DWR: SGMO Newsletter February 12, 2020

Thursday, February 13, 2020
Greetings, All,
Here is the place to begin watching for the Santa Cruz mid-County Groundwater GSP post and opportunity for public comment. The GSP was submitted January 30, 2020, but is not yet posted and ready for comment.
Also, take a look at the grants awarded in a post a bit later in the list of available notices. Nearly every agency was awarded whatever amount they asked for, but note that Salinas Basin was given almost $1million more than what they requested!
Take care,
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: sgmps@DWR <>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020, 07:09:05 PM UTC
Subject: DWR: SGMO Newsletter February 12, 2020

Updates from the California Department of Water Resources’ Sustainable Groundwater Management Office.cid:image003.jpg@01D5E192.417D4060



February 12, 2020



Upcoming Events

  • View Posted GSPs, Public Comment Open for 24 GSPs
  • Annual Reports Required by April 1, 2020
  • SGMA Workshop Materials Now Online
  • Learn About Technical Support Projects
  • Written Translation Service Now Available
  • Draft SGM Grant Awardees Announced
  • Draft Handbook for Water Budget Development Released
  • New SVSim Model Data Posted
  • Nothing at this time


NEW View Posted GSPs and Make a Public Comment

Groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) for critically overdrafted basins were due to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) by January 31, 2020. Twenty-four of those plans are posted on the SGMA Portal and are open for public comment through April 15, 2020. The remaining plans will be posted and open for public comment in the coming weeks.

Public comments on the GSPs are welcomed and encouraged. Information about how to comment on a plan can be found in a new fact sheet in English and Spanish.

DWR will provide regular updates on submitted plans and public comment periods.

For questions, email

NEW Annual Reports Required by April 1, 2020

Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) which have submitted a GSP or Alternative to a GSP are required to submit an annual report to DWR by April 1. These reports will provide information on groundwater conditions and an update on implementation efforts for the prior water year. Information on what is expected in a report and how to submit these reports will be provided in the coming weeks.

NEW See the SGMA Workshop Video and PowerPoints

Earlier this year, DWR and the State Water Resources Control Board (Board) held regional workshops focused on evaluation of sustainability plans, the state’s role, annual reporting requirements and available resources.  DWR plans to hold additional SGMA Workshops in the future.

Many new tools are available online:

For questions, email

NEW Learn more about DWR’s Technical Support Projects

DWR is advancing eight new projects to provide GSAs, stakeholders, and the public with regional and statewide data, tools, and analysis aligned with the technical requirements of the GSP regulations and SGMA.

Below are fact sheets for each project:

These projects are funded by Proposition 68.

For information, visit the Prop 68 tab on the Data and Tools webpage.

NEW Written Translation Service Now Available

DWR’s Written Translation Service is available to help with communication to non-English speaking constituents. Translation services for materials are available in Chinese, Hmong, Korean, Laotian, Punjabi, Spanish, Tagalog, and Vietnamese.

Visit the Written Translation tab on the Assistance and Engagement webpage for details.

NEW SGM Grant Draft Awardees Announced

DWR recently announced draft recommended funding awards for approximately $46.25 million in Proposition 68 and $1.2 million in Proposition 1 grant funding. The grants will assist awardees in developing a GSP or updating an approved Alternative to a GSP. Funding priority was given to applicants who had not received the SGM Planning – Round 2 funding.

For more information, visit the SGM Grant Program webpage.

NEW Draft Handbook for Water Budget Development Released

DWR has released a draft single-volume Handbook for Water Budget Development: With or Without Models, which presents existing information on various methods and data sources for developing water budgets. The Water Budget Handbook can help inform the development of water budgets for any geographic area and time period, using modeling and non-modeling approaches.

For more information, check out the Frequently Asked Questions on the Water Budget Handbook. The comment period is now open on the draft document and closes on April 7, 2020.

Email comments to, attention Abdul Khan.
For information on the Water Budget Handbook visit the Reports tab on the Data and Tools webpage.

NEW New SVSim Model Data Posted

The Future Water Supply program has posted the model mesh (node, element, and layer) data on the Sacramento Valley Groundwater-Surface Water Simulation Model (SVSim)These data are ASCII-formatted input for the Integrated Water Flow Model, which is the numerical model-code used for SVSim.

Also available are the following technical memoranda:

For questions or more information, contact Linda Bond at or Chris Bonds at

REMINDER Statewide 2016 Crop Mapping Data is Online

The 2016 Statewide Crop Mapping data is now available online. This new dataset represents the 2016 main season agricultural land use, wetlands, and urban boundaries for the same time period for all 58 counties in California. For many years, DWR has collected land use data at the county level at different times across the state. Land use and crop mapping information is essential for regional analysis and decision making, which has become increasingly important as DWR, other state and local agencies, and landowners seek to manage the state’s water resources for longterm sustainability.

For questions, email

REMINDER SGMA 2019 Basin Prioritization Finalized

DWR announced in December 2019 the completion of a multi-year process to prioritize California’s 515 groundwater basins. SGMA 2019 Basin Prioritization identifies 94 basins as medium or high priority. The plans for the 21 critically overdrafted basins were due January 31, 2020, while the remainder of the plans are due beginning on January 31, 2022. No future basin prioritization projects are planned at this time.

For more information, visit DWR’s Basin Prioritization webpage.
For questions, email

REMINDER Submit Your GSP Initial Notification

Before initiating development of a GSP, GSAs are required to notify DWR in writing. GSAs must submit all applicable GSP initial notification information to DWR using the SGMA Portal – GSP Initial Notification System. The SGMA Portal also allows edits to be made to a previously submitted Initial Notification, including the ability to withdraw a submittal.

For more information, contact the Regional Coordinators in DWR’s four Regional Offices.
For assistance with the system, email

Connect with Your Basin Point of Contact

DWR has designated Basin Points of Contact to assist local agencies and GSAs as GSPs are developed and implemented and to assist with applications for Technical Support Services and Facilitation Support Services.

Northern Region

North Central Region

South Central Region

Southern Region

For regional inquiries, contact
For general inquiries, contact


Update on Water Transfer Pilot Project at Tonight’s Soquel Creek Water District Board Meeting

Tuesday, January 21, 2020

Greetings All,

I attended tonight’s Soquel Creek Water District Board meeting. Taj Dufour gave a report about the status of the Surface Water Pilot Project that I found very disappointing. Taj reported that on January 10, the City asked the District to reduce the volume of water incoming to their supply line to 250gpm to balance the City’s production needs. On January 17, the City contacted the District and asked them to shut down the transfer completely because there was a break in the main on the North Coast supply line. They anticipate it will be shut off for two weeks.

Majors Creek intake is off line for about a year. Liddell Creek is the only North Coast source. Taj also mentioned that now there are also spawning-related diversion restrictions on the creeks.
I brought to the Board’s attention the new streamlined Water Rights permit application process, and urged them to pursue that. Bruce Daniels shot it down because the City has not invited the District to take this action.
I asked when the District would begin updating their Urban Water Management Plan, which is due to be updated this year. They did not respond.


State Water Rights Permit Process Streamlined for Groundwater Recharge Projects

Greetings All,
I attended the State Dept. of Water Resources Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) workshop in Paso Robles yesterday and learned a lot about the process the State will take as the Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) for the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) submit their Plans to achieve Basin sustainability. The agencies in Basins that have been declared in “Critical Overdraft” must submit their GSP to the State by January 31, 2020, via the State portal.
I will send you my notes about that part of the presentation separately because there was information about new Water Rights permitting presented at the end that was worth the drive to Paso Robles to learn about.
Now that I know what to look for, I was able to do some research on the State website and found the information:

Apparently, changes were approved in September 2019 and include fee reductions of 25% and 75% for filing and processing for temporary water rights for surface water diversions and groundwater recharge. The greatest change is that the Temporary Emergency Water Right Permits have been extended to last from 180 days to FIVE YEARS!
Also, the way that the State allows there to be a determination if there is enough water has changed and is based on taking stream flows over a 30 year period and setting the stream flow requirement for surface water diversions to the 90th percentile of that average. Diversions would be limited to December through March, and could not exceed 20% of the total stream flow.
The State developed this Fact Sheet discussing “Beneficial Uses” and underground storage projects.
I think this is exciting news. I spoke with the State Water Resources Control Board attorney who worked on the new regulation. Her name is Nicole Kuenzi. She told me there was an excellent presentation about this given at the ACWA conference last Fall. I have looked for this presentation but I think it is available only to those who paid to attend. I have written Ms. Kuenzi to ask for a link to the material. The presentation given at yesterday’s SGMA Workshop will be available by the end of next week on the Waterboard website.
All of the Soquel Creek Water District Board members attended the ACWA conference, and their trip was paid for by the District ratepayers. Perhaps they attended a different module of presentations, so I will bring this information that I learned yesterday to their attention at the next Board meeting, scheduled for January 21, 6 pm.
I attended the Santa Cruz City Water Commission meeting last Monday evening, but arrived near the end of Brian Lockwood’s presentation about the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency modeling. I likewise have not heard any mention of the new water rights permitting process at last fall’s Commission meetings.
I did ask afterward about the status of the Water Rights Amendment and HCP. Both are coming along well and can be expected to be ready for public and environmental review this spring.
Happy New Year,


What Soquel Creek Water District is Publishing About Surface Water Transfers

Wednesday, January 1, 2020
Greetings, All,
Today, I received a newsletter from Soquel Creek Water District with a link discussing the status of the Surface Water Transfer Pilot Project.
For the most part, the information is not current and the District seems to focus on reasons why Water Transfers would not work. It bothers me tremendously that the first four items under “Resources” list “Response to Misinformation…” It includes copies of personal e-mails, including Robert Ley’s, and the District did not even redact his personal information before throwing it out on this e-mail blast that even I received (I get virtually no responses or messages from the District).
It is helpful, however, that many reports are shown with links to read them, but the bias against Water Transfers is evident.
It is interesting to see the boundaries of the Phase 2 Water Transfer area.
The information has not been updated to reflect the true status of the project, nor is there information about how successful the Phase 1 project really was. The monitoring wells in that area showed groundwater levels rose naturally, likely because of the decreased pumping from District wells and in spite of the District not accepting all the water they were entitled to take.
I sure do hope someone will run against Bruce Daniels and Tom LaHue in November. The water transfer agreement is due to end December 31 of this year.It is my opinion that those two will do all they can to make sure the agreement does not get extended or renewed.
By the way, the District included a reminder at the bottom of their e-mail newsletter that rates are going up again as of today… but no information about how much or links to the rate increase Resolutions.  It will be another 9%, to pay for PureWater Soquel.
Happy New Year,


YouTube Video of February 12 Soquel Creek Water District Water Resources and Infrastructure Management Standing Committee Meeting

February 13, 2019
Greetings, All,
My friend, Mr. Bruce Tanner, video taped the Soquel Creek Water District Standing Committee for the Supplemental Supply Standing Committee meeting where staff presented updates on the Surface Water Transfers, Pure Water Soquel, and Storm Water Recharge Projects.
Here is the link:
The update on the Surface Water Transfer Pilot Project was disappointing.  It was as if the staff were trying to shoot the Project down, stating that the City e-mailed Taj to decrease the intertie flow by 50% to accommodate neede fish flows in the North Coast streams.  Christine Mead also presented graphs showing increased levels of total trihalomethanes and haloacetic acid levels at sampling sites located at Cherryvale, Opal Cliff, Valera Drie, and O’Neill sites commensurate with the Surface Water Transfer Pilot Project.  She could not answer the question posed by one of the citizens on the committee about what the levels of those compounds are in the City’s water.
Ron just kept saying “These are all very carcinogenic.”  So, you know what will be shown at the February 19 Board meeting…..
The other big part of the presentation was  Item 3.2, dispelling “misinformation related to the water transfer project”.  Again, Ron read to the group the out-of-context e-mail from Rosemary Menard recently sent to Scott and Randa, and emphasized her phrase “there is not enough to meet both the City’s needs and the Soquel Creek Water District needs”.   To this, Ron stated “people just continue hearing what they want to hear.”
It would be best if you all watch the video of the meeting, so that we can best formulate a strategy for countering this information.
I have copied Bruce Tanner on this message… I do not have the money to pay him for his work these days, so please send him a note of thanks for his good work, done on a moment’s notice.  Without him, none of this would have been available to the public.
Take care,

Please Consider Attending Soquel Creek
Water District Board Meeting

February 3, 2019

Greetings, All,
I am asking that you either attend this Tuesday’s Soquel Creek Water District Board meeting and testify before the beginning of Closed Session, scheduled for 7–7:45 p.m., or send written comment to the Board that you would like them to reconsider and rescind their actions regarding Resolution 18-30 to certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Recharge and Seawater Intrusion Prevention Project, and Resolution 18-31 approving the Project Findings, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Board took this action at the December 18, 2018, meeting. 
I want to let you know I filed a Petition for CEQA Writ of Mandate against the District on January 17, 2019 and filed an amended Petition for Writ of Mandate on January 31. All parties were served Friday. The Case Number is 19CV00181.  
I filed the Writ of Mandate action In Pro Per because I feel the District violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) laws regarding the Project and CEQA process. Water for Santa Cruz County, a grassroots group of citizens who want to see the Surface Water Transfer Project get a fair trial before embarking on the expensive and risky Pure Water Soquel Project, had wanted to file this legal appeal action, but being an unincorporated association, would have had to hire legal counsel. Two attorneys told us it would cost $80,000 – $100,000 to do so. The group could not afford that expense, so I filed the action myself, claiming Citizen Standing. It is daunting, and the document is not perfect, but I am compelled to do my very best in this action because of the serious implications of the Board’s actions and the broad negative impacts of the Project itself.
The District Board Agenda for this Tuesday, Feb. 5, lists consideration of my legal appeal, Case No. 19CV00181, during Closed Session 7–7:45 p.m.  The Board meeting time is later than usual, due to an Ethics Training 5–7 p.m., taught by District Counsel Bob Bosso, but will be in the usual Capitola City Council Chambers.
This is what should have been evaluated as the “No Project” Alternative in the EIR, but was instead rejected altogether for consideration. The Board in fact received nearly 60 such written requests in the two days prior to their December 18, 2018 action to certify the EIR and approve the Project, but this communication was not included in the Board packet that night, and was not made available at the meeting as “late communication,” as is customary. This is also one of eight “Causes of Action” for the legal petition for writ of mandate against the District and Board, as a CEQA violation. 
I have not yet been able to transfer the Amended Petition for CEQA Writ of Mandate that I filed onto a digital form, but hope to get some help with that this week so that I can send it out to the public soon.  
For now, I think the Board really needs to hear from the public in a big way that we want to support conjunctive use of water in order to make the best use of winter storm flows and Pre-1914 water rights that allow the North Coast Stream waters to be sent to Soquel Creek Water District, and further possible water from the San Lorenzo River once the current environmental review for amending those water rights is complete. Many high-level experts agree that Santa Cruz has plenty of water, but needs a way to store it for sustained use. It has become a political issue, and one that I have suggested customers of both the District and Santa Cruz City Water write to LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission) about and ask for consolidation of the two agencies.
Here is the link to this Tuesday’s District Board Meeting Agenda:
Soquel Creek Water District Board of Directors
Please copy Emma Olin

Here is the link to Water for Santa Cruz County website: 

You can learn more about the real possibility of a regional water management solution whose infrastructure already exists, and can begin replenishing the aquifer naturally without the need for high-energy and technology dependence and without significant negative environmental degradation that could include groundwater contamination. The costly rate increases the District is currently asking ratepayers to allow for the next five years is calculated on what revenue will be needed  just to pay for the $200 Million Pure Water Soquel Project. (See November 6, 2018, District Board Agenda Packet for Raftelis rate re-structuring presentation).

As a Community, we have a responsibility to take action now to do all that we can to stop the District’s hyper-focus on Pure Water Soquel when there is another alternative that is more cost-effective, timely and will pose virtually no threat to the environment.  I hope you will help.

Please feel free to contact me for more information. The Petition for CEQA Writ of Mandate will be posted on the Water for Santa Cruz County website soon.
Becky Steinbruner


Changes in County Code Significantly Reduced Power and
Scope of Duty for County Water Advisory Commission

September 19, 2018

Greetings All,

The County Board of Supervisors today approved 29 changes to the County Code with approvals of Item 7, claiming the changes are just typos and minor corrections. However, the changes made to Code 2.58 regarding the County Water Advisory Commission were significant in that the Commission now has NO authority to make recommendations regarding the County Water Supply Annual Report that would include implementation or oversight.

This is how the Code relating to the powers and duties of the Commission read before the changes:

2.96.060 Powers and duties.

The Commission shall advise the Board of Supervisors on all matters relating to water policy, and shall specifically advise the board on the formulation, review, updating and implementation of the County’s water master plan. The Commission shall also recommend policies to the Board of Supervisors to ensure that the production of water and the development of additional water supplies are consistent with the growth management program and the General Plan of Santa Cruz County. In addition, the Commission shall recommend to the Board of Supervisors any policies necessary to protect the watersheds, groundwater, fish and game, and recreational resources of Santa Cruz County. The Commission shall also undertake other duties relating to water quality, as requested by the Board of Supervisors. [Ord. 3372 § 1, 1983; Ord. 2111, 1975; prior code § 3.19.020].

This paragraph was really whittled. This is not good. Who will provide oversight of the Annual County Water Plan?

Here is the link to the agenda (look at Item 7R).

John Ricker was in the front row of the audience, but said nothing when I commented on the item, (made during open comment, and an attempt during the Item 7 comment, Zach Friend refused to allow me to speak and turned off my microphone).

The County Water Advisory Commission meets October 3. Wednesday, at 4 p.m. in the 5th Floor Large Conference Room. Here is a link to their document regarding the Code changes:

Take care,


Summary of Soquel Creek Water District Board Meeting

September 18, 2018

Greetings, All,

I had an afternoon meeting that ran very late, so I did not arrive at the Soquel Creek Water District Board meeting until a bit after 7 p.m. The consultant from Raftelis was in the middle of the proposed rate increase re-structuring presentation (Item 6.2)

The Board was not in favor of accepting the Customer-Select models that the consultant recommended. They favor a two-tier rate system until the District installs Smart Meters that would, they feel, enable customers to have better control over water use. Basically, they just shelved all this expensive work.

During public comment, I asked for clarification that the rate increase structuring is occurring in order to fund PureWater Soquel Project. After a bit of hesitation, Leslie Strohm said yes, and Bruce Daniels added that the District is also considering stormwater capture and desal. I asked if the cost of buying water from DeepWater Desal is factored into the proposed rate increase. Ron Duncan then interjected that there would be no dialogue allowed during public comment.

I then reminded the Board that their own documentation states that the PureWater Soquel Project would raise annually operational costs by $2.5 Million in 2023–2024, and already in 2018–2019 Budget, the cost of groundwater management is over $5 Million. I reminded them that they still insist they have not chosen a supplemental supply project. “I will be so happy to see the District finally accepting the water from Santa Cruz this November” I stated. The Board did not respond.

I also asked for a definition of “Emergency Water Rates” and what criteria would be used to initiate those rates. Tom LaHue spoke up and said I could find the answer in the Community Water Plan. “Can’t you just explain it now?” I asked.  He became irritated because I had used up my three minutes already, and again directed me to the Community Water Plan and staff.

The Board approved acceptance of the Raftelis Report and moved on to a discussion about their leak adjustment policy.

Monica came to speak with me then, so I left the meeting to go outside and talk. She is doing some great work out in Capitola neighborhoods and is talking about Gary’s candidacy and values. We need to get those trifold brochures to her!

Afterward, I asked Rachel Lather about participating in a candidate forum with the three other candidates. She is agreeable and prefers a Sunday afternoon. Bruce Jaffee had already left the room, and Carla Christensen was absent.

I will contact Bruce and Carla to ask about their availability and willingness to be in a forum.

Thanks so much,


Soquel Creek Water District Board Meeting Notes

August 21, 2018

Greetings All,

I was not able to attend the Soquel Creek Water District Special Board Meeting held last night (5–6 p.m.) that was about financial rate studies and cost of service options. It did get video recorded, and I will share the YouTube link when it is available.

Unfortunately, I was late arriving at the Regular Board meeting, and missed the two Public Hearings. I saw Jon Cole outside. He did not seem pleased with the result of the Rate Adjustment Hearing. The matter was discussed further during Closed Session, but nothing was reportable.

I testified during Public Comment that I and many others would appreciate the Board’s reconsideration of Ron Duncan’s denial to grant Public Comment extension for the PureWater Soquel Draft EIR. Melanie Schumacher said the Final EIR will have a public comment period, and Ron Duncan said the District had done extensive public notification regarding the availability of the document. He said that no regulatory agency had requested the time extension, and “they’re the ones who do the most thorough examination.” Carla Christensen said the denial action is “all within the purview of what Soquel Creek Water District has done in the past. Forty-five days is enough time if you focus on things that bother you the most.” The Board took no further action regarding Public Comment time.

The rest of the meeting included staff reports and business items regarding a Will Serve Letter, but more importantly was the action taken to approve the AMI Meter Project CEQA-exempt and to declare it a conservation project.


HydroMetrics got bought by a larger company named Montgomery and Associates. Some of the modeling work has been postponed.

Taj Dufour announced only one bid came in for the Granite Way Well project. The bid price was over $900,000 and much too high (his engineer’s estimate was $200,000). He recommended rejecting the bid, and returning to the Board in September with a re-packaged bid proposal that would separate the work into smaller projects. This would allow a well drilling company to install the pump and another contractor to install the electrical cabinets, etc.

Trenchless Technologies will begin working on the Service Area 3 and 4 intertie next month.

Black and Veatch consultants will be presenting the Bench Test Report to the Santa Cruz City Water Advisory Commission on August 27.

Christine Mead reported that the O’Neill Ranch Well modifications were done last week to install a carbon steel casing in the upper portion of the screen.


Shelley Flock described the District plan to begin converting meters from the AMR (radio-signaled drive-by system) with the AMI (SmartMeter transmitting devices) system. The AMR meters are failing prematurely, requiring regular meter reading personnel to have to take meter readings. These failing meters from Allegro are still under warranty, but the Board made the decision in April to replace them with the SmartMeter system and begin in the Aptos Village Project area.

Shelley said the AMI meters can qualify as a water conservation measure, saving an estimated 86AF in 10 years. Therefore, the $1 Million project can be paid for by WDO funds. She did point out that District customers are already some of the best conservation-minded in the state, and that water use has already been reduced just with voluntary conservation, so it may be difficult to measure a real water savings with the AMI meters.

Bruce Jaffee commented that the project will not cost the ratepayers anything because it is WDO developer money, and therefore a “benefit to customers”. He did ask a lot of questions about the measurability of the savings and how quickly the benefit to the aquifer any savings might be. He also asked about future transmitter and tower locations of the four base stations and 8 repeaters that will be necessary, noting that some may be within 1/4 mile of a school. He wondered about a pilot test area to determine if there might be problems with signal transmission.

Alyssa, the analyst, noted that it would take at least two years to really get accurate water saving data.

Ron Duncan stated that the AMR meters are guaranteed for 20 years, but are failing significantly.

Shelley said about 3,000 meters will be changed out in the first pilot test area, about 1/4 of the service connections (note: that seems like a low number to me).

Bruce Jaffee stated that he had no doubt the AMI meters will save water, but he wondered how much. He wanted more information before approving the project, and just could not approve the 86AF/year savings over 10 years.

Rachel Lather said the leak detection notices sent daily would be helpful, as opposed to notices sent at billing time.

Ron Duncan and staff said they would need Board approval before being able to develop the project implementation, which would give the Board more information. Ron said staff could probably reduce the AF savings and return to the Board.

Ultimately, the Board directed staff to develop parameters of the pilot project area and develop more information before returning to the Board. Bruce Jaffee said “This is going to take time to get any savings.”

A resident of Monterey County, Ms. Nina Beety, had come to testify regarding the problems associated with the AMI meters. They are plagued with the problem of erroneous billing. She disagreed that it could be classified as a conservation project because the ratepayers are already conserving at a maximum level, and Public Utility Commission reports show that SmartMeters do not result in a decrease in the utility use. She pointed out the problem of meter malfunction being an historic issue, and that there are many people adversely affected by the pulsing meter signals.

I brought up the District criteria that any WDO-funded project had to be a conservation project THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE OTHERWISE” and that the District already had budgeted the money to do the AMR meter project. (This was later confirmed by both Shelley and Leslie). I reminded the Board that they first brought up the possibility of switching the AMR meter project to a WDO-funded project at their July Special Board meeting when they were discussing how to fund the PureWater Soquel Project. I repeated that the AMR meter project did not satisfy the District’s own criteria for a WDO project.

There were a few other members of the public who spoke out against the AMI meters for the negative health impacts known to be associated with the technology.

After the meeting, I asked Mr. Bosso, legal counsel for the District, if he felt the AMI Project truly met the legal criteria for a WDO project? “Well, the Board does, and the Board sets the policy,” was his answer. Wow.

That’s about all I have to report.

Take care,

Leslie Strohm (financial manager) pointed out that the AMI project was in the District Budget.

Water District Public Outreach Committee Meeting

August 14, 2018

Greetings All,


I attended the Soquel Creek Water District Public Outreach Committee meeting this morning (10:30–11:30 a.m.) at District Offices.  During Open Public Comment, I asked Ron Duncan if he had decided to extend the Public Comment period for the Draft PureWater Soquel Project. He said NO, because the delay to the Project would be too costly. He said most of the requests for more time were not from ratepayers, so he felt adding the estimated $14/customer due to delays would not be justified.
I did not quite understand his logic, since the District Board still insists they have not chosen a Project. I pointed out to the Public Outreach Committee that it would help the District’s public image to grant the extra 15 days that CEQA law allows.
I was video recording the meeting until one of the Committee members, Mr. John Dickensen, who is also on the Rate Study Ad Hoc Committee (and was a BIG cheerleader for dramatically increasing customer rates), became suddenly very upset that I was recording and challenged me. Although it was a public meeting, when I asked him if he wanted me to turn off the camera even though the purpose of my recording was to give information to the public who could not attend a morning weekday meeting, he said “yes.” So I did. I will send the YouTube link for what I was able to record soon.
Mr. Dickensen then proceeded to say that it was evident at the July 31 District Draft EIR Meeting that “People who are not technical just don’t understand what’s going on. The biggest myth is water transfers because that won’t work and is a longer term problem.”  I really had to bite my tongue.
Tom LaHue then agreed, saying that “Water transfers are risky.” He then went on to tell the group about his presentations working with a fellow teacher (Jenkins) in local schools to help students understand the science behind the District’s water supply options. I wonder if we can contact the school districts and request equal time? It reminds me that when I took a Cabrillo College Extension class on greywater installation, the instructor had Vai Campbell from Soquel Creek Water District come and present the PureWater Soquel Project to the class. She refused to call on me when students were asking her questions.
Well, here are some good opportunities for Water for Santa Cruz County to get out good information to counter this stuff:
1.) This Saturday’s Cabrillo College Farmer’s Market
Vai Campbell, Education Coordinator, said she will be there talking with people about PureWater Soquel.
Can anyone go and just ask poignant questions to help get out information out? We can go in shifts and just be the moles in the crowd.
2.) October 20 – Water Festival
Heart of Soquel Park
Lots of information booths.
I also think our group needs to meet soon to strategize with Gary’s Campaign. Scott, what do you think? I work ThursdaySunday and Monday mornings are not good.

Soquel Creek Water District Special Board Meeting

July 24, 2018

Greetings, All,

The Soquel Creek Water District Board met last night at the District Office for a Special Meeting to discuss with Brown and Caldwell consultants the PureWater Soquel Project delivery plan. District Finance Director Ms. Leslie Strohm also presented information about how the District would finance the Project and led a discussion about how it would affect customer rates.

Gary and I attended, and Bruce Tanner video recorded the meeting. It should be noted that Bruce arrived at exactly 6 p.m. and the meeting and consultant presentation had already begun, Bruce having apparently missed the Public Comment item on the agenda.(I have asked Bruce to submit a letter for Public Record that the meeting began before the noticed 6 p.m. start time.)

Gary arrived at about 6:15 and I got there about 6:20. There were no other members of the public there, but the room was FULL of District staff, Board members and Brown and Caldwell consultants (four, I think).

Here is a link to the Agenda:

This was the FIFTH Special Meeting the Board has held (other dates were 5/1, 5/29, 6/19, 6/26).

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE NEXT SPECIAL BOARD MEETING WILL BE ON AUGUST 21 AT 5 P.M. AND WILL PRECEDE THE REGULAR DISTRICT BOARD MEETING AT 6 P.M., BOTH IN THE CAPITOLA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. The Special Meetings are NOT video recorded there by Community Television, but I will make sure it is video recorded and put up on public YouTube.

Here are my notes from the point I entered:

The Brown & Caldwell consultant was discussing the different delivery models for how to put the PureWater Soquel Project out to bid, built and operational in the fastest way possible. All models for the two treatment facilities (tertiary and Advanced Water Treatment) included having the builder be the designer of the Project (Design/Build or DB).

1.) Fixed Price Model

This model would have the construction company/designer issue a fixed price for the Project. That would mean the District would have to clearly specify quality aspects or run the risk of the builder taking short-cuts to save money that could negatively affect quality of the system operation. It would require the District to specify the “rules” to include about how the system be built to ensure necessary quality operation and safety redundancy.

Tom LaHue commented that the technology is common. Brown and Caldwell replied yes, but the specifications can vary and by requiring ONLY a 20% Design of the system by the contractor, it leaves much to the District to define specific redundancy components. The idea of a 20% Design is to get the contractor chosen and on-board with the Project “shovel-ready” very quickly.

By putting the Project out for proposal to a number of contractors/designers, it becomes a design competition but does not offer collaboration process for the District. The tertiary and Advanced Water Treatment (AWT) plant would be treated as two procurements, i.e., two separate projects so that Santa Cruz can weigh in more on the tertiary plant project but not necessarily the AWT facility, which could be at the West Annex or Chanticleer location (apparently not yet determined).

This model process would take seven months and is costly for contractors to submit such a proposal. The market is hot right now, so contractors are favoring large projects; PureWater Soquel is a small to medium project, so may not attract much interest. The time-line goal would be to get a design by mid-2020, and that is when the District would know the fixed cost to build the treatment facilities. This was issued as a “slow start” by Brown and Caldwell.

The District would have to pay out of pocket for the planning and procurement process, with planning done by October, 2019, and choosing a contractor/design by July 2020.

2.) Progressive Price DB

This model could allow combining or separating the treatment facilities. Sometimes there are cost savings that occur during construction, so this model allows for the savings to either be re-invested in other District projects or split with the contractor.

Taj Dufour asked if the District got grant funding, would the procurement and planning costs for each facility have to be documented separately?

Brown and Caldwell(B/C) responded that everything is all documented and there must be a mutual agreement.

Bruce Daniels stated that the District would have to clearly define system quality up front.

B/C said yes, that is an uncertain challenge but the District can have an “off ramp” to change contractors but it might be late in the process. He said if that occurred, Brown and Caldwell or some other builder would finish the design and the construction of it would then probably go out for a hard bid. He recommended scrutinizing the contractor history and making sure that all expenditures are “open book” all along. If the District paid a lump sum, the books are closed and the project just gets built.

Bruce Jaffee asked if the cost of the project goes up with this method of using an off ramp?

B/C said it is a trade-off, but yes. The challenge is ensuring quality. This model tends to be less competitive and there is no option to incorporate brand new methods or equipment that may become available after the project design and construction is in process.

B/C said the District can package a Fixed Price DB with a less than 30% design level, use the design of their choice, and submit Requests for Proposals (RFP) to get it built. That method gets the District the Project cost earlier (1-2 months saved).

Melanie Schmacher asked if doing that would lead to more change-orders if the District decided there were something they did not like. B/C replied that having a longer collaboration period (0-60%) is too long and Santa Cruz will want to be involved early, during the 0-30% design period, so he recommended just getting to 30% and then move on.

B/C said defining the wastewater treatment plant portion could have more collaboration than would be needed for the Chanticleer or West Annex plan, and the sooner you know the Project cost, the better, but can include more contingencies. Builders may resist an early Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) at a 30% design but may be willing to give a fixed price bid with a less than 30% design.

Bruce Daniels asked about specifying time lines for the project?

B/C said the District can include a calendar date for the GMP to be given.

Carla Christensen asked if the consultant and District staff would advise on this process?

B/C replied yes, there is a strong need for Operations and Management help.

Bruce Daniels asked if they must express a preference for a model?

B/C said yes, and that he recommended the Progressive DB model with an early GMP at 30% design.

The Board then did a consensus check. .Bruce Jaffee felt it was “rocket science” and beyond his scope of expertise, Rachel Lather said she was comfortable with it “but I’ve never done it”, and Tom LaHue & Carla Christensen said “okay”.

3.) Design/Build/Operate Model

This model would have the builder own the operation of the treatment facilities, with a performance-based operation (PBO) model.

This is riskier because operators will want to insist on a certain design and build it. This is a rather new model on the market and was used at the Twin Oaks Valley project [here are a couple of links to info about that large project in San Marcos, but with 10% of the project being recycled water]

B/C presented that the designer/builder brings the operator along during the design phase. Soquel Creek Water District would reach a separate agreement with an operator. If the District chose not to hire that operator to run the completed facilities, they could have their own staff operate it but would have the advantage of the consultation during design with an operator who is familiar with AWT focus. This is NOT common but brings real operators who run these plants to the design table. There are three large national operations companies that would probably be interested in participating in a Design/Build/Operate (DBO) model but this model is not generally recommended because the District would not get many bidders due to the small size of the PureWater Project. He recommended putting it out to the market and see what happens. He also said the District could pay an operator, such as American Water, to consult on the design.

Santa Cruz may not want to hire an operator but might develop their own staff, which could be sent out to assist with the AWT plant. This assistance could be included in grant funding as Professional Services Contracts.

Soquel Creek Water District would procure this operation service as a “partner” and still be involved, but the District staff would have to essentially relinquish control.

Bruce Daniels commented that if no one bids on this, the District could go back to just a DB or PDB.

The Board then did a consensus check everyone was okay with this model, with Carla Christensen commenting on the need to have Operations and Management involved early, and Bruce Daniels and Rachel Lather liking the operator involvement early in the design process.

The next portion of the PureWater Soquel Project delivery model presentation was a discussion of the PIPELINE PORTION.

B/C said that the District know pipe well, so they could use their usual process but the question is HOW TO SPEED IT UP?

He recommended that, due to the congested roadways where the pipeline is proposed (he did not include the possible railroad right -of-way that is discussed in the draft EIR), the District should consider trenchless operations whenever possible. He said that the project is challenging with a 2022 deadline to get 11 miles of pipeline on narrow streets, stream crossings, and utility crossings done with a project that would involve a lengthy design process.

This portion of the Project will involve lots of field investigation, with geo-tech surveys. Again, THE QUESTION WAS HOW TO SPEED THIS UP?

Some areas won’t need 100% design but the contractor would be on a fee basis, and start where they can early, connecting the more difficult segments later with the goal of having water ready to commission the treatment plant. The District can off-ramp, bid out the difficult areas. He recommended using trenchless technology when possible due to traffic considerations. He recommended using a large contractor in order to get cheap pipe prices (the impending international tariffs are problematic).

This option poses no performance risk. The designer would decide on the pipe size specifics. The pricing risk is transferred to the contractor because the District would get an earlier Project price.

Taj Dufour asked if the price would be based on the level of knowledge at the time about the conditions?.B/C replied that the District would want to select a contractor that would be knowledgeable enough to know where the problem areas would be and do “pot holed” investigations.

The Board then did a consensus check: all members said “okay”

The next component of the Project is the Injection and Monitoring Wells.

B/C said the District should do this work. One well could be constructed first, with others to follow, just to speed things up due to procurements at some sites. Permitting is also complicated.

B/C recommended the next step is to talk with Santa Cruz and get the EIR certified.

Melanie Schumacher stated that the Prop 1 Grant funding Application is going out this Friday.

Bruce Daniels then asked for Public Comment.

I asked the following:

1.) With the Fixed Price model off ramp option, would it be difficult to find another contractor that would be willing to step in on a project already begun with uncertain quality and potential problems? (B/C said it could be, but it doesn’t happen often that a project takes an off ramp option.)

2.) Who are the three big national AWT operating contractors?

(District Staff would not allow B/C to answer, but suggested I do an internet search. Staff got upset when I asked B/C for suggested search terms, but B/C answered “water treatment contract operations”).

3.) How would trenchless technology mesh in areas of sensitive archaeological areas and railroad bed areas that are contaminated?

(District staff would not allow answers but suggested I put that question as a formal one in the Draft EIR public comment. I am not sure if the EIR even addresses trenchless technology, having not read that section yet.)


Item 3.2 was a presentation by District Financial Manager, Ms. Leslie Strohm. She stated that the debt financing for PureWater Soquel has not been worked into the 2018-19 District Budget, and it is outside of the scope of the current Raftelis Rate Study. The Board must decide how to cover costs for this Project’s debt financing, and suggested it could come from Reserve Funds.

The problem is that the District will not know the cost until they select a qualified proposal and have a design.

Someone asked how much this might cost?

B/C would not publicly divulge a figure but said he would contact staff later.

Leslie Strohm asked the Board to consider devoting more money to the Project from Reserves while at the meeting.

Bruce Daniels commented that the District has reserved $1 Million for the AMI (Smart Meters) project and that the Board could declare that to be a water-saving project, thereby enabling Water Demand Offset (WDO) money to be used to fund it. That would free up $1 Million for PureWater debt financing.

Leslie replied that the District could take out loans later into the Project, as late as 2020, and get quicker turn-around by reimbursement for the debt.

Bruce Daniels pointed out that the Board had to also plan for getting no grant money. He asked how much the District can borrow early and keep within the debt ratio required to maintain?.Leslie Strohm said the debt ratio requirement is 1.7 with current debt burdens, but Ron Duncan corrected her it is 1.25.

Discussion then went to grant funding. Melanie Schumacher said the Prop. 1 application for the maximum $50 Million will be considered in August, final proposals considered in November and awards in early winter/ spring. The federal Title 16 Grant for $20 Million (that may take 10 years for reimbursement) will be considered in October or November. She stressed that these are competitive applications, and if the District does not receive an award, she would re-submit an application the following cycle, summer 2019.

Bruce Daniels pointed out that even if the District gets the grants, there is still at least $20 Million Project cost(assuming a $90 Million Project Cost) that the ratepayers have to fund.

B/C mentioned that the District could ask contractors for delayed payment options.

Leslie Strohm then showed some PowerPoint slides of possible Capital Improvement Projects currently scheduled. .I could not copy them down fast enough before they disappeared but the Board did discuss delaying certain projects involving pipeline replacements, wells and tanks. The main project discussed was whether to push out the new Quail Run storage tank in Aptos Village area. About the only decision made was to keep on track with tank inspections because it only costs about $3,000/year.

Leslie Strohm said the District could use the water capacity fees that new service connections pay, and that fund is currently about $3 Million.

Bruce Daniels suggested the Board consider bundling the Quail Run Tank and Cunnison Well projects with the PureWater Soquel Project funding request. The District has scheduled $6.3 Million in 2019-2020 for that project, and $700,000 in 2020-2021. (It has been insinuated by legal counsel for the Quail Run neighborhood that the purpose of the tank is to boost supply and fire protection for the Aptos Village Project subdivision.)

Bruce Jaffee asked about how this would affect monthly ratepayer bills?

Leslie Strohm said the discussion about RATE INCREASES will come before the Board at a September meeting.

Carla Christensen then asked about updating the Santa Cruz agreement. The discussion then went to the water purchase contract with Santa Cruz. Ron Duncan said he has been talking with Rosemary Menard, and that she has offered a range of prices. If there is lots of treatment needed for the water supplied, the price would change. It was pointed out that the contract expires December, 2020.

Bruce Daniels asked if Rosemary is still firm on the 300 AF/Y number?.Ron Duncan hesitated and replied “Uh, yeah.”.He said she has given prices of up to $1000/AF (that caused a gasp from staff). When Rachel Lather asked how the price was calculated, Ron Duncan said that the increases were justified the price by factoring in the improvements to the infrastructure.

Bruce Daniels then replied that the District could also play that game and add on major project costs to water sold to Santa Cruz. Ron Duncan replied that at some point, they have to be true to Prop 218.

The Board noted that the District can begin taking North Coast water this winter, and have the agreement to do so for two years until re-negotiating the price.

The Board then turned back for consensus check on the PureWater Soquel Project financing issues and allowing staff to determine which Capital Improvements would get delayed and how financing would develop for PureWater Project. Tom LaHue said yes, but with updates to the Board. Bruce Jaffee said he feels staff knows best what to do.

Rachel Lather and Tom LaHue both pointed out that there did not seem to be funding for storm water recharge projects on any of the District Project lists presented. .Staff replied that the District is looking for partners. The Seascape Golf Course, the area the District had selected for a storm water recharge project, is now for sale and it is uncertain whether the new owners would cooperate and whether the costs would be the same. Rachel Lather said she is interested in pursuing more storm water recharge projects because they tend to carry multiple public benefits such as flood control and pollution reduction in streams, so are good candidates for government grants. Ron Duncan said that Lydia (a grant consultant the District has hired for PureWater Soquel) is looking for grants of this nature.

Leslie Strohm said the Board will get staff recommendations at the next Special Board Meeting, August 21 at 5pm, preceding the regular Board meeting at 6pm in the Capitola City Council Chambers. (Again, only the Regular Meeting will be video recorded but I will either record it or ask Bruce Tanner to do so and put it on Public YouTube.)

The meeting was then adjourned at 8:30pm WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

MidCounty Groundwater Agency Meeting

July 19, 2018

Greetings, All,

Gary, thank you for giving the presentation last night. You did a great job. Jerry, thank you also for giving your presentation… I appreciated that you began with the fact that water transfers was the WSAC’s priority recommended project. That fit well with Rosemary Menard’s description of WSAC’s work and John Ricker’s history review.

Community TV recorded the presentations. Bruce Tanner, a friend of mine, was there and video recorded the MGA Board meeting that preceded the joint meeting. By the way, Tom LaHue is now the Chairman of the MGA Board.

I  got to the meeting about mid-way into John Ricker’s overview. I have an extra printout copy of Rosemary’s “City of Santa Cruz Water Supply Augmentation Strategy” I will share at our next meeting. She began with the WSAC and that the problem is inadequate water storage.  The 20-year water demand forecast for the City is flat to declining, due to new plumbing codes that require new construction use only water-saving fixtures, and that all properties sold must meet those water-saving codes but still, the projected peak-season supply gap in a multiple-year drought would be 1.2 billion gallons/year.

She then described briefly the broad nature of the nearly 100 alternative supply solutions that the WSAC examined.  She listed the recommendations generally, with additional conservation efforts being first, then “Explore the feasibility of winter water harvest to create drought supply of 3 billion gallons to provide for two years of back to back drought.” and mentioned there had been conversations with neighboring water agencies.  She also touched upon desal and recycled water.

The next section of her presentation was about implementing WSAC recommendations and began with In Lieu Transfers and Exchanges for passive recharge, wherein the ground water is ‘passively’ stored based on districts not pumping their wells. She had demands for each water agency: (noting that current demands are now lower than 2014 / 2015 levels).

SqCWD  2.3 mg/d
SVWD    1.3 mg/d
SLVWD  0.9 mg/d
Total      4.5 mg/d

She then discussed Active Recharge, storing stormwater flows in regional aquifers for future use during drought.  The key working assumptions for evaluating winter water harvest/groundwater storage options is that there needs to be an 80% recovery rate of stored water for withdrawal later. Also “All available flows within existing water rights, in excess of fish flow requirements and Santa Cruz demands may be diverted for aquifer fill year-round.”  She talked a bit about the fish issues and the Felton diversion dam. All water for in lieu and ASR must be treated to drinking water standards. It would, at current capacities, take three years to fill the Basin.

She then discussed that the real problem is multiple year drought, with a three-year drought causing big problems. She talked a bit about current climate change models predicting longer periods of drought, followed by a year of flashy storm runoff, and again, talked about storage issues. She said that due to predicted prolonged drought periods, in lieu alone is not a reliable solution to storage deficiencies.

She then discussed the current status of in-lieu, stating that the water exchange with Soquel will begin this winter, but due to fish requirements, must be kept at 300AF under the existing agreement BUT THAT CAN BE CHANGED WITH CEQA PROCESS and modeling updates.

She discussed the current status of Aquifer Storage and Recovery, that Phase I technical analyses showed no fatal flaws with any scenario examined. Existing Beltz Wells are being considered for pilot testing this winter for active injection.

Rosemary then summarized the status of two recycled water projects: internal treatment plant needs, a bulk water station and irrigation a La Barranca Park, but these are not expected to produce much of a water demand offset value.

The City is conducting a feasibility update on desal with a focus on costs, timeliness and changed conditions since 2013 (State now requires subsurface intakes, if  feasible).  This report will be coming up for review before the Water Advisory Commission NEXT MONTH.   The City will not make a decision until 2020, but timeliness of implementation will likely be an issue to get done by 2025, due to new regulations.

Ron Duncan then gave a presentation for Soquel Creek Water District, giving out bottles of recycled drinking water to members in the audience who correctly answered his questions about local supply sources.  He made the case for how much the area needs to have PureWater Soquel Project, stating “This is about risk mitigation.”  He gave glowing reports of all the grant money awarded and to be awarded. He talked about the Community Water Plan, including Deep Water Desal and the high cost of that water. He mentioned that the District partnered with the RCD and Andy Fisher on a stormwater recharge project at Seascape Golf Course, but it only will mean 30-40 AF/Y but helps.

Rosemary Menard then gave a brief presentation on the “Process Funnel” for the Groundwater Sustainability Plan elements.

Then Tom LaHue asked how many members of the community wanted to make a presentation (except I could not hear him well enough to understand that is what he was asking). I had intended to give a brief presentation about Andy Fisher’s good work mapping the County and rating areas for recharge capabilities.

Gary went first…good job.
Jerry went after…lots of information, Jerry!

Then there was discussion with the Board and Advisory Committee.

Richard Casale asked about the risks to various projects from natural disaster and/or sabotage.

John Bargetto asked about the DeepWater Desal feasibility if 15 miles of pipe have to be pulled. He asked about the actual location of the PureWater Soquel facility… Ron Duncan did not know which of the three sites under consideration will be selected.  John then asked about the concepts stated in Gary’s and Jerry’s presentations. Rosemary admitted (quite complimentarily) that the treatment plant is under-capacity to really implement lochquifer and upgrades will be difficult. She admitted, at least as much as I could hear, that Jerry’s and Gary’s ideas are good ones but it will take the City a few years to make treatment plant changes to accommodate the water transfers wholescale.

Jan Karwin talked about the PureWater Soquel EIR and that Alternative #2 was to have been done concurrently.  She also mentioned that in the document, both the City and Soquel Creek Water District guarantee water availability into the future with the implementation of this project (she thought that was rather far-reaching for a project with so many unknowns).

I asked about why Laguna Creek has been eliminated from the North Coast stream pilot water transfer project this winter.  Rosemary said it was because of the required fish flows and she had to guarantee there would be no more than the agreed-upon 300AF going to Soquel. I got rushed by Tom LaHue but got to ask two more questions:

1.) Will Soquel Creek allow a public vote on PureWater Soquel?  Ron Duncan said “NO,” it will be a Board decision.
2.) How will the District verify the state-required 60-day holding times? Ron Duncan said there is a model for that and can be verified by adding a (bromine?) tracer at injection source and mapped using monitoring wells.

That was all I was allowed to ask before the meeting closed. All my fliers about the two EIR Study Sessions that I had left on the table outside in the foyer were gone. I asked Darcy about them…she had boxed them up and hauled them to her car during the meeting. She retrieved them for me when I asked. I also handed out the County recharge map that Andy Fisher developed to as many of the Advisory Committee members as I could.

Soquel Creek Water District Board Meeting

July 17, 2018


I attended the Soquel Creek Water District Board meeting tonight. Heidi from Santa Cruz City Water Dept. was in the audience, as was Water Advisory Commissioner Walt Wadlow. The Board did not ask either of them to speak or answer questions, but did recognize Heidi.

There were several issues of interest to me, but the greatest one was regarding the Board action to accept the Water Chemistry Study by Black & Veatch. There was a good presentation by the consultant, with questions interjected by Board members, mostly about pH values.

I had been especially distressed by the final paragraph of the District staff recommendations that no water would be accepted until December 2019, and further upset that there was no discussion about this apparent delay by staff or the Board. During public comment, I asked about the December 2019 date. TAJ DUFOUR ASSURED ME THAT THE DATE WAS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR, AND THAT THE WATER TRANSFERS WILL BEGIN THIS DECEMBER 2018.

Hooray! The plan is to begin taking water THIS December. (However, the Board did not move to correct the mistake in the recommendations).

I went on to emphasize that the 250 AF/Y volume that Taj stated in his staff report on the matter (and according to the staff report, the current pilot agreement limits to 352 AF/Y) can be much greater, especially in wet years. Taj conceded that the intertie connection is capable of allowing 800 AF/Y. The 250 AF/Y figure is a computation of the Service Area 1 demand (2300 service connections). I also pointed out that in the City’s report, the recommendations and findings (page 231) did not discuss such rigorous monitoring (I was still kind of inflamed about the implications of a December 2019 acceptance date) but rather placed more emphasis on customer outreach and selected service connections for monitoring sites.

Taj also reported that Laguna Creek flows were not considered in the North Coast sources.  I meant to ask why, but my time ran out before I could pose the question. I will write him and ask. Main Street Well should be back online soon, but the O’Neill Ranch Well return to service date is unknown.

Director Daniels suggested more monitoring of the pH in the area during water transfer. Taj agreed and said the State is also requiring monitoring for disinfection by-products because of the potentially higher disinfection rate for surface waters. Bruce Daniels also had questions about the City’s orthophosphate levels, and monitoring for those impacts. Christine Meade said phosphate is routinely monitored.

Director Jaffee also had questions about the pH variability of the North Coast streams and varying times of year and storm flow. He wondered about differences in taste of the surface water and also had questions about the City’s monitoring quality for any reverse directional flow from SqCWD sources.

Director Christensen asked if it would be worthwhile to initiate a pipe loop test to study the effects of mixed source water upon stagnant service connections. (Grrrrrr…) Director Daniels also had concerns about this in terms of vacation homes with sporadic occupancy. Christine Meade and the Black & Veatch consultant both said such a study was not necessary, due to internal system mixing, and would only slow the transfer down another year.

The Board approved initiating the pilot water transfer project this year.

I was also interested in their discussion of 3–5 Year Rate Study project with Raftalis Financial Consultants (item 6.3). The Board considered which scenario to have the consultant study rate increases to support:

1.) No PureWater Soquel Project, but water transfers and stormwater recharge projects
Not favored by the Board.
2.) PureWater Soquel with No Grants
The Board considered and approved along with…

3.) PureWater Soquel with Prop. 1 Grant ($50 Million) but not Title XVI Grant (because the consultant let them know that reimbursement grant may take 10 years for payment).

I thought it was interesting to listen to the Directors minimize the value of water transfers and stormwater recharge projects, essentially stating that if the District does not move forward with PureWater Soquel, they will be sticking their heads in the sand, with salt water pushing forward, and having to possibly instill a moratorium on new service connections which would thereby eliminate their important Water Demand Offset Revenue (!).

I also thought it was amazing to hear the accountant state that the District may have to postpone all Capital Improvement Projects in order to finance PureWater Soquel and keep rates down for customers.  The Board asked what those projects might be (also amazing). The accountant (Leslie Strohm) named the Quail Run Storage Tank project ($6 million) and the Cunnison Well (she could not remember that dollar amount).

The Board directed Raftelis to develop a rate increase structure for the next five years to include PureWater Soquel with and without grants.

I spoke about the high cost of the Project, citing their feasibility report of November 2017 figure of $183+ Million, which included financing costs. That was when the estimated project cost was $60–$70 Million, but now that their consultant has alerted the Board to increased construction costs and the figure is now $90–$135 Million, the real Project cost would probably be over $200 million. Their customers just got a 17% rate increase and several fixed-income ratepayers are struggling to pay their water bills now. I reminded the Board of their mantra: Clean, Affordable water and salt water issues addressed in a timely manner. Their water will not be affordable with PureWater Soquel.

Item 6.4 was interesting: awarding the contract bid for Intertie Connection between Service Area # 3 and Service Area #4 in Seascape. There were three bids submitted, with California Trenchless, Inc being the low bidder, but failing to submit some critical information.  The next lowest bidder was Don Chapin, who had a subcontractor that does not meet the District’s requirements.  The issue that bothered me in this discussion was that neither the Board nor staff would discuss or consider the issue of potential soil contamination associated with the adjacent railroad bed soils and the fact that the project is located on an organic farm. Taj Dufour confirmed that the District has not done any soil testing for potential contamination at all.  I know those types of soils are historically very contaminated, that having been borne out by work recently conducted in the Aptos Village area as well as the Westside area with the RTC trail projects on the railroad bed.

That’s about it. I also spoke on behalf of the District renewing the intertie connection with PureSource Water (my community water supplier) item 6.5.  Bruce Daniels was the lone vote against the renewal because “this little ragtag water system operating on a shoe string is relying on us to provide redundancy for their reliability and that is not right.”  He said he felt the State should consolidate PureSource with the District.  Director Christensen also asked about that issue, but voted to extend the inter-tie agreement.  PureSource uses the inter-tie only in emergencies and pays over$10/unit.  When Soquel Creek Water District has emergencies and buys water from Central Water District, they pay $7/unit (748 gal) bulk water rate.  Soquel Creek Water District charges customers nearly $59/1000 gal. for bulk water

I look forward to seeing you all Thursday night at the MidCounty Groundwater Agency Joint meeting.

February 2019


February 2019

• YouTube Video of February 12 Soquel Creek Water District Water Resources and Infrastructure Management Standing Committee Meeting

• Please Consider Attending Soquel Creek Water District Board Meeting

September 2018

• Changes in County Code Significantly Reduced Power and
Scope of Duty for County Water Advisory Commission

August 2018

• Soquel Creek Water District Board Meeting Notes

July 2018

• Water District Public Outreach Committee Meeting

• MidCounty Groundwater Agency Meeting

• Soquel Creek Water District Board Meeting