Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - April 18, 2007 K-04AGENDA ITEM A*A • CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TM AGENDA TITLE: Review Groundwater Charge for City Wells Proposed by the North San Joaquin Water Conservation District and Direct Staff as Appropriate MEETING DATE: April 18,2007 (Carried overfrom meeting of 4/4/07) PREPARED B Y Public Works Director RECOMMENDEDACTION: Receive a report on the groundwater charge proposed by the North San Joaquin Water Conservation District and direct staff on the Council's desired response as appropriate. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The North San Joaquin Water Conservation District (NSJWCD) is conducting a public hearing on a proposed groundwater charge on April 30,2007 (Exhibit A). The proposed charge would be imposed on well owners, including the City of Lodi's wells within the District. The charge to the City would total about $200,000 per year. The District is proposing to implement a number of projects to utilize "wet year" water for groundwater recharge and direct irrigation, thereby minimizing groundwater pumping. Of course, all these efforts are aimed are reducing the groundwater overdraft situation that exists throughoutthe Eastern San Joaquin Basin. Various engineering studies have documented the overdraft and project that it will continue to worsen and will accelerate in the area directly east of Lodi, which is the NSJWCD. Computer modeling of the basin shows that the groundwater gradient in the Lodi area will, overtime, shift from a north -to -south orientation to a west -to -east orientation. This means that lower quality groundwaterfrom the west will migrate toward Lodi. This is of long-term concern to the City. A copy of the District's Engineer's Report on the proposed charge is attached (Exhibit B). While the City has taken major steps to reduce our reliance on groundwater pumping, we are far from eliminating it, and future lowering of groundwater elevations and the change in gradient will have an adverse economic affect on the City. The City's options on this matter are to actively support the charge, take no action, or file a protest at or before the scheduled hearing. Staff supports the intent and need for the charge; we suggest the Council concur and request payment terms that reduce the cash flow impact to the already -stressed Water Fund. District staff has indicated the charge is not likely to be imposed this fiscal year. While the charge can be included in the Water Fund budgetfor FY07/08, we are concerned about our cash flow and have informallyasked the District to consider some type of timed payment arrangement. We believewe will be able to work out a suitable arrangement should the Council provide that direction. FISCAL IMPACT: A $200,000 annual charge represents approximately 2.4% of the Water Fund annual revenue. The recent discontinuance of the discount program offsets about 2/3 of this additional cost. The remaining costwill need to be absorbed within the Fund. Given other demands on the Fund, staff would suggest this cost be considered along with all other issues involving water at a later date. FUNDINGAVAILABLE: Not applicable. 4, Attachments oc: Steve Schwabauer, City Attorney Ed Steffan!, North San Joaquin Water Conservation District Richard Prima, Jr. PublicWorks Director Charlie Swimley, Water Services Manager: APPROVED: Blai� City Manager K:1WP\COUNCIL1071NSJWCD Groundwater Charge. doe 4/6/2007 r -t , y. Exhibit A DIRECTORS NORTH SAN J OAQ U I N WATER EE �BpALL MMpp��pa John Ferreira EtlwardrAa 8tetfanlER Thomas Holtman Matthp anGaalen CONSERVATION DISTRICT k`arna'tl argfefdrL FmclWeybnet 221 W. Pine St., Lodi, CA 95240 March 14,2007 ,C�� cn aid Cyr M C-1 �..�d_1. Dear Well Owner, The North San Joaquin Water Conservation District proposes a charge for pumping groundwater. This is necessary to fund groundwater recharge and irrigation supply projects and to prevent the State from taking our water rights. As you well know, our groundwater basin is severely overdrafted. We pump approximately 200,000 acre-feet more than is naturally replaced every year in the eastern San Joaquin County basin. A house in the City uses about 0.5 acre-feet per year while an acre of orchard uses 2.8 acre-feet per year. Not only is it necessary that more surface water be recharged and used in place of groundwater, it is mandatory that we show the State that we are serious about correcting the overdraft. If we don't convince the State of our good intentions, we will lose our right to take surface water from the Mokelumne River and will have our well pumping restricted. The proposed agriculture charge would be the same as that imposed by our neighbor, Stockton East Water District (SEWD). The proposed rural residential rate of $21.40 would be less than SEWD's $32.50. Charges would be as follows: $ 4.28 per acre-foot for agriculture $ 21.40 per acre-foot for non agriculture The estimated charge for your property is based upon the above rate and assumes the following: • Irrigated pasture and golf courses, 4.0 acre-feet annually (AFA) for a charge of $17.12 per acre • Orchard and row crop use of 2.8 (AFA) for a charge of $11.98 per acre • Vineyard use of 1.5 (AFA) for a charge of $6.42 per acre • Single family rural residential use of 1 (AFA) for a charge of $21.40 All other uses will be estimated, with the understanding that the District will revise the charges to reflect any actual use measured by the property owner, with a water meter or with PG&E electric meter reading. K:IWPISTEFFANIILETTERS%LWELL OWNERS -CHARGE FOR PUMPING.DOC The District has made these estimates using information provided by the County Assessor. Should you have any questions, please write the District Manager, P.O. Box 428, Clements, CA 95227. Should these charges be imposed, the District would eliminate the current $50 per acre surface water charge. This will encourage people to use more surface water and less groundwater. Some of you already have access to surface water. Planned improvements would make it available to more people. The District's Board of Directorswill consider adopting these charges at a public hearing scheduled for 5:00 P. M., Monday, April 30, 2007 in Crete Hall, Hutchins Street Square, 125 South Hutchins Street, Lodi, California. ENMN EER'S REPORT PROPOSED GROUNDWATER CHARGE MARCH 2007 The following report has been prepared in accordance with Section 75561 of the Water Code. Annual Overdraft Overdraft of the Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Basin has been common knowledge since the early 1900's when falling levels made use of centrifugal pumps impossible unless pits were dug to keep the suction lift under twenty feet. Continuing decline of water levels led to the invention of the vertical turbine pump. Dangerously low water levels in the Stockton area during the 1970's caused the electorate to vote overwhelming in favor of a Stockton East Water District Treatment Plant to treat surface water from New Hogan Reservoir. The State formally recognized the problem in 1982 when it designated the Basin as being "critically overdrafted". A number of studies have been completed over the years, with the first detailed report by Brown and Caldwell, consulting engineers, accepted in 1985. That study estimated the overdraft to be 269,000 acre-feet annually (AFA) for the 600,000 acre area of San Joaquin County lying easterly of the San.Joaquin River. More recent studies have estimated the overdraft to be anywhere from 130,000 to 200,000 AFA. No absolute number is possible, only estimates, at least at this point. I will use 200,000 AFA as a reasonable estimate of the overdraft. This works out to be about 0.33 AFA for each of the approximate 600,000 acres within the Basin. At any rate, the 200,000 AFA figure is reasonable for current development. We know that an overdraft of 200,000 AFA causes groundwater levels to fall about 1 foot per year. Some areas see a little more and others a little less. Please see the following table for wells within the District. Exhibit B 1,7-4- Ground Water Elevation Data Location Water Elevations Decline YearlElevation YearlElevation Feet/Year Source- EBMUD Records elo Clements Rd & No Kettleman 1962 17.7 2002 -21.2 1.0 East end of Kettleman 1962 27.2 2002 -25.6 1.3 Kettleman between Tufty & Linn 1962 -1.6 2002 -35.8 0.9 Harney at Tully 1962 -3.6 2002 -38.4 0.9 Jack Tone slo Harney Lane 1962 -10.0 2002 -38.7 0.7 Tully slo Harney Lane 1962 -3.2 1988 -23.1 0.8 Tully at Live Oak 1962 -11.3 1988 -27.4 0.7 Linn at Sargent 1962 12.9 2002 -27.0 1 Brandt at Tully 1964 2.8 2002 -24.2 0.7 No Sargent, elo Tully 1962 3.2 2002 -29.9 0.8 Kettleman at Linn 1962 5.2 2002 -34.6 1 Source -County Data Liberty Road at Mackville Road 1975 20.0 1998 -13.0 1.4 Liberty at Hwy 88 1975 60.0 1998 60.0 0 Clements at Hwy 88 1975 50.0 1998 3.0 2 Clements at Brandt Road 1975 9.0 1998 -22.0 1.3 Clements at Harney Lane 1975 -10.0 1998 -32.0 1 Source - EBMUD Records Liberty elo Bruella 1962 0.6 1978 -40.1 2.5 Liberty elo Bruella 1973 -19.0 2002 -35.7 0.6 Collier wlo Bruella 1966 -14.4 2002 -33.4 0.5 Collier wlo Mackville 1962 37.8 1999 -4.91 . 1.2 Collier wlo Hwy 88 1952 52.5 2002 2.9 1.3 Buena Vista Road 1962 73.6 2002 54.8 0.5 No Hwy 12 & elo Hwy 99 1962 61.8 2002 33.3 0.7 Hwy 88 No Hwy 12 1962 47.0 2002 8.5 1 Ground Water Elevation Data Water Elevation Decline Historical Location High" Latest YearlElevation YearlElevation Feet/ Year Soucre -County Data Collier & Eunice 1963 -8.0 2002 -18.6 0.3 Collier & Kennefick 1960 -4.8 2002 -34.5 0.7 Hwy 99 & Jahant 1960 -0.1 2002 -19.6 0.5 Peltier & Kennefick 1958 11.91 2002 -29.8 0.9 Acampo elo Hwy 99 1958 16.5 2002 -10.6 0.6 Hwy 99 & Woodbridge 1958 24.5 2002 4.0 0.5 Locke wlo Hwy 88 1963 11.5 2002 -15.6 0.7 Brandt & Tully 1959 16.6 2002 -27.6 1 Hwy 12 & Locust Tree 1958 19.7 2002 -18.8 0.9 Ground Water Elevation Data Source - County Data Hwy 12 & Alpine Kettleman & Curry Kettleman & Hwy 99 Harney & Vintage Harney& Hwy 88 Alpine & Handel Armstrong & Lower Sacramento Jack Tone & Live Oak Ham and West Lane Water Elevation Historical Latest High.. Year/Elevation Year/Elevation 1958 1960 1983 1965 1965 1980 1960 1958 1971 21.4 15.0 -2.6 -0.7 -2.4 -30.5 0.6 8.6 -1.2 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 -18.6 -19.7 -24.3 -32.0 -31.0 -32.0 -34.2 -46.7 -21.9 Decline Feet/Year 0.9 0.8 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.8 1.3 0.7 "* San Joaquin County and Slockton East Water District began monitoring levels in the 1950s. Based upon the above assumption that the average overdraft is 0.33 AFA per acre, the 150,000 acre North San Joaquin Water Conservation District (District) has a current overdraft of 50,000AFA. But only 100,000 acres of the District have been developed and now use 173,000 AFA of groundwater. Some 50,000 acres are dry pasture which are and will be developed. Vineyards and houses are moving into the dry pasture area. A 200 acre vineyard is replacing dry pasture across from my 10 acres of irrigated pasture (formerly dry). Assuming a new groundwater demand of 1.75 AF/acre, development of the 50,000 acres will increase the District overdraft to 137.500 AFA. Accumulated Overdraft The accumulated overdraft from the time man began pumping groundwaterfrom the Basin probably approaches ten million acre-feet. It would be impractical to try to bring the Basin back to "natural pre -man" conditions. It is generally accepted that the empty, usable space (accumulated overdraft) is somewhere between two and three million acre- feet. Again, assuming that the accumulated overdraft is spread uniformly throughout the Basin, the District's share is 500,000 to 750,000 acre-feet. Groundwater Production for 2005-2006' The following table develops groundwater use by type of development within the District. Water Code Section 75507 defines water year as July 151 to June 301'. consider the 2005-2006 groundwater production to be fairly normal. Production increases during dry years and decreases when rainfall is high. It also increases slightly when surface water is not available to the District (drier years). Estimated Overdraft for 2006 -2007 -and 2007-2008 As stated earlier, the accepted figure for current average annual overdraft is 50,000 AFA for the District. It is greater in dry years and less in wet years and will increase in the future. By definition, we divide the historical hydrology into five equal classifications; wet, above normal, below normal, dry, and critically dry. This means that overdraft would be greater during roughly 40% of the time, and less during 40% of the time. _- We believe that average natural recharge of the Basin is approximately 1 foot per year, from rainfall, irrigation percolation, and streams. fq—jl� Estimated Groundwater Use 2005-2006 Use Code Description Quantity AFA/Unit Total AFA 0 Single Family Dwelling 100 each 0.5 50 51 Rural Residential 2428 each 1 2,428 52 Rural Residential, 2+ Residences 250 each 2 500 291 Nursery 716 Acres 4 2,864 352 Large Winery 10 each 4 40 353 Small Winery 6 each 2 12 - Misc. Commercial 100 each 0.5 50 401 Irrigated Orchard 8,185 acres 2.8 22,918 420 Irrigated Vineyard 45,309 acres 1.5 67,964 450 Irrigated Row Crops 7,204 acres 2.8 20,171 460 Irrigated Pasture 11,070 acres 4 44,280 462 Horse Ranch 40 each 2 80 471 Dairy 27 each 5 135 480 Poultry Ranch 13 each 5 65 - Ag. Residences 1,028 each 1 1,028 - Golf Courses 592 acres 4 2,368 - Cemeteries 83 acres 4 332 - Lodi Schools` 27 - City of Lodi - - 9,300 - Lockeford Community SVC District 520 - County Service Areas - - 232 - Micke Grove park 62 acres 4 248 - Micke Grove Golf Course 87 acres 4 348 Subtotal 175,960 Less Surface Water -3000 TOTAL 172,960 • 'Not included in City or Service Areas consider the 2005-2006 groundwater production to be fairly normal. Production increases during dry years and decreases when rainfall is high. It also increases slightly when surface water is not available to the District (drier years). Estimated Overdraft for 2006 -2007 -and 2007-2008 As stated earlier, the accepted figure for current average annual overdraft is 50,000 AFA for the District. It is greater in dry years and less in wet years and will increase in the future. By definition, we divide the historical hydrology into five equal classifications; wet, above normal, below normal, dry, and critically dry. This means that overdraft would be greater during roughly 40% of the time, and less during 40% of the time. _- We believe that average natural recharge of the Basin is approximately 1 foot per year, from rainfall, irrigation percolation, and streams. fq—jl� This means that approximately 600,000 AFA are naturally recharged during an average year. Remember that on an average, approximately 800,000 AFA are currently taken from the Basin, causing a 200,000 AFA overdraft. Remember also, that the average water level decline is about 1 foot per year. Assuming 2006-2007 (with its very hot summer) and apparently dry winter is a "below normal year", we can say that the overdraft will be greater than average, and probably about 100,000 acre-feet. And, assuming 2007-2008 will be normal, we estimate the overdraft will be 50,000 acre- feet. Surface Water Needed for 2006-2007 As indicated above, 50,000 acre-feet of surface water would be required annually to offset an average overdraft of that amount, but surface water is not currently available every year. The only realistic way to deal with an average overdraft of 50,000 AFA, is to use 100,000 acre-feet or more during wet years because none is available in dry years. The District is currently fighting to keep its current, temporary right to 20,000 AFA of Mokelumne Riverwater which is available almost 70% of the time. The District must not only increase its use from the current 3,000 AFA to 20,000 AFA, but must also acquire another 80,000 AFA for use during wet years, just to cope with the overdraft caused by existing development. Another 175,000AFA would be required during wet years to replace groundwater used by possible, future development. A Catastrophe in the Makina North San Joaquin Water Conservation District and all other agencies within Eastern San Joaquin County must take immediate action to correct the overdraft. If nothing is done, the State will proceed with "adjudication" of the Basin. Adjudication means limiting groundwater pumping to natural recharge. It would result in all pumpers being restricted to approximately 75% of what they pump today. It would also eliminate any future developmentthat would need more than 75% of the current groundwater use for a specific location. R. li. M. I /-OZ)/- CITY COUNCIL BOB JOHNSON, Mayor JOANNE L. MOUNCE Mayor Pro Tempore LARRY 0. HANSEN SUSAN HITCHCOCK PHIL KATZAKIAN CITY OF LODI PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET P.O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 (209)333-6706 FAX (209) 333-6710 EMAIL pwdept@lodi.gov http:\\www.lodi.gov April 11,2007 Mr. Ed Steffani, District Manager North San Joaquin Water Conservation District P.O. Box 428 Clements, CA 95227 BLAIR KING City Manager RANDIJOHL City Clerk 0. STEVEN SCHWABAUER City Attorney RICHARD C. PRIMA, JR. Public Works Director SUBJECT: Review Groundwater Charge for City Wells Proposed by the North San Joaquin Water Conservation District and Direct Staff as Appropriate Enclosed is a copy of background information on an item on the City Council agenda of Wednesday, April 18, 2007. The meeting will be held at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street. This item is on the regular calendarfor Council discussion. You are welcome to attend. If you wish to write to the City Council, please address your letter to City Council, City of Lodi, P. O. Box 3006, Lodi, California, 95241-1910. Be sure to allow time for the mail. Or, you may hand-deliverthe letter to City Hall, 221 West Pine Street. if you wish to address the Council at the Council Meeting, be sure to fill out a speaker's card (available at the Carnegie Forum immediately prior to the start of the meeting) and give it to the City Clerk. If you have any questions about communicating with the Council, please contact Randi Johl, City Clerk, at (209) 333-6702. If you have any questions about the item itself, please calf me at (209) 333-6759. T '-� �� Richard C. Prima, Jr. �r Public Works Director RCPipmf Enclosure cc: City Clerk NNSJWCD GROUNDWATER CHARGE.DOC