CUMMINGS BASIN ADJUDICATION your basin your water your future - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

CUMMINGS BASIN ADJUDICATION your basin ە your water ە your future STAKEHOLDERS UPDATE MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2019

Meeting procedure • Sign-in sheet and information sheet • Refreshments and Rest Rooms • Contact information is important • Anticipated meeting length = 2 hours • Handouts • WELCOME QUESTIONS AT ANY TIME! • Evacuation Procedures • Two exits with lighted signage • Assembly point is out front gate near Notice Board

Introductions • Board of Directors – TCCWD • Legal Counsel – TCCWD • Staff – TCCWD • Phone Participants • Please email contact information to cadams@tccwd.com • Remote Meeting access available at remotemeeting.com • Participants Present

TCCWD Purpose, Mission and Vision Purpose Mission Statement Vision Statement • Import State Water Project “Tehachapi-Cummings County Water “Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District will ensure the most reliable, District will strive for continuous Water cost effective water supply for our improvement in meeting our customer’s • Manage Groundwater customers through the importation of needs, both now and in the future. We State Water Project water and will explore all avenues to ensure Basins management of groundwater basins. adequate water supplies and manage • Operate Flood Control We will operate and maintain certain our groundwater basins to ensure flood control structures to protect our sufficient protection for extraction Facilities customer’s safety and property. “ quantity and quality.”

TCCWD History • Voted into existence by taxpayers in 1965 • Facilities dedicated in 1971 • 266,000 acres (415 sq. Mi) • 40,000 residents • 3 adjudicated groundwater basins within district (Tehachapi, Brite, Cummings)

Cummings Basin Adjudication History • May 1966 – Citizen’s Advisory • Prohibited diversions of groundwater outside Committee recommended filing of Cummings Basin adjudications for all three basins • Appointed TCCWD as Watermaster • October 1966 – TCCWD filed • State of California appealed judgment adjudication actions for all three basins • July 1975 – Appellate Court ruled on appeal • March 1972 – Cummings Basin Judgment • Rescinded prescribed rights filed by Court • Stated all rights correlative • Set prescribed, base water rights • Determined NSY of 4,090 AFY • Remanded case to trial court

Cummings Basin Adjudication History (continued) • 2015 – Fugro prepared updated model • October 1976 – Trial court held hearings on motions filed by TCCWD and State • Studied 33 year period from 1981-2013 • Fugro determined NSY to be 2,990 AFY • January 1977 – Further hearings scheduled, then taken off calendar and never rescheduled • August 2015 to Present – TCCWD works to amend • Case has lain dormant since then adjudication to protect basin • 2003 - TCCWD consultant, Fugro West Inc., • Held numerous meetings with stakeholders to identify and resolve issues completes Groundwater Model Study for • Prepared numerous drafts of amended judgment Cummings Basin based on comments provided • Studied 21 year period from 1981-2001 • Today’s Meeting • Fugro determined NSY should be 3,444 AFY

Cummings Basin Information • Three sources of water in Cummings • Adjudication concerns native basin groundwater only • Native groundwater (NSY) • Other sources excluded • Imported surface water (SWP) • Natural Safe Yield defined • Recycled water from CCI (DTR) • Maximum quantity of native groundwater which may be extracted from the basin without any net change in groundwater storage

Cummings Basin Boundaries • Watershed limits • Alluvium (water bearing soils limits • Adjudication limits

Aquifer – Depth to Bedrock • Depth to Bedrock • <100’ at perimeter • >500’ at center

Key Well Locations • Well 20 M1- Northeast • Well 30 K1 – North Central • Well 36 M2 – Central • Well 35 N1 - Southwest

Well 20 M1 - Northeast Elevation of Water Level in Feet 3700 3720 3740 3760 3780 3800 3820 3840 3860 3880 Hydrograph of Well 32S/32E-20M1 Ground Surface Elevation 3885.5 ft. 05/05/68 11/01/69 06/05/71 11/05/72 06/01/74 11/05/75 05/01/77 10/01/78 06/01/80 11/01/81 08/01/83 05/05/85 10/01/86 Date of Reading 07/01/91 11/12/92 04/07/94 04/28/95 11/15/96 06/12/98 10/11/99 05/28/01 10/02/02 05/26/04 10/25/05 05/29/07 11/21/08 05/10/10 10/12/11 04/22/13 10/06/14 04/06/16 10/05/17

Well 30 K1 – North Central Elevation of Water Level in Feet Hydrograph of Well 32S/32E-30K1 (CCI) Ground Surface Elevation 3856.5 ft. 3730 3750 3770 3790 3810 3830 3850 04/01/66 Date of Reading (lost readings Oct. 1982-1996) 10/15/68 10/01/70 11/30/72 10/15/74 10/10/76 10/05/78 10/15/80 10/15/82 10/15/84 10/15/86 10/15/88 10/15/90 10/15/92 10/15/94 12/05/96 10/15/98 11/16/00 10/16/02 10/27/04 10/18/06 12/02/08 10/04/10 10/10/12 10/06/14 10/05/16 10/04/18

Well 36 M2 – Central Elevation of Water Level in Feet Elevation of Water Level in Feet 3680 3700 3720 3740 3760 3780 3800 10/05/68 3680 3700 3720 3740 3760 3780 3800 10/01/69 10/15/70 10/01/71 11/30/72 10/01/73 Hydrograph of Well 32S/31E-36M2 Ground Surface Elevation 3817.1 ft. 10/01/74 10/01/75 Hydrograph of Well 32S/31E-36M2 Ground Surface Elevation 3817.1 ft. 10/05/76 10/05/77 10/01/78 10/15/79 11/10/80 10/15/81 11/01/82 10/15/83 10/01/85 10/10/84 11/05/87 10/15/86 08/20/89 10/20/88 09/01/91 Date of Reading 09/30/90 10/14/93 Date of Reading 10/15/92 12/04/95 10/14/94 10/15/97 10/17/99 11/19/96 10/16/01 10/14/98 10/21/03 10/27/00 10/21/05 09/25/02 11/27/07 10/04/04 12/03/09 10/18/06 10/12/11 09/26/13 11/17/08 10/02/15 10/04/10 10/05/17 10/10/12 10/06/14 10/05/16 10/04/18

Well 35 N1 – Southwest Elevation of Water Level in Feet Elevation of Water Level in Feet 3680 3700 3720 3740 3760 3780 3800 3650 3670 3690 3710 3730 3750 3770 3790 10/01/69 12/15/1966 10/01/71 10/5/1968 10/01/73 10/15/1970 10/01/75 Hydrograph of Well 32S/31E-36M2 Ground Surface Elevation 3817.1 ft. 11/15/1972 Hydrograph of State Well 32S/31E-35N1 Ground Surface Elevation 3791.6 ft. 10/05/77 10/1/1974 10/15/79 10/1/1976 10/15/81 6/1/1978 10/15/83 10/15/1980 10/01/85 11/15/1982 11/05/87 9/5/1984 08/20/89 10/5/1986 09/01/91 Date of Reading 11/1/1988 10/14/93 Date of Reading 9/1/1990 12/04/95 10/15/97 10/15/1992 10/17/99 10/14/1994 10/16/01 11/8/1996 10/21/03 10/14/1998 10/21/05 10/27/2000 11/27/07 9/25/2002 12/03/09 10/5/2004 10/12/11 10/17/2006 09/26/13 11/6/2008 10/02/15 (Spill Elevation is 3760 ft.) 10/4/2010 10/05/17 10/10/2012 10/6/2014 10/5/2016 10/4/2018

Natural Safe Yield of Cummings Basin • TSCD (1969) 4,156 AFY • Dr. Mann (1971) 3,560 AFY • Judgment (1972) 4,090 AFY • Fugro (2004) 3,444 AFY • Fugro (2015) 2,990 AFY* * Data included through 2013 – does not include severe drought years 2014 & 2015 and wet years of 2017 & 2019

Overlying Pumpers – 2018 Agricultural Pumpers • Cal Organic Farms (Grimmway) 1,993 AF • Bornt and Sons 262 AF • Ha/Chung Orchards 42 AF • Triassic Legacy Vineyard 6 AF • SunSelect Produce (one half of total replaced with recharge by TCCWD) 460 AF • Millennium Pacific 10 AF • Cummings Valley School 14 AF • Total 2,789 AF

Overlying Pumpers – 2018 Municipal/Domestic Pumpers • California Correctional Institution 565 AF • Stallion Springs CSD 180 AF • Other Domestic Pumpers (Estimate) 176 AF • Fairview Ranches (Estimate) 42 AF • Bear Valley CSD 2 AF • Total 965 AF

Overlying Pumpers – 2018 Total All Pumpers • Agricultural 2,789 AF • CCI 565 AF • Municipal 182 AF • Domestic 218 AF • Total 3,754 AF

Conjunctive Use Pumpers – 2018 • CCI 224 AF • Bear Valley CSD 643 AF • Stallion Springs CSD 180 AF • Total 1,047 AF

Banked Water Agreement Recharge – 2018 • Bear Valley CSD 250 AF (303 AF in 2019) • Stallion Springs CSD 0 AF (186 AF in 2019) • Total 250 AF (489 AF in 2019) Note: TCCWD has a program in place to allow agricultural pumpers to enter into voluntary banking agreements to ensure they have an adequate supply. To date, no customers have taken advantage of this program.

Legal Considerations • Appeals Court Decision • No basis for prescription • Individual prescriptive rights not assigned • Rights to native groundwater are overlying and correlative • Adjudicated Native Safe Yield held at 4,090 AFY • Remanded back to trial court where it remains today • Existing Judgment Status • Post-remand not completed in trial court

Current Status • Safe yield set at 4,090 AFY • Unsustainable • Has led to declining groundwater levels in basin • Results in increased pumping cost • Watermaster role • Obligated by the court to manage the basin • Limited authority to manage the basin • Judgment needs to be amended • Currently basin is about half full • Continued overpumping will lead to eventual depletion of the basin

Blueprint for a Solution • Stakeholder-driven • Cooperative: not adversarial • Based on good science • Maximize freedom for water users by being adaptable • Protect/preserve basin for all water users for the future