comparable methodologies.
Typical groundwater level measurement equipment used by agencies includes electric sounders, data loggers, steel tapes, and air gauges. Regardless of the instrumentation used in the field, each groundwater level data measurement must include: well identification number, measurement date, reference point and land surface elevation, depth to water, method of measuring water depth, measurement quality codes, any observations on well conditions (i.e., condition of surface seal, accessibility issues, obstructions within the wells, etc.), and measurement to the base of the well (total well depth).
DWR released a BMP for monitoring protocols, in the Best Management Practices for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater Monitoring Protocols, Standards, and Sites (CA DWR, 2016a). The monitoring protocols described in DWR’s BMP recommend that groundwater level measurements are taken in a manner to ensure data are:
• Taken from the correct location, well ID, and screen interval depth • Accurate and reproducible
• Representative of conditions that inform appropriate basin management data quality objectives • Recorded with all salient information to correct, if necessary, and compare data • Handled in a way that ensures data integrity.
• Taken using a CASGEM-approved water-level measurement method to ensure consistency across measurements. Methods include:
o Establishing a reference point
o Using one of four approved methods (steel tape, electric sounding tape, sonic water-level meter, or pressure transducer) to measure groundwater levels
Existing wells, monitored under the CASGEM program, already use these procedures in the collection of groundwater level data. The protocols used for CASGEM groundwater level monitoring will be used when possible in data monitoring and collection in support of this GSP.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-7
Monitoring Networks November 2019
4.1.4 Frequency and Timing of Groundwater Level Monitoring Representative monitoring network wells and broad monitoring network wells for groundwater levels will be monitored semi-annually in March and October to capture the seasonal high and low groundwater levels and to avoid interference from pumping wells during irrigation season.
Frequency of groundwater level monitoring is cited in the Draft Monitoring Networks and Identification of Data Gaps Best Management Practice (CA DWR, 2016b) which presents guidance on monitoring frequency based on the type of monitoring, aquifer type, confinement, recharge rate, hydraulic conductivity, and withdrawal rate. While semi-annual monitoring is required for groundwater levels, DWR guidance recommends monthly sampling of groundwater levels for the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin based on aquifer type, volume of long-term aquifer withdrawals, and recharge potential. Sampling frequencies were developed based on this guidance in combination with a consideration of sampling costs.
A semi-annual monitoring frequency will generate data that is useful for monitoring for the long term, regional trends in groundwater level conditions. These measurements are also valuable for local groundwater management and for investigating local pumping’s effects on nearby wells. This frequency meets the goal of a successful monitoring schedule which provides enough data to adequately interpret changes in groundwater levels and fluctuations over short- and long-term periods, as these fluctuations could be the result of storm events, droughts, or other climatic variations, seasons, and anthropogenic activities.
4.1.5 Spatial Density of Groundwater Level Monitoring Network The goal of the groundwater level monitoring network is to provide adequate spatial coverage within the Subbasin.
This includes the ability to monitor and identify groundwater changes across the Subbasin through time. The spatial location of monitoring wells in the networks was based on proximity to other monitoring wells and ensuring adequate coverage near other prominent features such as faults or production wells. Monitoring wells in close proximity to active pumping wells could be influenced by groundwater withdrawals, thus skewing static level monitoring.
To achieve a suitable monitoring network density, DWR recommends selecting existing, dedicated groundwater monitoring wells with known construction information over production wells to incorporate into the network. When deciding on the number of groundwater wells to be monitored in a basin to adequately represent static water levels (and corresponding elevations), the following factors should be considered:
• Known hydrogeology of the basin
• Slope of the groundwater table or potentiometric surface • Existence of high-volume production wells and the frequency of their use • Availability of easily accessible monitoring wells
In 2010, DWR released Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines, which discusses the selection and requirements for new wells to be incorporated into groundwater level monitoring networks (CA DWR, 2010). The recommended network density ranges from 0.2 to 10 groundwater monitoring wells per 100 square miles depending on local pumping rates. The Subbasin is approximately 1,195 square miles. Based on the recommendations by DWR, the number of monitoring wells for the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin should range from 2.4 to 119.5 wells per 100 square miles, as summarized in Table 4-3.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-8
Monitoring Networks November 2019
Table 4-3: DWR Monitoring Well Density Recommendations
Reference Monitoring Well Density
(wells per 100 sq. miles)
Recommended No. of
Monitoring Wells in the
Subbasin
Heath (1976) 0.2 – 10 2.4 – 119.5
Sophocleous (1983) 6.3 75.9
Hopkins (1994)
Basins pumping more than 10,000 AF/year per
100 miles 4.0 47.8
Spatial density of the groundwater level monitoring network was calculated for both the representative monitoring network and the broad monitoring network, as summarized in Table 4-4. The density of the representative monitoring network is 1.7 wells per 100 square miles, a total of 20 monitoring wells, which falls into the lower to middle range of DWR’s recommendations. However, in combination with the broad monitoring network, a total of 127 wells are monitored for groundwater levels (approximately 11 wells per 100 square miles), which exceeds DWR’s recommendations.
Table 4-4: Groundwater Level Monitoring Network Density Monitoring Network No. of Wells Well Density
(Wells per 100 sq. miles)
Representative Monitoring
Network 20 1.7
Broad Monitoring Network 107 9.0
Combined Representative
Monitoring Network and Broad
Monitoring Network
127 10.6
4.2 MONITORING NETWORK FOR REDUCTION IN GROUNDWATER STORAGE Groundwater levels will be used as a proxy for the reduction in groundwater storage sustainability indicator as described in Chapter 3: Sustainable Management Criteria. Sustainable management criteria for groundwater storage will be monitored through the groundwater levels monitoring networks, described in Section 4.1. Monitoring data collected by the groundwater level monitoring networks will support future characterization of groundwater in storage.
4.3 MONITORING NETWORKS FOR DEGRADED WATER QUALITY
Groundwater quality monitoring is conducted through both representative and broad groundwater well monitoring networks. This section provides information on how the monitoring networks were developed, criteria for selecting dedicated monitoring wells, monitoring frequency, spatial density, and summary protocols.
The representative monitoring network is used to determine compliance with minimum thresholds and measurable objectives developed for the degraded water quality sustainability indicator. The broad monitoring network includes additional wells to maintain a robust network for evaluation and information collection. Wells that are part of the broad monitoring network are not used to determine compliance with minimum thresholds or measurable objectives.
Monitoring networks monitoring for water quality will test for total dissolved solids (TDS), cations and anions (including chloride and nitrate), arsenic, and field parameters including pH, electrical conductivity (EC), and temperature. Arsenic will be monitored for informational purposes and to track trends in arsenic concentrations. The GSP does not include sustainability goals, measurable objectives, or minimum thresholds for arsenic.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-9
Monitoring Networks November 2019
4.3.1 Representative Monitoring Network for Groundwater Quality Ten representative monitoring wells were selected for monitoring groundwater quality. These wells are currently monitored and managed by City of Manteca, Cal Water, City of Stockton, and San Joaquin County. Table 4-5 identifies and summarizes the agencies with the 10 representative monitoring wells selected for the groundwater quality monitoring network, which was shown previously in Figure 3-3 (Chapter 3: Sustainable Management Criteria).
Table 4-5: Representative Monitoring Network Wells for Water Quality Well ID Monitoring Agency
Well
Depth
(ft. bgs)
Screen
Interval
(ft. bgs)
Current
Condition
Average TDS
(2015 – 2018)
(mg/L)
Monitoring
Period
(years)
Monitoring
Count
Well 1 San Joaquin County
(Flag City) 170 120 – 170 500 2008 - 2018 8
Well 2 San Joaquin County
(Flag City) 180 130 – 180 510 2008 – 2016 7
Well 3 San Joaquin County
(Flag City) Unknown Unknown 510 2013 - 2016 3
Stockton 10R City of Stockton Unknown 177 – 277 322 1998 - 2018 6 Stockton 28 City of Stockton Unknown 178 – 278 350 1998 - 2018 6 Stockton
SSS8 City of Stockton Unknown 177 - 277 370 1998 - 2018 4 Well 15 City of Manteca Unknown 81 – 181 300 1998 - 2018 7 Well 16 City of Manteca Unknown 80 – 180 - 1998 - 2018 6 Well 17 City of Manteca Unknown 97 - 197 - 1998 - 2018 6 119-075-01 Cal Water 580 176 – 276 300 1979 - 2018 15
Representative monitoring wells were selected based on their ability to represent conditions in the Subbasin and indicate long-term, regional changes in groundwater quality conditions. Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) in areas affected by high TDS levels identified wells to be used as representative monitoring wells that met the following criteria:
1. Adequate Spatial Distribution – High TDS concentrations historically have occurred in the western portion of the Subbasin, near the San Joaquin River and urban areas; as such, the majority of representative monitoring wells are located in the western half of the Subbasin. Monitoring wells are located both within areas of high TDS concentrations, to observe and monitor TDS trends, and adjacent to high TDS areas, to observe potential TDS movement.
2. Extensive Historical Data – Wells with longer records of TDS monitoring were preferentially selected over wells with short or sporadic records. Monitoring wells with historical TDS records provide insight on long-term trends and the groundwater condition responses to varying climatic periods such as droughts and wet periods and/or anthropogenic effects.
3. A Range of TDS Concentrations – Wells with historically low TDS concentrations near areas with high salinity were looked at to alert a change in groundwater quality conditions and a possible migration of salinity.
4. Known Well Construction Information – Wells with known construction data, including total depth, screen intervals, and construction date, were preferred. Knowledge of the depth at which water quality measurements are taken would better describe the representative conditions of specific portions of the aquifer.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-10
Monitoring Networks November 2019
5. Current TDS Monitoring Program – Wells currently monitored for TDS were preferred over wells not currently monitored for water quality constituents. These wells are already equipped for monitoring and have existing protocols to ensure accurate and consistent measurements, and they represent a current asset for the Subbasin that can be further utilized.
6. Consistency with BMPs – DWR’s published BMPs were used as guidance documents to ensure consistency across all basins and ensure compliance with established regulations.
7. Professional Judgement – Professional judgement was used to make the final decision about each well, particularly when more than one suitable well exists in an area of interest.
4.3.2 Broad Monitoring Network for Groundwater Quality
In addition to the representative monitoring network wells, 21 additional wells will monitor groundwater quality as part of the broad monitoring network (see Figure 4-2). The purpose of including these wells in the broad monitoring network is to better monitor for potential spread of salinity and to maintain a robust network for evaluation as part of 5-year GSP updates. These wells are not used to determine compliance with the measurable objectives or minimum thresholds.
These 21 wells overlap with the broad monitoring network for groundwater levels. Data from this network will be available through the Data Management System (see Chapter 5: Data Management System) and will be reported in Annual Reports to DWR.
The broad monitoring network for water quality includes 5 identified local water quality wells and 16 nested and/or clustered well sites that are also monitored for groundwater levels in the broad monitoring network for groundwater levels (Section 4.1.2). Table 4-6 identifies the wells included in the broad monitoring network for water quality.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-11
Monitoring Networks November 2019
Figure 4-2: Broad Monitoring Network for Groundwater Quality EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-12
Monitoring Networks November 2019
Table 4-6: Wells in the Broad Monitoring Network for Groundwater Quality Identified Local Water Quality Monitoring Wells Nested and/or Clustered Wells Well ID Monitoring
Entity Well Depth (ft.) Well ID Monitoring Entity
Screen Interval
(ft.)
119-059-01 Cal Water 520 Lodi MW - 21 City of Lodi
(66–76)
(92–102)
(118–128)
119-069-01 Cal Water 530 Lodi MW – 24 City of Lodi
(95.5–105.5)
(60–70)
(114–124)
Lodi Well #5 City of Lodi 230 Lodi MW – 25 City of Lodi (86–96) (148–158)
Lodi Well #7 City of Lodi 422 Lodi SMW – 1 City of Lodi (105–115) (200–210)
Lodi Well #11R City of Lodi 465 Lodi WMW – 1 City of Lodi (195–205)
(140–150)
(232–242)
Lodi WMW – 2 City of Lodi
(179–189)
(204–214)
(231–241)
(283–293)
CCWD 04-06 CCWD Unknown
CCWD 010-012 CCWD Unknown
Sperry Well SJCFCWCD
(114–124)
(262–282)
(440–460)
STK – 1 SJCFCWCD
(58–68)
(220–240)
(360–380)
(520–540)
(860–880)
STK – 2 SJCFCWCD
(200–220)
(280–300)
(520–540)
(615–635)
STK – 4 SJCFCWCD
(200–220)
(340–360)
(540–560)
STK – 5 SJCFCWCD
(210–230)
(410–430)
(560–580)
STK – 6 SJCFCWCD
(240–260)
(450–470)
(540–560)
STK – 7 SJCFCWCD
(145–165)
(270–295)
(415–435)
(545–565)
Swenson Golf
Course SJCFCWCD
(482–502)
(294–314)
(194–204)
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-13
Monitoring Networks November 2019
4.3.3 Monitoring Protocols for Groundwater Quality Data Collection and Monitoring Groundwater quality data sampling protocols are based on DWR’s Best Management Practices for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater Monitoring Protocols, Standards, and Sites (CA DWR, 2016a), which cites the USGS’s 1995 publication Ground-Water Data-Collection Protocols and Procedures for the National Water-Quality Assessment Program: Collection and Documentation of Water-Quality Samples and Related Data (USGS, 1995). The BMP recommends groundwater quality monitoring protocols and also recommends using the USGS National Field Manual for the Collection of Water Quality Data (USGS, var.) for additional protocols. These publications include protocols for equipment selection, setup, use, field evaluation, sample collection techniques, sample handling, and sample testing.
Groundwater quality sampling protocols recommended in the BMP include ensuring that:
• Groundwater quality data are taken from the correct location • Groundwater quality data are accurate and reproducible • Data represents conditions that inform appropriate basin management and are consistent with the data quality objectives
• Data are handled in a way that ensures data integrity • All salient information is recorded to normalize, if necessary, and compare data As a quality assurance measure, an operating standard will be developed to ensure data integrity. See Chapter 7: Plan Implementation for additional information on monitoring plan implementation.
4.3.4 Frequency and Timing of Groundwater Quality Monitoring Groundwater quality measurements will be collected semi-annually for both the representative monitoring network wells and the broad monitoring network wells.
Although DWR does not provide specific recommendations on the frequency of monitoring for TDS, concentrations of groundwater quality, especially salinity, do not typically fluctuate significantly throughout a year to require multiple samples per year. No existing monitoring wells were found to be monitored continuously for groundwater quality (such monitoring is typically performed only for EC and temperature), nor were there agencies that reported ongoing, nonregulatory, regularly scheduled groundwater quality monitoring programs.
Table 4-7 identifies the historical frequency of groundwater quality monitoring conducted for local water quality wells by each monitoring agency. Ten of these wells are the water quality representative network wells, and the remaining five are part of the water quality broad network (two monitored by Cal Water and three monitored by the City of Lodi).
Table 4-7: Historical Groundwater Quality Monitoring Frequency at Identified Local Water Quality Wells
Agency Data Record Historical Monitoring
Frequency (Approx.)
Cal Water 1979 - 2018 Approx. every 3 years
City of Lodi 2008 - 2018 Approx. every 3 years
City of Manteca 1975 - 2017 Monthly
City of Stockton 1989 - 2016 Quarterly
San Joaquin County – Flag City 2009 - 2017 Annually
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-14
Monitoring Networks November 2019
4.3.5 Spatial Density of Groundwater Quality Monitoring Wells DWR’s Monitoring Networks and Identification of Data Gaps BMP states “The spatial distribution must be adequate to map or supplement mapping of known contaminants” (CA DWR, 2016b). The goal of the groundwater quality monitoring network is to adequately cover the Subbasin to accurately characterize salinity concentrations and trends.
This includes both spatial coverage and temporal coverage in order to identify changes in groundwater quality over time.
DWR’s Monitoring Networks and Identification of Data Gaps BMP identifies different sources and calculations for establishing monitoring network densities on a Subbasin-specific case (CA DWR, 2016b). These density calculations and guidance are summarized in Table 4-3. The spatial density of the groundwater quality monitoring network was calculated for both the representative monitoring network and the broad monitoring network, as summarized in Table 4-8. The representative monitoring network consists of a total of 10 monitoring wells, a density of 0.8 wells per 100 square miles. The density of the broad monitoring network, a total of 21 monitoring wells, is 1.2 wells per 100 square miles.
Table 4-8: Groundwater Quality Monitoring Network Density Monitoring Network No. of Wells Well Density (Wells per 100 sq. miles)
Representative Monitoring Network 10 0.8
Broad Monitoring Network 21 1.2
Combined Representative Monitoring Network
and Broad Monitoring Network 31 2.6
4.4 MONITORING NETWORK FOR SEAWATER INTRUSION
The seawater intrusion monitoring network uses the same monitoring wells and monitoring strategies as the groundwater quality representative monitoring network. Chloride concentrations will be monitored at the degraded water quality representative monitoring networks wells to develop a chloride isocontour line (see Section 3.2.4.2 in Chapter 3: Sustainable Management Criteria).
4.5 MONITORING NETWORK FOR LAND SUBSIDENCE
Groundwater levels will be used as a proxy for the land subsidence sustainability indicator as described in Chapter 3:
Sustainable Management Criteria. Sustainable management criteria for land subsidence will be monitored through the groundwater levels monitoring network, described in Section 4.1. The ESJGWA will continue to review Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) subsidence monitoring data made available by DWR, as well as other data sources as available.
4.6 MONITORING NETWORK FOR DEPLETIONS OF INTERCONNECTED SURFACE WATERS Groundwater levels will be used as a proxy for the depletions of interconnected surface water sustainability indicator as described in Chapter 3: Sustainable Management Criteria. As such, sustainable management criteria for interconnected surface water will be monitored through the groundwater levels monitoring network, described in Section 4.1. Available stream gage data (stream flows and levels) will also be reviewed for potential impacts to the beneficial uses and users of the surface water within the Subbasin.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-15
Monitoring Networks November 2019
4.7 DATA GAPS
4.7.1 Groundwater Level Data Gaps
Groundwater level monitoring data gaps exist in areas where data are limited. Specifically, areas of high data needs include monitoring near streams, Subbasin boundaries, and the groundwater depression in the central part of the Subbasin. Additionally, areas without multiple-completion wells present a limitation for depth-specific information collection. Additional sampling taken within these identified areas will provide more information about groundwater levels and trends in the indicated locations.
4.7.2 Groundwater Quality Data Gaps
Groundwater quality monitoring data gaps have four components:
1. Spatial distribution: Monitoring wells are mainly focused in the western portion of the Subbasin, as this area has historically had the highest concentrations of TDS. Additional sampling will provide more information about salinity both to provide more detailed understanding within areas with current monitoring coverage and to expand monitoring to areas without current salinity issues.
2. Well construction data: As described in Section 2.2.4, many wells with salinity measurements lack well depth and construction information. Both deeper and shallower groundwater quality monitoring wells are needed to better understand the spatial and depth distribution of salinity concentrations in the Subbasin.
3. Monitoring frequency: Temporally, groundwater quality monitoring occurs at different frequencies across the Subbasin, dependent on the monitoring agency responsible (summarized in Table 4-7). The groundwater quality monitoring network under the GSP will utilize a standardized, semi-annual monitoring schedule to facilitate the regular sampling of wells.
4. Monitoring for additional constituents: Groundwater quality concerns in the Subbasin are currently focused on salinity. Additional groundwater quality components such as arsenic and cations and anions, including nitrate, are monitored under existing water resources monitoring and management programs. Informational monitoring of these constituents may preempt future groundwater quality issues in the Subbasin.
4.7.3 Interconnected Surface Water System Data Gaps
The ESJGWA recognizes the depletions of interconnected surface water as a data gap area. The ESJGWA has identified a need for future study and refinement of interconnected surface water and will continue coordination efforts to better inform Subbasin conditions. As discussed in Section 7.4.1, future model calibration will be improved by more information on interconnected surface water, including the incorporation of shallow groundwater levels near streams from the proposed wells in Section 4.7.5 and the study of Mokelumne River losses in Section 6.2.7.
4.7.4 Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystem Data Gaps
The Natural Communities Commonly Associated with Groundwater (NCCAG) areas not identified as GroundwaterDependent Ecosystems (GDEs) through the GDE analysis are data gap areas requiring further evaluation and refinement to determine whether they require classification as a GDE. These areas include NCCAGs that either access co-occurring surface water, were identified as located in an area with groundwater levels deeper than 30 feet bgs, or were located adjacent to irrigated agriculture. The purpose of this data gap is to identify potential existing GDEs that may have been incorrectly not identified as GDEs through the GDE screening process discussed in Section 2.2.7. The ESJGWA will evaluate whether to use GDE Pulse Tool and other tools to monitor GDE areas. Potential impacts to fish and wildlife species associated with GDEs that occur as a result of groundwater pumping under and are not captured under the depletions of interconnected surface water sustainability indicator is also considered a data gap area.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-16
Monitoring Networks November 2019
4.7.5 Plan to Fill Data Gaps
Data gaps will be largely filled by leveraging existing wells, constructing new wells, additional water quality monitoring, modeling, and studies of interconnected surface water and GDEs, which are discussed in Chapter 7: Plan Implementation. These efforts will be supported through a combination of funding and financing sources, including through DWR Technical Support Services (TSS) funding, future grant funding, and GSA funding. A description of data collection and analysis efforts to fill data gaps, and information on how these efforts will be funded, is provided in Chapter 7: Plan Implementation.
There are up to 12 proposed new monitoring well sites (shown in Figure 4-3 in orange); these wells will be measured for groundwater levels and groundwater quality. The locations of the proposed monitoring wells are subject to change based on the needs of the Subbasin and well siting feasibility.
Two of these wells will be deep, multi-completion wells, built using support awarded to the Subbasin by DWR’s TSS program. The TSS program provides technical support to GSAs during GSP development. The two new wells drilled using DWR’s TSS program will improve the density and sampling frequency for both groundwater quality and groundwater level monitoring within data gap areas. Additional multi-completion groundwater level information will assist with better understanding of groundwater-surface water interaction and GDEs. One of the TSS wells is located approximately in the middle of the northern Subbasin boundary (near Dry Creek) and the other well is located along Calaveras River near Highway 88 in the approximate middle of the Subbasin.
The remaining wells will be new shallow groundwater level and quality monitoring wells located near streams, Subbasin boundaries, and the groundwater depression area in the center of the Subbasin. Up to 10 of these wells are funded through the DWR Proposition 1 Sustainable Groundwater Planning Grant. The proposed locations of these wells were selected to be co-located with identified and potential GDE areas and near streams to further understanding of groundwater-surface water connectivity and to refine GDE data gaps. Additionally, groundwater level data collected from these wells will improve the understanding of groundwater flows between subbasins and groundwater quality data will assist in tracking quality in different areas of the Subbasin. Two recommended monitoring locations are adjacent to Dry Creek and are intended to provide data relevant to potential surface water depletions and subsurface flows across the Subbasin boundary to the Cosumnes Subbasin to the north. Relevant data from these and other wells will be shared with GSAs in neighboring subbasins, and parallel efforts will be coordinated.
The USGS National Field Manual for the Collection of Water Quality Data (USGS, var.) will be used as a guide for selection of wells, well locations, and collection of reliable data, as recommended by DWR’s Monitoring Protocols, Standards, and Sites BMP (CA DWR, 2016a). Requirements are summarized in Table 4-9. The DWR’s California Well Standards, Bulletin 74-81 and 74-90 will be used as references for guidance for construction of new monitoring well installation, per DWR’s Best Management Practices for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater Monitoring Protocols, Standards, and Sites (CA DWR, 2016a). Additionally, procedures will follow applicable San Joaquin County, Calaveras County, or Stanislaus County well standards, including proper permitting and inspection from the applicable county for each well.
Aside from new groundwater monitoring wells, data gaps will also be addressed through additional analysis of interconnected surface water, including additional modeling and refinement of GDEs. Additional activities related to filling data gaps are discussed in Chapter 6: Projects and Management Actions and Chapter 7: Plan Implementation.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-17
Monitoring Networks November 2019
Figure 4-3: Proposed New Monitoring Well Locations (Shown in Orange) EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-18
Monitoring Networks November 2019
Table 4-9: Considerations for Well Selection and Well Installation Well Location
• Location conforms to the study’s network design for areal and depth distribution. • Land-use/land-cover characteristics, if relevant, are consistent with study objectives. • Site is accessible for equipment needed for well installation and sample collection.
Hydrogeologic Unit(s)
• Hydrogeologic unit(s) that contribute water to the well can be identified. • Depth and thickness of targeted hydrogeologic unit(s) are known or can be determined. • Yield of water is adequate for sampling (typically, a minimum of 1 gallon (3.785 liters) per minute).
Well Records, Description, Design, Materials, and Structure • Available records (for example, logs of well drilling, completion, and development) have sufficient information to meet the criteria established by the study.
• Borehole or casing/screen diameter is adequate for equipment. • Depth to top and bottom of sample-collection (open or screened) interval is known (to determine area contributing water to well).
• Length of well screen is proportional to the vertical and areal scale of investigation. • Well has only one screened or open interval in one aquifer, if possible. (Packers can be used to isolate the interval of interest, but packers might not completely isolate zones in unconsolidated or highly fractured aquifers.
If packers are used, materials of construction must be compatible with analytes to be studied.) • Top of well screen is several feet below mean annual low-water table to reduce chances of well going dry and to avoid sampling from unsaturated intervals.
• Filter pack is of a reasonable length (a long interval compared with length of screened or open interval usually results in uncertainty as to location of the source of water to well). • Well-construction materials do not leach or sorb substances that could alter ambient target-analyte concentrations.
• Well-structure integrity and communication with the aquifer are sound. (Checks include annual depth-to-bottom measurements, borehole caliper and downhole-camera video logs, and aquifer tests.) Pump Type, Materials, Performance, and Location of Sampler Intake • Supply wells have water-lubricated turbine pumps rather than oil-lubricated turbine pumps. (Avoid suction-lift, jet, or gas-contact pumps, especially for analytes affected by pressure changes, exposure to oxygen, or that partition to a gas phase.)
• Pump and riser-pipe materials do not affect target-analyte concentrations. • Effects of pumping rate on measurements and analyses have been or will be evaluated. • Samples intake is ahead of where water enters treatment systems, pressure tanks, or holding tanks.
Source: National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data (USGS, var.) EXHIBIT 1
Draft Groundwater Sustainability Plan 5-1
Data Management System July 2019
5. DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
This chapter includes the Data Management System Section that satisfies § 352.6 of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Regulations. This section contains three main subsections:
• Overview of the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Data Management System • Functionality of the Data Management System
• Data Included in the Data Management System
5.1 OVERVIEW OF THE EASTERN SAN JOAQUIN SUBBASIN DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Data
Management System (DMS) is implemented using
the Opti platform. The DMS serves as a data
sharing portal to enable utilization of the same data
and tools for visualization and analysis to support
sustainable groundwater management and
transparent reporting of data and results.
The DMS is web-based and publicly accessible
using common web browsers including Google
Chrome, Firefox, and Microsoft Edge. It is a
flexible and open software platform that utilizes
familiar Google maps and charting tools for
analysis and visualization. The site may be
accessed here: https://opti.woodardcurran.com/esj
5.2 FUNCTIONALITY OF THE DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
The DMS is a modular system that includes numerous tools to support Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) development and ongoing implementation, including:
• User and Data Access Permissions
• Data Entry and Validation
• Visualization and Analysis
• Query and Reporting
The DMS can be configured for additional tools and functionality as the needs of the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (ESJGWA) change over time. The following sections briefly describe the currently configured tools. For more detailed instructions on the usage of the DMS, please refer to the Opti Public User Guide (the Opti Public User Guide can be accessed online at https://opti.woodardcurran.com/esj/upload/OptiPublicDMS_Guide.pdf.
Figure 5-1: Opti DMS Screenshot
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 5-2
Data Management System November 2019
5.2.1 User and Data Access Permissions
User access permissions are controlled through several user types that have different roles in the DMS as summarized in Table 5-1 below. These user types are broken into three high-level categories:
• System Administrator users manage information at a system-wide level, with access to all user accounts and entity information. System Administrators can set and modify user access permissions when an entity is unable to do so.
• Managing Entity (Administrator, Power User, User) users are responsible for managing their entity’s site/monitoring data and can independently control access to this data. Entity users can view and edit their entity’s data and view (not edit) shared or published data of other entities. An entity’s site information (wells, gages, etc.) and associated data may only be edited by Administrators and Power Users associated with the entity.
• Public users may view data that are published but may not edit any information. These users may access the DMS using the Guest Login feature on the login screen.
Monitoring sites and their associated datasets are added to the DMS by Managing Entity Administrators or Power Users. In addition to the user permissions, access to the monitoring datasets is controlled through three options:
• Private data are monitoring data that are only available for viewing, depending on user type, by the entity’s associated users in the DMS.
• Shared data are monitoring data that are available for viewing by all users in the DMS (excludes Public Users).
• Public data are monitoring data that are available publicly and can be viewed by all user types in the DMS and may be published to other sites or DMSs as needed.
The Managing Entity Administrators have the ability to set and maintain the data access options for each dataset associated with their entity.
Table 5-1: Data Management System User Types
Modules/Submodules System
Administrators
Entity Public
Admin Power User User
Data: Map ● ● ● ● ○
Data: List ● ● ● ● ○
Data: Add/Edit ● ● ●
Data: Import ● ● ●
Query ● ● ● ● ○
Admin ●
Profile ● ● ○ ○ ○
● Indicates access to all functionality, ○ Indicates access to partial functionality (see explanations in following sections) EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 5-3
Data Management System November 2019
5.2.2 Data Entry and Validation
To encourage agency and user participation in the DMS, data entry and import tools are easy to use, accessible over the web, and help maintain data consistency and standardization. The DMS allows Entity Administrators and Power Users to enter data either manually via easy-to-use interfaces, or through an import tool utilizing Excel templates, ensuring data may be entered into the DMS as soon as possible after collection. The data are validated by Managing Entity’s Administrators or Power Users using a number of quality control checks prior to inclusion in the DMS.
5.2.2.1 Data Collection Sites
Site information is input for groundwater wells, stream gages, and precipitation meters manually either through the Data Entry tool or when prompted in the Import tool. In the Data Entry tool, new sites may be added by clicking on New Site. Existing sites may be updated using the Edit Site tool. During data import, the sites associated with imported data are checked by the system against the existing site list in the DMS. If the site is not in the existing site list, the user is prompted to enter the information via the New Site tool before the data import can proceed.
The information that is collected for sites is shown in Table 5-2. Required fields are indicated with an asterisk.
Table 5-2: Data Collection Site Information
Basic Info Well Info Construction Info
Site Type*
Local Site Name*
Local Site ID
Latitude/Longitude*
Description
County
Managing Entity*
Monitoring Entity*
Type of Monitoring
Type of Measurement
Monitoring Frequency
State Well ID
CASGEM ID
Ground Surface Elevation
Reference Point
Reference Point Elevation
Reference Point Location
Reference Point Description
Well Use
Well Status
Well Type
Aquifers Monitored
Groundwater Subbasin Name/Code
Comments
Upload File
Total Well Depth
Borehole Depth
Casing Perforations
Casing Diameter
Casing Modifications
Well Capacity
Well Completion Report Number
Comments
* Required fields; all other fields are optional
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 5-4
Data Management System November 2019
5.2.2.2 Monitoring Data Entry
Monitoring data, including but not limited to
groundwater elevation, groundwater quality,
streamflow, and precipitation, may be input
either manually through the Data Entry tool or
using templates in the Import tool. The Data
Entry tool allows users to select a site and add
data for the site using a web-based tool (see
Figure 5-2). The following information is
collected:
• Data Type (e.g., groundwater
elevation, groundwater quality,
streamflow, or precipitation)
• Parameter for selected Data Type, units populate based on selection • Date of Measurement
• Measurement Value
• Quality Flag (e.g., quality assurance description for the measurement such as “Pumping”, “Can’t get tape in casing”, etc., as documented by the Data Collector)
• Data Collector
• Supplemental Information based on Data Type (e.g., Reference Point Elevation, Ground Surface Elevation, etc.)
Data import templates include the same data entry fields and are available for download from the DMS. The Excelbased templates contain drop-down options and field validation similar to the data entry interface.
5.2.2.3 Data Validation
Quality control helps ensure the integrity of the data added to the DMS. The entities that maintain the monitoring data that were loaded into the DMS may have performed previous validation of that data; no effort was made to check or correct that previous validation and it was assumed that all data provided was valid. While it is nearly impossible to determine complete accuracy of the data added to the DMS since the DMS cannot detect incorrect measurements due to human error or mechanical failure, it is possible to verify that the data input into the DMS meets some data quality standards. This helps promote user confidence in the data stored and published for visualization and analysis.
Upon saving the data in the data entry interface or importing the data using the Excel templates, the following data validation checks are performed by the DMS:
• Duplicate measurements: The database checks for duplicate entries based on the unique combination of site, data type, date, and measurement value.
• Inaccurate measurements: The database compares data measurements against historical data for the site and flags entries that are outside the historical minimum and maximum values. • Incorrect data entry: Data field entries are checked for correct data type (e.g., number fields do not include text, date fields contain dates, etc.)
Figure 5-2: DMS Data Entry Tool
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 5-5
Data Management System November 2019
Users are alerted to any validation issues and may either update the data entries or accept the values and continue with the entry/import. Users may access partially completed import validation through the import logs that are saved for each data import. The partially imported data are identified in the Import Log with an incomplete icon under the Status field. This allows a second person to also access the imported data and review prior to inclusion in the DMS.
5.2.3 Visualization and Analysis
Transparent visualization and analysis tools enable utilization of the same data and methodologies, allowing stakeholders and neighboring Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) to use the same data and methods for tracking and analysis. In the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin DMS, data visualization and analysis are performed in both Map and List views.
5.2.3.1 Map View
The Map view displays all sites
(groundwater wells, stream gages,
precipitation meters, etc.) in a mapbased interface (see Figure 5-3). The sites are color coded based on
associated data type and may be filtered
by different criteria such as number of
records or monitoring entity. Users may
click on a site to view the site detail
information and associated data. The
monitoring data are displayed in both
chart and table formats. In these views,
the user may select to view different
parameters for the data type. The chart and table may be updated to display selected date ranges, and the data may be exported to Excel.
5.2.3.2 List View
The List view displays all sites (groundwater wells, stream gages, precipitation meters, etc.) in a tabular interface. The sites are listed according to site names and associated entities. The list can be sorted and filtered by different criteria such as number of records or monitoring entity. Similar to the Map view, users may click on a site to view the site detail information and associated data. The monitoring data are displayed in both chart and table formats. In these views, the user may select to view different parameters for the data type. The chart and table may be updated to display selected date ranges, and the data may be exported to Excel.
5.2.3.3 Analysis Tools
The Toolbox is available in the Map view and offers Administrative and Entity users access to the Well Tiering tool to support monitoring plan development. The flexibility of the DMS platform allows for future analysis tools, including contouring, total water budget visualization, and management area tracking.
5.2.4 Query and Reporting
The DMS has the ability to format and export data and analysis at different levels of aggregation, and in different formats, to support local decision making and for submission to various statewide and local programs (i.e., the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act [SGMA], California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring [CASGEM], groundwater ambient monitoring and assessment [GAMA], etc.).
Figure 5-3: Typical DMS Data Display
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 5-6
Data Management System November 2019
5.2.4.1 Ad-hoc Query
The data in the DMS can be queried and reported using the Query Tool. The Query Tool includes the ability to build ad-hoc queries using simple options. The data can be queried by:
• Monitoring or Managing Entity
• Site Name
• Data Type
Once the type of option is selected, the specific criteria may be selected (e.g., groundwater elevation greater than 100 ft.). Users may also include time periods as part of the query. The query options can build upon each other to create reports that meet specific needs. Queries may be saved and will display in the saved query drop-down menu of the user who created the query for future use.
The query results are displayed in a map format and a list format. In both the Map and List views, the user may click on a well to view the associated data. The resulting data of the query may be exported to Excel.
5.2.4.2 Standard Reports
The DMS can be configured to support wide-ranging reporting needs through the Reports tool. Standard report formats may be generated based on a predetermined format and may be created at the click of a button. These report formats may be configured to match state agency requirements for submittals, including annual reporting of monitoring data that must be submitted electronically on forms provided by the Department of Water Resources (DWR).
5.3 DATA INCLUDED IN THE DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Many monitoring programs exist at both the local and state/federal levels. A cross-sectional analysis was conducted within the Subbasin to document and assess the availability of data within the Subbasin, as well as statewide or federal databases that provide data relevant to the Subbasin.
The DMS is configured to include a wide variety of monitoring data types and associated parameters. Based on the analysis of existing datasets within the Subbasin and the GSP needs, the data types shown in Table 5-3 below were identified and are currently used in the DMS.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 5-7
Data Management System November 2019
Table 5-3: Data Types and Their Associated Parameters Configured in the DMS Data Type Parameter Units
Currently
Has Data in
DMS
Groundwater Level Depth to Groundwater feet Yes
Groundwater Elevation feet Yes
Groundwater Quality Chloride milligrams per
liter
Yes
Electrical Conductivity umhos/cm Yes
Total Dissolved Solids milligrams per
liter
Yes
Various Parameters (See Appendix 5-A) various
Surface Water Quality Various Parameters (See Appendix 5-A) various Streamflow Streamflow cubic feet per
second
Precipitation Precipitation inches
Reference Evapotranspiration (ETo) inches per
month
Average Air Temperature ºF
Additional data types and parameters can be added and modified as the DMS grows over time.
The data were collected from a variety of sources, as shown in Table 5-4 below. Each dataset was reviewed for overall quality and consistency prior to consolidation and inclusion in the database.
The groundwater wells shown in the DMS are those that are included datasets provided by the monitoring data sources shown below for groundwater elevation and quality. These do not include all wells currently used for production and may include wells historically used for monitoring that do not currently exist. Care was taken to minimize duplicative wells in the DMS. As datasets were consolidated, sites were evaluated based on different criteria (e.g., naming conventions, location, etc.) to determine if the well was included in a different dataset. Datasets for the wells were then associated with the same well, where necessary.
After the data were consolidated and reviewed for consistency, it was loaded into the DMS. Using the DMS data viewing capabilities, the data were reviewed for completeness and consistency to ensure the imports were successful.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 5-8
Data Management System November 2019
Table 5-4: Sources of Data Included in the Data Management System Data Source Datasets Collected Date
Collected Activities Performed
Central Valley Salinity
Alternatives for LongTerm Sustainability
(CVSALTS)
Well Location
Well Type (Limited)
Well Depth (Limited)
Groundwater Quality
8/13/2018 • Removed duplicate records
• Matched existing records with
other data sources (GAMA,
DWR)
DWR CASGEM Groundwater Elevation
Well Type (Limited)
Well Depth (Limited)
Well Location
4/18/2018 • Removed duplicate records
EnviroStor Groundwater Quality 7/23/2018 • Removed duplicate records GeoTracker Groundwater Quality 7/23/2018 • Removed duplicate records GAMA Well Type
Well Depth (Limited)
Well Location
Groundwater Quality
8/2/2018 • Removed duplicate records
Local Data Groundwater Elevation (Limited)
Well Type (Limited)
Well Depth
Well Location
Groundwater Quality
2/2017-
10/2018
• Removed duplicate records
San Joaquin County
Flood Control and
Water Conservation
District
Groundwater Elevation
Well Type (Limited)
Well Depth (Limited)
Well Location
9/19/2017 • Removed duplicate records
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-1
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022
6. PROJECTS AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
This chapter includes relevant projects and management actions information to satisfy California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 23 § 354.42 and 354.44. The projects and management actions described in this chapter will help achieve the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin’s sustainability goal.
6.1 PROJECTS, MANAGEMENT ACTIONS, AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES Achieving sustainability in the Subbasin requires implementation of projects and management actions. The Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin will achieve sustainability by implementing water supply projects that either replace (offset) or supplement (recharge) groundwater to achieve the estimated pumping offset and/or recharge need of 78,000 acre-feet per year (AF/year), identified as the sustainable yield estimate presented in Section 2.3.6. In addition, three projects have been identified that support demand conservation activities, including water use efficiency upgrades. Currently, no pumping restrictions have been proposed for the Subbasin; however, Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) maintain the flexibility to implement such demand-side management actions in the future if need is determined.
6.2 PROJECTS
6.2.1 Project Identification
Projects were identified by the Eastern San Joaquin GSAs through a several-month process involving the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority Board of Directors (ESJGWA Board), Advisory Committee, Workgroup, and the general public. This process included a public polling and feedback solicitation process at the Projects and Management Actions Workshop, held at the October 2018 ESJGWA Board meeting. This activity allowed ESJGWA Board members, GSA staff, and members of the public to participate in a real-time online polling activity through their smart-phone devices. Hard-copy paper surveys were provided for those without online access. Additionally, a template for project feedback and suggestion was created, posted online for the public, and hard copies distributed at Informational Open House events.
Project information was provided by GSAs and compiled into a draft list. This list was discussed and presented during the October and November 2018 ESJGWA Board meetings, the October and November 2018 and January 2019 Advisory Committee meetings, and the November 2018 and January 2019 Workgroup meetings. Priorities identified included:
• Project is implementable with respect to technical complexity, regulatory complexity, institutional consideration, and public acceptance
• Project benefit is located in area of greatest overdraft • Project is affordable and cost-effective (lowest unit cost per volume water savings) • Project provides an environmental benefit (or reduces environmental impact) • Project addresses Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) and/or Severely Disadvantaged Communities (SDACs)
• Project is located in an area where water quality is suitable for use Projects with the potential to contribute to the migration of a potential contaminant plume were eliminated from consideration and removed from the GSP list of projects.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-2
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022
6.2.2 Project Implementation
Projects will be administered by the GSA project proponents. GSAs may elect to implement projects individually or jointly with one or more GSAs or with the ESJGWA. As the ESJGWA develops GSA-level water budgets, the GSAs will have a better understanding of how projects will be implemented at the GSA-level and can better evaluate progress toward completion.
6.2.3 List of Projects
Several projects to increase water supply availability in the Subbasin were identified. The initial set of projects was reviewed with the ESJGWA Board, Advisory Committee, and Workgroup. A final list of 23 possible projects is included in the GSP, representing a variety of project types including direct and in-lieu recharge, intra-basin water transfers, demand conservation, water recycling, and stormwater reuse. Projects are classified into three categories based on project status: Planned, Potential, and Longer-term or Conceptual, as defined below. • Planned Projects – Projects in this category are planned to be completed and online prior to 2040 and the projected supply is considered as offsetting the projected 2040 supply imbalance. • Potential Projects – Projects in this category are currently in the planning stages and may move forward if funding becomes available. Potential Projects represent a “menu of options” for the Subbasin to achieve longterm sustainability and offset the remaining imbalance above and beyond implementation of the Planned Projects.
• Longer-term or Conceptual Projects – Projects in this category are in the early conceptual planning stages and would require significant additional work to move forward. Longer-term/Conceptual Projects represent potential future projects that could conceptually provide a benefit to the Subbasin in the future, but that would need to be further developed.
This subsection of the GSP satisfies the requirements of CCR Title 23 § 354.44. Consistent with SGMA requirements, the project descriptions for projects contain information regarding:
• The benefitted measurable objective
• Permitting and regulatory processes
• Time-table for initiation and completion
• Expected benefits
• How the project will be accomplished
• Legal authority
• Estimated costs and plans to meet costs
• Implementation circumstances
• Public noticing
Table 6-1 provides a summary of the 23 projects. Full descriptions are included below. Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-3 shows the locations of these Planned, Potential, and Longer-term or Conceptual Projects.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-3
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 Table 6-1: List of SGMA Projects
Project Name Project Type Project
Proponent
Measurable
Objective
Expected to
Benefit
Current Status
Time-table
(initiation
and
completion)
Estimated Costs Required
Permitting and
Regulatory
Process1
Expected
Groundwater
Demand
Reduction
(AF/year)
Capital Annual
O&M
Planned Projects: Projects in this category are planned to be completed and online prior to 2040. The projected supply of projects in this category will be considered as offsetting the projected 2040 supply imbalance.
Project 1: Lake Grupe
In-lieu Recharge
In-lieu Recharge SEWD Groundwater
levels
Can be
implemented
immediately
2020-2022 $2.3 M $330,000 Installation for new
intake and pipeline
requires permits
from DFW, CVFPB,
RWQCB, and
USACE
10,000
Project 2: SEWD
Surface Water
Implementation
Expansion
In-lieu Recharge SEWD Groundwater
levels
Design phase 2019-2020 $750,000 $100,000 Permit approvals from DFW, RWQCB,
CVFPB, and USACE
by private
landowners
19,000
Project 3: City of
Manteca Advanced
Metering Infrastructure
Conservation City of
Manteca
Groundwater
levels
Currently
underway
2019-2021 $650,000 $300,000 None 272
Project 4: City of Lodi
Surface Water Facility
Expansion & Delivery
Pipeline
In-lieu Recharge City of Lodi Groundwater
levels
Planning phase 2030-2033 $4 M $2,340,000 SWRCB permitting and CEQA required
4,750
Project 5: White
Slough Water
Pollution Control
Facility Expansion
Recycling/
In-lieu Recharge
City of Lodi Groundwater
levels
Construction
complete
2019-2020 $6 M $4,664 None (permitting
complete)
115
Project 6: CSJWCD
Capital Improvement
Program
In-lieu Recharge CSJWCD Groundwater
levels
Can be
implemented
immediately
2020-2027,
on-going
with 7-year
completion
cycles
$50,000 $50,000 Individual
applications need
CSJWCD Board
approval and
possible streambed
alteration permits
5,000
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-4
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 Project Name Project Type Project
Proponent
Measurable
Objective
Expected to
Benefit
Current Status
Time-table
(initiation
and
completion)
Estimated Costs Required
Permitting and
Regulatory
Process1
Expected
Groundwater
Demand
Reduction
(AF/year)
Capital Annual
O&M
Project 7: NSJWCD
South System
Modernization
In-lieu Recharge NSJWCD Groundwater
levels
Environmental
review is
complete,
funding has been
sought and a
landowner
improvement
district formed
2018-2023 $9 M $250,000 Permits for pump
station work have
been completed;
minor grading and
road encroachment
permits may be
needed
4,500
Project 8: Long-term
Water Transfer to
SEWD and CSJWCD
Transfers/
In-lieu Recharge
SSJ GSA Groundwater
levels
Infrastructure is
in place.
Environmental
Review may
need to be
implemented
2019-2021 N/A $9 M Project must comply
with CEQA
45,000
Total Planned 88,637
Potential Projects: Projects in this category represent a “menu of options” for the Subbasin to achieve long-term sustainability and offset the remaining imbalance above and beyond implementation of the “planned” projects.
Project 9: BNSF
Railway Company
Intermodal Facility
Recharge Pond
Direct Recharge CSJWCD Groundwater
levels
Planning phase 2020-2023 $150,000 $50,000 Streambed alteration permit
1,000
Project 10: City of
Stockton Advanced
Metering
Infrastructure
Conservation City of
Stockton
Groundwater
levels
Initial study
completed in
2011
2020/25-
2025/28
$11 M $550,000 Not determined 2,000
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-5
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 Project Name Project Type Project
Proponent
Measurable
Objective
Expected to
Benefit
Current Status
Time-table
(initiation
and
completion)
Estimated Costs Required
Permitting and
Regulatory
Process1
Expected
Groundwater
Demand
Reduction
(AF/year)
Capital Annual
O&M
Project 11: South
System
Groundwater
Banking with
EBMUD
In-lieu Recharge NSJWCD Groundwater
levels
Agreement is in
place; parties
need to finalize
design.
Environmental
review and
permitting
needed
2020-2025 $5 M $400,000 SWCRB change
petition for Permit
10478 and San
Joaquin County
groundwater export
permit, and
regulatory permits
as needed
4,000
Project 12:
NSJWCD North
System
Modernization/
Lakso Recharge
In-Lieu Recharge/
Direct Recharge
NSJWCD Groundwater
levels
Planning phase 2021-2026 $7 M $150,000 Regulatory permits as needed
2,600
Project 13:
Manaserro
Recharge Project
Direct Recharge NSJWCD Groundwater
levels
Planning phase 2019-2022* $300,000 $400,000 CEQA review, possible grading
permit, possible
water right change
petition
8,000
Project 14:
Tecklenburg
Recharge Project
Direct Recharge NSJWCD Groundwater
levels
Planning phase 2020-2023** $1 M $400,000 CEQA review and possible grading
permit
8,000
Project 15: City of
Escalon Wastewater
Reuse
Recycling/
In-lieu Recharge/
Transfers
SSJ GSA Groundwater
levels
Planning phase 2020-2028 $18 M $400,000 CEQA review,
RWQCB permits,
and road
encroachment
permits
672
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-6
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 Project Name Project Type Project
Proponent
Measurable
Objective
Expected to
Benefit
Current Status
Time-table
(initiation
and
completion)
Estimated Costs Required
Permitting and
Regulatory
Process1
Expected
Groundwater
Demand
Reduction
(AF/year)
Capital Annual
O&M
Project 16: City of
Ripon Surface
Water Supply
In-lieu Recharge SSJ GSA Groundwater
levels
Design
complete;
environmental
permitting
underway
2020-2024 $8.6 M N/A NEPA Categorical
Exclusion, CEQA
Mitigated Negative
Declaration, and
road encroachment
permits
6,000
Project 17: City of
Escalon Connection
to Nick DeGroot
Water Treatment
Plant
In-lieu Recharge SSJ GSA Groundwater
levels
Conceptual
design phase;
environmental
review complete
2020-2023 $8,789,000 $250,000 Road encroachment
permits
2,015
Total Potential 32,287
Longer-term or Conceptual Projects: Projects in this category represent potential future projects that could conceptually provide a benefit to the Subbasin in the future, but that would need to be further developed.
Project 18:
Farmington Dam
Repurpose Project
Direct Recharge SEWD Groundwater
levels
Preplanning
phase with
reconnaissance
study complete
2030-2050 $175 M $2 M Permits and
approvals form
SWRCB, USBR,
DFW, RWQCB,
CVFPB, and USACE
30,000
Project 19: Recycled
Water Transfer to
Agriculture
Recycling/Transfers/
In-lieu Recharge
City of
Manteca
Groundwater
levels
Planning phase
with evaluation
completed in
Draft Reclaimed
Water Facilities
Master Plan
Not
determined
$37,645,000 $679,000 NPDES Permit
amendment, CEQA
review, and SWRCB
approval
5,193
Project 20:
Mobilizing Recharge
Opportunities
Direct Recharge San
Joaquin
County
Groundwater
levels
Early conceptual
planning phase
Not
determined
Not
determined
Not
determined
Not determined Not determined
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-7
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 Project Name Project Type Project
Proponent
Measurable
Objective
Expected to
Benefit
Current Status
Time-table
(initiation
and
completion)
Estimated Costs Required
Permitting and
Regulatory
Process1
Expected
Groundwater
Demand
Reduction
(AF/year)
Capital Annual
O&M
Project 21:
NSJWCD Winery
Recycled Water
Recycling/
In-Lieu Recharge/
Direct Recharge
NSJWCD Groundwater
levels
Conceptual
planning and
discussion
2025-2027 $1.5 M $100,000 WDR permitting
through the RWCQB
and minor permits
for pipeline
construction
750
Project 22:
Pressurization of
SSJID Facilities
Conservation SSJ GSA Groundwater
levels
Feasibility study
complete
2019-2030 $328 M $8.5 M CEQA review and
road encroachment
permits
30,000
Project 23: SSJID
Storm Water Reuse
Storm Water/
In-lieu Recharge/
Direct Recharge
SSJ GSA Groundwater
levels
Planning phase 2027-2030 $30 M $30,000 CEQA review and
road encroachment
permits
1,100
Total Longer-term or Conceptual 67,043 1 Acronyms defined: Stockton East Water District (SEWD), Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District (CSJWCD), North San Joaquin Water Conservation District (NSJWCD), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR).
* Project is anticipated to initiate on a pilot basis in 2019 and on a full-scale basis in 2020. ** Project is anticipated to initiate on a pilot basis in 2020 and on a full-scale basis in 2021.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-8
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 Figure 6-1: Location of Planned Projects
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-9
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 Figure 6-2: Location of Potential Projects
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-10
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 Figure 6-3: Location of Longer-Term or Conceptual Projects
6.2.4 Planned Projects
Projects categorized as Planned Projects are expected to be completed and online prior to 2040. The projected supply of projects in this category will be considered as offsetting the projected 2040 supply imbalance. Up to 88,637 AF/year groundwater demand reduction/offset/conservation is expected as a result of the eight Planned Projects included in this GSP. This value exceeds the estimated 78,000 AF/year needed for the Subbasin to reach sustainability.
6.2.4.1 Project 1: Lake Grupe In-Lieu Recharge
The Lake Grupe In-Lieu Recharge Project, proposed by SEWD, is to construct a surface water diversion turn-out on the Calaveras River, upstream of Bellota, and to supply surface water to multiple farms/growers currently using groundwater. The proposed project is to allow 2,500 acres of orchard crops to irrigate with surface water from Lake Grupe instead of using groundwater. Lake Grupe is at the end of rolling hills fed by two or more natural episodic streams. The proposed project would pump water from the Calaveras River, transport the water in a 24-inch PVC pipeline for about 5,000 feet, with an elevation gain of 170 feet through private properties, discharge the water into one of the ravines feeding Lake Grupe, and then the surrounding growers would pump the water from the Lake for irrigation.
The diverted water would flow through a ravine, currently on private lands, and recharge the groundwater basin EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-11
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 underneath. The benefit of this project is the in-lieu banking of 7,000 AF of groundwater from irrigation conversion plus additional 13,000 AF of percolation in the ravine.
Project Summary
Submitting GSA: Stockton East Water District
Project Type: In-lieu Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 10,000 AF/year Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing in-lieu recharge opportunities.
Project Status: This project can be implemented immediately.
Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: This project requires the installation of a new intake in the Calaveras River and construction of a pipeline through private properties. The installation of a new intake in the Calaveras River would require permits from California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project is expected to initiate in 2020 and be completed by 2022.
Expected Benefits and Evaluation: Groundwater Subbasin recharge through the in-lieu use of alternate water supply will be an important component of the GSP and will be critical to establishing long-term Subbasin sustainability. This project is anticipated to offset 4,750 AF/year in groundwater pumping in SEWD. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through Eastern San Joaquin Water Resources Model (ESJWRM) model simulations.
How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: The surface water source of this proposed project is from SEWD’s existing contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) for the New Hogan Reservoir. Surface water is diverted from the Calaveras River. This is an existing surface water right.
Legal Authority: SEWD is a local agency with its own enabling legislation established to serve water for agricultural and municipal demands. SEWD is also a GSA with authority on groundwater pumping.
Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $2.3 million in capital costs and $330,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project will be met through SEWD District staffing and District rates to establish new accounts.
Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Planned Project that is anticipated to move forward. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin.
Implementation of this project is being considered by SEWD’s Board of Directors. Upon approval, this project will begin.
Trigger for Implementation and Termination: This project is planned and SEWD is seeking grant funding and approval by the Board of Directors. This project would terminate at the requests of the landowners and approval of the Board of Directors.
Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Not applicable; this is a Planned Project that is anticipated to move forward.
6.2.4.2 Project 2: SEWD Surface Water Implementation Expansion As part of the SEWD Surface Water Implementation Expansion Project, SEWD would require landowners adjacent to surface water conveyance systems (rivers or pipelines) to utilize surface water as part of the SGMA implementation.
This would increase surface water usage by about 18,000 to 20,000 AF/year with in-lieu groundwater recharge benefits.
Currently, there are about 6,000 acres irrigated with groundwater that could be converted to surface water. There are EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-12
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 also an additional 1,500 acres with inactive surface water accounts. SEWD would be the lead agency in environmental/CEQA review and would assist landowners/growers in establishing a turnout for agricultural irrigation and acquiring necessary permits through federal and state regulatory agencies.
Project Summary
Submitting GSA: Stockton East Water District
Project Type: In-lieu Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 18,000 – 20,000 AF/year Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing in-lieu recharge opportunities.
Project Status: This project is in the design phase. The District has identified the parcels with possible connections.
Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: The required permitting for this project would include acquiring permits/approvals from California DFW, RWQCB, CVFPB, and USACE by private landowners/diverters. SEWD would be the lead agency for CEQA review and would assist landowners/diverters in obtaining the permits.
Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project is expected to begin in 2019 and be on-going, with benefits accrued by 2020.
Expected Benefits and Evaluation: Groundwater Subbasin recharge through the in-lieu use of alternate water supply will be an important component of the GSP and will be critical to establishing long-term Subbasin sustainability. This project is anticipated to offset 4,750 AF/year in groundwater pumping in SEWD. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations.
How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project relies on water from New Hogan Reservoir (Calaveras River water) and New Melones Reservoir (Stanislaus River water). This is an existing surface water right.
SEWD has long-term water supply contracts with USBR for both New Hogan Reservoir and New Melones Reservoir.
Legal Authority: SEWD is a local agency with its own enabling legislation established to serve water for agricultural and municipal demands. SEWD is also a GSA with authority on groundwater pumping.
Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $750,000 in capital costs and $100,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project will be met through staffing and rates for new accounts.
Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Planned Project that is anticipated to move forward. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin. SEWD’s Board of Directors is considering implementation of this project. Upon approval, this project would begin.
Trigger for Implementation and Termination: This project is planned and SEWD is seeking grant funding and approval by their Board of Directors. This project would terminate at the requests of the landowners and approval of the Board of Directors.
Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Not applicable, this is a Planned Project that is anticipated to move forward.
6.2.4.3 Project 3: City of Manteca Advanced Metering Infrastructure The City of Manteca provides treated drinking water through approximately 20,696 service connections. In order to improve efficiency and reliability of water meters, the City has been replacing existing meters and upgrading the Encoder Receiver Transmitters (ERTs) on meters when required. The ERTs and new meters allow for remote reading EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-13
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 of the flow via a radio signal to a radio receiver inside a city vehicle or at a fixed location. The City also plans to construct the infrastructure for an Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) network to further increase efficiency. AMI also provides several other benefits beyond simple cost savings including improved customer service, leak detection, and real-time consumption information to the customer. Documented customer water savings and improved demand-side water conservation has occurred when real-time consumption information is available.
This project would apply advanced metering infrastructure to water meters in the City of Manteca Service Area.
Improved technology would increase efficiency and decrease costs associated with manual reading. Additional benefits beyond cost savings include improved leak detection and demand-side water conservation.
Project Summary
Submitting GSA: City of Manteca
Project Type: Conservation
Estimated Groundwater Demand Reduction: 272 AF/year
Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing demand-side water conservation opportunities.
Project Status: The City of Manteca is in the process of updating meters throughout the City and is planning to construct a network which will include a combination of fiber optic cables and series of radio tower antennas.
Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: There are no permitting or regulatory requirements for this project at this time.
Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project is currently underway and is expected to be completed by July 2021.
Expected Benefits and Evaluation: This project is anticipated to reduce groundwater demand by 272 AF/year in the City of Manteca through leak detection and real-time consumption information to the customer. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated by quantifying resulting demand reduction.
How Project Will be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project is a demand-side conservation project. No additional water source will be utilized for this project.
Legal Authority: This project is under the authority of the City of Manteca and implemented within the City’s service area.
Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $650,000 in capital costs and $300,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. The AMI Project is a Capital Improvement Project with available funding.
Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Planned Project that is anticipated to move forward. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin. The City of Manteca has started to implement the AMI infrastructure in phases by purchasing meters that have the capability to be read remotely. Installation of other components like fiber optic cable and radio tower antennas is in the planning stage.
Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Not applicable.
Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Not applicable; this is a Planned Project that is anticipated to move forward.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-14
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022
6.2.4.4 Project 4: City of Lodi Surface Water Facility Expansion & Delivery Pipeline This project would extend the filter room at the City of Lodi Surface Water Facility and add an additional 10 million gallons per day (MGD) capacity of surface water treatment. In addition to the filter addition, the City will construct a second sedimentation basin and add pumps throughout the facility to handle the additional volume of water being moved. This project also includes an extension of the 36-inch transmission pipeline leaving the water plant approximately 5,000 feet to facilitate water deliveries to locations further from the water treatment facility.
There is potential to reduce dependency on groundwater during summer months when the City of Lodi is still pumping as much as 10 MGD from the ground to support the water plant. Groundwater savings could be as high as 6,000 AF/year; however, 4,500 to 5,000 AF/year is expected. The delivery of additional raw surface water will need to be secured for this project to proceed.
Project Summary
Submitting GSA: City of Lodi
Project Type: In-lieu Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 4,750 AF/year Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing in-lieu recharge opportunities.
Project Status: This project is in the planning/initial study phase. The required plumbing and infrastructure exist; however, pumps and corresponding equipment would need to be purchased. The City has not completed a study or performed engineering modelling related to feasibility. Increasing capacity would allow for more surface water diversion during summer months, but it is unlikely that during the winter months demand would exceed the current plant capacity.
The City anticipates meeting peak summer demand with more surface water, which currently exceeds the 4,000 AF that is supplied by wells.
Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: This project requires SWRCB permitting and re-classification for plant upsizing. CEQA review will also need to be completed.
Time-table for Initiation and Completion: The timeline for this project has not yet been developed, but it is estimated that this project could begin in 2030 and be completed by 2033. Benefits would be realized beginning the first summer following the plant expansion and remain in perpetuity.
Expected Benefits and Evaluation: Groundwater Subbasin recharge through the in-lieu use of alternate water supply will be an important component of the GSP and will be critical to establishing long-term Subbasin sustainability. This project is anticipated to offset 4,750 AF/year in groundwater pumping in the City of Lodi. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations.
How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: The City of Lodi relies on Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) for surface water deliveries and does not currently have a contract allowing for higher volumes to be supplied.
This project relies entirely on the availability of additional surface water deliveries from WID (Mokelumne River water), which will need to be negotiated at the onset of this project.
Legal Authority: The City of Lodi has legal authority to administer this project through California Water Code (CWC) § 71000-73000. Additional legal and contract negotiations will be needed with WID for additional surface water deliveries.
Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $4 million in capital costs, $240,000 in fixed annual operations and maintenance costs, and $2.1 million in annual variable costs (amount is variable depending on water purchase, power, and chemical needs). This project is a Capital Improvement Project Budgeted item, to be paid for from the water enterprise fund.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-15
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Planned Project that is anticipated to move forward. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin.
Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Expansion of the Surface Water Treatment Facility (SWTF) will be initiated when the City of Lodi is unable to meet its growing water demand with the current infrastructure. There is no expectation that this project would be terminated based on a decision made by the City of Lodi. The potential for reduced availability of surface water supply from WID would be the only potential cause for a reduction in SWFT production.
Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: In reviewing current water demands, as well as future projections of use, City of Lodi staff will determine whether an expansion of the SWTF is appropriate or not and make a recommendation to City Council. This is a Planned project that is anticipated to move forward and be online by 2040.
6.2.4.5 Project 5: White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Expansion This project would include the construction of a 70-acre pond expansion with a storage capacity of 388 AF. The purpose of this project is to provide tertiary-treated Title-22 effluent for use as irrigation water on approximately 890 acres of agricultural land surrounding the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) to offset groundwater pumping.
This project is estimated to reduce the annual volume discharged to Dredger Cut (a dead-end slough of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta) by approximately 160 to 210 million gallons. Flow will be diverted from Dredger Cut at a rate up to 1,700 gallons per minute over an approximate 75- to 90-day period between October 1 and May 31 of each year. Project studies have demonstrated that the storage provided by this project will significantly offset groundwater pumping through in-lieu use.
Project Summary
Submitting GSA: City of Lodi
Project Type: Recycling/In-lieu Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 85-150 AF/year Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing water recycling and in-lieu recharge opportunities.
Project Status: Construction of this project has been completed. Roughly 85-150 AF/year of percolation recharge is expected. Additionally, the tertiary treated wastewater will be used to irrigate the on-site agricultural fields, thereby reducing groundwater pumping for irrigation.
Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: The permitting and regulatory processes required for this project have been completed.
Time-table for Initiation and Completion: Construction of this project has been completed, with accrual of benefits expected by 2020.
Expected Benefits and Evaluation: Groundwater Subbasin recharge through the in-lieu use of alternate water supply will be an important component of the GSP and will be critical to establishing long-term Subbasin sustainability. This project is anticipated to offset 85-150 AF/year in groundwater pumping in the City of Lodi. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations.
How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project will rely on the use of recycled water, in the form of tertiary-treated Title-22 effluent form the White Slough WPCF Expansion. No additional water source will be utilized for this project.
Legal Authority: The City of Lodi has legal authority to administer this project through Water Code § 71000-73000.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-16
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $6 million in capital costs and $4,664 in annual operations and maintenance costs. This project will be financed through the DWR Proposition 84 Grant Funding Program.
Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Planned Project that is anticipated to move forward. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin. Construction for this project has been completed.
Trigger for Implementation and Termination: There is no plan to terminate this project, as it has been completed and the operations and maintenance cost is minimal.
Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Not applicable, this is a Planned Project that is anticipated to move forward.
6.2.4.6 Project 6: CSJWCD Capital Improvement Program
CSJWCD assists users to convert groundwater fields to surface water use. The user applies for water credits based upon new surface water acres. The user is responsible for constructing a diversion facility. As water is diverted the District reduces the water charge until credit is used or seven years since implementation have elapsed. The Capital Improvement Program has been on-going since 1996.
Project Summary
Submitting GSA: Central San Joaquin Water
Conservation District
Project Type: In-lieu Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 5,000 AF/year Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing in-lieu recharge opportunities.
Project Status: This project is planned and on-going.
Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: CSJWCD is not required to comply with permits or regulatory processes to implement and oversee the Capital Improvement Program. However, individual applicants are required to have approval of the CSJWCD Board of Directors and may be required to obtain streambed alteration permits.
Time-table for Initiation and Completion: The Capital Improvement Program has been on-going since 1996. New individual projects are anticipated to begin each year. Individual applicants are expected to complete their projects 7 years after initiation.
Expected Benefits and Evaluation: Groundwater Subbasin recharge through the in-lieu use of alternate water supply will be an important component of the GSP and will be critical to establishing long-term Subbasin sustainability. This project is anticipated to offset 5,000 AF/year in groundwater pumping in CSJWCD. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations.
Expected Benefits and Evaluation: Groundwater Subbasin recharge through the in-lieu use of alternate water supply will be an important component of the GSP and will be critical to establishing long-term Subbasin sustainability. This project is anticipated to offset 5,000 AF/year in groundwater pumping in CSJWCD. Benefit to the groundwater aquifer has already accrued and will continue to accrue as new projects are implemented. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations.
How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project relies on this use of surface water from the New Melones Unit Central Valley Project. The surface water source is based upon a contract with the United EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-17
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 States for delivery of surface water from the New Melones Unit of the Central Valley Project. The contract is longterm; however, water availability is subject to drought conditions. This is an existing water right.
Legal Authority: The Water Code, Division 21 § 74000 et seq. authorizes CSJWCD to acquire, sell, and distribute water and fix rates for service throughout the District.
Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $50,000 in capital costs and $50,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. This project provides for the payment of delivered surface water at a reduced rate. Any deficit in cost of water is recovered by full cost of surface water to other users, groundwater extraction fees, and acre assessments.
Circumstances for Implementation: This project is an on-going Planned Project that is anticipated to move forward. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management.
Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin.
Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Not applicable.
Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Not applicable; this is a Planned Project that is anticipated to move forward.
6.2.4.7 Project 7: NSJWCD South System Modernization
This project will modernize the South System Pump and Distribution System to facilitate delivery of 9,000 AF/year of additional surface water to farmers in-lieu of groundwater pumping. Water would come from NSJWCD Permit 10477 supplies, which are available in about 55 percent of years.
Project Summary
Submitting GSA: North San Joaquin Water
Conservation District
Project Type: In-lieu Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 4,500 AF/year Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing in-lieu recharge opportunities.
Project Status: Design for this project is 60 percent complete, and environmental review is complete. Funding has been sought, with some state and federal grants awarded, and a landowner improvement district has been formed for assessments. Project design may be modified based on available funding or staging of project. This project has already started implementation with the rebuilding of the pump station in 2018 and 2019 at a cost of approximately $3 million.
Approximately $2 million of this cost has been funded with grants and other outside funding, including contributions from a settlement with EBMUD. $1 million of the cost has been funded through a voluntary acreage assessment by landowners along the South System who want to use surface water. Work on the distribution system will start in 2019 and continue for several years. NSJWCD has secured a $3 million grant to cover a portion of the cost of the work needed for the pipeline. NSJWCD is continuing to work on other revenue raising efforts to raise additional funds to cover the cost of a complete rehabilitation of the distribution system.
Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: All permits for the pump station work have been obtained. Minor grading and road encroachment permits may be needed for on-going work to the distribution system.
Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project began in 2018 and is expected to be completed by 2023.
Expected Benefits and Evaluation: Groundwater Subbasin recharge through the in-lieu use of alternate water supply will be an important component of the GSP and will be critical to establishing long-term Subbasin sustainability. This EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-18
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 project is anticipated to offset 4,500 AF/year in groundwater pumping in NSJWCD. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations.
How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project relies on surface water from NSJWCD Permit 10477 (Mokelumne River water). This is an existing surface water right.
Legal Authority: The legal authority for this project is covered under Water Code § 74000 et seq.
Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $9 million in capital costs and $250,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project will be met through grant funding, landowner assessments, and water charges.
Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Planned Project that is anticipated to move forward. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin.
Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Not applicable.
Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Not applicable, this is a Planned Project that is anticipated to move forward.
6.2.4.8 Project 8: Long-Term Water Transfer to SEWD and CSJWCD Oakdale Irrigation District (OID) and South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID) have historically participated in longterm water transfers of surplus, pre-1914, surface water rights to other entities within the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. These transfers have included one-year transfers to CSJWCD, as well as a nearly 10-year transfer to SEWD for both agricultural and urban purposes. The most recent transfer with SEWD occurred in 2019. These areas of the Subbasin have surface water available from the USBR’s Central Valley Project; however, project water allocations become significantly reduced in below normal and dry water years. When surface water is not available, many of the agricultural customers in these areas have typically turned to groundwater in order to meet their annual and permanent crop water demands. Providing long-term water transfers from OID/SSJID to other agencies within the Subbasin would allow for increased average annual surface water deliveries to the Subbasin area, reducing groundwater reliance and overdraft within the Subbasin, especially during drought years. SEWD and CSJWCD overlie a significant portion of the Subbasin dependent on groundwater and subject to historical overdraft conditions.
No new facilities would need to be constructed to convey water from OID/SSJID to SEWD, and CSJWCD receives water through diversions from a tunnel just upstream of the OID/SSJID owned Goodwin Dam on the Stanislaus River.
Historical transfers have been accomplished through the use of these existing facilities. Additional infrastructure may be necessary to increase distribution of surface water supplies to irrigated agriculture and to achieve adequate improvement toward sustainability goals.
Project funding could be provided directly from the districts participating in the water transfers. Additional infrastructure to promote additional surface water use and capital payments for surface water transfers could be provided indirectly by groundwater reliant entities, thereby providing a means of continuing to utilize groundwater while investing in a Subbasin-wide project that assures continued sustainability within the Subbasin.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-19
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 Project Summary
Submitting GSA: South San Joaquin GSA
Project Type: Intrabasin Transfer/In-lieu
Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: Up to 45,000 AF/year Other Participating Entities: Oakdale Irrigation District, Stockton East Water District,
Central San Joaquin Water
Conservation District
Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing in-lieu recharge opportunities.
Project Status: No design is needed for this project, as the infrastructure is in place. Environmental review may need to be completed.
Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: This project must comply with CEQA. Temporary transfers may have less rigorous permitting requirements.
Time-table for Initiation and Completion: Expected project time-table is 2019-2021. A new long-term transfer could begin immediately upon agreement among the parties. Transfers from OID/SSJID to SEWD/CSJWCD have historically been agreed to, with historical transfer amounts varying from 0 to 40,000 AF/year.
Expected Benefits and Evaluation: Groundwater Subbasin recharge through the in-lieu use of alternate water supply will be an important component of the GSP and will be critical to establishing long-term Subbasin sustainability. This project is anticipated to offset up to 45,000 AF/year in groundwater pumping in SEWD and CSJWCD. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations. Participating districts would report annually the amount agreed to be transferred and the amount diverted under transfer.
How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: OID and SSJID hold pre-1914 water rights on the Stanislaus River. USBR is junior in right to OID and SSJID. This is an existing surface water right.
Legal Authority: OID and SSJID are irrigation districts formed in accordance with State law and hold pre-1914 water rights on the Stanislaus River. SEWD and CSJWCD are water conservation districts also formed in accordance with State law. Historically, water transfers occurring between OID/SSJID and SEWD/CSJWCD are approved by mutual agreement.
Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: Costs for this project are estimated at up to $9 million annually ($200 per acre-foot). Costs for this project will be met by recipients of water or groundwater pumping benefit.
Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Planned Project that is anticipated to move forward. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin. Short-term transfers are expected to occur on an as-needed basis. A longer-term transfer must be mutually agreed to prior to implementation.
Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Transfers may take place upon mutual agreement. Termination would be subject to the terms of the agreement if applicable.
Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Not applicable; this is a Planned Project that is anticipated to move forward.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-20
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022
6.2.5 Potential Projects
Projects categorized as Potential Projects are currently in the planning stages and may move forward if funding becomes available. Potential Projects represent a “menu of options” for the Subbasin to achieve long-term sustainability and offset the remaining imbalance above and beyond implementation of the Planned Projects. Together these projects total 32,287 AF/year in groundwater offset/recharge/conservation that could potentially be made available to the Subbasin if funding is secured.
6.2.5.1 Project 9: BNSF Railway Company Intermodal Facility Recharge Pond Under this proposed project, CSJWCD would form an agreement with the BNSF railroad owner to access an existing drainage pond near the CSJWCD delivery channel to be used as a recharge area. This project would contribute an estimated 1,000 AF/year of groundwater offset through direct recharge to the groundwater aquifer.
Project Summary
Submitting GSA: Central San Joaquin Water
Conservation District
Project Type: Direct Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 1,000 AF/year Other Participating Entities: BNSF Railway
Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing direct recharge opportunities.
Project Status: This project is in the planning stages.
Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: A streambed alteration permit would be required to construct a diversion structure from the District delivery channel to feed the recharge pond.
Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project would begin in 2021 and be completed by 2023.
Expected Benefits and Evaluation: This project is anticipated to directly recharge 1,000 AF/year to the groundwater basin in CSJWCD. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations.
How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project will rely on water from the New Melones Unit Central Valley Project. The surface water source is based upon a contract for delivery of surface water from the New Melones Unit of the Central Valley Project. The contract project is long-term; however, water availability is subject to drought conditions. This is an existing water right.
Legal Authority: The Water Code, Division 21, § 74000 et seq. authorizes CSJWCD to acquire, sell, and distribute water and fix rates for service throughout the District.
Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $150,000 in capital costs and $50,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project would be met by groundwater extraction fee revenue, private loans, and/or possible grant funding.
Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Potential Project, meaning it is currently in the planning stages and may move forward if funding becomes available. Potential Projects represent a “menu of options” for the Subbasin to achieve long-term sustainability and offset the remaining imbalance above and beyond implementation of the Planned Projects. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. In this case, the project parties plan to implement this project as soon as a finalized agreement with the landowner is reached and permitting and funding are established.
Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Not applicable.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-21
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin.
6.2.5.2 Project 10: City of Stockton Advanced Metering Infrastructure The City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department (MUD) provides treated drinking water through approximately 48,000 water meters, of which a portion are read via a touch-read system and the remainder are read manually by staff every month. Manual meter reading is the least efficient method of meter reading and the most costly. AMI using improved technology is far more efficient and generally very cost effective when compared to manual reading. AMI also provides several other benefits beyond simple cost savings including improved customer service, leak detection, and real-time consumption information to the customer. Documented customer water savings and improved demandside water conservation has occurred when real-time consumption information is available.
This project would apply AMI to water meters in the City of Stockton Service Area. Improved technology would increase efficiency and decrease costs associated with manual reading. Additional benefits beyond cost savings include improved leak detection and demand-side water conservation.
Project Summary
Submitting GSA: City of Stockton
Project Type: Conservation
Estimated Groundwater Demand Reduction: 2,000 AF/year
Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing demand-side water conservation opportunities.
Project Status: An initial study for this project was completed in 2011.
Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: The required permitting and regulatory process for this project has not yet been determined.
Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project would begin in 2020-2025 and be completed by 2025-2028.
Expected Benefits and Evaluation: This project is anticipated to reduce groundwater demand by 2,000 AF/year in the City of Stockton through leak detection and real-time consumption information to the customer. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated by quantifying resulting demand reduction.
How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project is a demand-side conservation project. No additional water source will be utilized for this project.
Legal Authority: This project would be under the authority of the City of Stockton and implemented within the service area.
Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $11 million in capital costs and $550,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project would be met by ratepayers and through grants or other funding sources.
Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Potential Project, meaning it is currently in the planning stages and may move forward if funding becomes available. Potential Projects represent a “menu of options” for the Subbasin to achieve long-term sustainability and offset the remaining imbalance above and beyond implementation of the Planned Projects. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. Circumstances for implementation include inclusion in Department planning, development, and Capital Improvement Program.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-22
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Triggers for project implementation and termination include availability of project funding.
Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin.
6.2.5.3 Project 11: South System Groundwater Banking with EBMUD NSJWCD, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), and other entities in San Joaquin County entered into a Protest Dismissal Agreement in 2014 (the “PDA”) to resolve various water right protests. The PDA Agreement includes a commitment to undertake a pilot-level groundwater banking project and a longer-term groundwater banking project.
The pilot level banking project is called the “DREAM” project and is already underway. The DREAM project involves the delivery of 1,000 AF of EBMUD water into the NSJWCD service area along the South System to use for irrigation, effectuating 1,000 AF of in-lieu groundwater recharge. EBMUD will receive a banked water credit of 50 percent of the amount of water recharge, not to exceed 500 AF. EBMUD can withdraw the banked water in the future. NSJWCD will control the withdrawal of the banked water by pumping groundwater from a well that is centrally located in the area of recharge and then conveying the pumped groundwater to the EBMUD Mokelumne Aqueduct. The extraction and return of the banked water are subject to a San Joaquin County groundwater export permit. The permit places additional conditions and restrictions on the extraction of the banked water, including a 5 percent per year annual loss factor and pumping restrictions to prevent impacts to other groundwater users.
EBMUD and NSJWCD have started the preliminary planning for the longer-term banking project. The longer-term banking project may use the same concept as the pilot project but will involve larger quantities of water and potential additional facilities to deliver and use the water for in-lieu recharge within NSJWCD, and to extract and return banked water credits to EBMUD. The longer-term project contemplates EBMUD providing surface water supplies of 3,000 AF/year to 6,000 AF/year in dry years and 8,000 AF/year in wet years to NSJWCD. These surface water supplies would come from EBMUD’s water rights on the Mokelumne River and would be in addition to surface water available under NSJWCD’s water right. EBMUD would receive a banked water credit for 50 percent of the additional supplies provided, leaving a net surface/groundwater increase to the NSJWCD area of 50 percent of all additional supplies provided. The net water gain to NSJWCD may increase if EBMUD does not extract its banked supplies regularly because of the 5 percent annual loss factor in the San Joaquin County export ordinance.
The PDA also provides that the wet year water supplies could be used by SEWD for groundwater banking if they cannot be used in NSJWCD.
Project Summary
Submitting GSA: North San Joaquin Water
Conservation District
Project Type: In-lieu Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 4,000 AF/year Other Participating Entities: East Bay Municipal Utility District, Eastern Water Alliance,
San Joaquin County and
Stockton East Water District
Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing in-lieu recharge opportunities.
Project Status: The agreement for this project is in place. Parties need to finalize design, perform environmental review, and obtain necessary permits to operate.
Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: This project requires a SWRCB Change Petition for Permit 10478, a San Joaquin County Groundwater Export Permit, and regulatory permits as needed for facilities such as pipelines.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-23
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project would begin in 2020 and be completed by 2025.
Expected Benefits and Evaluation: Groundwater Subbasin recharge through the in-lieu use of alternate water supply will be an important component of the GSP and will be critical to establishing long-term Subbasin sustainability. This project is anticipated to offset 4,000 AF/year in groundwater pumping in NSJWCD. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations.
How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project would use water supplies from EBMUD Permit 10478 (Mokelumne River water). This is an existing surface water right. EBMUD has a right tied to hydrology, with amounts are set by contract.
Legal Authority: The legal authority for this project is covered under Water Code § 74000 et seq.
Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $5 million in capital costs and $400,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project will be met by grant funding, banking fees, and water charges.
Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Potential Project, meaning it is currently in the planning stages and may move forward if funding becomes available. Potential Projects represent a “menu of options” for the Subbasin to achieve long-term sustainability and offset the remaining imbalance above and beyond implementation of the Planned Projects. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. The project parties plan to implement this project as soon as design, permitting, and funding are established, by 2025.
Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Not applicable.
Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin.
6.2.5.4 Project 12: NSJWCD North System Modernization/Lakso Recharge Project This project will repair, upgrade, and modernize the North System Pump and Distribution System to facilitate delivery of 4,000 to 6,000 AF/year of surface water to farmers in-lieu of groundwater pumping. Water would come from NSJWCD Permit 10477 supplies, which are available in about 55 percent of years. Average deliveries would be 5,000 AF/year in about half of the years. In addition, there is a small, sandy recharge pond location on the Lakso property located along the upper portion of the North System pipeline along Tretheway Road. The pond is about 2 acres in size and can recharge about 2 AF/day. NSJWCD could convey water through the NSJWCD North System, to the Lakso recharge pond, to directly recharge surface water during times that water is available but there is not irrigation demand, such as during the December through May time period or during the interim period of years before the remainder of the North System pipeline is repaired or replaced.
Project Summary
Submitting GSA: North San Joaquin Water
Conservation District
Project Type: In-lieu Recharge/Direct
Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 2,600 AF/year Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing in-lieu and direct recharge opportunities.
Project Status: This project is in the planning/initial study phase. NSJWCD is soliciting landowner input on design and financing options.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-24
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: This project would require regulatory permitting as needed for minor construction related to rehabilitation of existing water delivery infrastructure.
Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project would begin in 2021 and be completed by 2026.
Expected Benefits and Evaluation: Groundwater Subbasin recharge through the in-lieu use of alternate water supply will be an important component of the GSP and critical to establishing long-term Subbasin sustainability. This project is anticipated to offset 2,600 AF/year in groundwater pumping in NSJWCD. In addition, there is opportunity to directly recharge surface water to the groundwater basin at specified times. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations.
How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project would use water supplies available through NSJWCD Permit 10477 (Mokelumne River water). This is an existing surface water right.
Legal Authority: The legal authority for this project is covered under Water Code § 74000 et seq.
Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $7 million in capital costs and $150,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project will be met by grant funding, landowner assessments (pending approval), and water charges.
Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Potential Project, meaning it is currently in the planning stages and may move forward if funding becomes available. Potential Projects represent a “menu of options” for the Subbasin to achieve long-term sustainability and offset the remaining imbalance above and beyond implementation of the Planned Projects. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. NSJWCD plans to implement this project as soon as funding is secured.
Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Not applicable.
Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin.
6.2.5.5 Project 13: Manaserro Recharge Project
NSJWCD is investigating constructing and operating a 10-acre recharge pond on the North side of the Mokelumne River on property owned by the Manaserro family through a long-term lease. NSJWCD would use Permit 10477 water available during December 1 through June 30 that is not needed for irrigation, for recharge. This project could recharge 10,000 AF/year or more in years when water is available. Because this project can use water available during the direct diversion flood season, water is expected to be available more frequently under the NSJWCD water right for this project, or 80 percent of years. Capital costs assume that NSJWCD would lease the 10-acre property for this project.
Project Summary
Submitting GSA: North San Joaquin Water
Conservation District
Project Type: Direct Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 8,000 AF/year Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing direct recharge opportunities.
Project Status: This project is in the planning phase.
Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: This project would require CEQA review, a possible grading permit, and a possible water right change petition.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-25
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project would begin in 2019 on a pilot basis and in 2020 on a full-scale basis. This project would be completed by 2022.
Expected Benefits and Evaluation: This project is anticipated to directly recharge 8,000 AF/year to the groundwater basin in NSJWCD. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations.
How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project would use water supplies available through NSJWCD Permit 10477 (Mokelumne River water). This is an existing surface water right. Once Permit 10477 supplies are fully committed to in-lieu recharge projects, NSJWCD could apply to appropriate Mokelumne River flood flows for this direct recharge project.
Legal Authority: The legal authority for this project is covered under Water Code § 74000 et seq.
Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $300,000 in capital costs and $400,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project will be met by grant funding and landowner assessments (pending approval).
Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Potential Project, meaning it is currently in the planning stages and may move forward if funding becomes available. Potential Projects represent a “menu of options” for the Subbasin to achieve long-term sustainability and offset the remaining imbalance above and beyond implementation of the Planned Projects. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. Circumstances for implementation include securing funding. Project may be implemented on a smaller scale depending on use of water by other projects in the District.
Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Not applicable.
Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin.
6.2.5.6 Project 14: Tecklenburg Recharge Project
NSJWCD is investigating constructing and operating a 10-acre recharge pond on the South side of the Mokelumne River on property owned by the Tecklenburg family through a purchase. NSJWCD would use Permit 10477 water available during December 1 through June 30, and not needed for irrigation, for recharge. This project could recharge 10,000 AF/year or more in years when water is available. Because this project can use water available during the direct diversion flood season, water is expected to be available more frequently under the NSJWCD water right for this project, or 80 percent of years. Capital costs assume that NSJWCD would purchase the 10-acre property for this project.
Project Summary
Submitting GSA: North San Joaquin Water
Conservation District
Project Type: Direct Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 8,000 AF/year Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing direct recharge opportunities.
Project Status: This project is in the planning phase.
Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: This project would require CEQA review and a possible grading permit.
Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project would begin in 2020 on a pilot basis and in 2021 on a full-scale basis. This project would be completed by 2023.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-26
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 Expected Benefits and Evaluation: This project is anticipated to directly recharge 8,000 AF/year to the groundwater basin in NSJWCD. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations.
How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project would use water supplies available through NSJWCD Permit 10477 (Mokelumne River water). Once Permit 10477 supplies are fully committed to in-lieu recharge projects, NSJWCD could apply to appropriate Mokelumne River flood flows for this direct recharge project. This is an existing surface water right.
Legal Authority: The legal authority for this project is covered under Water Code § 74000 et seq.
Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $1 million in capital costs and $400,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project will be met by grant funding and landowner assessments (pending approval).
Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Potential Project, meaning it is currently in the planning stages and may move forward if funding becomes available. Potential Projects represent a “menu of options” for the Subbasin to achieve long-term sustainability and offset the remaining imbalance above and beyond implementation of the Planned Projects. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. Circumstances for implementation include securing funding. This project may be implemented on a smaller scale depending on use of water by other projects in the District.
Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Not applicable.
Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin.
6.2.5.7 Project 15: City of Escalon Wastewater Reuse
This project entails the reuse of wastewater that would include tertiary treatment of the City of Escalon’s effluent and blending in SSJID’s irrigation distribution system. This additional source of supply could then be used for groundwater recharge or transfer within the Subbasin to offset groundwater demands using SSJID facilities and/or water right entitlements to facilitate the transfer. The treated water will meet Title-22 Water Standards.
The City of Escalon’s Wastewater Treatment Plant treats approximately 600,000 gallons per day (1.84 AF per day) with peak flows up to 1 MGD. The plant is located near SSJID’s Main Distribution Canal, and the effluent would need to be pumped and a pipeline of approximately 4,000 linear feet would need installed in addition to improvements at the plant to meet Title-22 Water Standards.
Project Summary
Submitting GSA: South San Joaquin GSA
Project Type: Recycling/Direct Recharge/
Intrabasin Transfer
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 672 AF/year Other Participating Entities: City of Escalon
Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing water recycling and direct recharge opportunities.
Project Status: This project is in the planning/initial study phase.
Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: This project would require CEQA review, Regional Water Quality Control Board permitting, and road encroachment permits.
Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project would begin in 2020 and would be completed by 2028.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-27
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 Expected Benefits and Evaluation: This project is anticipated to offset 672 AF/year in groundwater pumping for use in direct recharge in the City of Escalon or in interbasin transfers to other areas of the Subbasin. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project will rely on the use of recycled water, in the form of tertiary-treated Title-22 effluent form the City of Escalon’s Wastewater Treatment Plant. No additional water source will be utilized for this project.
Legal Authority: The City of Escalon is an incorporated city and provides municipal services including wastewater treatment. SSJID is an irrigation district formed in accordance with State law.
Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $18 million in capital costs and $400,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project will be met by developer impact fees, connection fees, and sewer rate fees.
Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Potential Project, meaning it is currently in the planning stages and may move forward if funding becomes available. Potential Projects represent a “menu of options” for the Subbasin to achieve long-term sustainability and offset the remaining imbalance above and beyond implementation of the Planned Projects. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. Provided this project is feasible as determined in the initial planning phase, the Escalon City Council would need to approve this project as well as the SSJID Board of Directors.
Trigger for Implementation and Termination: This project would need to be determined to be feasible with adequate funding likely from multiple sources such as development impact fees, connection fees, and sewer rate fees.
Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin. The Escalon City Council would need to make the requisite findings and approve a financing package for this project.
6.2.5.8 Project 16: City of Ripon Surface Water Supply
The City of Ripon serves water to 15,000 residents along with businesses and industries located within its limits. This project would supplement the City of Ripon’s municipal water supply with treated surface water from SSJID. A5-mile pipeline from the existing treated water transmission pipeline to Ripon’s water distribution system and a booster pump station would need to be constructed.
The City of Ripon is currently under contract with SSJID for a maximum of 6,000 AF/year of Stanislaus River water, which is the expected water supply for this project.
Project Summary
Submitting GSA: South San Joaquin GSA
Project Type: In-lieu Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 6,000 AF/year Other Participating Entities: City of Ripon
Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing in-lieu recharge opportunities.
Project Status: The design for this project is complete. The City is pursuing a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Categorical Exclusion and CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration. Construction of this project will begin once this project is fully funded. Construction is expected to take one year.
Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: This project will require a NEPA Categorical Exclusion and CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration. Road encroachment permits will also be required.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-28
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project would begin in 2020 and would be completed by 2024.
Expected Benefits and Evaluation: Groundwater Subbasin recharge through the in-lieu use of alternate water supply will be an important component of the GSP and will be critical to establishing long-term Subbasin sustainability. This project is anticipated to offset 6,00 AF/year in groundwater pumping in the City of Ripon. Benefits are expected to accrue for 50 years, through 2074. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations. This proposed conjunctive use project would provide the community of Ripon, along with the region that relies on the groundwater Subbasin, with numerous benefits, including:
• Conservation of groundwater through in-lieu recharge
• Use of renewable energy and energy conservation
• Safer and cleaner drinking water
How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: SSJID holds pre-1914 water rights on the Stanislaus River. This is an existing surface water right. The City of Ripon has an agreement in place to divert a maximum of 6,000 AF/year from SSJID facilitates under SSJID’s existing pre-1914 water right, which is the expected water supply for this project.
Legal Authority: The City of Ripon is an incorporated city and provides municipal water service. SSJID is an irrigation district formed in accordance with State law. SSJID holds pre-1914 water rights on the Stanislaus River.
Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $8.6 million in capital costs.
Costs for this project will be met by grants, water rates, and development impact fees.
Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Potential Project, meaning it is currently in the planning stages and may move forward if funding becomes available. Potential Projects represent a “menu of options” for the Subbasin to achieve long-term sustainability and offset the remaining imbalance above and beyond implementation of the Planned Projects. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. The City of Ripon is in the process of completing the environmental process and securing the necessary finances to move forward.
Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Project implementation will initiate once this project is approved by the City of Ripon and the financing is in place. Termination would be subject to the terms of the agreement if applicable.
Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin. The Ripon City Council would need to make the requisite findings under NEPA, CEQA, and approve a financing package for this project.
6.2.5.9 Project 17: City of Escalon Connection to Nick DeGroot Water Treatment Plant The City of Escalon partnered in the construction of the Nick DeGroot Water Treatment Plant and continues to provide financial partnership in its operation. However, Escalon has not constructed the turnout and distribution system improvements necessary to receive their surface water allotments. Finance and construction of these improvements would make it possible for Escalon to receive their contract entitlements under Phase 1 (2,015 AF) further reducing Escalon’s groundwater demand. Escalon, as a partner city in the plant, could readily begin receiving water once turnout improvements and distribution pipelines are constructed. SSJID operates the Nick DeGroot Water Treatment Plant and serves treated Stanislaus River water under its pre-1914 water right to the cities of Manteca, Lathrop, and Tracy.
Project Summary
Submitting GSA: South San Joaquin GSA
Project Type: In-lieu Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 2,015 AF/year Other Participating Entities: City of Escalon and SSJID EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-29
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing in-lieu recharge opportunities.
Project Status: This project is in the conceptual design phase. Environmental review has been completed.
Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: This project will require road encroachment permits.
Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project would begin in 2020 (pending funding) and be completed by 2023.
Expected Benefits and Evaluation: Groundwater Subbasin recharge through the in-lieu use of alternate water supply will be an important component of the GSP and critical to establishing long-term Subbasin sustainability. This project anticipated to offset 2,015 AF/year in groundwater pumping in the City of Escalon. Benefits are expected to accrue for 50 years, through 2073. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations.
How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: SSJID holds pre-1914 water rights on the Stanislaus River. This is an existing surface water right.
Legal Authority: The City of Escalon is an incorporated city and provides municipal water service. SSJID is an irrigation district formed in accordance with State law. SSJID holds pre-1914 water rights on the Stanislaus River. The City of Escalon is project partner in the Nick DeGroot Water Treatment Plant and has an existing agreement with SSJID which entitles Escalon to receive 2,015 AF/year of treated surface water.
Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $8,789,000 in capital costs and $250,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project will be met by grants, water rates, and development impact fees.
Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Potential Project, meaning it is currently in the planning stages and may move forward if funding becomes available. Potential Projects represent a “menu of options” for the Subbasin to achieve long-term sustainability and offset the remaining imbalance above and beyond implementation of the Planned Projects. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. The City of Escalon is in the process of securing the necessary finances to move forward.
Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Project implementation will initiate once this project is approved by the City of Escalon and the financing is in place. Termination would be subject to the terms of the agreement if applicable Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin. The Escalon City Council would need to make the requisite findings and approve a financing package for this project.
6.2.6 Longer-term or Conceptual Projects
Projects categorized as Longer-term or Conceptual Projects are in the early conceptual planning stages and would require significant additional work to move forward. Longer-term/Conceptual Projects represent potential future projects that could conceptually provide a benefit to the Subbasin in the future, but that would need to be further developed.
Together these projects total an approximated 67,043 AF/year in groundwater offset/recharge/conservation that could potentially be made available to the Subbasin if funding is secured.
6.2.6.1 Project 18: Farmington Dam Repurpose Project
This proposed project would convert the Farmington Dam, currently a flood control structure, into a water supply reservoir. This existing Farmington Dam has a flood control capacity of 52,000 AF. The proposed project would increase the total reservoir capacity to 112,000 AF which includes 60,000 AF for water supply and 52,000 AF for flood control. The water supply could be stored and used even in drought conditions. The increased water supply would also encourage growers to switch to surface water irrigation instead of reliance on groundwater.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-30
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 USACE completed a reconnaissance report in 1997 with an estimated cost of $91.4 million based on an effective pricing date of October 1996. Including environmental and cultural resources mitigation costs, which were not included in 1997, the cost today would be approximately $175 million.
Other entities that would benefit from this project includes CSJWCD and potentially OID.
Project Summary
Submitting GSA: Stockton East Water District
Project Type: Direct Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 30,000 AF/year Other Participating Entities: USACE
Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing direct recharge opportunities.
Project Status: This project is in the pre-planning stage. A reconnaissance study has been completed.
Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: The required permitting for this project would include acquiring permits/approvals from SWRCB, USBR, California DFW, RWQCB, CVFPB, and USACE.
Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project would begin in 2030 and be completed by 2050.
Expected Benefits and Evaluation: This project is anticipated to directly recharge 30,000 AF/year to the groundwater basin in SEWD. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through model simulations.
How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: SEWD and CSJWCD have a water supply contract with USBR to use water from the New Melones Reservoir (Stanislaus River water). This is an existing surface water right.
Legal Authority: SEWD is a local agency with its own enabling legislation established to serve water for agricultural and municipal demands. SEWD is also a GSA with authority on groundwater pumping. Farmington Dam is owned and operated by USACE and upon agreement, and USACE would be the agency with authority to modify the dam structure.
Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $175 million in capital costs and $2 million in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project will be met through the pursual of grant funding.
Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Longer-term/Conceptual Project, meaning it is in the early conceptual planning stages and would require significant additional work to move forward. Longer-term/Conceptual Projects represent potential future projects that could conceptually provide a benefit to the Subbasin in the future. As scenarios change, Longer-term/Conceptual Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. This project could be implemented when agreements are reached with all federal and state regulatory agencies and when funding is available.
Trigger for Implementation and Termination: The trigger for implementation and termination would be the water supply from New Melones Reservoir and groundwater levels in the Subbasin.
Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of Longer-term/Conceptual Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin.
6.2.6.2 Project 19: Recycled Water Transfer to Agriculture Under the Recycled Water Transfer to Agriculture project, the City of Manteca would sell recycled water to agricultural users northeast of the City, located within the CSJWCD service area, or provide the water to the local GSAs for use in EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-31
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 groundwater basin recharge to overcome existing overdraft conditions and help sustain the Subbasin. The City would target customers located northeast of the City so that recycled water use for irrigation would offset groundwater pumping in an area with a significant cone of depression. No specific customers have been identified this alternative; rather, this alternative was developed primarily to support a cost estimate for designing and constructing a recycled water pipeline to this area of the county. Under this alternative, it is assumed that agricultural users would receive water during the 6-month irrigation season, resulting in a demand of 1,990 AF/year under current conditions and 5,190 AF/year at buildout.
Project Summary
Submitting GSA: City of Manteca
Project Type: Recycling/Transfer/In-lieu
Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 5,193 AF/year Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing recycling, transfer, and in-lieu recharge opportunities.
Project Status: This project is in the planning/initial study phase. This project has been evaluated by the City in their Draft Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan planning efforts.
Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: This project would require an NPDES Permit amendment, CEQA review, and approval from the State Water Resources Control Board to deliver water from the current discharge location to the potential project.
Time-table for Initiation and Completion: The initiation and completion dates for this project are unknown at this time.
Expected Benefits and Evaluation: Groundwater Subbasin recharge through the in-lieu use of alternate water supply will be an important component of the GSP and will be critical to establishing long-term Subbasin sustainability. This project is anticipated to offset 5,193 AF/year in groundwater pumping in agricultural areas northeast of the City of Manteca. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations.
How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project will rely on the use of recycled water, in the form of tertiary-treated Title-22 effluent form the City of Manteca’s Wastewater Quality Control Facility. No additional water source will be utilized for this project.
Legal Authority: This project would be under the authority of the City of Manteca for portions located within its service area. Legal authority outside of city limits would be identified if this project moves forward to implementation.
Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $37,645,000 in capital costs and $679,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. Funding sources would be identified if a project moves forward to implementation.
Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Longer-term/Conceptual Project, meaning it is in the early conceptual planning stages and would require significant additional work to move forward. Longer-term/Conceptual Projects represent potential future projects that could conceptually provide a benefit to the Subbasin in the future. As scenarios change, Longer-term/Conceptual Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. Implementation of this recycled water project is dependent on the identification of recycled water users and the installation of facilities to transmit recycled water to the location where it is needed. Agreement(s) between recycled water users and the City would also be required.
Trigger for Implementation and Termination: The trigger for project implementation would be the identification of recycled water users and agreements between recycled water users and the City.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-32
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of Longer-term/Conceptual Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin.
6.2.6.3 Project 20: Mobilizing Recharge Opportunities
This project would put in place a framework to quickly mobilize and take advantage of recharge opportunities (e.g., existing storm ponds, lake features, temporary flood easements, agricultural field ponding, etc.) This project would provide access to funding to expedite recharge projects as opportunities arise. Additional governance and budgetary controls would need to be developed. Flood-Managed Aquifer Recharge (Flood-MAR) opportunities will be considered through ongoing coordination with existing agencies.1
Project Summary
Submitting GSA: San Joaquin County
Project Type: Direct Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: To be determined Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing direct recharge opportunities.
Project Status: This project is still in the early conceptual planning stages.
Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: The required permitting and regulatory process for this project has not been determined.
Time-table for Initiation and Completion: The initiation and completion dates for this project are unknown at this time.
Expected Benefits and Evaluation: This project is anticipated to directly recharge the groundwater basin in areas that are geographically dispersed throughout the Subbasin. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations.
How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: The identification of water source will occur as project develops.
Legal Authority: [Information pending]
Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project and approach for meeting costs are unknown at this time.
Circumstances for Implementation: The circumstances for implementation of this project are unknown at this time.
Trigger for Implementation and Termination: The triggers for implementation and termination of this project are unknown at this time.
Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of Longer-term/Conceptual Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin. 1 Flood-MAR is an integrated and voluntary resource management strategy that uses flood water resulting from, or in anticipation of, rainfall or snow melt for managed aquifer recharge (MAR) on agricultural lands and working landscapes, including but not limited to refuges, floodplains, and flood bypasses. Flood-MAR can be implemented at multiple scales, from individual landowners diverting flood water with existing infrastructure, to using extensive detention/recharge areas and modernizing flood management infrastructure/operations (CA DWR, 2019).
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-33
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022
6.2.6.4 Project 21: Winery Recycled Water
This project will blend NSJWCD Permit 10477 water with wastewater from winery(ies) and deliver blended water for irrigation to accomplish in-lieu recharge or put in recharge ponds and accomplish direct groundwater recharge.
Project Summary
Submitting GSA: North San Joaquin Water
Conservation District
Project Type: Recycling/In-lieu Recharge/
Direct Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 750 AF/year Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing recycling, in-lieu recharge, and direct recharge opportunities.
Project Status: This project is in the early stages of discussing concepts with a local winery.
Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: This project would require WDR permitting through the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB). Minor permits would be required for pipeline construction.
Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project would begin in 2025 and be completed by 2027.
Expected Benefits and Evaluation: This project is anticipated to offset 750 AF/year in groundwater pumping in NSJWCD for use in in-lieu or direct recharge.
How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project will blend NSJWCD Permit 10477 (Mokelumne River water) with wastewater from wineries.
Legal Authority: The legal authority for this project is covered under Water Code § 74000 et seq.
Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $1.5 million in capital costs and $100,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project will be met by grant funding, landowner assessments (pending approval), and charges paid by the winery (pending contract).
Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Longer-term/Conceptual Project, meaning it is in the early conceptual planning stages and would require significant additional work to move forward. Longer-term/Conceptual Projects represent potential future projects that could conceptually provide a benefit to the Subbasin in the future. As scenarios change, Longer-term/Conceptual Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. Circumstances for implementation of this project include securing funding and winery cooperation contract.
Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Not applicable.
Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of Longer-term/Conceptual Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin.
6.2.6.5 Project 22: Pressurization of SSJID Facilities
SSJID currently operates a 3,800-acre pilot pressurized irrigation project within its service area. This project provides irrigation water at pressure to a grower’s turnout with nearly on-demand service. The service has promoted and influenced the adoption of high-efficiency irrigation systems and also promoted the use of SSJID surface water over private groundwater facilities in the area. SSJID is currently considering expansion of this type of irrigation service to the rest of its service territory. Further analysis needs to be done to understand the project benefits and impacts related to groundwater.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-34
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 The remaining service area considered is 56,300 acres. In 2014, the District completed a feasibility study on delivering a full pressurization system. The study included projections on on-farm savings and benefits (pumping/electrical costs, water quality) and included converting current groundwater farmers. The study observed four alternatives and concluded that a decentralized system comprising of six pump stations and reservoirs at strategic locations throughout the District would be the most feasible alternative. The study found that pressurization is estimated to reduce groundwater pumping from 40,000 AF annually to 10,000 AF annually within the District’s jurisdiction.
Project Summary
Submitting GSA: South San Joaquin GSA
Project Type: Conservation
Estimated Groundwater Demand Reduction: 30,000 AF/year
Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing demand-side water conservation opportunities.
Project Status: A feasibility study for this project has been completed. Inclusion in a Strategic Water Master Plan is in progress.
Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: This project would require CEQA review and road encroachment permits.
Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project has been implemented on a pilot scale (3,800 acres, Division 9), and can be phased based on customer needs and system compatibility. This project is expected to be completed by 2030.
Expected Benefits and Evaluation: This project is anticipated to reduce groundwater demand by 30,000 AF/year in the SSJID service area. Benefits are expected to accrue for 30 years. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated by quantifying resulting demand reduction.
How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project is a demand-side conservation project. No additional water source will be utilized for this project.
Legal Authority: SSJID is an irrigation district formed in accordance with State law.
Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $328 million in capital costs and $8.5 million in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project will be met by existing sources (i.e., hydropower generation, user fees, and water transfers) and enhanced revenue sources (i.e., grants, additional user fees, additional water transfers).
Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Longer-term/Conceptual Project, meaning it is in the early conceptual planning stages and would require significant additional work to move forward. Longer-term/Conceptual Projects represent potential future projects that could conceptually provide a benefit to the Subbasin in the future. As scenarios change, Longer-term/Conceptual Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. The SSJID Strategic Water Master Plan is currently underway and is intended to prioritize system capital improvements based on customer and system needs. This project can be phased based on customer demand and available funding.
Trigger for Implementation and Termination: The trigger for implementation for this project is sufficient customer demand and a financial plan for necessary enhanced revenues. The trigger for termination is subject to irrigation service agreement terms if applicable.
Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of Longer-term/Conceptual Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin. The SSJID Board of Directors would need to make the requisite findings and approve a financing package for this project.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-35
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022
6.2.6.6 Project 23: SSJID Storm Water Reuse
SSJID and the Cities of Ripon and Escalon have previously proposed storm water capture for storage and irrigation reuse, or for groundwater recharge to benefit the groundwater Subbasin. Currently, the City of Escalon, and to a limited extent the City of Ripon, discharge storm water into SSJID facilities during the winter months. This storm water is conveyed through SSJID’s main canal or lateral irrigation distribution system and eventually is conveyed into the Stanislaus River or the San Joaquin River via French Camp Slough. Capturing and storing excess storm water would allow for quantities of water that could be used to offset or enhance groundwater in multiple ways. SSJID is in the process of quantifying the amount of storm water it discharges during the winter months that could be made available to be repurposed for sustainable groundwater management practices. Additional infrastructure may be needed to provide adequate storage for groundwater recharge.
The City of Escalon currently has a drainage area of approximately 1,200 acres with 10 drainage systems which accumulate to a maximum discharge capacity of approximately 50 cubic feet per second (cfs) that drains into two District Laterals. It is estimated on average that 700 AF/year of run-off comes from the City of Escalon.
The City of Ripon currently has a drainage area of approximately 2,200 acres with four drainage systems. The majority of the storm run-off discharges to the Stanislaus River. A portion of storm water discharges into the District’s laterals and canals. It is estimated approximately 400 AF/year of run-off discharges to District facilities.
Additional monitoring will need to be implemented to obtain more accurate discharge flows from both cities.
Preliminary cost estimate includes two 20-acre storm drain retention basins in each city strategically located near District facilities.
Project Summary
Submitting GSA: South San Joaquin GSA
Project Type: Storm Water/In-lieu Recharge/
Direct Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 1,100 AF/year Other Participating Entities: City of Escalon, City of Ripon, SSJID
Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing storm water capture, in-lieu recharge, and direct recharge opportunities.
Project Status: This project is in the planning/initial study phase.
Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: This project will require CEQA review and road encroachment permits.
Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project would begin in 2027 and be completed by 2030.
Expected Benefits and Evaluation: This project is anticipated to offset 1,100 AF/year in groundwater pumping in SSJ GSA for use in in-lieu or direct recharge. Benefits are expected to accrue for 50 years, through 2080. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations.
How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project would rely on the use of captured storm water. No additional water source will be utilized for this project.
Legal Authority: The Cities of Escalon and Ripon are incorporated cities and provide municipal stormwater/drainage services. SSJID is an irrigation district formed in accordance with State law and also provides limited drainage service.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-36
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $30 million in capital costs and $30,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project will be met by developer impact fees, connection fees, and sewer rate fees.
Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Longer-term/Conceptual Project, meaning it is in the early conceptual planning stages and would require significant additional work to move forward. Longer-term/Conceptual Projects represent potential future projects that could conceptually provide a benefit to the Subbasin in the future. As scenarios change, Longer-term/Conceptual Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. The project proponents are in the process of determining the feasibility of this project including the possibility of securing the necessary finances to move forward.
Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Project implementation would begin once this project is approved by the cities of Escalon and Ripon, and the SSJID Board of Directors, and a financing plan is in place. Termination would be subject to the terms of the agreement if applicable.
Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of Longer-term/Conceptual Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin.
6.2.7 Mokelumne River Loss Study
The Mokelumne River Loss Study, proposed by NSJWCD, will study reaches of the Mokelumne River downstream of Camanche Reservoir to better understand and account for losses due to percolation, evaporation, riparian evapotranspiration, and more to inform management actions and SGMA basin accounting. Results of the study will be used to support model refinement and validation (described in Section 7.4.1) in this region and will help to fill the interconnected surface water data gap discussed in Section 4.7.3. The project is expected to cost about $100,000 and will take two years to complete.
6.2.8 Notification Process
Notification and public outreach around projects will be conducted at the GSA level. GSAs will post project updates to their websites to notify the public that the implementation of projects is being considered or has been implemented.
This will include a description of the actions to be taken. These updates will also be provided to the other GSAs and will be published on the ESJGWA website and other appropriate locations. Additional noticing for the public will be conducted consistent with permitting requirements in the case of the enactment of fees or assessments. Outreach may include public notices, meetings, website or social media presence, and email announcements.
6.3 MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
Management actions are generally administrative, locally implemented actions that the GSAs could take that affect groundwater sustainability. Management actions typically do not require outside approvals, nor do they involve capital projects. No management actions currently related to pumping activities or groundwater allocations have been proposed for the Subbasin; however, GSAs maintain the flexibility to implement such demand-side management actions in the future if need is determined.
If consideration of a demand reduction program were to take place in the future, public outreach and education on the potential structure of the program, as well and feasible monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, would be necessary to enable a successful program. Outreach could include public notices, meetings, website or social media presence, and email announcements.
There are a number of conservation and demand management actions currently in place in the Subbasin, including those outlined in Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) and Agricultural Water Management Plans (AWMPs), as identified below.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-37
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 • CCWD Urban Water Management Plan (Demand management measures include water waste prevention ordinance, metering, conservation pricing, public education and outreach, programs to assess and manage distribution system real loss, water conservation program coordination and staffing support, rebates and giveaways) (CCWD, 2016).
• City of Lodi Urban Water Management Plan (Demand management measures include water waste prevention ordinance, metering, conservation pricing, public education and outreach, programs to assess and manage distribution system loss, water conservation program coordination and staffing support, rebate program) (City of Lodi, 2016)
• Cal Water Urban Water Management Plan (Demand management measures include water waste prevention ordinance, metering, conservation pricing, public education and outreach, programs to assess and manage distribution system real loss, water conservation program coordination and staffing support, and other demand management measures) (Cal Water, 2015).
• City of Ripon Urban Water Management Plan (Demand management measures include water waste prevention ordinance, metering, conservation pricing, public education and outreach, programs to assess and manage distribution system real loss, water conservation program coordination and staffing support, and other demand management measures) (City of Ripon, 2017).
• SEWD Urban Water Management Plan (Demand management measures include metering, public education and outreach, water conservation program coordination and staffing support, asset management, and wholesale supplier assistance programs) (SEWD, 2015).
• SSJID Urban Water Management Plan (Demand management measures include water waste prevention ordinance, metering, conservation pricing, public education and outreach, programs to assess and manage distribution system real loss, water conservation program coordination and staffing support, asset management, wholesale supplier assistance programs, and other demand management measures) (SSJID, 2015).
• City of Stockton Urban Water Management Plan (Demand management measures include water waste prevention ordinance, metering, conservation pricing, public education and outreach, programs to assess and manage distribution system real loss, water conservation program coordination and staffing support, water survey programs for residential customers, residential plumbing retrofit, conservation programs for commercial, industrial, and institutional accounts; and landscape conservation programs and incentives) (City of Stockton, 2015).
• OID Agricultural Water Management Plan (Efficient water management practices include delivery measurement accuracy, volumetric pricing, alternative land use, recycled water use, capital improvements for on-farm irrigation systems, incentive pricing structures, increasing water ordering and delivery flexibility, supplier spill and tailwater recovery systems, increase planned conjunctive use, automate canal control, facilitate customer pump testing, designate water conservation coordinator, provide for availability of water management services, evaluate supplier policies to allow more flexible deliveries and storage, and evaluate and improve efficiencies of supplier’s pumps) (OID, 2016). • SEWD Agricultural Water Management Plan (Efficient water management practices include water measurements, volume-based pricing, alternate land use, recycled water use, on-farm irrigation capital improvements, incentive pricing structure, infrastructure improvement, order/delivery flexibility, supplier spill and tailwater systems, conjunctive use, automated canal controls, customer pump test/evaluation, water conservation coordinator, water management services to customers, identify institutional changes, and supplier pump improved efficiency) (SEWD, 2015).
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-38
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 • SSJID Agricultural Water Management Plan (Efficient water management practices include delivery measurement accuracy, volumetric pricing, alternative land use, recycled water use, capital improvements for on-farm irrigation systems, incentive pricing structures, lining or piping of distribution system and construction of regulating reservoirs, increasing water ordering and delivery flexibility, supplier spill and tailwater recovery systems, increase planned conjunctive use, automate canal control, facilitate pump testing, designate water conservation coordinator, provide for availability of water management services, evaluate supplier policies to allow more flexible deliveries and storage, and evaluate and improve efficiencies of supplier’s pumps) (SSJID, 2015).
Additional management activities are discussed in Chapter 7: Plan Implementation, including:
• Monitoring and recording of groundwater levels and groundwater quality data • Maintaining and updating the Subbasin Data Management System (DMS) with newly collected data • Annual monitoring of progress toward sustainability
• Annual reporting of Subbasin conditions to DWR as required by SGMA
6.4 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Although the ESJGWA does not provide direct authority to require GSAs to implement projects, the GWA will be working on GSA-level water budgets and will be requesting annual or biannual reports to evaluate progress. If the projects do not progress, or if monitoring efforts demonstrate that the projects are not effective in achieving stated recharge and/or offset targets, the GWA will convene a working group to evaluate supply-side and demand-side management actions such as the implementation of groundwater pumping curtailments, land fallowing, etc.
Based on comments from DWR in their November 18, 2021 Consultation Initiation Letter (Letter) requesting additional detail on management actions that could be implemented, the ESJGWA has developed descriptions of adaptive management measures to be considered for implementation if projects are demonstrated to not be effective in achieving Subbasin sustainability targets. After implementation of the Category A projects (as described in Chapter 2 of this revised GSP and below), the adaptive management actions identified below could be implemented if additional measures are required to sustainably manage groundwater in the Subbasin. These adaptive management actions are programs that are not currently ready for implementation, are in the early planning stages, and do not have firm schedules for development but rather would be implemented as needed sometime after 2026 following reevaluation of Subbasin sustainability during the 5-Year GSP Update in 2025. The following describes these potential programs as they are currently contemplated; none of these programs are planned for implementation in the Subbasin at this time. • Groundwater Extraction Fee with Land Use Modifications – A groundwater extraction fee or groundwater production charge could be collected from entities that own or operate an agricultural well. Revenue from these fees could then be used to pay for a variety of activities such as the construction of water infrastructure, groundwater conservation initiatives, proper construction and destruction of wells to prevent contamination, groundwater recharge and recovery projects, purchase of imported water or other supplies to replenish the groundwater basin through direct or in-lieu recharge, and/or purchasing and permanent fallowing of marginally-productive agricultural lands dependent on groundwater. Several agencies in California have already implemented such a program and have seen success in utilizing revenue to benefit the local groundwater basin. A similar methodology could be applied within the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. • Rotational Fallowing or Permanent Fallowing of Crop Lands – Agricultural water use can be temporarily reduced by fallowing crop lands. While this can have economic impacts to a region, the benefits may also include improved water supply reliability, improved groundwater quality, increased groundwater levels, reduced subsidence, and operational flexibility. Rotational fallowing of crop lands reduces the economic impacts to any one area by rotating the areas of fallowing. This management action could be combined with a recharge project through the application of surplus water supplies to the fallowed lands resulting in in-lieu EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-39
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 groundwater recharge or the repurposing of the permanently fallowed lands to create wildlife habitat or some other land use benefit that is not reliant on groundwater as a supply. This management action could be implemented, if needed, to help the Subbasin work towards its sustainability goals. However, the rules by which this management action would be implemented would have to be developed by the GSAs within the Subbasin.
• Conservation Programming for Demand Reduction – A demand reduction measure serves to reduce water demand, surface water losses, and/or nonessential water uses. Demand reduction measures may include a conservation rate structure or a uniform rate structure with a conservation program that achieves demand reduction. Conservation and demand management programs have been a priority for utility providers across the state for decades. Water conservation programs can by implemented by utilities to help offset the increasing demands being placed on water resources. Actions that may be considered a demand reduction measure include, but are not limited to, the following activities:
o Conservation rates
o Water efficient landscaping
o Smart meters
o Water efficient fixtures and appliances
o Water conservation education effort
Many of the GSAs in the Subbasin are currently implementing conservation programming for demand reduction. Under this management action, additional resources would be directed toward conservation programming for demand reduction such that these programs can be enhanced or expanded. • Mandatory Demand Reduction – To reduce groundwater demand to allow and encourage the recovery of the groundwater aquifer, mandatory demand reduction may be considered by the ESJGWA as needed to meet the sustainability needs of the Subbasin if projects and management actions fall short of reduction and offset targets. Mandatory measures could include establishment of a per-acre groundwater allocation, metering, extraction reporting, land retirement, and other measures to ensure land is not in production. The proposed projects and management actions (PMAs) demonstrate that these mandatory demand reduction programs are not likely to be needed in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin and are a low priority. Several GSAs in critically overdrafted subbasins are implementing mandatory demand reductions as part of their sustainability efforts under SGMA.
Additionally, the GWA will conduct regular ‘calls for projects’ to identify additional potential projects and management actions that may be implemented to support Subbasin sustainability, and will, as part of this process, update information regarding projects already identified herein.
6.5 SIMULATION OF PROJECTS AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS IN PROJECTED WATER BUDGET The November 18, 2021 Letter from DWR identified two potential deficiencies with the Subbasin GSP which may preclude DWR’s approval, as well as potential corrective actions to address each potential deficiency. Potential Deficiency 1 related to the GSP’s requirement of two consecutive non-dry (i.e., below normal, above normal, or wet) water year types and the exclusion of dry and critically dry water-year types in the identification of undesirable results. (Please see Chapter 3, Sustainable Management Criteria, for revisions that address this deficiency). Potential Deficiency 1 also requests additional detail on how projects and management actions, in conjunction with the proposed chronic lowering of groundwater levels sustainable management criteria, will offset drought related groundwater reductions and avoid significant and unreasonable impacts. Specifically, Potential Correction Action 1(b) stated that the GSP "fails to identify specific extraction and groundwater recharge management actions the GSAs would implement or otherwise describe how the Subbasin would be managed to offset...dry year reductions of groundwater storage”. As a Potential Corrective Action, the following is suggested: “The GSP should be revised to include specific projects and management actions the GSAs would implement to offset drought year groundwater level declines.” EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-40
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 As part of the process to respond to DWR, the ESJGWA worked with each GSA individually to update GSP project descriptions with new information that has become available in the past two years since the GSP was first adopted in 2020. These revised projects were divided into two categories: Category A projects (projects that are likely to advance in the next five years and have existing water rights or agreements) and Category B projects (projects that are not anticipated to advance in the next five years, but could be leveraged in the future, particularly if Category A projects do not fully achieve stated recharge and/or offset targets). Category A projects and Category B projects are shown in Table 6-2 and Table 6-3, respectively, along with project assumptions; please see Chapter 2, Basin Setting, for information as to how the Category A projects were simulated in the projected water budget and for a description of their effectiveness on addressing overdraft in the Subbasin. Category B projects may be elevated to a Category A project should feasibility studies demonstrate a viable project, if water rights or contracts are firmly identified, if partnerships are formed, and if economic evaluation demonstrate that the projects are cost effective.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-41
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 Table 6-2: Category A Projects
Project Submitting
GSA
Project
Type Water Source
Baseline
Water Year
Type
Annual
Volume
(AFY)
Notes
1. Lake Grupe In-Lieu
Recharge
Stockton East
Water District
In-Lieu
Recharge
The surface water source of this project is from
SEWD’s existing contract with the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR) for the New Hogan Reservoir.
Surface water is diverted from the Calaveras River.
This is an existing surface water right.
Drought 2,000 Range of 0-2,000 AFY in
multiple dry years
Dry 4,900
Normal 4,900
Wet 4,900
2. SEWD Surface Water
Implementation
Expansion
Stockton East
Water District
In Lieu
Recharge
This project relies on water from New Hogan
Reservoir (Calaveras River water) and New Melones
Reservoir (Stanislaus River water). This is an existing surface water right. SEWD has long-term water supply
contracts with USBR for both New Hogan Reservoir
and New Melones Reservoir.
Drought 4,000 Range of 0-4,000 AFY in
multiple drought years
Dry 8,000
Normal 19,000
Wet 19,000
3. West Groundwater
Recharge Basin
Stockton East
Water District
Direct
Recharge
This project relies on water from New Hogan Reservoir
(Calaveras River water) and New Melones Reservoir
(Stanislaus River water). This is an existing surface
water right. SEWD has long-term water supply
contracts with USBR for both New Hogan Reservoir
and New Melones Reservoir. In addition to Calaveras
River and Stanislaus River water, stormwater runoff will also contribute to the volume of water available for
recharge.
Drought 1,500
Dry 4,000
Normal 16,000
Wet 16,000
4. CSJWCD Capital
Improvement Program
Central San
Joaquin
Water
Conservation
District
In-Lieu
Recharge
This project relies on water from New Melones
Reservoir. This is an existing surface water right.
CSJWCD has long-term water supply contracts with
USBR for the New Melones Unit Central Valley Project.
Drought 0
Dry 12,000
Normal 24,000
Wet 24,000
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-42
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 Project Submitting
GSA
Project
Type Water Source
Baseline
Water Year
Type
Annual
Volume
(AFY)
Notes
5. Long-Term Water
Transfer to SEWD and
CSJWCD
South San
Joaquin GSA
Transfers/In
-Lieu
Recharge
This project relies on water from New Melones
Reservoir (Stanislaus River water). This is an existing surface water right (pre-1914) held by Oakdale
Irrigation District (OID) and South San Joaquin
Irrigation District (SSJID).
Drought 20,000 This project currently only
covers the transfer of water
from OID and SSJID to
SEWD urban customers.
Dry 5,000
Normal 0
Wet 0
6. White Slough
Pollution Control
Facility Expansion
City of Lodi
Recycled
Water/InLieu
Recharge
Treated wastewater effluent from White Slough Water
Pollution Control Facility.
Drought 3,729
Dry 3,729
Normal 3,729
Wet 3,729
7. NSJWCD South
System Modernization
North San
Joaquin
Water
Conservation
District
In-Lieu
Recharge/D
irect
Recharge
This project relies on water from the Mokelumne River.
This is an existing water right held by NSJWCD
(Permit 10477).
Drought 0
Dry 0
Normal 4,800
Wet 6,000
8. NSJWCD
Tecklenburg Recharge
Project
North San
Joaquin
Water
Conservation
District
Direct
Recharge
This project relies on water from the Mokelumne River.
This is an existing surface water right held by
NSJWCD (Permit 10477).
Drought 0
Dry 1,000
Normal 4,800
Wet 6,000
9. NSJWCD South
System Groundwater
Banking with EBMUD
North San
Joaquin
Water
Conservation
District
In-Lieu
Recharge
This project relies on water from the Mokelumne River.
This is an existing water right held by East Bay
Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) (Permit 10478) as
per Protest Dismissal Agreement from 11/25/2014.
Drought 0
Dry 1,500
Normal 6,400 80% of wet year supply
Wet 8,000
10. NSJWCD North
System
Modernization/Lakso
Recharge
North San
Joaquin
Water
Conservation
District
In-Lieu
Recharge/D
irect
Recharge
This project relies on water from the Mokelumne River.
This is an existing surface water right held by
NSJWCD (Permit 10477).
Drought 0
Dry 1,000
Normal 3,200
Wet 4,000
11. Delta Water
Treatment Plant
Groundwater Recharge
City of
Stockton
Direct
Recharge
This project relies on raw water from the Delta Water
Treatment Plant.
Drought 5,040
Dry 5,040
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-43
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 Project Submitting
GSA
Project
Type Water Source
Baseline
Water Year
Type
Annual
Volume
(AFY)
Notes
Improvements Project
Geotechnical
Investigation
Normal 5,040
Wet 5,040
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-44
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 Table 6-3: Category B Projects
Project Name Project Type Submitting
GSA Current Status
Time-table
(initiation and
completion)
Annual
Volume (AFY)
Perfecting Mokelumne River Water Right In-lieu Recharge San Joaquin County Planning phase 2022-2025 20,000 to 50,000
City of Manteca Advanced Metering Infrastructure Conservation City of Manteca Currently underway 2019-2021 272
City of Lodi Surface Water Facility Expansion &
Delivery Pipeline In-lieu Recharge City of Lodi Planning phase 2030-2033 4,750 BNSF Railway Company Intermodal Facility
Recharge Pond Direct Recharge CSJWCD Planning phase 2020-2023 1,000 City of Stockton Advanced Metering Infrastructure Conservation City of Stockton
Initial study
completed in 2011 2020/25-2025/28 2,000
Manaserro Recharge Project Direct Recharge NSJWCD Planning phase 2019-2022* 8,000 City of Escalon Wastewater Reuse
Recycling/
In‑lieu Recharge/
Transfers
SSJ GSA Planning phase 2020-2028 672
City of Ripon Surface Water Supply In-lieu Recharge SSJ GSA Design complete;
environmental
permitting underway
2020-2024 6,000
City of Escalon Connection to Nick DeGroot Water
Treatment Plant In-lieu Recharge SSJ GSA
Conceptual design
phase;
environmental
review complete
2020-2023 2,015
Farmington Dam Repurpose Project Direct Recharge SEWD
Preplanning phase
with
reconnaissance
study complete
2030-2050 30,000
Recycled Water Transfer to Agriculture Recycling/Transfers/ In‑lieu Recharge
City of
Manteca
Planning phase with
evaluation
completed in Draft
Reclaimed Water
Facilities Master
Plan
Not determined 5,193
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-45
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 Project Name Project Type Submitting
GSA Current Status
Time-table
(initiation and
completion)
Annual
Volume (AFY)
Mobilizing Recharge Opportunities Direct Recharge San Joaquin County
Early conceptual
planning phase Not determined Not determined
NSJWCD Winery Recycled Water
Recycling/
In‑Lieu Recharge/
Direct Recharge
NSJWCD
Conceptual
planning and
discussion
2025-2027 750
Pressurization of SSJID Facilities Conservation SSJ GSA Feasibility study complete 2019-2030 30,000
SSJID Storm Water Reuse
Storm Water/
In-lieu Recharge/
Direct Recharge
SSJ GSA Planning phase 2027-2030 1,100
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-46
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022
6.6 POTENTIAL AVAILABLE FUNDING MECHANISMS
The SWRCB has identified potential funding mechanisms that can be used toward the planning, construction, and implementation of GSP projects. Several funding types may be applicable to the current list of Planned Projects and potential future projects for the Eastern San Joaquin GSP including: projects included in an Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (IRWMP), projects addressing drinking water, stormwater recharge, water recycling projects, wastewater and system improvement projects, and projects that focus on DAC or SDAC areas.
The range of applicable projects, per SWRCB Funding Opportunities fact sheet and per Water Code § 10727.4(h), include recharge projects, groundwater contamination remediation, water recycling projects, in-lieu use, diversions to storage, conservation, conveyance, and extraction projects. Additional projects or management actions outside of this list may also be applicable if a GSA determines it will help achieve the sustainability goal for the Subbasin (see GSP Regulations § 354.44). Many of the available funding mechanisms accept applications on a continuing basis. Table 6-4 provides an overview of the project types and available funding and programs as well as important dates to consider for implementation. Funding options are explained in greater detail in the Chapter 7: Plan Implementation.
Table 6-4: Overview of Project Types and Available Funding Mechanisms Project Type and
Purpose Funding Type Program Important Dates
Water recycling projects Planning and
construction grants
and financing
Water Recycling
Funding Program
(Prop 1 and 13)
Planning applications accepted on
continuous basis. Construction
applications received by December
31st of each year will be used to
develop a priority score. Projects
which receive a priority score equal
to or greater than the yearly
fundable list cutoff score will be
placed on the fundable list for the
upcoming fiscal year.
Wastewater treatment for
DAC & SDAC projects
Planning and
construction grants
and financing
Small Community
Grant Fund (Prop 1
and CWSRF)
Applications accepted on
continuous basis.
Drinking Water Planning and
implementation grants
Groundwater Grant
Program (Prop 1)
Round 2 awards late 2019. Round
3 solicitation to be released 2020.
Public water system
improvements
Planning and
construction grants
and financing
Drinking Water
Grants (Prop 1 and
68, and DWSRF)
Applications accepted on
continuous basis.
Stormwater recharge
projects
Implementation grants Storm Water Grant
Program (Prop 1)
Round 2 solicitation estimated in
spring 2020.
IRWM projects (included
and implemented in an
adopted IRWMP)
Implementation Grant IRWM
Implementation
Grant Program
(Prop 1)
Solicitation released spring 2019.
Round 1 applications due Fall
2019. Round 2 solicitation
estimated in 2020.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-47
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 References
CA Department of Water Resources (CA DWR). (2019). Flood-Managed Aquifer Recharge (Flood-MAR). Retrieved from: https://water.ca.gov/Programs/All-Programs/Flood-MAR Calaveras County Water District (CCWD). (2016). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Update.
California Water Service District, Stockton District (Cal Water). (2016). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
City of Lodi. (2016). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
City of Ripon. (2017). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
City of Stockton. (2016). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
Oakdale Irrigation District (OID). (2016). Agricultural Water Management Plan.
South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID). (2016). Urban Water Management Plan 2015 Update.
SSJID. (2015). 2015 Agricultural Water Management Plan.
Stockton East Water District (SEWD). (2017). 2015 Agricultural Water Management Plan.
SEWD. (2016). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-48
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022 This page is intentionally left blank.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-1
Plan Implementation November 2019
7. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSAs) will work together in mutual cooperation to implement the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) in compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Implementing the GSP includes implementation of the projects and management actions included in Chapter 6: Projects and Management Actions, as well as the following items:
• Eastern San Joaquin GSP implementation program management • Eastern San Joaquin GSAs administration and management • Implementation of the monitoring program and reporting • Data collection and analysis
• Public outreach
• Development of 5-year update and reports
• Grant writing
This chapter provides a description of the above items, including contents of the annual and 5-year reports that will be provided to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) as required under SGMA regulations.
7.1 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Development and adoption of a GSP by the January 31, 2020 deadline was a large task. During GSP development, the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority Board of Directors (ESJGWA Board) identified key areas that would need to be further developed as part of 5-year updates.
The ESJGWA Board has formed an Ad-Hoc Committee and tasked it with making recommendations on a range on implementations and funding topics, including applying for grant funding under DWR’s Proposition 68 Sustainable Groundwater Management (SGM) Planning Grant – Round 3. The Ad-Hoc Committee has convened on a weekly to bi-weekly basis beginning in early July 2019.
Table 7-1 illustrates the Eastern San Joaquin GSP’s schedule for implementation from 2020 to 2040, highlighting the high-level activities anticipated for each 5-year period. A more detailed schedule is provided in Figure 7-1. These activities are necessary for ongoing GSP monitoring and updates, as well as tentative schedules for projects and management actions. Additional details on the activities included in the timeline are provided in these activities’ respective sections of this GSP.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-2
Plan Implementation November 2019
Table 7-1: GSP Schedule for Implementation 2020 to 2040 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Monitoring and
Reporting Project Implementation Prepare for Sustainability Implement Sustainable
Operations
• Establish monitoring
networks
• Install new wells
• Model refinement
and verification
studies
• Initial project
implementation
• Ongoing outreach
regarding GSP and
projects
• GSAs conduct
5-year
evaluation/update
• Project
implementation
continues
• Potential Project
Evaluation and
initiation
• Monitoring and
reporting continue
• Outreach regarding
GSP and projects
continues
• GSAs conduct
5-year
evaluation/update
• Longer-term/
Conceptual Project
evaluation
• Monitoring and
reporting continue
• Outreach continues
• GSAs conduct 5-year
evaluation/update
• Project
implementation
completed
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-3
Plan Implementation November 2019
Figure 7-1: GSP Implementation Schedule
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-4
Plan Implementation November 2019
This page is intentionally left blank.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-5
Plan Implementation November 2019
7.2 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
In implementing the GSP, the GSAs will incur costs which will require funding. Table 7-2 summarizes these activities and their estimated costs. The areas associated with ESJGWA-wide management and GSP implementation will be borne by the ESJGWA through contributions from the member GSAs, under a cost-sharing arrangement to be developed following GSP adoption. Projects will be administered by the GSA project proponents. GSAs may elect to implement projects individually or jointly with one or more GSAs or with the ESJGWA.
Table 7-2: Costs to GSAs and GSP Implementation Costs
Activity Estimated Cost1
GSP Implementation and Management for GSAs
Monitoring and Reporting
Monitoring Approximately $175,000 annually
Annual Reporting $50,000 - $75,000 annually
Data Management System Updates $30,000 - $50,000 (first year only) $20,000 (following years, annually)
Data Collection and Analysis
Model Refinements $275,000 (one time)
Additional Wells if needed $200,000 per well (multi-level) Review of water quality data in broad network $20,000 - $40,000 (annually) Administrative Actions $140,000 - $230,000 (annually)
Developing 5-Year Evaluation Reports $800,000 - $2,000,000 every 5 years Public Outreach and Website Maintenance $35,000 - $60,000 (annually) Grant Writing By application type:
$45,000 - $60,000 (State)
$50,000+ (Federal)
Implementing GSP: Projects and Management Actions (Planned Projects Only) Project 1: Lake Grupe In-Lieu Recharge $2.3 million (one time) $330,000 (annually)
Project 2: SEWD Surface Water Implementation Expansion $750,000 (one time) $100,000 (annually)
Project 3: City of Manteca Advanced Metering Infrastructure $650,000 (one time) $300,000 (annually)
Project 4: City of Lodi Surface Water Facility Expansion and Delivery Pipeline
$4 million (one time)
$2,340,000 (annually)
Project 5: White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Expansion $6 million (one time) – complete $4664 (annually)
Project 6: CSJWCD Capital Improvement Program $50,000 (annually) Project 7: NSJWCD South System Modernization $9 million (one time) $250,000 (annually)
Project 8: Long-term Water Transfer to SEWD and CSJWCD Up to $9 million (annually), $200 per AF
1 Estimates are rounded and based on full implementation years (FY2021 through FY2040). Different costs may be incurred in FY 2020 as GSP implementation begins.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-6
Plan Implementation November 2019
7.3 MONITORING AND REPORTING
7.3.1 Monitoring
The GSAs will follow direction for the monitoring programs described in Chapter 4: Monitoring Networks to track conditions for the applicable sustainability indicators discussed in Chapter 3: Sustainable Management Criteria.
Monitoring network data will be collected and used to determine whether undesirable results are occurring and whether minimum thresholds are being reached or exceeded, and to determine if adaptive management is necessary. This data will be managed using the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Data Management System (DMS) (see Chapter 5: Data Management System). The GSP monitoring networks make use of existing monitoring programs and develop further monitoring to continue characterization of the system and support development of water budgets. Key components involved in the implementation of the monitoring network activities for the GSP include:
• Semi-annual groundwater level monitoring at 139 wells • Coordinating between new GSP monitoring program and existing California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program
• Semi-annual groundwater quality monitoring at 43 wells • Documentation of groundwater quality monitoring protocols Components of the annual monitoring program costs include:
• Field crew ($50,000 - $60,000)
• Equipment rental with truck, level meter, and pumps ($7,000 - $10,000) • Laboratory costs ($24,000 - $30,000)
• Existing monitoring and reporting costs for CASGEM ($50,000 - $75,000)
7.3.2 Developing Annual Reports
Annual reports must be submitted by April 1 of each year following GSP adoption. Annual reports must include 3 key sections: 1) General Information, 2) Basin Conditions, and 3) Plan Implementation Progress. An outline of what information will be provided in each of these sections in the annual report is included below. Annual reporting will be completed in a manner and format consistent with California Code of Regulations (CCR) Tile 23 § 356.2. As annual reporting continues, it is possible that this outline will change to reflect basin conditions, the priorities of GSAs, and applicable requirements from DWR. Annual reporting is estimated to cost approximately $50,000 to $75,000 annually.
7.3.2.1 General Information
General information will include an executive summary that highlights the key contents of the annual report. As part of the executive summary, this section will include a description of the sustainability goals, provide a description of GSP projects and their progress, and annually updated implementation schedule and map of the Subbasin. Key components as required by SGMA regulations include:
• Executive Summary
• Map of the Subbasin
7.3.2.2 Basin Conditions
Basin conditions will describe the current groundwater conditions and monitoring results. This section will include an evaluation of how conditions have changed in the Subbasin over the previous year and compare groundwater data for the year to historical groundwater data. Pumping data, effects of project implementation (e.g., recharge data, EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-7
Plan Implementation November 2019
conservation, if applicable), surface water flows, total water use, and groundwater storage will be included. Key components as required by SGMA regulations include:
• Groundwater elevation data from the monitoring network • Hydrographs and contour maps of elevation data
• Groundwater extraction data
• Surface water supply data
• Total water use data
• Change in groundwater storage, including maps
7.3.2.3 Plan Implementation Progress
Progress towards successful plan implementation would be included in the annual report. This section of the annual report would describe the progress made toward achieving interim milestones as well as implementation of projects and management actions. Key components as required by SGMA regulations include:
• Plan implementation progress
• Sustainability progress
7.3.3 DMS Updates
Updates and maintenance to the DMS will be made annually, including import of monitoring data and export of summarized data for annual reporting.
The first year will include refinements and is expected to cost $30,000 to $50,000, with following years expected to cost $20,000 annually.
7.4 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
7.4.1 Model Refinements
The ESJWRM will be updated based on newly available information or additional information provided by GSAs. This will include extending the historical model time series through at least 2020 and refining the model grid to align with the most recently updated GSA boundaries. Areas of higher uncertainty, such as the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta), Sierra Nevada foothills, and stream-aquifer interaction, will be refined using additional information made available through GSP monitoring and projects to achieve better calibration. Once the model has been updated and calibrated, new SGMA scenarios will be developed, including the current, projected, and sustainable scenarios as well as associated water budgets and the evaluation of sustainability indicators based on project implementation. The historical model is expected to be updated and calibrated by 2023 so that updated scenarios can be developed before the first GSP update in 2025. Total model refinement costs are expected to be $275,000.
7.4.2 Installation of Additional Wells
Additional groundwater level monitoring wells may be installed throughout the Subbasin if needed to fill remaining data gaps or for other management purposes after separate currently planned monitoring well installations have been completed. Well installation costs can vary widely based on well depth and soil conditions. An estimate average cost for installing a groundwater level monitoring well is $200,000 per well.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-8
Plan Implementation November 2019
7.4.3 Review of Water Quality Data in Broad Network
The GSAs will be reviewing water quality data in an exploratory fashion on an annual basis. This will include an evaluation of TDS, anions/cations, and arsenic on a Subbasin-wide scale to better inform basin conditions and management. This level of effort is expected to cost between $20,000 - $40,000 annually. Efforts include:
• Coordination with existing monitoring programs:
o Review of data submitted to the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), Division of Drinking Water (DDW), Department of Toxic Substances Control (EnviroStor), and GeoTracker as part of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) database. o Regular check-ins with existing monitoring programs, such as Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability (CV-SALTS) and the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP). o Annual review of annual monitoring reports prepared by other programs, such as CV-SALTS and ILRP.
o GSAs will invite representative(s) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Joaquin County Division of Environmental Health, and ILRP to attend an annual meeting of the GSAs to discuss constituent trends and concerns in the Subbasin in relation to groundwater pumping.
7.4.4 Data Gaps and Uncertainties
The ESJGWA acknowledges that there are many factors that could affect the availability of surface water, including the SWRCB plans to reduce flows available for use by 40-60 percent as part of the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta Plan). Such regulations will need to be evaluated by GSAs in the implementation of projects. The process of providing annual reports to DWR and of GSAs self-reporting to the ESJGWA will allow the ESJGWA to update the Plan and adjust the implementation course as needed based on changing conditions. The GSP allows project implementation to be updated as needed, and it is currently too speculative to say what the impact will be from the proposed Bay-Delta Plan Update regulation, as the SWRCB has not yet determined how the regulation will be been implemented.
7.5 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
Each of the 16 GSAs are administered independently and involve meetings and oversight of individual GSA projects and programs. GSAs can be made up of one or multiple agencies, cities, and counties, as described in Chapter 1:
Agency Information, Plan Area, and Communication. GSA administration will include: coordination meetings; coordination meetings of the GSP Implementation Ad-hoc Committee, regular email communications to update GSA members on on-going basin activities; coordination activities with the other GSAs, such as on projects or studies; administration of projects implemented by the GSA; and general oversight and coordination. Coordination meetings between the 16 GSAs are assumed to occur bi-monthly, with other oversight and administration activities occurring as needed and on an on-going basis. GSA administration is also expected to require additional effort during GSP updates, and around the time of annual report and 5-year evaluation report development. Other administrative actions may involve tracking and evaluating GSP implementation and sustainability conditions as well as assessing the benefit to the Subbasin. Annual costs for GSA administrative actions are estimated to range from $140,000 to $230,000. This estimate assumes $50,000 per year for annual audit and insurance expenses.
7.6 DEVELOPING 5-YEAR EVALUATION REPORTS
SGMA requires that GSPs be evaluated regarding their progress towards meeting the approved sustainability goals at least every 5 years and to provide a written assessment to DWR. An evaluation must also be made whenever the GSP is amended. A description of the information that will be included in the 5-year report is provided below and would be EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-9
Plan Implementation November 2019
prepared in a manner consistent with CCR Title 23 § 356.4. Annual costs for 5-year GSP updates are estimated to range from $800,000 to $2,000,000.
7.6.1 Sustainability Evaluation
This section will contain a description of current groundwater conditions for each sustainability indicator and will include a discussion of overall Subbasin sustainability. Progress towards achieving interim milestones and measurable objectives will be included, along with an evaluation of groundwater quality and groundwater elevations (being used as direct or proxy measures for several sustainability indicators) in relation to minimum thresholds.
A chloride isocontour map will be developed to evaluate the seawater intrusion sustainability indicator. As data are collected from wells within the water quality monitoring network (see Section 4.3), an isocontour line can be drawn with the most current data. If the drawn isocontour line crosses the minimum threshold isocontour line at chloride concentrations 2,000 mg/L or higher, the ESJGWA would consider that an undesirable result had occurred. It is unlikely that the Subbasin will experience an undesirable result due to seawater intrusion during the SGMA planning horizon.
7.6.2 Plan Implementation Progress
This section will describe the current status of project and management action implementation since the previous 5-year report. An updated project implementation schedule will be included, along with any new projects that were developed to support the goals of the GSP and a description of any projects that are no longer included in the GSP.
The benefits of projects that have been implemented will be included, and updates on projects and management actions that are underway at the time of the 5-year report will be reported.
7.6.3 Reconsideration of GSP Elements
Part of the 5-year report will include a reconsideration of GSP Elements. As additional monitoring data are collected during GSP implementation, land uses and community characteristics change over time, and GSP projects and management actions are implemented, it may become necessary to revise the GSP. This section of the 5-year report will reconsider the basin setting, management areas (if applicable), undesirable results, minimum thresholds, and measurable objectives. If appropriate, the 5-year report will recommend revisions to the GSP. Revisions would be informed by the outcomes of the monitoring networks, and changes in the Subbasin, including but not limited to, changes to groundwater uses or supplies and outcomes of project implementation.
The water year types from the San Joaquin Valley Water Year Hydrologic Classification used in this Plan are based on stream inflows from a variety of streams in the San Joaquin Valley. In the future, a more locally-relevant index may be developed that would be more representative of conditions specific to the Subbasin.
7.6.4 Monitoring Network Description
A description of the monitoring network will be provided in the 5-year report. Data gaps, or areas of the Subbasin that are not monitored in a manner consistent with the requirements of the regulations, will be identified or re-assessed if previously identified. An assessment of the monitoring networks’ function will be provided, along with an analysis of data collected to-date. If data gaps are identified, the GSP will be revised to include a program for addressing these data gaps, along with an implemented schedule for addressing data gaps and how the GSAs will incorporate updated data into the GSP.
7.6.5 New Information
New information that has become available since the last 5-year evaluation or GSP amendment would be described and the GSP evaluated in light of this new information. If the new information would warrant a change to the GSP, this would also be included.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-10
Plan Implementation November 2019
7.6.6 Regulations or Ordinances
The 5-year report will include a summary of the regulations or ordinances related to the GSP that have been implemented by DWR since the previous report and address how these may require updates to the GSP.
7.6.7 Legal or Enforcement Actions
Enforcement or legal actions taken by the GSAs or their member agencies in relation to the GSP will be summarized in this section along with how such actions support sustainability in the Subbasin.
7.6.8 Plan Amendments
A description of amendments to the GSP will be provided in the 5-year report, including adopted amendments, recommended amendments for future updates, and amendments that are underway during development of the 5-year report.
7.6.9 Coordination
The Eastern San Joaquin GSP will be implemented by the GSAs identified in Chapter 1: Agency Information, Plan Area, and Communication. These GSAs will work in collaboration with neighboring subbasins, namely: the Modesto, Cosumnes, South American, Solano, East Contra Costa, and Tracy Subbasins.
This section of the 5-year report will describe coordination activities between these entities, such as meetings, joint projects, or data collection efforts. If additional neighboring GSAs have been formed since the previous report, or changes in neighboring subbasins have occurred, resulting in a need for new or additional coordination within or outside the Subbasin, such coordination activities would be included as well.
7.7 PUBLIC OUTREACH
During GSP development, GSAs and the ESJGWA used multiple forms of outreach to communicate SGMA-related information and solicit input. The GSAs intend to continue public outreach and provide opportunities for engagement during GSP implementation. This will include providing opportunities for public participation, at public meetings, providing access to GSP information online, and continued coordination with entities conducting outreach to diverse communities in the Subbasin. Announcements will continue to be distributed via email prior to public meetings. Emails will also be distributed as specific deliverables are finalized, when opportunities are available for stakeholder input and when this input is requested, or when items of interest to the stakeholder group arise, such as relevant funding opportunities. The Eastern San Joaquin SGMA website, managed as part of GSP administration, will be updated a minimum of monthly, and will house meeting agendas and materials, reports, and other program information. The website may be updated to add new pages as the program continues and additional activities are implemented.
Additional public workshops will be held semi-annually to provide an opportunity for stakeholders and members of the public to learn about, discuss, and provide input on GSP activities, progress toward meeting the sustainability goal of this GSP, and the SGMA program. Costs to support outreach are estimated to range from $35,000 to $60,000 annually.
7.8 IMPLEMENTING GSP-RELATED PROJECTS AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Costs for the projects and management actions are described in Chapter 6: Projects and Management Actions of this GSP. Financing of the projects and management actions would vary depending on the activity. Potential financing for projects and management actions are provided in Table 7-3, although other financing may be pursued as opportunities arise or as appropriate. The GSAs may adopt adaptive management actions as needed to evaluate potential for unimplemented projects and revisiting projects not included within the 23 projects listed in this GSP. This includes Longer-term/Conceptual Projects provided in Chapter 6: Projects and Management Actions.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-11
Plan Implementation November 2019
Table 7-3: Funding Mechanisms for Proposed Projects and Management Actions Project/Management Action Title and Type Responsible
Agency1
Potential Funding
Mechanisms
Planned Projects
Project 1: Lake Grupe In-Lieu
Recharge
In-lieu Recharge SEWD District staffing and District
rates to establish new
accounts
Project 2: SEWD Surface Water
Implementation Expansion
In-lieu Recharge SEWD District staffing and District
rates to establish new
accounts
Project 3: City of Manteca Advanced
Metering Infrastructure
Conservation City of
Manteca
Capital Improvement
Project budgeted item with
available funding
Project 4: City of Lodi Surface Water
Facility Expansion & Delivery Pipeline
In-lieu Recharge City of Lodi Capital Improvement
Project budgeted item with
available funding
Project 5: White Slough Water
Pollution Control Facility Expansion
Recycling/In-lieu
Recharge
City of Lodi DWR Proposition 84 Grant
Funding Program
Project 6: CSJWCD Capital
Improvement Program
In-lieu Recharge CSJWCD Surface water sales,
groundwater extraction
fees, and acre
assessments
Project 7: NSJWCD South System
Modernization
In-lieu Recharge NSJWCD Grant funding, landowner
assessments, and water
charges
Project 8: Long-term Water Transfer to
SWED and CSJWCD
Intra-basin Transfer/
In-lieu Recharge
SSJ GSA Costs met by recipients of
water or groundwater
pumping benefit
Potential Projects
Project 9: BNSF Railway Company
Intermodal Facility Recharge Pond
Direct Recharge CSJWCD Groundwater extraction fee
revenue, private loans,
and/or possible grant
funding
Project 10: City of Stockton Advanced
Metering Infrastructure
Conservation City of
Stockton
Met by ratepayers and
through grants or other
funding sources
Project 11: South System
Groundwater Banking with EBMUD
In-lieu Recharge NSJWCD Grant funding, banking
fees, and water charges
Project 12: NSJWCD North System
Modernization/ Lakso Recharge
In-lieu Recharge NSJWCD Grant funding, landowner
assessments, and water
charges
Project 13: Manaserro Recharge
Project
NSJWCD Grant funding and
landowner assessments
Project 14: Tecklenberg Recharge
Project
NSJWCD Grant funding and
landowner assessments
Project 15: City of Escalon
Wastewater Reuse
Recycling/In-lieu
Recharge
SSJ GSA Developer impact fees,
connection fees, and sewer
rate fees
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-12
Plan Implementation November 2019
Project/Management Action Title and Type Responsible
Agency1
Potential Funding
Mechanisms
Project 16: City of Ripon Surface
Water Supply
In-lieu Recharge SSJ GSA Grants, water rates, and
development impact fees
Project 17: City of Escalon Connection
to Nick DeGroot Water Treatment
Plant
In-lieu Recharge SSJ GSA Grants, water rates, and
development impact fees
Longer-term or Conceptual Projects
Project 18: Farmington Dam
Repurpose Project
Direct Recharge SEWD Grant funding
Project 19: Recycled Water Transfer
to Agriculture
Recycling/Transfer/
In-lieu Recharge
City of
Manteca
To be identified
Project 20: Mobilizing Recharge
Opportunities
Direct Recharge San Joaquin
County
To be identified
Project 21: NSJWCD Winery Recycled
Water
Recycling/In-Lieu
Recharge/Direct
Recharge
NSJWCD Grant funding, landowner
assessments, and charges
paid by the winery
Project 22: Pressurization of SSJID
Facilities
Conservation SSJ GSA Existing sources
(hydropower generation,
user fees, water transfers)
and enhanced sources
(grants, additional user
fees, additional water
transfers)
Project 23: SSJID Storm Water Reuse Storm Water/
Direct Recharge
SSJ GSA Developer impact fees,
connection fees, and
property related fees
Other
Mokelumne River Loss Study Model Refinement and
Verification
NSJWCD Not determined
1 Acronyms defined: Stockton East Water District (SEWD), Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District (CSJWCD, North San Joaquin Water Conservation District (NSJWCD), and South San Joaquin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (SSJ GSA).
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-13
Plan Implementation November 2019
7.9 GSP IMPLEMENTATION FUNDING
Implementation of the GSP is projected to cost between $600,000 and $1 million per year excluding projects and management actions costs. Additional one-time costs are estimated to be on the order of $315,000. Development of this GSP was funded through a Proposition 1 Sustainable Groundwater Planning Grant. To the degree they become available, outside grants will be sought to assist in reducing cost of implementation to participating agencies, residents, and landowners of the Subbasin. However, there will be a need to establish funding mechanisms to support the implementation of the GSP and future SGMA compliance. At the April 10, 2019 ESJGWA Board Meeting, the Board approved an action to conduct monitoring, measuring, and modeling at the basin-scale subject to a financing plan that will be developed after the GSP is approved. Costs for GSP project implementation will be met by project proponents.
Also at the April 10, 2019 ESJGWA Board Meeting, the Board took an action to approve development and implementation of projects in the GSP Implementation Plan at the GSA level, with the option for GSAs with projects in the GSP to work with additional parties in the development of their projects.
Costs of overall GSP administration are expected to be shared by the GSAs. Financing options under consideration could include pumping fees, assessments, loans, and grants. Individual GSAs will create their own financing plans to address their portion of the cost share according to the ESJGWA. Table 7-4 lists examples of potential financing options.
Prior to implementing any fee or assessment program, the GSAs would complete a rate assessment study or other analysis if required by the regulatory requirements.
Table 7-4: Potential Funding Sources for GSP Implementation Funding Source Certainty
Ratepayers (within Project Proponent
service area or area of project benefit)
High – User rates pay for operation and maintenance (O&M) of a utility’s system. Depends upon rate structure adopted by the project proponent and, if applicable, the Proposition 218 rate approval process. Can be used for project implementation as well as project O&M.
General Funds or Capital Improvement
Funds (of Project Proponents)
High – General or capital improvement funds are set aside by agencies to fund general operations and construction of facility improvements. Depends upon agency approval.
Special taxes, assessments, and user
fees (within Project Proponent service area
or area of project benefit)
High - Monthly user fees, special taxes, and assessments can be assessed by some agencies should new facilities directly benefit existing customers. Depends upon the rate structure adopted by the project proponent and, if applicable, the Proposition 218 rate approval process.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(CWSRF) Loan Program administered by
the California State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB)
Medium – Historically, the SWRCB has had $200 to $300 million available annually for low-interest loans (typically ½ of the General Obligation Bond Rate) for water recycling, wastewater treatment, and sewer collection projects. During recent years, available funding has become limited due to high demand. Success in securing a lowinterest loan depends on demand of the CWSRF Program and available funding. Applications are accepted on a continuous basis.
SWRCB prepares a fundable list for each fiscal year. In order to receive funding, a project must be on the fundable list. Full applications must be submitted by the end of the calendar year to be considered for inclusion on the following year’s fundable list.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-14
Plan Implementation November 2019
Funding Source Certainty
Water Recycling Funding Program
(WRFP) – Planning and Construction
Grants from SWRCB
High (planning) / Low (construction) – WRFP grants are funded by Proposition 1, as well as the general CWSRF Program. Planning grants (for facilities planning) are available and can fund 50% of eligible costs, up to $75,000. Construction grants have been exhausted. Low-interest loans through the CWSRF program are available and while limited, recycled water projects receive priority over wastewater projects (which are also eligible under CWSRF, the umbrella program for the WRFP).
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
Loan Program administered by the
SWRCB Division of Drinking Water
High – Approximately $100 to $200 million is available on an annual basis for drinking water projects. Low-interest loans are available for project proponents should they decide to seek financing. Funding has become more limited; however, applicants are encouraged to apply.
Infrastructure State Revolving Fund
Loan Program administered by the
California Infrastructure and Economic
Development Bank (I-Bank)
High – Low-interest loans are available from I-Bank for infrastructure projects (such as water distribution). Maximum loan amount is $25 million per applicant. Applications are accepted on a continuous basis.
Title XVI Water Recycling and
Reclamation / Water Infrastructure
Improvements for the Nation (WIIN)
Program – Construction Grants
administered by the United States Bureau
of Reclamation (USBR)
Medium – Grants up to 25% of project costs or $20 million, whichever is less, are available from USBR for water recycling projects. A Title XVI Feasibility Study must be submitted to and approved by USBR to be eligible. USBR solicits grants annually.
WaterSMART Title XVI Water Recycling
and Reclamation Program – Feasibility
Study Grants administered by USBR
Low – Grants up to $150,000 have been available in the past for preparation of Title XVI Feasibility Studies. It is possible future rounds may be administered.
Bonds Medium – Revenue bonds can be issued to pay for capital costs of projects allowing for repayment of debt service over 20- to 30- year timeframe. Depends on the bond market and the existing debt of project proponents.
Integrated Regional Water Management
(IRWM) implementation grants
administered by the California Department
of Water Resources (DWR)
Medium – The Westside-San Joaquin IRWM Region, the primary IRWM region overlapping the Delta-Mendota Subbasin, will pursue grant funding through the Proposition 1, Round 1 IRWM
Implementation Grants. The Westside-San Joaquin IRWM Region bridges two funding areas: The San Joaquin River Funding Area and the Tulare-Kern Funding Area. Application due dates vary by Funding Area; the application for the San Joaquin River Funding Area is due in November 2019 and the application for the TulareKern Funding Area was due in September 2019. Approximately $28 million will be available in the San Joaquin River Funding Area and approximately $30 million will be available in the Tulare-Kern Funding Area over two rounds (where Round 2 solicitation will begin in 2020).
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-15
Plan Implementation November 2019
Funding Source Certainty
Proposition 68 grant programs
administered by various state agencies
Medium – Grant programs funded through Proposition 68, which was passed by California voters in June 2018, administered by various state agencies are expected to be applicable to fund GSP implementation activities. These grant programs are expected to be competitive, where $74 million has been set aside for Groundwater Sustainability statewide. The ESJGWA will pursue funding under DRW’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Planning Grant – Round 3 in November 2019.
Disadvantaged Community (DAC)
Involvement Program
Medium – The Westside-San Joaquin IRWM Region will receive funding through DWR’s DAC Involvement Program through the San Joaquin River Funding Area (which was awarded a total of $3.1 million for the Funding Area as a whole) and the Tulare/Kern Funding Area (which was awarded a total of $3.4 million for the Funding Area). This funding has been secured by the respective Funding Areas. Funding may be used to help develop a project within the Westside-San Joaquin IRWM Region in order to advance it toward implementation. This program is not guaranteed to be funded in the future.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-16
Plan Implementation November 2019
This page is intentionally left blank.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 8-1
References November 2019; Revised June 2022
8. REFERENCES
Chapter 1
CA Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). (2019a). White Slough Wildlife Area. Retrieved from:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/White-Slough-WA CDFW. (2019b). Woodbridge Ecological Reserve. Retrieved from: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-toVisit/Woodbridge-ER CDFW. (2019c). CDFW Public Access Lands, Web Tool v5.77.14. Retrieved from: https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/lands/ CA Department of Parks and Recreation (California State Parks). (2019). Caswell Memorial State Park. Retrieved from: https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=557.
CA Department of Water Resources (CA DWR. (2019). SGMA Data Viewer.
CA DWR. (2018). SGMA Groundwater Management. Retrieved from: https://water.ca.gov/Programs/GroundwaterManagement/SGMA-Groundwater-Management CA DWR. (2016a). Groundwater Sustainability Agency Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from:
https://www.water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/SustainableGroundwater-Management/Groundwater-Sustainability-Agencies/Files/GSA-Frequently-Asked-Questions.pdf CA DWR. (2016b). Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) Annotated Outline.
CA DWR. (2016d). Preparation Checklist for GSP Submittal. Cal Water Library.
CA DWR. (2006). Bulletin 118: San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin.
CA DWR. (1991). Bulletin 74-90: California Well Standards. Retrieved from:
https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/pubs/groundwater/water_well_standards__bulletin_74- 90_/ca_well_standards_bulletin74-90_1991.pdf
CA DWR. (n.d.). Mapping Tools. Retrieved from: https://water.ca.gov/Work-With-Us/Grants-And-Loans/MapptingTools CA DWR. (n.d.). Water Data Library. Retrieved from http://wdl.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/ Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB). (2016). The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin.
Calaveras County. (1996). Calaveras County General Plan.
Calaveras County Board of Supervisors. (2008). Calaveras County, California – Code of Ordinances/Chapter 8.20 Well Construction and Destruction. Municode Library.
Calaveras County Water District (CCWD). (2015). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for Calaveras County Water District.
CCWD. (2012). Calaveras County Monitoring Plan Portions of the Eastern San Joaquin Ground Water Subbasin.
City of Elk Grove. (2018). Elk Grove General Plan (Draft).
City of Escalon. (2010). Escalon General Plan.
City of Galt. (2009). 2030 Galt General Plan.
City of Lodi. (2015). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for City of Lodi.
City of Lodi. (2010). Lodi General Plan.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 8-2
References November 2019; Revised June 2022
City of Manteca. (2017). Manteca General Plan Update.
City of Manteca. (2015). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for City of Manteca.
City of Modesto. (2008). City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan.
City of Ripon. (2015). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Update for City of Ripon.
City of Ripon. (2006). City of Ripon General Plan.
City of Stockton. (2016). Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Update.
City of Stockton. (2015). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for City of Stockton.
City of Tracy. (2011). City of Tracy General Plan.
Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Basin Authority (Eastern San Joaquin County GBA). (2014). Eastern San Joaquin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update.
Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (ESJGWA). (2017a). Bylaws of the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority.
ESJGWA. (2017b). Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Establishing the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority.
North Delta Water Agency (NDWA). (2015). Comments of North Delta Water Agency on the Partially Recirculated Bay-Delta Conservation Plan EIR/ElS with New CA WaterFix Sub-Alternatives.
Northeastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Banking Authority. (2004). Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin Management Plan.
Oakdale Irrigation District (OID). (2015). 2015 Agricultural Water Management Plan.
Sacramento County. (2019). Sacramento County Code, Chapter 6.28 Wells and Pumps. Retrieved from:
http://qcode.us/codes/sacramentocounty/
San Joaquin County (SJC). (2016a). Lockeford Community Services District Municipal Service Review.
SJC. (2016b). San Joaquin County General Plan Policy Document.
SJC. (1992). Linden Planning Area.
SJC Environmental Health Department. (1993). San Joaquin County Well Standards. Retrieved from:
https://www.sjgov.org/uploadedfiles/sjc/departments/ehd/forms/well%20standards.pdf San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (SJCFCWCD). (2006). San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District CASGEM Monitoring Plan.
San Joaquin Groundwater Basin Authority (San Joaquin GBA). (2015). Mokelumne Interregional Sustainability Evaluation (MokeWISE) Program.
Sneed, Michelle., Brandt, Justin., & Solt, Mike. (2013). Land subsidence along the Delta-Mendota Canal in the northern part of the San Joaquin Valley, California. 2003–10: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5142. Retrieved from: https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5142/ South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID). (2015a). Agricultural Water Management Plan.
SSJID. (2015b). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for South San Joaquin Irrigation District.
Stanislaus County. (2019a). Stanislaus County Code, Chapter 9.36 Water Wells. Retrieved from:
https://qcode.us/codes/stanislauscounty/
Stanislaus County. (2019b). Stanislaus County Code, Chapter 9.37 Groundwater. Retrieved from:
https://qcode.us/codes/stanislauscounty/
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 8-3
References November 2019; Revised June 2022
Stanislaus County. (2019c). County Groundwater Ordinance, Well Permit Application Review Process. Retrieved from: http://www.stancounty.com/er/pdf/application-packet.pdf Stanislaus County. (2016). Stanislaus County General Plan.
Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources. (2016). CASGEM Monitoring Plan for the Stanislaus County Portion of Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin.
Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission (Stanislaus LAFCO). (2018). Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update for the Rock Creek Water District. Retrieved from:
http://www.stanislauslafco.org/info/PDF/MSR/Districts/RockCreekWD.pdf Stockton East Water District (SEWD). (2015). 2015 Agricultural Water Management Plan.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2015). CropScape - Cropland Data Layer.
United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS). (2012). San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge. Retrieved from:
https://www.fws.gov/Refuge/San_Joaquin_River/about.html Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID). (2016). Agricultural Water Management Plan.
Chapter 2
HCM
Bartow, J. (1992). Contact Relations of the Ione and Valley Springs Formation in the East-Central Great Valley, California. USGS.
Bartow, J. (1985). Maps showing Tertiary stratigraphy and structure of the Northern San Joaquin Valley, California.
United States Geological Survey (USGS).
Bennett, G., Belitz, K., & Milby Dawson, B. (2006). California GAMA Program - Ground-Water Quality Data in the Northern San Joaquin Basin Study Unit. USGS.
Bertoldi, G., Johnston, R., & Evenson, K. (1991). Groundwater in the Central Valley, California - A Summary Report.
USGS.
Bookman-Edmonston (2005) Integrated Reginal Groundwater Management Plan for the Modesto Subbasin.
Stanislaus and Tuolumne River Groundwater Basin Association.
Burow, K. R., Shelton, J. L., Hevesi, J. A., & Wissman, G. S. (2004). Hydrogeologic Characterization of the Modesto Area, San Joaquin Valley, California. USGS.
CA Department of Water Resources (CA DWR). (2019). Station OBB August 1994 through April 2019. California Data Exchange Center (CDEC).
CA DWR. (2006). Bulletin 118: San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin.
CA DWR. (2000). Water Facts, Numbering Water Wells in California, Issue No. 7.
CA DWR. (1967). Bulletin 146, San Joaquin County Investigation.
Chapman, R., & Bishop, C. (1975). Geophysical Investigation in the Ione Area, Amador, Sacramento, and Calaveras Counties, California. Sacramento: California Division of Mines and Geology.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 8-4
References November 2019; Revised June 2022
Clark et al. (2012). Groundwater Data for Selected Wells within the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin, California, 2003-8. USGS. Retrieved from: https://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/696/pdf/ds696.pdf Creely, S., & Force, E. (2007). Type Region of the Ione Formation (Eocene), Central California: Stratigraphy, Paleogeography and Relation to Auriferous Gravels. USGS.
Davis, G., Green, J., Olmsted, F., & Brown, D. (1959). Ground-Water Conditions and Storage Capacity in the San Joaquin Valley California. USGS.
Davis, S., & Hall, F. (1959). Water quality of eastern Stanislaus and northern Merced Counties, California. Stanford University Publications, Geological Science 6(1).
Dunn Environmental (DE). (2012). Production Well Installation Report. Farmington Water Company Wells A and B DE. (2007). Source Sufficiency Study for the General Plan Update. City of Riverbank.
Faunt, C. (2009). Groundwater Availability of the Central Valley Aquifer, California. USGS.
Ferriz, H. (2001). Groundwater Resources of Northern California: An Overview.
Freeze, R., & Cherry, J. (1979). Groundwater.
Hoffman, R. (1964). Geology of the northern San Joaquin Valley: Selected Papers Presented to San Joaquin Geological Society, v. 2. 30-45.
Holloway, J. M., R. A. Dahlgren, B. Hansen, & W. H. Casey. (1998). Contribution of Bedrock Nitrogen to High Nitrate Concentrations in Stream Water. Nature.
Huber, King N. (1981). Amount and Timing of Late Cenozoic Uplift and Tilt of the Central Sierra Nevada, California - Evidence from the Upper San Joaquin River Basin. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1197.
Izbicki, J., Stamus, C., Metzger, L., Halford, K., Kulp, T., & Benner, G. (2008). Source, Distribution, and Management of Arsenic in Water from Wells, East San Joaquin Ground-Water Subbasin, California. USGS.
Loyd, R. (1983). Mineral Land Classification of the Sutter Creek 15-Minute Quadrangle, El Dorado and Amador Counties, California.
Marchand, D., & Allwardt, A. (1981). Late Cenozoic Stratigraphic Units, Northeastern San Joaquin Valley. USGS.
Metzger, L., Izbicki, J., & Nawikas, J. (2012). Test Drilling and Data Collection in the Calaveras County Portion of the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin, California. USGS.
Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH). (2001). Farmington Groundwater Recharge/Seasonal Habitat Study- Final Report. United States Army Corps of Engineers. Retrieved from: http://sewd.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/1aFarmington-GW-Recharge-Feasibility-2001-Chap-1-to-5.pdf NV5. (2017). City of Manteca Internal Memo on Well 28 and 29 Completion.
Page, R. (1974). Base and thickness of the Post-Eocene continental deposits in the Sacramento Valley, California.
USGS.
Pask, J., & Turner, M. (1952). Geology and Ceramic Properties of the Ione Formation, Buena Vista area, Amador County, California. California Division of Mines and Geology.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 8-5
References November 2019; Revised June 2022
Tonkin, M., & Larson, S. (2002). Kriging Water Levels with a Regional-Linear and Point-Logarithmic Drift.
Groundwater.
University of California, Davis. (2018). Soil Agricultural Groundwater Banking Index. Retrieved from:
https://casoilresource.law.ucdavis.edu/sagbi/
Wagner, D., Bortugno, E., & McJunkin, R. (1991). Geologic Map of the San Francisco - San Jose Quadrangle, California 1:250,000. California Division of Mines and Geology.
Wagner, D., Jennings, C., Bedrossian, T., & Bortugno, E. (1981). Geologic Map of the Sacramento Quadrangle, California 1:250,000. California Geological Survey.
Williamson, A. (1989). Ground-Water Flow in the Central Valley, California, Regional Aquifer System Analysis.
USGS.
Woodard & Curran. (2018). Eastern San Joaquin Water Resources Model (ESJWRM) Final Report.
Water Resources and Information Management Engineering, Inc. (WRIME). (2003). Camanche/Valley Springs Area Hydrogeologic Assessment.
Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions
CA Department of Water Resources (CA DWR). (2018). Chronological Reconstructed Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley Water Year Hydrologic Classifications Indices.
CA DWR. (1967). Bulletin 146, San Joaquin County Investigation.
Canadell, J., Jackson, R. B., Ehleringer, J. R., Mooney, H. A., Sala, O. E., Schulze, E.-D. (1996). Maximum rooting depth of vegetation types at the global scale.
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB). (2012). Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R5-2012-01016. Retrieved from:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/san_joaquin/r5-2012-0106.pdf CVRWQCB. (2016). Central Valley Region Salt and Nitrate Management Plan. Retrieved from:
https://www.cvsalinity.org/index.php/docs/central-valley-snmp/final-snmp.html CVRWQCB. (2012). Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R5-2012-01016.
EKI Environment & Water. (2015). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the City of Lathrop. Retrieved from:
https://www.ci.lathrop.ca.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/public_works/page/1681/city_of_lathrop_uwmp_20
15.pdf
Lewis, D.C., Burgy, R.H. (1964). The relationship between oak tree roots and groundwater in fractured rock as determined by tritium tracing. J. Geophys. Res. 69(12):2579-2588.
O'Leary, D. R., Izbicki, J. A., & Metzger, L. F. (2015). Sources of high-chloride water and managed aquifer recharge in an alluvial aquifer in California USA. USGS. Retrieved from: https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70155190 % Piper, A., Gale, H., Thomas, H., Robinson, T. (1939). Geology and Ground-Water Hydrology of the Mokelumne Area, California, Water-Supply Paper 780. USGS.
Schenk, H.J., Jackson, R.B. (2002). The Global Biogeography of Roots. Ecological Monographs 72(3): 311-328.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 8-6
References November 2019; Revised June 2022
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). (2019) 1,2,3, -Trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP). Retrieved from:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/123TCP.html SWRCB. (2018). Maximum Contaminant Levels and Regulatory Dates for Drinking Water U.S. EPA vs California.
The Nature Conservancy. (2019). Plant Rooting Depth Database. Retrieved from:
https://groundwaterresourcehub.org/sgma-tools/gde-rooting-depths-database-for-gdes/ TRE Altamira. (2019). InSAR land surveying and mapping services in support of the DWR SGMA program.
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2019). EPA’s PFAS Action Plan: A Summary of Key Actions.
Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019- 2/documents/pfas_action_factsheet_021319_final_508compliant.pdf Williamson, A. (1989). Ground-Water Flow in the Central Valley, California, Regional Aquifer System Analysis.
USGS.
Water Education Foundation. (2019). Aquapedia: Seawater Intrusion. Retrieved from:
https://www.watereducation.org/aquapedia
Water Budget
CA Department of Water Resources (CA DWR). (2018a). Chronological Reconstructed Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley Water Year Hydrologic Classifications Indices.
CA DWR. (2018b). Guidance for Climate Change Data Use During Groundwater Sustainability Plan Development.
CA DWR. (2018c). SGMA Data Viewer.
CA DWR. (2016). Best Management Practices for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater Water Budget.
CA DWR. (2014). Statewide Crop Mapping. Retrieved from: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer/ CA DWR. (2003). California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118 Update 2003. Retrieved from: https://water.ca.gov/- /media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Bulletin-118/Files/StatewideReports/Bulletin_118_Update_2003.pdf Dogrul, E., Kadir, T., Brush, C. (2017). Integrated Water Flow Model Theoretical Documentation (IWFM-2015), Revision 630. Retrieved from: http://baydeltaoffice.water.ca.gov/modeling/hydrology/IWFM/IWFM2015/v2015_0_630/downloadables/IWFM-2015.0.630_TheoreticalDocumentation.pdf Northeastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Banking Authority (NSJCGBA). (2004). 2014 Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin Groundwater Management Plan.
Oregon State University (OSU). (2019). PRISM Climate Group. Retrieved from: http://prism.oregonstate.edu./ San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (SJCFCWCD). (2001). San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Water Management Plan.
Woodard & Curran. (2018). Eastern San Joaquin Water Resources Model (ESJWRM) Final Report.
Woodard & Curran. (2022). Eastern San Joaquin Water Resources Model (ESJWRM) Version 2.0 Update, Updated Draft Report.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 8-7
References November 2019; Revised June 2022
Chapter 3
Ayers, R.S. and Westcot, D.W. (1976). Water Quality for Agriculture, Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
CA Department of Water Resources (CA DWR). (2017). Sustainable Management Criteria BMP. Retrieved from:
https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/groundwater/sgm/pdfs/BMP_Sustainable_Management_Criteria_2017-11-
06.pdf
CA DWR. (1980). Ground Water Basins in California. Bulletin 118-80.
CA State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). (2017). Division of Water Quality - GAMA Program:
Groundwater Information Sheet, Salinity. Retrieved from: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/docs/coc_ Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Basin Authority (Eastern San Joaquin County GBA). (2014). Eastern San Joaquin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update.
Hoffman, G.J. (2010). Salt Tolerance of Crops in the Southern Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Retrieved from:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/bay_delta_plan/water_quality_co ntrol_planning/docs/final_study_report.pdf
O'Leary, D. R., Izbicki, J. A., & Metzger, L. F. (2015). Sources of high-chloride water and managed aquifer recharge in an alluvial aquifer in California USA. USGS. Retrieved from: https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70155190 % salinity.pdf
San Joaquin County. (2017). San Joaquin County 2017 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Texas A&M AgriLife Extension. (2003). Irrigation Water Quality Standards and Salinity Management Strategies.
Retrieved from: https://aglifesciences.tamu.edu/baen/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2017/01/B-1667.-IrrigationWater-Quality-Standards-and-Salinity-Management-Strategies.pdf United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2015). CropScape - Cropland Data Layer.
Chapter 4
CA Department of Water Resources (CA DWR). (2016a). Best Management Practices for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater Monitoring Protocols, Standards, and Sites.
CA DWR. (2016b). Draft Monitoring Networks and Identification of Data Gaps Best Management Practice.
CA DWR. (2010). Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines. Retrieved from: https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWRWebsite/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/CASGEM/Files/CASGEM-DWR-GW-GuidelinesFinal-121510.pdf U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (1995). Ground-Water Data-Collection Protocols and Procedures for the National Water-Quality Assessment Program: Collection and Documentation of Water-Quality Samples and Related Data.
USGS. (var.). National Field Manual for the Collection of Water Quality Data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water Resources Investigations.
EXHIBIT 1
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 8-8
References November 2019; Revised June 2022
Chapter 6
CA Department of Water Resources (CA DWR). (2019). Flood-Managed Aquifer Recharge (Flood-MAR). Retrieved from: https://water.ca.gov/Programs/All-Programs/Flood-MAR Calaveras County Water District (CCWD). (2016). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Update.
California Water Service District, Stockton District (Cal Water). (2016). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
City of Lodi. (2016). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
City of Ripon. (2017). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
City of Stockton. (2016). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
Oakdale Irrigation District (OID). (2016). Agricultural Water Management Plan.
South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID). (2016). Urban Water Management Plan 2015 Update.
SSJID. (2015). 2015 Agricultural Water Management Plan.
Stockton East Water District (SEWD). (2017). 2015 Agricultural Water Management Plan.
SEWD. (2016). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
EXHIBIT 1
www.esjgroundwater.org MOBILE-ALT tablet-alt Desktop
EXHIBIT 1
REVISED GROUNDWATER
SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
ADOPTION
Stockton City CouncilJuly 26, 2022Agenda Item No. 16.1
Basin Setting
• The Eastern San Joaquin
Groundwater Subbasin
(Subbasin) is one of 21 basinsidentified by the California Department of Water
Resources (DWR) as being in a
state of critical overdraft
• SGMA requires preparation of
a Groundwater SustainabilityPlan (GSP) to addressmeasures necessary to attain sustainable conditions in the
Subbasin
Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority
One GSP for 16Separate Groundwater
Sustainability Agencies
Within the GWA
Sustainability Indicators
•Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels
•Reduction in Groundwater Storage
•Seawater Intrusion
•Degraded Water Quality
•Land Subsidence
•Depletion of Interconnected Surface
Water
Groundwater Levels
Groundwater Budget
•Projected Additional
Urban Conservation
or GW Offsets
Needed: 10%
(~14,000 AFY)•Projected Ag
Conservation or GWOffsets Needed 10%
(~ 64,000 AFY)
DWR Comments & Revised GSP
•TM 1: Undesirable Result Definition &
Project and Management Actions
•TM 2: Drinking Water & Shallow Wells•TM 3: Groundwater Quality Degradation in Areas where further
Groundwater Level Decline is Allowed
•TM 4: Land Subsidence
GSP Timeline
Revised GSP
Published on Eastern San
Joaquin Groundwater AuthorityWebsite: esjgroundwater.org Recommendation
Adopt the Revised GSP and authorize the
GWA to submit the Revised GSP to the
DWR.
City of Stockton
Legislation Text
File #: 22-0583, Version: 1
PUBLIC HEARING TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION OVERRULING PROTESTS, ADOPTING THE
DELINQUENT UTILITY SERVICE ASSESSMENT REPORT, AND DIRECTING THE
ASSESSMENTS BE PLACED ON THE SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR’S TAX ROLL
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing to consider all objections or protests to the proposed Delinquent Utility Service Charges, 2022 Assessment Report (“2022 Assessment Report”) for delinquent water, sewer, solid waste collection, and stormwater service charges (“utility service charges”) incurred by property owners.
After the public hearing, if a majority protest does not exist, it is recommended that the City Council approve a resolution to:
1. Overrule all public protests;
2. Confirm the unpaid utility service charges set forth in the 2022 Assessment Report;
3. Adopt the 2022 Assessment Report;
4. Direct the assessments to be placed on the San Joaquin County Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Tax Roll; and
5. Authorize the City Manager to take any necessary and appropriate actions to carry out the purpose and intent of the resolution.
Summary
The Administrative Services Department bills for and collects utility service charges.
To address the significant amount of uncollected delinquent utility service charges, the City Council directed staff to form a task force to study the issue and develop solutions. The task force recommended that the City proceed with recording liens and assessing charges incurred by property owners. Consequently, the City Council approved Resolution 2018-03-20-1403, which brought the City’s preexisting utility rates under the authority of the California Health and Safety Code (“HSC”).
When property owners do not pay delinquent charges for 60 or more days, the HSC allows the City to place a lien for services provided to the property and collect delinquent charges through an assessment against the property.
On June 11, 2022, staff sent certified and standard letters to 1,599 property owners advising them of the City’s intent to assess delinquent charges. The notices also informed the property owners of their City of Stockton Page 1 of 4 Printed on 7/20/2022
powered by Legistar™
File #: 22-0583, Version: 1
right to appeal at an administrative hearing for the proposed assessment. The City held administrative hearings on June 22 and June 23, 2022. The Administrative Hearing Officer confirmed the accuracy of the assessments in the 2022 Assessment Report presented for City Council adoption. If the Council adopts the report, the assessments will appear on the affected property owners’ property tax bill that will be issued and collected by the San Joaquin County Treasurer-Tax Collector.
DISCUSSION
Background
The Stockton Municipal Code requires all properties in the City “subscribe to and pay for” solid waste, sewer, and stormwater services, and water within the City’s water service areas.
On January 9, 2018, a Council study session was held to discuss the significant increase in delinquent utility accounts, and as a result, Council directed staff to form a task force to study the issue. The task force recommended the City pursue delinquencies incurred by property owners by applying liens and assessments.
On March 20, 2018, Council adopted Resolution 2018-03-20-1403, reaffirming and reenacting the City’s previously approved utility rates and service charges to bring the rates under the authority of the HSC. Pursuant to HSC Section 5473 et. seq., the City may elect to have its water, sewer, stormwater, and solid waste collection services charges, and any delinquent utility service charges and penalties collected on the San Joaquin County Tax Roll.
In accordance with Resolution 2018-03-20-1403 and the direction of City Council, Administrative Services began the process to place property owner utility delinquencies on the tax roll. Staff continued to work through various solutions related to tenant delinquencies and convened another task force. The task force recommended the adoption of an owner-only billing ordinance on February 5, 2019. Council adopted Ordinance 2019-02-05-1403, which requires utility service accounts to be held in the name of the property owner. The transition to owner-only billing was completed by December 31, 2020.
Liens and assessments are two separate collection methods recommended by the task force and approved by the Council. To qualify for either collection method, delinquencies must be greater than 60 days, and the bill must be in the property owner’s name. Before a lien is recorded, the City notifies customers by certified and standard mail of the delinquent balance and a due date to avoid the lien. The notices also inform the property owners of their right to appeal or to pay the delinquent charges by the date provided. If the delinquent balance remains unpaid, the City records a lien against the parcel with San Joaquin County. The customer can pay their delinquent balance at any time, and once satisfied, the lien may be removed. However, if a customer chooses not to pay their delinquent balance to the City, the lien remains on the parcel, which protects the City’s interest in the event the property sells. When the customer refinances or sells the property, the lien is listed on the title report stating there are funds due to the City, and the City receives payment from the refinance or sale proceeds.
Customers with a delinquent balance are also subject to collection through the assessment process.
Assessment allows for the collection of the delinquent balance, fees, and charges through the City of Stockton Page 2 of 4 Printed on 7/20/2022
powered by Legistar™
File #: 22-0583, Version: 1
property tax roll. The amount is included in the annual parcel property tax bill. These customers have gone through the City’s lien process, continue to have a delinquent balance, and are now subject to the assessment process. Prior to assessment, the City notifies customers of the delinquent amount, due date, and appeal process.
Staff evaluated properties with outstanding utility liens for potential assessment on the property tax roll. Accounts with delinquent balances of 60 days or more were included in the proposed 2022 Assessment Report. Property owners were notified of the outstanding charges, proposed assessment amount, due date, and appeal process. A total of 1,620 parcels which make up 1,559 customers received notices that were sent by certified and standard mailing on June 9, 2022, for a total of $2,856,843.55 delinquent utility service charges. The City must submit a final 2022 Assessment Report to the San Joaquin County Tax Collector by August 10 of each year.
Present Situation
To be sent to assessment, properties must have a delinquent balance for 60 days or more. Only utility service accounts billed in the owner’s name are eligible for lien and assessment. Of the 1,599 customers that received notices mailed on June 9, 2022, sixteen property owners attended the administrative hearings held on June 22 and June 23, 2022. The hearings provided those property owners an opportunity to appear before an Administrative Hearing Officer to contest the placement of their charges on the property tax roll. The administrative hearings are not intended for property owners to challenge the amounts due; it is only to determine the appropriateness of assessing the delinquent charges. Billing errors or disputes had to be provided to the City within five days of the regular monthly billing invoice.
The Administrative Hearing Officer issued 28 Administrative Orders for 16 appellants (Attachment A) confirming that the placement of charges for 12 appellants are appropriate and should be assessed on the 2022 tax roll. The remaining 4 appellants were granted the appeal and their 10 accounts have been removed from the 2022 assessment list.
Property owners that received a Notice of Assessment had until July 11, 2022, to pay their balance and avoid assessment of delinquent charges. As of July 18, 2021, there are 1,370 delinquent accounts remaining, totaling $1,982,025.11 in outstanding utility services charges, interest, penalties, and fees that will be referred to the County for assessment if approved by Council. Staff updated the proposed 2022 Assessment Report, Exhibit 1 to the Resolution, to reflect the Administrative Orders and payments received.
The HSC requires the City to hold a public hearing on the report of delinquent utility service charges subject to assessment and consider any objection or protests. At the conclusion of the hearing, if a majority protest does not exist, staff recommends that Council pass a resolution to adopt the 2022 Assessment Report and confirm the assessments, with or without modification.
If approved, the Administrative Services Department will submit the 2022 Assessment Report to the County no later than August 10, 2022. The City will record the assessed amounts against the property owners’ utility accounts and will not accept additional payments on the assessed amounts.
The City will receive payment for the assessed amounts from the County through the Teeter Plan.
Under the Teeter Plan, the County remits the assessment amounts to the City in full, even if the property taxes are not paid or paid late. In exchange for the advance, any penalties or interest due City of Stockton Page 3 of 4 Printed on 7/20/2022
powered by Legistar™
File #: 22-0583, Version: 1
on the delinquent property taxes will be paid to and retained by the County. The City will receive the funds in two payments from the County in January and April 2023.
Public Notice
In accordance with the HSC, “A Notice of Intent to Hold a Public Hearing” was published once a week for two successive weeks before City Council action.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
As of July 18, 2022, $1,982,025.11 in delinquent utility service charges and interest billed to property owners will be referred to the County for assessment. This amount is included and anticipated in the FY 2022-23 revenue budgets for the three Municipal Utility Department Enterprise Funds - Water Utility (600), Wastewater Utility (610), and Stormwater Utility (620). Assessment revenue for garbage services will be deposited into the waste management accounts, Account No. 0000-000-210090-780- 000-00-00-000-000- for distribution to the appropriation solid waste service provider.
Final assessment amounts may vary due to customer payments received prior to transmission to the County.
Attachment A - 2022 Assessment Report Order
City of Stockton Page 4 of 4 Printed on 7/20/2022
powered by Legistar™
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
HEARING DATE:
JUNE 22 &23, 2022
HEARING TIME:
8:00AM
BLANKET ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDER
AGENDA ITEM
Case/AR #:
See Attached
Roster
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: REFER TO ATTACHED ROSTER RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT:
CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH
SUBJECT OF APPEAL: The Parties’ failure to appear at the assessment hearing after having received notice of same.
DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on the failure of the City to:
.
The appeal is hereby denied based on: The parties’ failure to appear at the assessment hearing after having received notice of the same
The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
The parties listed on the roster were given notice by certified mail of the assessment hearings scheduled for June 22 and 23, 2022 at 8:00 am. The parties failed or refused to respond or to appear for the hearing. Section 5473 of the California Health and Safety Code gives the City of Stockton the election to have delinquent charges for its services placed on the tax roll in the same manner as it’s general taxes The City of Stockton is hereby confirmed in its election to enforce its liens by assessing the delinquent amounts to the property tax roll of San Joaquin County for collection and is further granted the ability to seek reimbursement of all costs and expenses associated with the enforcement of the same unless the affected parties arrange payment of the amounts on or before August 5, 2022.
HEARING OFFICER DATE July 14, 2022.
Attachment A
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
REINSPECTION AND CASE PROCESSING FEES ARE COST RECOVERY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY A HEARING OFFICER.
HEARING DATE:
JULY 22,2022
HEARING
TIME:8am
9 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AGENDA ITEM CASE#
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 119 W. POPLAR ST, STOCKTON CA, RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT: WAYNE OSBORG
CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH
SUBJECT OF APPEAL: DELINQUENT CHARGES OF $4,135.36 FOR SEWER AND STORM DRAIN SERVICES DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on the failure of the City to:
.
The appeal is hereby denied based on: Appellant acknowledged that the charges were due and owing and have been delinquent since 2021.Additionally, Appellant did not request an appeal hearing when he was served with notice of the City’s intent to record a lien against his property.
The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
Section 5473 of the California Health and Safety Code gives the City of Stockton the election to have delinquent charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner as its general taxes. Appellant is the owner of a triplex located on the said property. Appellant stated that he had fallen behind on payments due to the pandemic and the resultant moratorium on tenant eviction which prevented him from evicting tenants who failed to paying rent. This led to a substantial loss of income which caused him to fall behind on the payments at issue. Unfortunate as Appellant’s situation may be, the utility services to his property are mandatory and have been provided by the City. With the City’s switch to owner billing in September, 2020 Appellant is directly responsible for these charges. Appellant may exercise the option to enter into a payment arrangement with the City of Stockton to pay off the delinquent balance by August 5, 2022 at the latest. Failure to do so by the said date will result in the delinquent balance of $4,135.36. being assessed to the said property for the 2022-2023 San Joaquin County Tax Roll.
Hearing Officer
DATE:7/13/2022
Attachment A
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
REINSPECTION AND CASE PROCESSING FEES ARE COST RECOVERY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY A HEARING OFFICER.
HEARING DATE:
JULY 22,2022
HEARING
TIME:8am
9 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AGENDA ITEM CASE#
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 119 W. POPLAR ST, STOCKTON CA, RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT: WAYNE OSBORG
CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH
SUBJECT OF APPEAL: DELINQUENT CHARGES OF $4,135.36 FOR SEWER AND STORM DRAIN SERVICES DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on the failure of the City to:
.
The appeal is hereby denied based on: Appellant acknowledged that the charges were due and owing and have been delinquent since 2021.Additionally, Appellant did not request an appeal hearing when he was served with notice of the City’s intent to record a lien against his property.
The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
Section 5473 of the California Health and Safety Code gives the City of Stockton the election to have delinquent charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner as its general taxes. Appellant is the owner of a triplex located on the said property. Appellant stated that he had fallen behind on payments due to the pandemic and the resultant moratorium on tenant eviction which prevented him from evicting tenants who failed to paying rent. This led to a substantial loss of income which caused him to fall behind on the payments at issue. Unfortunate as Appellant’s situation may be, the utility services to his property are mandatory and have been provided by the City. With the City’s switch to owner billing in September, 2020 Appellant is directly responsible for these charges. Appellant may exercise the option to enter into a payment arrangement with the City of Stockton to pay off the delinquent balance by August 5, 2022 at the latest. Failure to do so by the said date will result in the delinquent balance of $4,135.36. being assessed to the said property for the 2022-2023 San Joaquin County Tax Roll.
Hearing Officer
DATE:7/13/2022
Attachment A
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
REINSPECTION AND CASE PROCESSING FEES ARE COST RECOVERY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY A HEARING OFFICER.
HEARING DATE:
JULY 22,2022
HEARING
TIME:8am
9 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AGENDA ITEM CASE#
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 224 W. 6TH ST. STOCKTON CA, RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT: WAYNE OSBORG
CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH
SUBJECT OF APPEAL: DELINQUENT CHARGES OF $2,894.69 FOR SEWER AND STORM DRAIN SERVICES DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on the failure of the City to: demonstrate that Appellant has received just treatment relative to the impact of the Eviction moratorium in the City of Stockton. .
The appeal is hereby denied based on.
The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
Section 5473 of the California Health and Safety Code gives the City of Stockton the election to have delinquent charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner as its general taxes. Appellant is the owner of a triplex located on the said property. The utility services to his property are mandatory and have been provided by the City. With the City’s switch to owner billing in September, 2020 Appellant is directly responsible for these charges. Appellant stated that he had fallen behind on payments due to the pandemic and the resultant moratorium on tenant eviction which prevented him from evicting tenants who failed to pay rent. This led to a substantial loss of income which caused him to fall behind on the payments at issue. The moratorium on tenant eviction in the City of Stockton is still in effect. Appellant does not dispute the charges and they must be paid.
It does seem unjust however, that the City that is looking out for the interests of its residents who are tenants by placing a moratorium on their eviction as a result of the COVID pandemic, regardless of rent arrearages, should, during that same period, switch to owner billing and further seek to assess delinquent payments to the tax roll of property owners such as the Appellant. The City already has a recorded lien against the said property. Under the circumstances, the City is to give the Appellant the opportunity to enter into an installment payment arrangement and defer assessment of the said delinquent payments to the next assessment cycle.
Hearing Officer
DATE:7/17/2022
Attachment A
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
REINSPECTION AND CASE PROCESSING FEES ARE COST RECOVERY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY A HEARING OFFICER.
HEARING DATE:
JULY 22,2022
HEARING
TIME:8am
9 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AGENDA ITEM CASE#
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 332 W.5 TH ST. STOCKTON CA,
RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT: WAYNE OSBORG
CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH
SUBJECT OF APPEAL: DELINQUENT CHARGES OF $1,040.93 FOR SEWER AND STORM DRAIN SERVICES DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on the failure of the City to: demonstrate that Appellant has received just treatment relative to the impact of the Eviction moratorium in the City of Stockton. .
The appeal is hereby denied based on.
The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
Section 5473 of the California Health and Safety Code gives the City of Stockton the election to have delinquent charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner as its general taxes. Appellant is the owner of a triplex located on the said property. The utility services to his property are mandatory and have been provided by the City. With the City’s switch to owner billing in September, 2020 Appellant is directly responsible for these charges. Appellant stated that he had fallen behind on payments due to the pandemic and the resultant moratorium on tenant eviction which prevented him from evicting tenants who failed to pay rent. This led to a substantial loss of income which caused him to fall behind on the payments at issue. The moratorium on tenant eviction in the City of Stockton is still in effect. Appellant does not dispute the charges and they must be paid.
It does seem unjust however, that the City that is looking out for the interests of its residents who are tenants by placing a moratorium on their eviction as a result of the COVID pandemic, regardless of rent arrearages, should, during that same period, switch to owner billing and further seek to assess delinquent payments to the tax roll of property owners such as the Appellant. The City already has a recorded lien against the said property. Under the circumstances, the City is to give the Appellant the opportunity to enter into an installment payment arrangement and defer assessment of the said delinquent payments to the next assessment cycle.
Hearing Officer
DATE:7/17/2022
Attachment A
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
REINSPECTION AND CASE PROCESSING FEES ARE COST RECOVERY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY A HEARING OFFICER.
HEARING DATE:
June 23, 2022
HEARING TIME:
8:00am ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AGENDA ITEM CASE#
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 522 N. PILGRIM ST. STOCKTON, CA RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT: FRANCISCA
ESCOBAR CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH
SUBJECT OF APPEAL: DELINQUENCY OF $7,713.34 FOR SEWER AND WATER CHARGES DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on:
.
The appeal is hereby denied based on: Appellant acknowledges charges are due and owing and was given the opportunity to avoid assessment last year with an installment payment plan The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
Section 5473 of the Health and Safety Code entitles the City of Stockton to elect to have delinquent utility and service charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner as general taxes Appellant acknowledges that the services have been provided by the City and that the sum claimed is due and owing. Appellant has had difficulty paying due to the effects of Covid and her tenants falling seriously behind on their rent payments. Appellant was unfortunately unable to stick to a payment plan last year that avoided assessment for the same reasons. Failure to discharge the outstanding sum on or before August 5, 2022 will result in the same being assessed to the San Joaquin County 2022-23 Tax Roll.
Hearing Officer:
DATE: JULY 14, 2022
Attachment A
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
REINSPECTION AND CASE PROCESSING FEES ARE COST RECOVERY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY A HEARING OFFICER.
HEARING DATE:
June 23, 2022
HEARING TIME:
8:00am ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AGENDA ITEM CASE#
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 530 N. PILGRIM ST. STOCKTON, CA RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT: FRANCISCA
ESCOBAR CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH
SUBJECT OF APPEAL: DELINQUENCY OF $6,311.28 FOR SEWER AND WATER CHARGES DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on:
.
The appeal is hereby denied based on: Appellant acknowledges charges are due and owing and was given the opportunity to avoid assessment last year with an installment payment plan.
The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
Section 5473 of the Health and Safety Code entitles the City of Stockton to elect to have delinquent utility and service charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner as general taxes Appellant acknowledges that the services have been provided by the City and that the sum claimed is due and owing. Appellant has had difficulty paying due to the effects of Covid and her tenants falling seriously behind on their rent payments. Appellant was unable to honor a payment plan last year that avoided assessment for the same reasons. Failure to discharge the outstanding sum on or before August 5, 2022 will result in the same being assessed to the San Joaquin County 2022-23 Tax Roll.
Hearing Officer:
DATE: JULY 14, 2022
Attachment A
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
REINSPECTION AND CASE PROCESSING FEES ARE COST RECOVERY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY A HEARING OFFICER.
HEARING DATE:
June 23, 2022
HEARING TIME:
8:00am ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AGENDA ITEM CASE#
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 537 E. FREMONT. STOCKTON, CA RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT: FRANCISCA
ESCOBAR CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH
SUBJECT OF APPEAL: DELINQUENCY OF $15,640.99 FOR SEWER AND WATER CHARGES DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on:
.
The appeal is hereby denied based on: Appellant acknowledges charges are due and owing and was given the opportunity to avoid assessment last year with an installment payment plan.
The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
Section 5473 of the Health and Safety Code entitles the City of Stockton to elect to have delinquent utility and service charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner as general taxes Appellant acknowledges that the services have been provided by the City and that the sum claimed is due and owing. Appellant has had difficulty paying due to the effects of Covid and her tenants falling seriously behind on their rent payments. Unfortunately, Appellant was unable to honor a payment plan entered into last year that avoided assessment due to delinquent rent payment by her tenants.
Failure to discharge the outstanding sum on or before August 5, 2022 will result in the same being assessed to the San Joaquin County 2022-23 Tax Roll.
Hearing Officer:
DATE: JULY 14, 2022
Attachment A
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
REINSPECTION AND CASE PROCESSING FEES ARE COST RECOVERY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY A HEARING OFFICER.
HEARING DATE:
JULY 22,2022
HEARING
TIME:8am
9 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AGENDA ITEM CASE#
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 615 E. HAZELTON ST. STOCKTON CA, RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT: WAYNE OSBORG
CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH
SUBJECT OF APPEAL: DELINQUENT CHARGES OF $8,986.22 FOR SEWER AND STORM DRAIN SERVICES DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on the failure of the City to: demonstrate that Appellant has received just treatment relative to the impact of the Eviction moratorium in the City of Stockton. .
The appeal is hereby denied based on.
The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
Section 5473 of the California Health and Safety Code gives the City of Stockton the election to have delinquent charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner as its general taxes. Appellant is the owner of a triplex located on the said property. The utility services to his property are mandatory and have been provided by the City. With the City’s switch to owner billing in September, 2020 Appellant is directly responsible for these charges. Appellant stated that he had fallen behind on payments due to the pandemic and the resultant moratorium on tenant eviction which prevented him from evicting tenants who failed to pay rent. This led to a substantial loss of income which caused him to fall behind on the payments at issue. The moratorium on tenant eviction in the City of Stockton is still in effect. Appellant does not dispute the charges and they must be paid.
It does seem unjust however, that the City that is looking out for the interests of its residents who are tenants by placing a moratorium on their eviction as a result of the COVID pandemic, regardless of rent arrearages, should, during that same period, switch to owner billing and further seek to assess delinquent payments to the tax roll of property owners such as the Appellant. The City already has a recorded lien against the said property. Under the circumstances, the City is to give the Appellant the opportunity to enter into an installment payment arrangement and defer assessment of the said delinquent payments to the next assessment cycle.
Hearing Officer
DATE:7/17/2022
Attachment A
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
REINSPECTION AND CASE PROCESSING FEES ARE COST RECOVERY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY A HEARING OFFICER.
HEARING DATE:
June 23, 2022
HEARING TIME:
8:00am ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AGENDA ITEM CASE#
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 622 N. GERTRUDE AVE, STOCKTON, CA RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT: ALPHONSO PULIDO CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH SUBJECT OF APPEAL: DELINQUENCY OF $804.01
DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on: Appellant contests charges on the basis of his bankruptcy and on the basis of an alleged threefold increase resulting from a change in service provider. .
The appeal is hereby denied based on.
The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
Section 5473 of the Health and Safety Code entitles the City of Stockton to elect to have delinquent utility and service charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner as genera taxes. Appellant contests the charges on the basis of his bankruptcy status and on the basis of an alleged threefold increase resulting from a change in service provider.
Appellant stated that he began contesting the increased charges pre-Covid but that his attorney recently passed away.
Appellant is in the process of obtaining a new attorney to handle his claim regarding the charges. Appellant also argued that as a result of his bankruptcy status, proof of which he says he provided to the City, adjustments need to be made to the charges on the said account. City Staff agreed to review appropriate bankruptcy information to be provided by the Appellant and make the necessary adjustments to Appellant’s account depending on his bankruptcy status at the time the charges accrued. Under the circumstances, pending the provision of the said information, the City is not to assess the sum of $804.01 to the 2022-2023 San Joaquin County Tax Roll.
Hearing Officer:
DATE: JULY 14, 2022
Attachment A
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
REINSPECTION AND CASE PROCESSING FEES ARE COST RECOVERY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY A HEARING OFFICER.
HEARING DATE:
JULY 22,2022
HEARING
TIME:8am
9 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AGENDA ITEM CASE#
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 715 E. HAZELTON AVE. STOCKTON CA, RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT: WAYNE OSBORG
CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH
SUBJECT OF APPEAL: DELINQUENT CHARGES OF $5,971.99 FOR SEWER AND STORM DRAIN SERVICES DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on the failure of the City to: demonstrate that Appellant has received just treatment relative to the impact of the Eviction moratorium in the City of Stockton. .
The appeal is hereby denied based on.
The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
Section 5473 of the California Health and Safety Code gives the City of Stockton the election to have delinquent charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner as its general taxes. Appellant is the owner of a triplex located on the said property. The utility services to his property are mandatory and have been provided by the City. With the City’s switch to owner billing in September, 2020 Appellant is directly responsible for these charges. Appellant stated that he had fallen behind on payments due to the pandemic and the resultant moratorium on tenant eviction which prevented him from evicting tenants who failed to pay rent. This led to a substantial loss of income which caused him to fall behind on the payments at issue. The moratorium on tenant eviction in the City of Stockton is still in effect. Appellant does not dispute the charges and they must be paid.
It does seem unjust however, that the City that is looking out for the interests of its residents who are tenants by placing a moratorium on their eviction as a result of the COVID pandemic, regardless of rent arrearages, should, during that same period, switch to owner billing and further seek to assess delinquent payments to the tax roll of property owners such as the Appellant. The City already has a recorded lien against the said property. Under the circumstances, the City is to give the Appellant the opportunity to enter into an installment payment arrangement and defer assessment of the said delinquent payments to the next assessment cycle.
Hearing Officer
DATE:7/17/2022
Attachment A
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
REINSPECTION AND CASE PROCESSING FEES ARE COST RECOVERY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY A HEARING OFFICER.
HEARING DATE:
June 23, 2022
HEARING TIME:
8:00am ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AGENDA ITEM CASE#
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 824 CHITWOOD CT., STOCKTON, CA RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT: MARTHA RUIZ CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH SUBJECT OF APPEAL: DELINQUENCY OF $1,006.60 FROM SEWER AND WATER CHARGES DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on: Appellant is not the account holder/owner of record. .
The appeal is hereby denied based on:
The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
Section 5473 of the California Health and Safety Code gives the City of Stockton the election to have delinquent charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner as its general taxes. Appellant obtained a mortgage to purchase the property. Years later, her mortgagor US Bank National, Chase Home Finance LLC years began foreclosure and the property was apparently transferred to the mortgagor. As a result, when the City converted to owner billing, the Bank, not the Appellant was listed as the owner of record. Accordingly, Martha Ruiz is not the appropriate party to be served or to respond to the notice of assessment. Since the appropriate party was not notified of the assessment application, and has not had the opportunity to respond to same, the City is not to assess the delinquent amount to the Property Tax Roll. The required notices should be served on US Bank National Chase Home Finance LLC.
Hearing Officer:
DATE: JULY 14, 2022
Attachment A
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
REINSPECTION AND CASE PROCESSING FEES ARE COST RECOVERY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY A HEARING OFFICER.
HEARING DATE:
June 23, 2022
HEARING TIME:
8:00am ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AGENDA ITEM CASE#
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 939 COOPER CT, STOCKTON, CA RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT: BIBI TEACHEY CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH SUBJECT OF APPEAL: DELINQUENCY OF $3,024.16
DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on:
.
The appeal is hereby denied based on: Appellant acknowledges that amount is past due and owing The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
Section 5473 of the California Health and Safety Code gives the City of Stockton the election to have delinquent charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner as its general taxes. Appellant stated that though she owns the property she no longer lives there and the property is occupied by her siblings. The Notice of Assessment was sent to an address Appellant no longer lives at though that is the address on record. City staff stated that the Notice of Intent to Lien was mailed to the service address and the owner address of record. Appellant is responsible for making sure her address of record is correct. Appellant acknowledged general knowledge of outstanding bills regarding the said property. Failure to resolve the delinquency by August 5, 2022, will result in the assessment of the outstanding sum to the 2022-2023 San Joaquin County Tax Roll.
Hearing Officer:
DATE: JULY 14, 2022
Attachment A
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
REINSPECTION AND CASE PROCESSING FEES ARE COST RECOVERY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY A HEARING OFFICER.
HEARING DATE:
June 23, 2022
HEARING TIME:
8:00am ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AGENDA ITEM CASE#
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 952 ROYAL OAKS DR. STOCKTON, CA RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT: GENESIS JUAREGUI CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH SUBJECT OF APPEAL: DELINQUENCY OF $2,289.82 FROM WATER, GARBAGE AND SEWER CHARGES DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on:
.
The appeal is hereby denied based on: Appellant acknowledged that the amount was due and owing.
The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
Section 5473 of the California Health and Safety Code gives the City of Stockton the election to have delinquent charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner as its general taxes.
Appellant stated that unfortunately, she and her husband have had a series of health issues since the Covid pandemic began and have had trouble paying their bills. Appellant does not dispute the sum owed and is working towards paying off as much as she can. Appellants may make arrangements with the City to pay off the amount outstanding on or before August 5, 2022. Failure to do so will result in the City assessing the delinquent amount of $2,289.82 to the 2022-2023 San Joaquin County Tax Roll.
Hearing Officer:
DATE: JULY 14, 2022
Attachment A
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
REINSPECTION AND CASE PROCESSING FEES ARE COST RECOVERY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY A HEARING OFFICER.
HEARING DATE:
June 23, 2022
HEARING TIME:
8:00am ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AGENDA ITEM CASE#
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1133 E PARK STOCKTON, CA RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT: FRANCISCA
ESCOBAR CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH
SUBJECT OF APPEAL: DELINQUENCY OF $7,011.78 FOR SEWER AND WATER CHARGES DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on:
.
The appeal is hereby denied based on: Appellant acknowledges charges are due and owing and was given the opportunity to avoid assessment last year with an installment payment plan.
The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
Section 5473 of the Health and Safety Code entitles the City of Stockton to elect to have delinquent utility and service charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner as general taxes Appellant acknowledges that the services have been provided by the City and that the sum claimed is due and owing. Appellant has had difficulty paying due to the effects of Covid and her tenants falling seriously behind on their rent payments. Unfortunately, Appellant was unable to honor a payment plan last year that avoided assessment as a result of delinquent rent payment by her tenants.
Failure to discharge the outstanding sum on or before August 5, 2022 will result in the same being assessed to the San Joaquin County 2022-23 Tax Roll.
Hearing Officer:
DATE: JULY 14, 2022
Attachment A
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
REINSPECTION AND CASE PROCESSING FEES ARE COST RECOVERY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY A HEARING OFFICER.
HEARING DATE:
JULY 22,2022
HEARING
TIME:8am
9 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AGENDA ITEM CASE#
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1200 S. CALIFORNIA ST. STOCKTON CA, RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT: WAYNE OSBORG
CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH
SUBJECT OF APPEAL: DELINQUENT CHARGES OF $6,401.62 FOR SEWER AND STORM DRAIN SERVICES DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on the failure of the City to: demonstrate that Appellant has received just treatment relative to the impact of the Eviction moratorium in the City of Stockton. .
The appeal is hereby denied based on.
The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
Section 5473 of the California Health and Safety Code gives the City of Stockton the election to have delinquent charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner as its general taxes. Appellant is the owner of a triplex located on the said property. The utility services to his property are mandatory and have been provided by the City. With the City’s switch to owner billing in September, 2020 Appellant is directly responsible for these charges. Appellant stated that he had fallen behind on payments due to the pandemic and the resultant moratorium on tenant eviction which prevented him from evicting tenants who failed to pay rent. This led to a substantial loss of income which caused him to fall behind on the payments at issue. The moratorium on tenant eviction in the City of Stockton is still in effect. Appellant does not dispute the charges and they must be paid.
It does seem unjust however, that the City that is looking out for the interests of its residents who are tenants by placing a moratorium on their eviction as a result of the COVID pandemic, regardless of rent arrearages, should, during that same period, switch to owner billing and further seek to assess delinquent payments to the tax roll of property owners such as the Appellant. The City already has a recorded lien against the said property. Under the circumstances, the City is to give the Appellant the opportunity to enter into an installment payment arrangement and defer assessment of the said delinquent payments to the next assessment cycle.
Hearing Officer
DATE:7/17/2022
Attachment A
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
REINSPECTION AND CASE PROCESSING FEES ARE COST RECOVERY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY A HEARING OFFICER.
HEARING DATE:
June 22, 2022
HEARING TIME:
8:00am ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AGENDA ITEM CASE#
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1314 E. LAFAYETTE ST. STOCKTON, CA RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT: MARJORY
LIZARRGA CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH
SUBJECT OF APPEAL: DELINQUENCY OF $1,253.87
DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on:
.
The appeal is hereby denied based on: Appellant acknowledged that the amount was due and owing.
The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
Section 5473 of the California Health and Safety Code gives the City of Stockton the election to have delinquent charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner as its general taxes.
Appellant stated that the COVID pandemic caused her to lose her job which caused her to fall behind in her bill payments. Appellant previously sought a payment plan from the City but she was unable to make the required deposit. Appellant may make arrangements with the City to make payment of the amount outstanding on or before August 5, 2022. Failure to do so will result in the delinquent sum of $1253.87 being assessed to the 2022-2023 San Joaquin County Tax Roll.
Hearing Officer:
DATE:JULY 13, 2022
Attachment A
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
REINSPECTION AND CASE PROCESSING FEES ARE COST RECOVERY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY A HEARING OFFICER.
HEARING DATE:
June 22, 2022
HEARING TIME:
8:00am ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AGENDA ITEM CASE#
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1484 CAPITOLA CIRCLE, STOCKTON, CA RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT: RAYMOND LAMZON
CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH
SUBJECT OF APPEAL: DELINQUENCY OF $1,562.64 FROM SEWER, STORM AND TRASH SERVICES DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on:
.
The appeal is hereby denied based on: Appellant acknowledged that the amount was due and owing.
The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
Section 5473 of the California Health and Safety Code gives the City of Stockton the election to have delinquent charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner as its general taxes.
Appellant stated that he fell behind on his payments as a result of having to resign his job to be responsible for family childcare. This caused Appellant to be unable to stick to a previous payment plan. The City services in question are mandatory and have been provided.Appellant may make arrangements with the City to make payment of the amount outstanding on or before August 5, 2022. In the absence of that, the City is given leave to assess the delinquent amount to the 2022-2023 San Joaquin County Tax Roll.
Hearing Officer:
DATE:JULY 13, 2022
Attachment A
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
REINSPECTION AND CASE PROCESSING FEES ARE COST RECOVERY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY A HEARING OFFICER.
HEARING DATE:
JULY 22, 2022
HEARING
TIME:8am
9 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AGENDA ITEM CASE#
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1531 E. ANDERSON ST., STOCKTON CA, RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT: MARJORY
LIZARRGA CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH
SUBJECT OF APPEAL: DELINQUENT CHARGES OF $754.41 FOR TRASH, SEWER AND STORM DRAIN SERVICES DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on the failure of the City to:
.
The appeal is hereby denied based on: Appellant acknowledged that the charges were due and owing.
The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
Section 5473 of the California Health and Safety Code gives the City of Stockton the election to have delinquent charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner as its general taxes. Appellant fell behind on payments as a result of the pandemic which negatively impacted her job and income as an independent contractor. Appellant previously sought a payment plan from the City but was unable to make the required initial deposit. The City services at issue are mandatory, have been provided, and must be paid for. Appellant may exercise the option to enter into a payment arrangement with the City of Stockton to pay off the delinquent balance by August 5, 2022 at the latest. Failure to do so by the said date will result in the delinquent balance of $757.41 being assessed to the said property for the 2022-2023 San Joaquin County Tax Roll.
Hearing Officer
DATE:7/13/2022
Attachment A
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
REINSPECTION AND CASE PROCESSING FEES ARE COST RECOVERY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY A HEARING OFFICER.
HEARING DATE:
JULY 22,2022
HEARING
TIME:8am
9 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AGENDA ITEM CASE#
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1625 E. 6TH ST. STOCKTON CA, RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT: WAYNE OSBORG
CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH
SUBJECT OF APPEAL: DELINQUENT CHARGES OF $2,758.21 FOR SEWER AND STORM DRAIN SERVICES DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on the failure of the City to: demonstrate that Appellant has received just treatment relative to the impact of the Eviction moratorium in the City of Stockton. .
The appeal is hereby denied based on.
The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
Section 5473 of the California Health and Safety Code gives the City of Stockton the election to have delinquent charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner as its general taxes. Appellant is the owner of a triplex located on the said property. The utility services to his property are mandatory and have been provided by the City. With the City’s switch to owner billing in September, 2020 Appellant is directly responsible for these charges. Appellant stated that he had fallen behind on payments due to the pandemic and the resultant moratorium on tenant eviction which prevented him from evicting tenants who failed to pay rent. This led to a substantial loss of income which caused him to fall behind on the payments at issue. The moratorium on tenant eviction in the City of Stockton is still in effect. Appellant does not dispute the charges and they must be paid.
It does seem unjust however, that the City that is looking out for the interests of its residents who are tenants by placing a moratorium on their eviction as a result of the COVID pandemic, regardless of rent arrearages, should, during that same period, switch to owner billing and further seek to assess delinquent payments to the tax roll of property owners such as the Appellant. The City already has a recorded lien against the said property. Under the circumstances, the City is to give the Appellant the opportunity to enter into an installment payment arrangement and defer assessment of the said delinquent payments to the next assessment cycle.
Hearing Officer
DATE:7/17/2022
Attachment A
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
REINSPECTION AND CASE PROCESSING FEES ARE COST RECOVERY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY A HEARING OFFICER.
HEARING DATE:
JULY 22,2022
HEARING
TIME:8am
9 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AGENDA ITEM CASE#
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1635 E. 6TH ST. STOCKTON CA, RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT: WAYNE OSBORG
CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH
SUBJECT OF APPEAL: DELINQUENT CHARGES OF $14,358.88 FOR SEWER AND STORM DRAIN SERVICES DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on the failure of the City to: demonstrate that Appellant has received just treatment relative to the impact of the Eviction moratorium in the City of Stockton. .
The appeal is hereby denied based on.
The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
Section 5473 of the California Health and Safety Code gives the City of Stockton the election to have delinquent charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner as its general taxes. Appellant is the owner of a triplex located on the said property. The utility services to his property are mandatory and have been provided by the City. With the City’s switch to owner billing in September, 2020 Appellant is directly responsible for these charges. Appellant stated that he had fallen behind on payments due to the pandemic and the resultant moratorium on tenant eviction which prevented him from evicting tenants who failed to pay rent. This led to a substantial loss of income which caused him to fall behind on the payments at issue. The moratorium on tenant eviction in the City of Stockton is still in effect. Appellant does not dispute the charges and they must be paid.
It does seem unjust however, that the City that is looking out for the interests of its residents who are tenants by placing a moratorium on their eviction as a result of the COVID pandemic, regardless of rent arrearages, should, during that same period, switch to owner billing and further seek to assess delinquent payments to the tax roll of property owners such as the Appellant. The City already has a recorded lien against the said property. Under the circumstances, the City is to give the Appellant the opportunity to enter into an installment payment arrangement and defer assessment of the said delinquent payments to the next assessment cycle.
Hearing Officer
DATE:7/17/2022
Attachment A
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
REINSPECTION AND CASE PROCESSING FEES ARE COST RECOVERY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY A HEARING OFFICER.
HEARING DATE:
June 23, 2022
HEARING TIME:
8:00am ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AGENDA ITEM CASE#
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1938 NIGHTENGALE, STOCKTON, CA RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT: LAYRA JACKSON CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH SUBJECT OF APPEAL: DELINQUENCY OF $1,410.36
DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on:
.
The appeal is hereby denied based on: Appellant acknowledges charges due and owing.
The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
Appellant is not the owner of the property but has the same name as the owner of record, Appellant’s grandmother, who is now deceased. Appellant is a tenant in the property but has unfortunately had some financial and health challenges. Appellant stated that she believed the property is in probate and believes it to be presently managed/owned by her Uncle to whom she pays rent, but she was not certain. Said Uncle’s legal status in relation to the deceased’s estate is unclear.Appellant was present at the hearing as a representative of her said Uncle and acknowledged that the charges were due and owing. It is not clear whether any Notice of Intent to Lien was previously received by the late Layra Jackson. In any case, the outstanding amount would now be attributable to the deceased’s estate. Failure to discharge the outstanding sum will result in the same being assessed to the San Joaquin County 2022-23 Tax Roll.
Hearing Officer:
DATE: JULY 14, 2022
Attachment A
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
REINSPECTION AND CASE PROCESSING FEES ARE COST RECOVERY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY A HEARING OFFICER.
HEARING DATE:
June 23, 2022
HEARING TIME:
8:00am ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AGENDA ITEM CASE#
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2019 S.SAN JOAQUIN ST. STOCKTON, CA RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT: DIANA
BUCKHINGHAM CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH
SUBJECT OF APPEAL: DELINQUENCY OF $725.52
DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on:
.
The appeal is hereby denied based on: Appellant acknowledges charges due and owing.
The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
Section 5473 of the Health and Safety Code entitles the City of Stockton to elect to have delinquent utility and service charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner as general taxes Appellant acknowledges that the services have been provided by the City and that the sum claimed is due and owing. Appellant has had difficulty paying because she had problematic tenants and was involved with litigation with her tenants that required her to expend money to make the property safe. Appellant undertook to discharge the outstanding sum of $725.52 prior to the August 5 deadline to avoid assessment. Failure to discharge the outstanding sum on or before August 5, 2022 will result in the same being assessed to the San Joaquin County 2022-23 Tax Roll.
Hearing Officer:
DATE: JULY 14, 2022
Attachment A
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
REINSPECTION AND CASE PROCESSING FEES ARE COST RECOVERY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY A HEARING OFFICER.
HEARING DATE:
June 23, 2022
HEARING TIME:
8:00am ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AGENDA ITEM CASE#
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2027,2029,2031 S.SAN JOAQUIN ST. STOCKTON, CA
RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT: DIANA
BUCKHINGHAM CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH
SUBJECT OF APPEAL: DELINQUENCY OF $2,839.55
DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on:
.
The appeal is hereby denied based on: Appellant acknowledges charges due and owing.
The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
Section 5473 of the Health and Safety Code entitles the City of Stockton to elect to have delinquent utility and service charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner as general taxes Appellant acknowledges that the services have been provided by the City and that the sum claimed is due and owing. Appellant has had difficulty paying because she had problematic tenants and was involved with litigation with her tenants that required her to expend money to make the property safe. Failure to discharge the outstanding sum on or before August 5, 2022 will result in the same being assessed to the San Joaquin County 2022-23 Tax Roll. Section 5473 of the Health and Safety Code entitles the City of Stockton to elect to have delinquent utility and service charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner as general taxes.
Hearing Officer:
DATE: JULY 14, 2022
Attachment A
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
REINSPECTION AND CASE PROCESSING FEES ARE COST RECOVERY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY A HEARING OFFICER.
HEARING DATE:
JULY 22,2022
HEARING
TIME:8am
9 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AGENDA ITEM CASE#
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2138 SCRIBNER ST, STOCKTON CA, RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT: RODNEY WHITEN
CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH
SUBJECT OF APPEAL: DELINQUENT CHARGES OF $1,403.45 FOR TRASH, SEWER AND STORM DRAIN SERVICES DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on the failure of the City to:
.
The appeal is hereby denied based on: Appellant acknowledged that the charges were due and owing and have been delinquent since 2021.Additionally, Appellant did not request an appeal hearing when he was served with notice of the City’s intent to record a lien against his property.
The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
Section 5473 of the California Health and Safety Code gives the City of Stockton the election to have delinquent charges for its services placed on the tax roll in the same manner as its general taxes. Appellant’s objection to the charges was based on his claim that the sewer pipes on his property needed to be replaced.
It was not clear whether the maintenance of the said pipes was the responsibility of the City or the Appellant.
Appellant may seek clarification from the City. Appellant may exercise the option to enter into a payment arrangement with the City of Stockton to pay off the delinquent balance by August 5, 2022 at the latest.
Failure to do so by the said date will result in the delinquent balance of $1,403.45 being assessed to the said property for the 2022-2023 San Joaquin County Tax Roll.
Hearing Officer
DATE:7/13/2022
Attachment A
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
REINSPECTION AND CASE PROCESSING FEES ARE COST RECOVERY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY A HEARING OFFICER.
HEARING DATE:
June 23, 2022
HEARING TIME:
8:00am ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AGENDA ITEM CASE#
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2312 FRANKLIN AVE., STOCKTON, CA RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT: SARA MARQUEZ CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH SUBJECT OF APPEAL: DELINQUENCY OF $1,218.03
DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on:
.
The appeal is hereby denied based on: Appellant acknowledges that amount is past due and owing The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
Section 5473 of the Health and Safety Code entitles the City of Stockton to elect to have delinquent utility and service charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner as general taxes. Appellant acknowledges sum is past due and owing but has had difficulty paying due to sickness and disability in the family. Appellant is taking steps to make payment on or before August 5, 2022 to avoid assessment or reduce her tax bill. Failure to resolve the delinquency will result in the City assessing the outstanding amount to the 2022-23 San Joaquin County Tax Roll.
Hearing Officer:
DATE: JULY 14, 2022
Attachment A
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
REINSPECTION AND CASE PROCESSING FEES ARE COST RECOVERY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY A HEARING OFFICER.
HEARING DATE:
JULY 22,2022
HEARING
TIME:8am
9 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AGENDA ITEM CASE#
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 3368 BELLEVIEW AVE., STOCKTON CA, RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT: EUGENE
FAIRWELL CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH
SUBJECT OF APPEAL: DELINQUENT CHARGES OF $949.63 FOR SEWER SERVICES DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on the failure of the City to:
.
The appeal is hereby denied based on: Appellant acknowledged that the charges were due and owing.
The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
Section 5473 of the California Health and Safety Code gives the City of Stockton the election to have delinquent charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner as its general taxes. The utility services to this property are mandatory and have been provided by the City. Appellant’s issue regarding the outstanding charges is that he wanted the bills to be sent to the property address so that he could pay them. Appellant states that property address is a church and Appellant, the Pastor thereof. City staff, according to policy, refused to make the change in the absence of official documentation to that effect as the address given when the account was set up is a different address. Appellant stated that it was unjust and unfair for bills not to be sent to the property address and sought the cancellation of the bills on that basis. Appellant’s claims do not justify the cancellation of the outstanding bills. Appellant will need to provide the required documentation to enter into a payment arrangement with the City of Stockton to pay off the delinquent balance by August 5, 2022 at the latest. Failure to do so by the said date will result in the delinquent balance of $949.63 being assessed to the said property for the 2022-2023 San Joaquin County Tax Roll.
Hearing Officer
DATE:7/13/2022
Attachment A
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
REINSPECTION AND CASE PROCESSING FEES ARE COST RECOVERY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY A HEARING OFFICER.
HEARING DATE:
June 23, 2022
HEARING TIME:
8:00am ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AGENDA ITEM CASE#
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 3762 SANGUINNETTI LANE, STOCKTON, CA RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT: SHAWN VILLEGAS CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH SUBJECT OF APPEAL: DELINQUENCY OF $994.72
DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on:
.
The appeal is hereby denied based on: Appellant acknowledges that amount is past due and owing The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
Section 5473 of the California Health and Safety Code gives the City of Stockton the election to have delinquent charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner as its general taxes.
Appellant acknowledges the sum of $994.72 is past due and owing and indicated that she will pay off the outstanding amount on or by August 5, 2021 to avoid assessment to the Tax Roll.
Failure to do so, will result in the assessment of the outstanding amount to the 2022-23 San Joaquin County Tax Roll.
Hearing Officer:
DATE: JULY 14, 2022
Attachment A
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
REINSPECTION AND CASE PROCESSING FEES ARE COST RECOVERY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY A HEARING OFFICER.
HEARING DATE:
June 22, 2022
HEARING TIME:
8:00am ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AGENDA ITEM CASE#
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 7224 TRISTAN CIRCLE. STOCKTON, CA RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT:CHRISTINA LOZANO CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH SUBJECT OF APPEAL: DELINQUENT CHARGES OF $1,715.50. FROM STORM SEWER, WATER AND TRASH SERVICES DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on:
.
The appeal is hereby denied based on: Appellant acknowledged that the amount was due and owing.
The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
Section 5473 of the California Health and Safety Code gives the City of Stockton the election to have delinquent charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner as its general taxes..
Appellant stated she has been seriously unwell since the Covid pandemic began with the development of serious health issues that affected her ability to earn an income and meet her financial obligations. Appellant now has part-time work and is making serious efforts to eliminate the delinquency. Appellants may make arrangements with the City to make payment of the amount outstanding on or before August 5, 2022. Failure to do so will result in the delinquent amount of $1,715.50, being assessed to the 2022-2023 San Joaquin County Tax Roll.
Hearing Officer:
DATE: JULY 13, 2022
Attachment A
ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE FINAL
REINSPECTION AND CASE PROCESSING FEES ARE COST RECOVERY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL AND CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY A HEARING OFFICER.
HEARING DATE:
June 23, 2022
HEARING TIME:
8:00am ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AGENDA ITEM CASE#
HEARING OFFICER: EDITH M. AWUAH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 7627 PACIFIC AVE. STOCKTON, CA RESPONSIBLE PERSON/APPELLANT: LOBERN WASH AND
DRY INC. CITY REPRESENTATIVE: ALISHA SINGH
SUBJECT OF APPEAL: DELINQUENCY OF $10,670.73 FROM SEWER AND WATER CHARGES DECISION:
The appellant having appeared or by absence, having waived his/her right to appear or having been represented by as he/she has authorized , on the above referenced date to protest the action taken:
The appeal is hereby granted based on: disputed charges based on the pending receipt of a demolition report in respect of the said property
.
The appeal is hereby denied based on:
The charges are confirmed for payment or assessment to the property taxes. must be abated/corrected by
must be corrected by
Other
Hearing continued until
Additional Comments/Orders:
Section 5473 of the California Health and Safety Code gives the City of Stockton the election to have delinquent charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner as its general taxes. Appellant stated that his building was affected by a fire in 2021 and has not been operational since. Appellant, in good faith paid 3 months of sewer and water charges in advance. Attempts to address the issue with the Fire Department and the City have been unsuccessful with conflicting messages. City staff previously indicated to Appellant that a fire report would be adequate. City Revenue Supervisor indicated at the hearing indicated that in the absence of a demolition report the City had to continue billing. Appellant is pursuing the required demolition report. The City has indicated that the necessary adjustments will be made to Appellant’s charges pending the receipt of the necessary demolition report. Under the circumstances, pending the resolution of demolition status of the property, the City is hereby required to refrain from assessing the delinquent amount to the 2022-2023 San Joaquin County Tax Roll.
Hearing Officer:
DATE: JULY 14, 2022
Attachment A
Resolution No.
STOCKTON CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION OVERRULING PROTESTS, CONFIRMING THE DELINQUENT UTILITY
BILLING CHARGES, ADOPTING THE DELINQUENT UTILITY SERVICES CHARGES, 2021 ASSESSMENT REPORT, AND DIRECTING THE ASSESSMENTS BE PLACED
ON THE SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY TAX ROLL
On March 20, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution 2018-03-20-1403, which reaffirmed and reenacted the City of Stockton’s previously adopted water, sewer, solid waste collection, and stormwater service rates and charges, to avail itself of the authority under the California Health and Safety Code to collect such rates and charges on the tax roll; and
Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section 5473 et seq., the City has the authority to elect to have its water, sewer, solid waste collection, and storm water service charges, and any such delinquent charges and applicable penalties, collected on the tax roll in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together with and not separately from, its taxes; and
Hearings were held before an Administrative Hearing Officer June 22 and June 23, 2022, wherein all objections to the proposed property tax assessments for delinquent utility charges were heard; and
The Administrative Services Department updated the proposed Delinquent Utility Service Charges, 2022 Assessment Report to reflect the order from the Administrative Hearing Officer; and
Notice of the Public Hearing held on July 26, 2022, was duly and regularly published in The Record in the time, form, and manner required by law, as evidenced by the declaration on file with the City Clerk; and
A public hearing was held on July 26, 2022, by the City Council to hear and consider all objections and protests to the Delinquent Utility Service Charges, 2022 Assessment Report; and
The City Council finds that it is in the best interests of the City to collect delinquent water, sewer, solid waste collection, and stormwater service charges on the tax roll, which charges shall constitute a lien against the parcel or parcels of land described in the report in accordance with California Health and Safety Code sections 5473 et seq.; now, therefore,
//
//
//
//
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON, AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City Council hereby finds and determines that protests have not been made by the owners of a majority of the separate parcels or property described in the report. All protests, including all written protests not withdrawn in writing before the conclusion of the public hearing, to the proposed levy of assessments and objections to the charges listed in the Delinquent Utility Service Charges, 2022 Assessment Report, attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and by reference made a part hereof, are hereby overruled.
2. The charges set forth in the Delinquent Utility Service Charges, 2022 Assessment Report for the unpaid utility service charges incurred by property owners to the real properties described in the report are hereby confirmed.
3. The Delinquent Utility Service Charges, 2022 Assessment Report is hereby adopted, which a copy of said report is attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by this reference.
4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward a certified copy of this Resolution to the Chief Financial Officer of the City of Stockton, who is hereby authorized to and shall cause the amount of the assessments to be added to Fiscal Year 2021-22 regular bill of taxes levied against said properties for municipal purposes, which said amounts shall be collected at the time and in the same manner as ordinary municipal taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and procedures under foreclosure and sale in case of delinquency as provided for ordinary municipal taxes. On or before the 10th day of August, 2022, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file a copy of the report, in either written or electronic form, with the County of San Joaquin Auditor-Controller (or such other County officers as may request same), or such other date as may be permitted by the County of San Joaquin Auditor-Controller or such other County officers.
5. The City Council hereby requests the County of San Joaquin AuditorController (and such other County officers as required) to collect the delinquent water, sewer, solid waste collection, and storm water service charges on the 2022-2023 tax bills for the taxable parcels in the City of Stockton identified in the report. Such delinquent charges shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner and by the same persons as, together with and not separately from, the general taxes for the City of Stockton, and shall be delinquent at the same time and thereafter be subject to the same delinquency penalties to be levied on and collected from the owners of said parcel. //
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
6. The City Manager is hereby authorized to take whatever actions are necessary and appropriate to carry out the purpose and intent of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED July 26, 2022 .
KEVIN J. LINCOLN II
Mayor of the City of Stockton
ATTEST:
ELIZA R. GARZA, CMC
City Clerk of the City of Stockton
2022 Assessment List as of July 18,2022 Exhibit 1
Account Number Customer Name Location Parcel Location Address Balance for
Assessment
726237-5508 209 PROP GROUP LLC 071-310 33-0000 3364 SCHOONER DR $ 1,537.29 675297-288380 801 SOUTH CALIFORNIA ST LLC 147-215 12-0000 815 S CALIFORNIA ST $ 1,486.02 391127-280264 ABDULLAH, SHARON 066-310 01-0000 5289 VESTA CI $ 1,885.55 418043-253902 ABRIOL, ANTHONY 070-310 58-0000 10534 SILENT GROVE CT $ 2,863.72 722971-126126 ACEVES, FAUSTINO 165-181 47-0000 2219 TURNPIKE RD $ 1,016.69 531069-72504 ACEVES, FRANK 115-114 11-0000 10 W CHURCHILL ST $ 631.87 690823-129958 ACOSTA, ANGELITA M 169-073 11-0000 1105 E SEVENTH ST $ 1,293.12 717561-124002 ADADE, JOHN 163-450 22-0000 1079 SANDOVAL CT $ 932.38 700101-104316 ADAME, JOSE JESUS GUERRERO 147-085 10-0000 1245 S COMMERCE ST $ 833.68 703193-81738 ADAMS, BRYAN JAMES 123-192 17-0000 1859 MIDDLEFIELD AV $ 771.43 3269-29594 ADAMS, JEFFREY D 082-090 02-0000 8560 YARMOUTH DR $ 1,921.74 456503-229342 AGUAYO, ENRIQUE 151-110 06-0000 901 E MINER AV $ 2,175.17 722213-304522 AGUILAR, ANTONIO/GUADALUPE 171-290 14-0000 2237 S MARIPOSA RD UT $ 1,817.63 540713-100062 AGUILAR, EDGAR 141-250 10-0000 2457 E ACACIA ST $ 971.19 711679-80186 AGUILAR, VIRGINIA 123-052 09-0000 2205 FRASER AV $ 1,050.93 554499-112742 AGUIRRE, BLANCA L 155-060 37-0000 1725 E SCOTTS AV $ 908.90 211457-255482 AGUIRRE, JOEY 164-340 29-0000 3904 STETSON CT $ 1,883.52 689141-139206 AGUSTIN, CHRISTINA 071-400 19-0000 9757 TWIN CREEKS AV $ 829.62 428459-10818 AHMED, YASMINE 072-330 62-0000 8615 GRAYWOOD CT $ 1,419.69 414387-266684 AJMAL, ABID 124-350 55-0000 3067 CORTONA LN $ 1,622.51 693257-72428 AKINO, LEILANI 115-112 19-0000 51 W DOWNS ST $ 833.68 703507-95560 AKSAR, ALI 137-201 07-0000 300 W PARK ST $ 4,828.70 659797-108106 ALANIS, SANDRA B * 151-032 26-0000 1160 N PILGRIM ST $ 1,810.94 553173-108294 ALBIN, PATRICIA 151-042 18-0000 1211 E ACACIA ST $ 927.50 557873-126480 ALCANTRA, JESSIE M/SUSANNE 165-261 27-0000 2425 S HARRISON ST $ 719.42 718983-122364 ALEXANDER, WILLIAM 163-510 05-0000 2417 DIAMOND OAKS ST $ 932.38 353935-260394 ALEXANDER-THOMAS, VALERY 166-450 27-0000 2611 WOODSHIRE CT $ 1,698.90 442221-256726 ALI, RIASAT 166-380 51-0000 2426 GALLEY WY $ 2,749.55 723335-106078 ALL 4 ONE PROPERTY 147-295 18-0000 930 S STANISLAUS ST $ 896.96 661675-217070 ALL MINI VANS, TRUCK & AUTO 167-183 15-0000 930 E DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BL B $ 276.34 661675-217074 ALL MINI VANS, TRUCK & AUTO 167-184 05-0000 936 E FIRST ST $ 512.96 661675-217076 ALL MINI VANS, TRUCK & AUTO 167-184 15-0000 936 E FIRST ST $ 1,071.15 661675-230358 ALL MINI VANS, TRUCK & AUTO 167-183 03-0000 930 E DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BL $ 750.26 518487-124588 ALLEN, STELLA/JAMES 165-055 20-0000 351 W FIFTH ST $ 1,377.98 526739-124590 ALLEN, STELLA/JAMES 165-055 21-0000 357 W FIFTH ST $ 927.37 718163-106196 ALMAZAN, GWEN 147-330 29-0000 1120 S GRANT ST $ 1,020.38 684227-96436 ALOMAR, FILOMENA 139-040 31-0000 245 E POPLAR ST $ 1,878.63 564235-125018 ALONZO JR, CRUZ R 165-130 11-0000 1979 S MADISON ST $ 932.38 690377-100576 ALONZO, PHIL 143-030 10-0000 1566 RHODE ISLAND AV $ 1,122.42 709921-103488 ALVARADO, RAFAEL M 145-310 42-0000 1329 W HAZELTON AV $ 1,343.50 695189-77364 ALVAREZ, ANTONIO 119-050 31-0000 2386 MISTLETOE AV $ 455.37 435255-277854 ALVAREZ, FELIX 128-290 32-0000 5113 STRAWBERRY WY $ 2,109.53 683579-107944 ALVAREZ, JOSE CARLOS 151-023 24-0000 1260 N AIRPORT WY $ 1,021.70 510853-91426 ALVIZREZ, JOHANA 135-230 05-0000 820 N PERSHING AV $ 1,440.58 498725-77288 AMAYA, ROGER A CALLEJAS 119-044 08-0000 3136 N F ST $ 781.96 689457-50776 ANDEOLA, VALERIE 102-120 15-0000 426 E LANCASTER DR $ 715.12 708011-109404 ANDERSON, BETTY 151-170 26-0000 1405 CHANNEL ST $ 1,294.20 649699-250716 ANDERSON, JEFFREY/ELIZABETH 116-530 54-0000 3726 BRIDLEWOOD CI $ 1,270.94 479815-5724 ANDERSON, THOMAS 071-372 14-0000 9353 WHITE WATER LN $ 2,405.77 686165-95120 ANDRADE, JEANETTE 137-161 06-0000 620 W POPLAR ST $ 1,207.38 553683-83642 ANDRES JR, THOMAS 125-140 44-0000 4 W MONTEREY AV $ 1,294.34 667261-89776 ANDREWS, LEAH * 133-460 44-0000 1811 W WILLOW ST $ 1,018.19 531297-127656 ANTUNA-MIRANDA, RENEE 167-043 01-0000 206 E FOURTH ST $ 715.27 531297-128692 ANTUNA-MIRANDA, RENEE 167-131 17-0000 1638 S SAN JOAQUIN ST $ 890.00 237327-115058 APARICIO, BACILISC 157-030 26-0000 132 GLACIER CT $ 548.84 485635-123878 APHAYRAJ, SRITHON 163-410 26-0000 1422 LAGUNA CI $ 324.26 701049-114006 ARBANASIN, TINA EST 155-350 06-0000 2254 E MAIN ST $ 797.56 546113-131462 ARCE JR, EDWARD 169-260 17-0000 2349 S SACRAMENTO ST $ 1,169.00 669147-92720 ARCOS,RUBEN 135-380 28-0000 815 W MAGNOLIA ST $ 624.29 458951-237740 ARENZANA JR, JESUS 096-300 03-0000 4898 KIMBALL HILL CI $ 1,887.94 642029-76086 AREVALO, RAUL C 117-225 01-0000 1760 SYCAMORE AV $ 927.49 486029-277294 AREVALO, SERGIO 177-390 41-0000 1530 MANIAGO DR $ 1,158.35 443411-236576 ARGOMIDO, ALVIN/MINIE C 166-170 48-0000 2150 ENGLAND CT $ 1,674.90 546415-126606 ARINAGA, MARIE LUPE 165-280 35-0000 2847 S LINCOLN ST $ 1,328.95