News

As anyone who pays for groceries, rent, equipment, labor, utilities, etc. knows, it is much more effective to work with a budget so that the expenses can be planned for and “covered” as appropriate when the piper calls. The income side needs to be accounted for in advance of the payments side to avoid writing rubber checks and paying “overdraft charges” or, ultimately, getting services reduced or cut off.

Groundwater management is set up in much the same manner (interesting that the water world refers to extraction greater than what is supportable as “overdraft”).  Each basin/Subbasin/GSA (Groundwater Sustainability Agency) area must assess the amounts and types of water coming into the area before the determination can be made as to what can support what is expected to be needed to cover the extractions.  As in either equation, expenses (or extractions) in excess of income (water inflow or import) will result in the “accounts” being in the red or in “overdraft.” 

In recognition of these parallels, the SGMA legislation requires the GSA to do the math on an annual basis to check the status of the “checkbook” balance as far as water is concerned.  What we are all seeking, of course, is the checkbook being balanced, thereby avoiding the negative impacts of miscalculation.  Unfortunately, groundwater is considerably more difficult to account for, so one of the continuous and continuing efforts which the GSA will be pursuing is the better understanding of our account balances so we can achieve real, verifiable balance at the earliest possible time.

At the last GSP (Groundwater Sustainability Plan) update, Lynn Groundwater from Provost and Pritchard walked the group through the range of somewhat limited knowledge currently available to us.  One method of analysis, using groundwater contour maps, shows our negative balance to be 18,000 acre-feet.  Another method, using ET (evapotranspiration) estimates and crop patterns, shows a deficit of 79,000 acre-feet.  The difference, or “gap” will need to be narrowed over the next twenty years as we gather additional measurements and other data necessary to clarify the actual “overdraft.”

In the meantime, MAGSA intends to focus its efforts heavily on the possibilities for additional supply side (income) to better offset the anticipated deficits currently anticipated.  We will look for additional water to offset the demands before having to cut back on the pumping (check writing).  Balance is, and shall continue to be, the goal.  We will do what any business person does, continue to adjust the income and expense (inflow and outflow) to ultimately achieve that balance!

The SGMA requires subbasins to become sustainable by 2040. Reaching sustainability objectives will not occur overnight, but rather will require the laying of a foundation at the onset of implementation that yields results in groundwater conditions over the entire 20 year stabilizing period and the 50 year planning horizon. As MAGSA takes stock of current groundwater conditions, the Board must consider the rate at which mitigation will occur.

The orderly implementation of sustainability efforts needs to strike a balance between practicality and intensity. Identified in the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP), the planned rate of mitigation must be approved by Department of Water Resources (DWR). The planned rate needs to set forth a path to achieve sustainability objectives on a feasible timeline.

MAGSA’s technical consultant Lynn Groundwater, Provost & Pritchard, reviewed three alternatives for the rate of mitigation: a constant rate, a phased rate, and a deferred rate. Constant mitigation sets an even pace of 25% improvement every 5 years toward the sustainability objectives. This option is likely acceptable to DWR, but may not be practical as initial projects and management actions will take time to develop. A phased mitigation schedule starts more slowly initially, with an increased rate of progress over time. This rate would allow time to develop management actions and build projects that may not yield the bulk of the intended results until further down the implementation timeline. Deferred mitigation delays 100% of improvement to the last 5 years of GSP implementation, leaving all progress to occur between 2035 and 2040. This rate is unlikely to be accepted by DWR.

The best fit for MAGSA’s sustainability timeline appears likely to be a phased mitigation schedule. Laying the foundation for the service area’s groundwater management will mean heavy lifting on the front end of the timeline to develop the nuts and bolts of projects and management action mechanisms. Phased mitigation grants flexibility to establish this foundation that will yield increased results in later implementation years.

Setting metrics for groundwater level is underway in MAGSA. At the February 6th Board Meeting, technical consultant Lynn Groundwater, Provost & Pritchard, discussed MAGSA’s methodology for setting the criteria that indicates whether or not sustainable levels of groundwater are met. Known as sustainable management criteria, these levels are guided by historical groundwater level data. The Kings Subbasin coordinated effort has adopted MAGSA’s methodology, with a few variances such as time period of data used.

Sustainable Management Criteria are the SGMA metrics of success. The criteria will include numeric values for groundwater depth. These values will guide sustainability efforts. The first value is the measurable objective: the groundwater depth you must reach and maintain. The second value is the minimum threshold: the groundwater depth you cannot drop below. A range of flexible values, the operational flexibility, will also be determined. The operational flexibility takes into account historical declines and the potential for future drought occurrences. The intent of operational flexibility is to allow groundwater depths to drop for a time (e.g. during a drought) as long as recovery toward the measurable objective follows. 

Using data to determine historical rates of water level decline is important for setting reasonable sustainability objectives. Historical data helps set the objectives. Future data will inform Agency managers of progress occurring toward achievement of those objectives. MAGSA is using historical data beginning 1990-present from wells within its service area. Progress toward the sustainability objectives will be tracked using data collected from the monitoring network of spatially distributed wells.  Moving forward, MAGSA plans to collect groundwater level data from each well at least every March and October. Each well within the network will have its own minimum threshold and measurable objectives against which to measure new data.

Sustainability progress will follow a phased mitigation schedule, starting slowly at first with increased rate of progress over time. This allows time to begin developing management actions and building projects that may not yield the bulk of results until further down the GSP implementation road.  

As Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) draft chapters take shape for internal review, technical consultants are actively seeking public input early on from stakeholders during Board meetings and via the Undesirable Results online survey. The input received prior to the official GSP 90-day public review period allows maximum stakeholder concerns and preferences to be considered and included in early GSP chapter drafts.