TRANSITIONING INTO A SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MARKET Eastern Tule - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSITIONING INTO A SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MARKET

Eastern Tule GSA Board Meeting May 3, 2018 Liz DaBramo, MS/MPP UC Berkeley

GSP POLICY POINTS

• Share System
• Safe

Yield Allocation

• Transitional Allocations and Period
• Buffer Arrangements
• Penalties for Overuse
• Development Phase Recharge Activities
• Allocation Decision-making
• Allocation length

GSP POLICY POINTS

• Share System
• Safe

Yield Allocation

• Transitional Allocations and Period
• Buffer Arrangements
• Penalties for Overuse
• Development Phase Recharge Activities
• Allocation Decision-making
• Allocation length

PROBLEM

• 20,000

40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

Gross Extraction of Groundwater in ETGSA (acre-feet)

Groundwater Extraction

Sustainable Current

TRANSITION OPTIONS

• 20,000

40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

Gross Extraction of Groundwater in ETGSA (acre-feet) 5 10 15 20

TRANSITION COMPONENTS

Rate Buffer Allocation Length

CRITERIA

Groundwater Sustainability Economic Impacts Domestic Water Availability Stakeholder Acceptance

ROADMAP

• Options
• Rate
• Length
• Allocation
• Buffer
• Criteria
• Groundwater sustainability
• Economic Impacts
• Domestic Water Availability
• Differential Impacts
• Weigh the Tradeoffs
• Questions

TRANSITION RATE

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Percentage of Initial Transitional Share Allocation Years of Transition

Curtailment Rate

5 10 15 20

• 201,540 AF
• 630,113 AF
• 0 AF
• 422,027 AF
• 808,225 AF

T

• tal Groundwater

Volume Over-extracted

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Percentage of Initial Transitional Share Allocation Years of Transition

5 10 15 20

• 85% of current

groundwater use

• 5 years of buffer to reach

ROI and/or secure additional water supplies without reducing acreage

• Curve is concave,

providing more water and flexibility upfront

• An adjustment

period for a potential change or drop in the sustainable yield.

TRANSITION LENGTH

GROUNDWATER LEVELS

280 285 290 295 300 305 310 315 320 325

1985 1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 Groundwater Head above Sea Level Averaged in ETGSA (feet)

Historic 5 10 15 20

TRANSITION LENGTH

GROUNDWATER LEVELS

• 3
• 2
• 1

1 2 3 4 5 6

5 10 15 20

Difference in Groundwater Levels (feet)

Groundwater Levels in 2040 Compared to 2015 Groundwater Levels for Various Transition Lengths

TRANSITION LENGTH

ECONOMIC IMPACTS $15.5 billion*

*Depends significantly on allocation method. Average displayed.

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 5 10 15 20

T

• tal Agricultural Profit (Billion $)

Length of Transition

Total Agricultural Profit (2020-2040, in billions)

TRANSITION LENGTH

DOMESTIC WATER AVAILABILITY

5 10 15 20 25

(Feet)

Maximum Groundwater Level Drop by Region (10-year transition)

TRANSITION LENGTH

STAKEHOLDER ACCEPTANCE

ALLOCATION METHOD

Equal by developed acre Equal by acre Proportional to historic use and district requirement

ALLOCATION

GROUNDWATER LEVELS

ALLOCATION

ECONOMIC IMPACTS

$77.7 $70.4 $68.3

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Historical Use Equal by Developed Acre Equal by Acre T

• tal profit 2020-2030 (Billion $)

Aggregate Profit (2020-2030) by Allocation Method

(10-year transition, undiscounted)

ALLOCATION

ECONOMIC IMPACTS

$143 $145 $150 100 110 120 130 140 150

Equal Equal Developed Historical 20 15 10

Aggregate Profit (Billion $)

Aggregate Agricultural Profit (2020-2040) by Transition Length and Allocation Method

ALLOCATION

DIFFERENTIAL IMPACTS

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Kern Tulare Water District Porterville Irrigation District Saucilito Irrigation District Tea Pot Dome Water District Terra Bella Irrigation District Vandalia Irrigation District White Area

Agricultural Profit Relative to Business as Usual

Agricultural Profit Relative to Business-as-Usual

by District and Allocation Method (2020-2030, undiscounted)

Historic Use Equal by Developed Acre Equal by Acre

ALLOCATION

DIFFERENTIAL IMPACTS

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% Permanent Row

Relative Change in Profit from Business as Usual

Relative Change in Profit Compared to Business-as-Usual

by Crop Type and Allocation Method

Historic Use Equal by Developed Acre Equal by Acre

ALLOCATION

DOMESTIC WATER AVAILABILITY

GALLONS PER PERSON UNDER PERMANENT SHARE ALLOCATIONS

Equal by Acre Equal by Developed Acre Historic Use and District Requirement Minimum Allocation

0.54 AF/acre 0.68 AF/ac 0.41-1.27 AF/ac

100 gallons/person/day

Richgrove CSD

52*

Gallons/person/day

65*

Gallons/person/day

131

Gallons/person/day

1.05

AF/acre

Ducor CSD

208

Gallons/person/day

262

Gallons/person/day

158

Gallons/person/day

0.26

AF/acre

City of Porterville

87*

Gallons/person/day

110

Gallons/person/day

196

Gallons/person/day

0.62

AF/acre

*Does not meet average water use of 100 gallons/person/day

BUFFER

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Percentage of Initial Transitional Share Allocation Years of Transition

20-25% buffer

WEIGH THE TRADEOFFS

Groundwater Sustainability Economic Impacts Domestic Water Availability Stakeholder Acceptance

5 years Equal by Acre Equal by Developed Acre Historic/District 10 years Equal by Acre Equal by Developed Acre Historic/District 15 years Equal by Acre Equal by Developed Acre Historic/District

Groundwater Sustainability Economic Impacts Domestic Water Availability Stakeholder Acceptance

5 years Equal by Acre Equal by Developed Acre Historic/District 10 years Equal by Acre Equal by Developed Acre Historic/District 15 years Equal by Acre Equal by Developed Acre Historic/District

QUESTIONS