Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee, Tuesday, March 10, 2026
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee California State Assembly
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 3
Just before the most recent storms, the board issued the last of nine recharge permits for this season, authorizing over 43,000 acre feet of underground storage, enough water for over a 128,000 households for a year. This includes seven five year permits. That's the highest number that we've issued since they became available in 2020. Two additional five year permits from 2023 actually remain active. That's why we have the full seven.
These permits were issued across the Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, and Scott River watersheds, underscoring their importance statewide. These permits matter because they allow permittees to recharge for five consecutive years without reapplying, creating consistency and allowing applicants to plan and invest in related projects with confidence. More significantly, the five year permits create more flexibility to respond to year to year changes in hydrology. The primary driver in whether groundwater recharge occurs is not the presence or absence of a permit, but rather is whether or not it rains. The longer duration enables permittees to adapt to the weather whiplash that comes with worsening climate change, taking advantage of larger volumes of water when they are available.
For many reasons, groundwater is a key to our water security in the future. Groundwater recharge does not have the same constraints associated with surface water reservoirs. Recharge projects can be developed very quickly, can utilize existing land, generally have lower environmental impacts, and have significantly lower management and operation needs. Recharge projects can also help reduce flood risk in some areas, which can benefit both water storage as well as health and safety of downstream communities. Groundwater sustainability agencies agree and are banking on recharge projects to allow them to meet their goals at the local level.
Temporary permits offer an opportunity to test out pilot projects and concepts before investing in more significant infrastructure and costs that go along with a permanent water right. This provides valuable operational environmental data over multiple hydrologic cycles and can inform larger investments in groundwater recharge and storage. As the Siskiyou County farmer permitee noted, the five year structure provides consistency, encompasses periods of dryness and wetness, and allows us to learn things we cannot anticipate today. So we've improved operationally here. The board's streamlined, approach has cut permit approval time to roughly four months, down from up to a year.
A key aspect of this approach is recognizing that when extremely high flow events occur, there is often more water in the system than claimed by water rights, and therefore, we can streamline the board's process to assess water availability, which ensures water existing water users are not harmed. As a reminder, without some kind of process to examine existing water uses, someone upstream of Sacramento or American Rivers could start taking flows that the city currently relies on to bring, water to taps in this capital building. That is why it's important to have a process to determine how much water is actually available for new uses. Lower fleet fees and the simplified process have made recharge more accessible, especially for GSAs in high and medium priority basins seeking to recharge and reduce groundwater and and increase groundwater resilience. Permits also include essential safeguards, such as recharge only on fallow or dormant ag lands, avoidance of dairy lands, and other measures to protect water quality and avoid harm to fish and wildlife and communities.
The board's work on groundwater recharge is in alignment with a broader set of administrative and legislative actions. The administration's water supply strategy published during the peak of the most recent, record of drought in August '22 identifies a series of actions intended to build up California's water supply and make it more resilient into long term climate change and future dry conditions. The water supply strategy identified the future loss of more than 8,000,000 acre feet of water under climate change scenarios due to hotter and drier conditions, but also noted that dry conditions would be punctuated by wetter and intense storms. The water supply strategy identified a goal of expanding groundwater recharge capacity by an additional 500,000 acre feet to help capture high flow and flood events to balance dry conditions in the future. This goal is only possible because of the pathway established by AB six fifty eight and the ability for the board to move quickly in permitting medium term recharge projects.
In 2025, the legislature passed s b 72, which was the first major overhaul of the California water plan in decades. Calif governor Newsom signed s b 72 in October 2025. Of note, the legislation updated the water code to require new planning components in the water plan and directs the Department of Water Resources to identify how California can secure an additional 9,000,000 acre feet of water by 2040. This is an ambitious but important metric. It further aligns with the state water supply strategy by identifying how California will respond to a hotter, drier future and sets California on a path to start that planning now rather than responding to count to future emergencies in an ad hoc approach.
Five year temporary permits are an important tool to meet this ambitious goal. The Department of Water Resources recently published a series of reports on managed aquifer recharge for tributaries to the San Joaquin and Delta, noting that more advanced weather forecasting and changes to how reservoir flood curves are managed could make significant volumes of water available during high float events. These are often referred to as FEROMAR or forecast informed reservoir operation managed aquifer recharge. The board's work is streamlining, in streamlining temporary permit processes, in part relying on AB six fifty eight pathways will be an important tool to test out Furomar projects. Now just a space of where the legislature could potentially improve and strengthen the program.
You know, the five year implementation, we've learned improvements would definitely be useful. One would be around the flexibility and start times for five year permits. Currently, the five year clock begins immediately once the permit is issued. Allowing up to two years to begin the five year operational period would greatly benefit permittees facing construction timelines or obtaining new equipment like pumps, drought years with little to no recharge, or simply the time required to obtain the implement and implement a permit. This flexibility would increase participation and maximize recharge when conditions allow.
Additionally, suggestion would be codification of CEQA exemptions. The board's current ability to expedite recharge permits depends on CEQA exemptions established through existing executive orders. These exemptions have been instrumental in accelerating permit review, but executive orders can expire. Under the existing CEQA's extensions, tribal and environmental concerns have not been ignored. The board still evaluates potential impacts to water rights holders, fish and wildlife, water quality, and cultural resources before issuing a permit.
The water code requires the board notice these temporary permits for public input and objection and specifically requires the Board to conduct multi part tests a multi part test to evaluate the impact of a proposed temporary diversion. These requirements are independent of CEQA, meaning the Board must go through them through this rigorous analysis of these issues prior to issuing a permit. Water code section 1,433.1, which was created by AB six fifty eight, requires the board to make specific findings. Those findings include that the water may be diverted and used without injury to any lawful user of water, that regulated flows are sufficient below the point of diversion to meet in stream flow requirements and water quality objectives, that there is suitable accounting and reporting methodology. Diversions can only occur without a reasonable effect on fish and wildlife and other in stream uses.
The diversion is also required to be consistent with an adopted and interim groundwater sustainability plan if applicable. Other parts of AB six fifty eight requires consultation with CDFW in addition to the board's required findings. Furthermore, staff is still staff still conduct technical review and conduct consult with agencies and tribes when concerns are raised, and permits include protective provisions to ensure concerns are mitigated. Codifying these exemptions would provide greater stability for both permittees and the board, ensuring continued efficiency in processing future applications. We also have a robust eleven year track record showing that the Board and its partner agencies can safely and responsibly consider environmental and other CEQUA related issues when issuing temporary recharge permits without the financial and timeline requirements that CEQUA entails.
Existing requirements in the Water Code, for example, already require robust analysis of environmental public benefit impacts and are duplicative of additional CEQUA requirement. These exemptions streamline paperwork, not environmental protections. Under a full CEQA process, the requirement to conduct a CEQA analysis would fall to the local agency applying for the five year permit. That agency would need to prepare environmental documents such as initial studies or environmental impact reports. That process requires formal scoping, alternatives analysis, and extended public review periods, which can take many months or years.
Because stormwater recharge opportunities are weather dependent and short lived, these timelines would likely mean many projects miss the opportunity to capture water in wet years. As a result, fewer recharge permits would be issued and less water would be stored underground, making it harder for basins to meet underground sustainability goals. Public noticing and common opportunities also allow for robust public participation, which can identify challenges. Last, I'll say modernizing and public participation processes, as part of improvements. You know, today, the board must resolve every public objection in full before a permit can be issued.
This process can cause significant delays for permit approval and associated recharge projects during time sensitive wet periods. Transitioning from a public objection model to a public comment model would still allow members of the public to raise concerns but would not halt permit issuance while each issue is resolved. The board would continue to address any real and substantive concerns raised in comments, and the petition process would remain a crucial backstop for stakeholders who believe a permit should be reconsidered. This shift would meaningfully increase the state's ability to capture water when it is available. In closing, AB six fifty eight and the authority to issue five year temporary permits have been a genuine success.
They are an essential part of California's broader effort to build groundwater reserves, support sigma implementation, and better prepare for climate driven extremes. With targeted adjustments, greater timing flexibility, and codified CEQA exemptions similar to those we have already successfully implemented via executive order and a streamlined and meaningful public input process, the board could further enhance the effectiveness of this tool and help communities secure more water for the next drought period. Thank you, madam chair. Look forward to the discussion here.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Any questions from the from the members here? Assemblymember Gonzalez.
Speaker 4
We share the same desert region with family. I I just have a a few questions to ask to gain a little bit more clarity on on what you presented, what I'm reading, and the gap in between. Would you say you know, first of all, great job from going from twelve months to four to five. That's that's that's significant. Right?
There's no no doubt about that. That is a significant change. Would you say that there's an opportunity to streamline this even more?
Speaker 3
Yes. I think we do have an opportunity to to do better. I I covered some suggestions, but I I would note a lot of the work is taken up by protests. The water rights system affords a lot of due process to water right holders. That's important.
The challenge becomes when especially these temporary permits are trying to be issued, working through all those protests can take a lot of time. Additionally, what takes up a good amount of time in the process is water availability. Currently, each application, you know, pays consultants a good deal of money to come up with the water availability analysis that helps support the application to show that the project won't injure other water right holders, that it can be done with, importantly, protections in mind as well, that it's not going to harm fish and wildlife. That water availability analysis, though, that, you know, again, shows that you're not gonna harm other water right holders, is done with each application and sometimes a little differently. And so I know that we have focused a good bit on trying to see if we can be doing that water availability more on our own so that it's presented more as a rebuttable presumption, if you will, that people can take, not have to spend a lot of money to redo, and importantly, consistency in the watershed in how water availability is done and seen for these permits.
So all that to say that there is an opportunity to continue to to improve these permits, and I think we're we're very open to to ensuring that we support that being the case.
Speaker 4
So, you know, just kind of on that same thread, if there is an opportunity to to streamline it more or make it more efficient outside of the the external factors, right, internally in internal processes, what could you implement within this next year to make it even more internally more efficient? And what type of timelines can you can you talk to with that? You know, in the next three months, we can do this. The next nine months, we could do that. And by the twelve months, we can do the next thing.
You know, without key performance indicators, you know, it's just kind of like we're we're trying to to tune up a car without any any stats.
Speaker 3
Yeah. I appreciate that. What I would note is that it really depends on which watershed you're talking about. Obviously, we have a very large state. And so some of the work to improve processes internally, say around water availability, are more advanced in some watersheds than others.
I think of the Russian River watershed as a place where there is a supply demand assessment that we've done and talk about better doing water availability. And so far as timelines and sort of implementing those in the various watersheds here, you know, more a default water availability analysis. I'd have to go back to our staff to see, you know, where we are necessarily on some of that work, but I would note, I think the place that we have sort of some of the shorter timelines in activating some of that would be, say, like in the Russian River watershed. But a lot of the work and we know the critically overdrafted basins that we have and that we need to focus on are in the San Joaquin or in the Central Valley. So what I what I can't commit to you in this exact moment is when similar work that we're piloting, say, the Russian River watershed might be able to be applied to these other watersheds.
But it's something we can follow-up with your office and the rest of the committee on.
Speaker 4
Yeah. I I think that would be interesting for I I mean, great bill. I think it's a it's a good good start to to what we need to to accomplish. Right? There is from a water world, we get to hear all the all the interesting perspectives across.
Right?
Speaker 4
There's a lot of perspectives. There's this thought of we're at a cliff, and, you know, we're at this emergency place, and we don't have water. Then there's the the thought process of it's a management ish management of water issue. So there's multiple perspectives out there. Mhmm.
What I'm what I'm looking at, you know, this this first year that I was here was trying to define and measure what we do here in the legislature so that way those who are enacting those pieces can can can do it effectively, efficiently, so on and so forth. So now in this second year, I'm like, okay. What else can we do to help this process along, or what can we stop doing to get out of the way? In in my final question is, you know, I'm a firm believer in centralized planning, decentralized execution. Right?
So is there a way from the local level, ministerial level to allow more flexibility for them to move on a dime? Right? Hey. We have this flood movement. We have this x, y, and z, whatever happened.
That's that's really that helps those local instead of having to, you know, call you, get you on the on the line, get your team on the line. They can be a little bit more flexible in the movement to help the greater picture. What are your thoughts on on that opportunity?
Speaker 3
Yeah. I appreciate that. What we've been fortunate for is a lot of learning certainly in these last years, both through the drought, this last turn of the drought that we had, but then also 2023, which was a big water year. And what we so just kind of taking a step back. When we talk about groundwater recharge, there's kind of two main paths that you can really take.
You can use the water rights system to develop to have a temporary permit or, you know, a more permanent permit. But importantly, what that allows you to do is to take that water back out at a later time. You essentially are able to lay claim to those drops and have then a legal right to then pull that back out at a later moment. The other so that's the the more certain path, and it's a path that folks want because it allows you to build infrastructure. You have certainty and the ability to take that water back out at a later time.
The other path that we developed here in the height of the drought, and especially in 2023 when we saw such a huge water year, is the ability to recharge without a permit. And that is currently allowed through executive order and was codified through law. And that route is when flows on a system are at flood flows still to be determined, like what exactly is that flood flow threshold in many of the watersheds, but it allows you to then simply take the water off the system. You don't have to apply for a permit. You you notify the state board after the activity.
And so, to your point, is a far more responsive and quicker way you can recharge. The challenge and or the limitation, we'll say, on that path is that you don't then have a right to pull those drops back out after you've recharged them. They accrue to the basin, they accrue to the balance of the groundwater basin's supplies, but don't give you ownership or right. But we've continued to focus on that as a tool, an important one, that acknowledges when we're in a flood state, we want people to be taking water off the system. There's too much.
It is overwhelming, and we don't want folks to have to go through a whole ministerial process in order to get approval for that because, you know, it's it's a flood emergency at that point. So just note that there is that other path. That path, again, doesn't require a permit, and the distinction between the two is the ability in the end to lay claim to those drops.
Speaker 6
Thank you, madam chair. So I think according to the analysis we've looked at here so far under the one hundred and eighty day permit, we've been able to divert 58,000 acre feet. And then under the five year, only 671 acre feet so far. And so in terms of, like, performance metrics of trying to again, I think a a simple concept that I think we all agree upon that, hey. When we have excess water, storm water that we can take off of the system and store, you know, let's make sure we're taking advantage of that opportunity.
And we've had actually a lot of those opportunities in in recent years, where we have, you know, excess, you know, stormwaters where we say, hey. Let's take let's take that water and and store it either in the ground or even in above ground water storage situations. But it just seems like under those numbers are that's not really getting at what we really want. I mean, would you agree with that?
Speaker 3
Yeah. Those numbers may be a breakdown for this water year's temporary permits. I'll I'll make sure that we maybe get the full volume and breakdown of the 51 permits that we have adopted since 2015, some of those one hundred and eighty day. I only note that because I know in 2023, you know, that really big water year, we actually authorized 1,200,000 acre feet of recharge. 500,000 acre feet of that was for the Central Valley project, an adjustment to their permit.
And then, you know, 600,000 acre feet of that or so should have been for temporary permits that year and what was authorized for that year alone. Did
Speaker 3
So I I think that's an important note, that what we authorize isn't what ends up getting recharged. And I think that's because, importantly, it it's the permits may authorize a certain amount, but it's really, again, the water year and the opportunity to recharge that actually dictates what gets recharged in that year. So, yeah, I I appreciate that.
Speaker 6
A a lot of what I hear is that the process is still very is too too uncertain for a lot of districts to go through all the process and the cost, quite frankly Mhmm. Of applying and because they're not sure that even after they give the information that they're gonna get the permit. And so, you know, one of them is that there there ends up being pretty costly reviews required by water board staff.
Speaker 6
And so one of my questions was, you know so for instance, you know, when an applicant applies for a permit under the 9020 method Mhmm. In what instances is the state board requiring a more complex water analysis akin to a WAA, or even requiring a full multiyear analysis. Those are really complex processes that take a lot of time, investigation. Yeah. And then so a lot of districts are saying, man, if I have to go through and do all of that, I'm just not going to do it.
It you know, how how often are you guys requiring that, and is there a way to maybe just not have to do that involved of a process when, again, we're talking about excess flows?
Speaker 3
When folks are truly staying within the ninety twenty rule, it is a lot more streamlined. I think what we're finding is that a lot of applications are coming in under that threshold, and meaning that it is requiring a more comprehensive sort of analysis, especially around injury to other water rights holders. That's a lot of sometimes where a lot of the time is spent. So so if folks are using the ninety twenty rule, there is a a more streamlined path. We're finding a lot of folks for recharge are wanting to come in under that, wanting to take flows from the system that maybe aren't that peak peak that, again, we're we're making easy for folks to be able to pull off.
Speaker 6
And then my last question is that you you brought up Russian River, and I think that's actually a really important one. Right now, we're talking about taking down a dam, Pillsbury Lake, that affects that watershed. That's holding back, you know, a lot of water that is then ultimately used, you know, throughout that system. If we lose that storage facility and we have what is basically like intermittent intermittent flows, very tough conditions where, hey, you're you're very reliant on the water that you get that year and whether or not you captured it. I do worry, and I don't know if you guys have looked into this.
As far as I've seen here, we don't have a, you know, Sonoma County Water Agency or or or on the Russian River, anybody applying for getting these permits, so far. At least I haven't seen one that has been approved. You lose that water source that's storing this water. Where are you going to get the water to actually put it in the ground when you're totally reliant on sort of a, you know, limited precipitation and water flows in in these systems? You see what I mean?
Like, where's the pocket of water that you're gonna be able to actually divert, and how's that going to impact, you know, people's water availability in that basin? It's serious concern.
Speaker 3
I appreciate those concerns. I know that, you know, Sonoma County, the folks in the Upper watershed as well, UCAIA and others have been working with Round Valley and all have a very robust discussion going on to try to assess and understand what does the regime look? How do we continue to ensure that both the Russian River watershed, but also the Ile River, are able to thrive into the future? So I know, you know, there is there is a space where those conversations are happening.
Speaker 6
Yeah. But, mean, has there been any analysis of that? Like, if we lose, you know, the the acre feet that are right now held behind, you know, in Pillsbury, where's the water gonna come from to actually send it to a recharge basin?
Speaker 3
There's still water in the system and still an opportunity to recharge. I don't think the removal of the dam will stop the ability to recharge.
Speaker 6
I don't see how you could say that. Mean, has there been an analysis by the water board of that?
Speaker 3
We're in the middle of doing, I think, a four zero one water quality certification for the project, so that analysis is ongoing.
Speaker 3
I I I it would it would be outside the scope of what I'm prepared to talk to you about here, as assembly member Gallagher.
Speaker 6
Then okay. Sorry. Last thing. Sorry, madam chair. It seems like a lot of them are now taking advantage of the governor's order, you know, that allows them essentially just to bypass you, right, and to get, you know, permits.
And it it seems like that's actually results in a lot more water that's been able to be recharged.
Speaker 3
The the flood flood flows provisions, again, under emergency flood conditions are important. I think they're an important tool to complement the official water rights processes that we have here as well. So should we have them both?
Speaker 6
Should we just codify that, the executive order, and leave those to the water board?
Speaker 6
Well, I'm just saying, like, you know but then why have this process at all?
Speaker 3
Well, again, I I as I explained the distinction between the the flood flows, recharge provisions, and the temporary groundwater right permits. It allows you to actually pull the water back out. It creates ownership, essentially, through the water rights process, whereas any recharge that's done through emergency flood flows, it accrues to the basin, which is really important, but it doesn't accrue to a specific individual that can then pull that water back out at a later date.
Speaker 6
Right. I see that benefit, but right now on that five year permit, we got 671 acre feet of water. That's not a lot. And I I think, you know, if we're really talking about doing this, you know, that number's gotta improve substantially. And especially when we're talking about losing, you know, potentially above ground storage.
To me, you need both.
Speaker 3
off our assembly member. I'm I act as a judge on the water rights side and we're under ex parte, so can't can't discuss that project here with you all.
Speaker 6
Yeah. Well, it's essential to groundwater is is my point, is that, you know, you have to have above ground storage so that then you can actually take that water and then send it to a groundwater basin recharge project. They both work in in conjunction with each other. So I I feel like it's gotta have this comprehensive view of how you do that. And then, obviously, improving, you know, the certainty of those systems and getting the permit so that you can then actually maximize the amount of water that we can recharge.
Speaker 3
I completely agree. And I'm glad that there is work ongoing with the Department of Water Resources on just that issue. And so far as really looking at our existing infrastructure, understanding how we can more conjunctively manage that so that it is benefiting recharge projects. We are using the water rights system, if you will, which we've been overdue as a state to really implement these goals that we have. And I think that by staying wedded closer to water rights, really understanding it and marrying those project operations and diversions, I think we do have a chance to to get better at all of this work at a scale into the years ahead.
So I really appreciate those points. Thank you, assemblymember. Thank you.
Speaker 2
You, madam chair. I'd like to thank my colleagues from across the aisle. This is a bipartisan issue where we're trying to maximize flows, and it was a carefully crafted, solution back in 2019. Each time you pass legislation, it's time stamped for that period, and there's been a lot that's happened since then. And so I'm looking forward to the conversation that we'll have, and good to see you, Tokayo.
See you that don't know, that means when you share the same first name, and so I appreciate that opportunity to see you. I'm gonna begin my questions with the water availability assessments and trying to understand if the state board can get more information on water availability that would help us to streamline the assessment. Specifically, is there an opportunity for us to do a statewide water availability, a thirty year look back along each of the water systems? I understand there's quite a few, but would that help the permittees to analyze or streamline the process? And what would you estimate a cost could be for such a project like that?
Speaker 3
Really appreciate that. I I think so. Yes. It would be you know, to try to do statewide would be a huge undertaking. It would come at a good cost.
I, you know, I do have folks here, our chief deputy, Eric Echdahl, and Amanda Montgomery from Water Rights. If they they wanna try to chime in on a guess on the cost, it's not like we have one ready and prepared, but it it is costly. But the important thing is is it's already costly, and it's costly right now for water right holders who have to undertake that water availability analyses onto their own and pay great consultants out there, but ultimately replicate that cost over and over and over again individually for each permit. I think there is great savings to be able to really do that analysis and still allow water right holders to come in with their own. If they feel, you know, it's not up to snuff, they they have some other data.
It wouldn't preclude them from that, but I think it would at least create a better basis and a better rational basis for a lot of the groundwater recharge requests and desires that are happening in various watersheds. So I I think it can help. It would be costly, and I think important to maybe focus on a few key watersheds and then expand from there.
Speaker 2
I agree if we're prioritizing on basins that historically have been overdrafted or areas we may be able to focus on the best ways to store. While I agree with my colleague that surface water storage is important, I I do believe the best place to store water is below ground where you then don't have an operation, as well as the opportunity for those water right holders to pull it out when, we're having droughts or other periods. But I wanna kinda dig in a little more. Do the permittees have to reassess that water availability assessment again if they're looking for another five years? Can they simply update the last five years rather than having to do a thirty year look back?
Or how does that process work?
Speaker 3
Yes. I think when it comes to reapplication of permits, there is an opportunity to reuse a lot of the information that was already developed in the prior permit. And I think to the extent I know our our folks, you know, are are doing their best ultimately when it comes to you know, if a permit comes back in and it's the same exact permit, you know, it shouldn't take the same amount of time to do the analysis. And I think that we're we're definitely desiring to make sure that we're not overanalyzing, but, you know, doing our job well there. And so I think that, to your point, again, when when a new permit a permit that's already been processed is coming back through, it can largely be based on a lot of the previous data.
Speaker 2
I I guess what I'm trying to drill in is five years will have passed since their last permit, which then means they have twenty five years of information, but do they simply do the last five years to add onto it, or do they have to do an entire thirty year program?
Speaker 3
I don't think they have to do an entire thirty year, no. I believe and if I'm wrong, folks can make sure and adjust.
Speaker 2
Madam Chair, I believe there's an opportunity here to work with our public institutions of higher education to be able to help us to analyze the basins as well as how to create that statewide water availability assessment that would increase the permittee's opportunities to have applications be successful. I'd like to now turn to the DFW consultation. Many of the permittees have to get a lake and stream bed alteration agreement per the conditions of their permit. Is this necessary if they're using their existing infrastructure, and why is it?
Speaker 3
I wouldn't be able to speak to CDFW's considerations and so would hold off on speaking for CDFW, but know that we do work very closely with them on these projects and continue to develop the technical expertise with them to try to move things quicker.
Speaker 2
It'd be nice to eventually hear from CDFW on how and why it's necessary for us to consult with them if they're using their existing infrastructure. Again, it may help us to move forward. I'm hoping you can comment on why there are some agencies who are opting to apply for the one hundred and eighty day permit and just continue to apply for that one hundred and eighty day permit rather than using the five year permit? Are are you able to comment on that?
Speaker 3
That's a good question. I'm not I don't have any explicit information as to to why folks would necessarily favor the hundred and eighty day. It may I'd be just speculating, truly, knowing that ultimately, you know, the five year window is helpful because, again, you don't know if it's gonna end up being a water year type or enough hydro enough in the system hydrologically to be able to use the permit. So the one hundred and eighty day permits are a little harder, but they're season by season, obviously. So one would hope the five year permits are a little more folks are incentivized to go through them because if you're gonna go through that whole process, you may as well have something that gives you a little more certainty.
It may be a longer process in some cases or more work required and maybe why folks still default to the one eighty.
Speaker 2
A big reason why we focused on the five year time window is that currently it's approximately seven out of ten years are drought years. Mhmm. And so there's a good chance within that five year window that you'll have a wet year and thus be able to utilize it.
Speaker 2
I I wanna go towards your suggestions on improvements and elevate them to madam chair as an opportunity for this committee to work on it. But I really felt that codifying the CEQA exemptions was a very good suggestion. It was not one we were able to get through in the previous iteration of this legislation, but the body has changed and our the times have changed, and it may be appropriate for us to look at what the governor has done as a way to do that. And I also liked your two year implementation window for the opportunity for us to build conveyance rather than to have it eat into their five years. Ultimately, that will allow them time to make sure they can maximize the opportunity and believe that was a very good suggestion, as well as the public objection versus public reconsideration.
You've been able to work through thus far the objections and believe that's a very significant move forward. I believe all three of those changes would really help us to increase the opportunity for permittees to apply. I do just want to highlight while there's nine permits that were agreed upon, there were, I think, 3,000 water rights holders that you mentioned in your testimony.
Speaker 3
Those are a number of water systems, but there's, yeah, thousands of water right holders, thousands, thousands.
Speaker 2
At some point, we're not creating enough opportunities for them, and so I'll finalize my questions regarding cost. How currently has the state supported the existing permittees in finalizing that permanent process? Are there opportunities for us to look towards funding that may be available, such as in prop four for Sigma that may allow us to create a grant program to streamline this. It's oftentimes tens of thousands of dollars for water right holders to do this, but there were, if memory serves me correctly, 200,000,000 that was available for Sigma implementation, and there's quite a bit of correlation here. Is there an opportunity for us to look at a grant program that would allow permittees to lower costs and thus reduce barriers.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Assembly Member. I appreciate that suggestion. I believe those Sustainable Groundwater Management Act dollars over at the Department of Water Resources, but we have robust discussion and work ongoing with DWR around recharge, around SGMA implementation, and so it's something we can definitely take back and understand how best we financially support the work as well.
Speaker 2
I would just highlight the goal from the governor in 2022 was for us to do 500,000 acre feet of recharge, and I believe you said you've authorized 43,000 feet thus far.
Speaker 3
That's this that's just for this water year. Doesn't encompass the prior water years, but
Speaker 2
We haven't done much recharge prior to this year, and so I'm just highlighting there's still an opportunity for us to get to that 500,000, and it most likely comes from reducing barriers, reducing costs, and that water availability assessment. Thank you, madam chair, for allowing me to ask questions, and great to see you again. Good to
Speaker 7
Thank you, Madam Chair. There we go. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to point out a few things about this groundwater recharge, I appreciate the efforts for us to try to increase the amount of recharge that we do. And that is State Water Board has a challenging task.
They've and I just want to point out from Ventura County started on significant recharge many decades ago. So we have a lot of experience down in Ventura County. And so some of the things that I'd like to point out is that, number one, we've had situations where people have spent considerable money and recharged thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of acres of of water, and it disappeared because the groundwater basin was connected to another groundwater basin. And as they filled this groundwater basin, it flowed to another basin and eventually, it was escaped the system altogether. That's one of the things that you have to evaluate when you're trying to say, hey.
The the second thing is we had we've had situation where downstream water rights holders end up suing because somebody's taking water for for recharge and decreasing their their their ability and their resources. So that was a there's another complication that happens. And trying to and then we've had huge fights over, is this an excess flow that should be recharged? Or is this an amount that should should go down downstream to to other water rights holder? And so I say all that to say, I'm not pure with any of the right answers except to say it's a complicated issue, and we all get frustrated after a doubt.
We say, we need to recharge. You know? And I am a 100% believer in recharge, but it's just not a simple solution. And this this one agency has egg all over their face because they spent a lot of money and they have no water. The two final points I would make is that trying to keep track of who gets the water that's recharged is also a challenge.
We have a basin that has more credits for the water than there is water in the basin. Alright? So it you know, they they literally have this this comical situation of of of more credits than their you know, it is like more people have checking accounts than there is cash in and not even just cash in the bank, but the ability of the bank to to pay it off. It was just a hugely complicated issue. All that to be said, and my final point is, it really emphasizes that recharge is a smart thing for us to do, but the only reliable thing we can do is to have people sustainably pump.
We need to have the groundwater agencies get pumping to be at a sustainable level so that you're not reliant on this complicated, hoped for recharge to somehow solve the problem. And so there's no substitute for good work by GSAs and hard decisions. They are hard decisions to make to get sustainable pumping levels and to enforce sustainable pumping levels and have people finally start to adjust and say, we're we're gonna grow the crops. We're going to supply to the urban people, everybody that's counting on this water. We're gonna do it at a sustainable level.
We're gonna figure out what is the sustainable level and and make the proper decisions for that. So thank you for letting me go on about that. But I was intrigued by this knowing this hearing was coming up and thinking about all experiences that we had and stuff. You don't have an easy task in front of you there. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3
Thank you for that, Assembly Member. I appreciate and agree. It is a really complex system. I would just note, when it comes to water rights administration, generally, it is something that California has lagged behind other Western states, say, but quickly trying to catch up. And that includes with our new water rights data system, which, to your point, helps us better be able to unpack what are complex rights and complex considerations whenever we do this work.
So thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you, madam chair. For me to ask one follow-up question. For the water availability assessment at the statewide level, I'd like to see if you can also follow-up with whether Sigma funds through the proposition are available to help us to do that as it would again help us with recharge. I think that analysis will allow the legislature to maximize recharge and believe it's an important consideration for us. Thank you, madam chair.
Speaker 1
Sure. I like the five year idea. I think we need all of the above, certainly. I mean, this is not in lieu of a sustainable groundwater plan, but nonetheless, like I started this hearing with something about making hay while the sun is shining or capturing water while it's raining. It certainly makes a lot of sense.
I just had a couple mechanical questions, really. Well, first, I note some of Roberta's comment is a good one on how we we actually take water that's going to recharge certain basins. And I will note that Lawrence Berkeley Lab is doing some speaking of tapping into academia is doing some charting as to where groundwater goes. So I'd love to see some connection there. But, you know, you mentioned the ninety twenty rule, and we talk about spending a lot of money on some probably very talented consultants.
And I guess my feeling is and and you say a lot of applicants come in and and they'd like to do a little more than the ninety twenty. But if the ninety twenty is out there and it seems to be a reasonable standard, has have you considered that that might be, if one can establish ninety twenty, you would get that automatically or or it would have a less of a review because that's something that you find very acceptable. Let's get the permits going.
Speaker 1
So it's happening anyway irrespective of a reg or something along those lines?
Speaker 3
We we our our our environmental analysis and work tee off of, you know, this idea of, again, being able to take 9020, the the peak peaks off with, you know, not harming folks. So there is a a streamlined pathway if people are under the 9020 rule. But if they're they're looking for flows that are outside of that, that's when, you know, things get a little more complex.
Speaker 1
Excellent. Excellent. And I and I I concur. I I like the idea of having a two year phase in if if it does take infrastructure. You shouldn't eat up the time on your permit.
Speaker 1
Right. And one man's public comment is another man's public objection. But nonetheless, I appreciate perhaps the nuance there. And if that's something that you think would assist in the process, I I certainly think we could consider that here at the legislature. So thank you for some for your testimony, but also some very specific objections and objections suggestions that we might be able to to implement here with the that's Suggestions.
No doubt. No doubt. That'll happen in the legislative process, certainly. But okay. Thank you so much, chair.
Speaker 1
you. And with that, we'll move on to our second panel. So if those panelists could come forward, we have Justin Hopkins, general manager of Stockton East Michael Wakeman, who is general manager of Omachumne Hartnell Water District, and Laura Foglia, who is a PhD and VP with Larry Walker Associates. Welcome one and all. I think we will start with mister Hopkins.
I'm not sure. Is this mister Hopkins on my left? Okay. Great. Welcome and good morning.
Speaker 8
Good morning, madam chair. Alright. Can everybody hear me? This on? Alright.
Good morning, assembly member Ambula and fellow committee members. I'm honored to to be here today. My name is Justin Hopkins. I'm the general manager of Stockton East Water District, and I am very eager to talk with you about our use of the permitting that was authorized under a b six fifty eight. So getting into a little bit of background on Stocktonese to give you some context.
We were formed in 1948 to sustain our groundwater resources by providing supplemental surface water supplies. Our district is located in Central And Eastern San Joaquin County, and we cover a little more than a 143,000 acres. Within that, we have about 63,000 acres of irrigated agriculture and the entire city of Stockton. We manage up to 155,000 acre feet of surface water supply annually and 130,000 acre feet of groundwater pumping by our agricultural and municipal customers. We operate a 65,000,000 gallon per day drinking water treatment plant.
That water is wholesale to city of Stockton, California Water Service Company, and San Joaquin County, who then retail it to the 325,000 citizens of Stockton. And we were actually a leader in in groundwater recharge. We constructed our first recharge project in 2003, and since then, we have recharged more than a 112,000 acre feet. Now we were not early adopters of the temporary diversion permits, but we were early and eager participants in the collaboration the governor directed in 2022 between Department of Water Resources and the State Water Resource Control Board. We began working almost immediately.
I believe we were the the second participant, to work with DWR and their consultant, MBK engineers, to evaluate temporary permits for the Calaveras River and Rock Creek. Both watersheds are within or adjacent to our district boundary. And shown on the screen here is the Rock Creek diversion chart that was developed by MBK prior to application of our first permit. Now it's important to note both of these waterways, Calaveras River and Rock Creek, have Army Corps of Engineer flood control projects on them. Now that that is important because if the flood control projects are doing their job, you do not have highly variable flows in the waterway.
You have you have controlled release of stored floodwater. As such, the Calaveras River did not have much opportunity to divert water because Calaveras River has new Hogan Reservoir. It's a very large storage facility. Not only does it impound floodwater, it does allow for year round carryover storage, so it will absorb a lot of that floodwater. And the Calvary River wasn't really a feasible option for us.
As you can see from the chart here, Rock Creek looked very promising. This is largely because the flood control dam on Rock Creek, which is Farmington Dam, cannot store water for more than thirty days. So the army corps is very eager to release that water once it's impounded, and it allows for some flashier flows like you would see naturally with stormwater runoff. On a quick side note, in case there's any interest, Stockton East Water District is working on repurposing Farmington Dam to create a new 112,000 acre foot surface water storage facility, but that's a separate topic for a different day. Alright.
So this is our actual data for Rock Creek diversions. Over four years and four permits, we diverted a total of 161 acre feet to storage. This is substantially less than the face value of our permits, which is shown in orange. The diversions are shown in blue, but you can't really see them because they're so minuscule compared to the permit amount, but the numbers are there on the screen. Our first one hundred and eighty day permit was issued in the 2023.
This was quite a learning curve for Stockton East. First, it took a long time to get this permit. We started work in August or September '22, and our permit was issued on 03/21/2023. Thankfully, it was a very wet year, and so we were actually able to divert the most water we've diverted under any permit at the 119 acre feet. It was also very costly, not not just the permit fee, but the consultant fees.
Thankfully, that it was part of the DWR waterboard collaboration, so Stockton East wasn't having to pay for the consultant to perform all the research necessary to collect thirty years of daily flow data. That's what was required for the Water Board to participate with a ninetytwenty methodology for diversion. Our second and third one hundred and eighty day permits were much more streamlined. Not only did we have the process down and we needed to start earlier, but that large thirty year data request had already been submitted, and so we were only submitting another year's worth of data to to keep it up to date. And we received our first five year permit last October.
This so far seems to be much more cost effective. They have a greater permit fee. However, if you spread that permit fee over five years, it provides a greater value. However, unfortunately, we have not been able to use that permit yet. So there were several successes with this permit process.
So what what did go well? Foremost was the DWR water board collaboration. If that hadn't been directed by the governor because DWR specific the specific part of that is that DWR was covering all the the costs, We probably would not have pursued a temporary permit. One of our permit conditions that was quite easy to meet was that the water you store has to be pumped out in the same water year. Only storing a 119 acre feet.
It was easy to pump that back out since our GSA is pumping about a 130,000 acre feet annually. And then lastly is the CEQA exemption by the governor. We didn't think that was going to be necessary because we were using existing diversion facilities and existing recharge facilities. But in some disagreements with the state staff, we ended up falling back on the governor's exemption because we didn't wanna have to go through CEQA a second time for those facilities. And this not necessarily CEQA, but these state staff did become an issue with our five year permit.
And so with that, I'll move into our challenges. First and foremost is the cost. The costs are better with the five year permit, but the unit cost of water still remain very high. Our first one hundred and eighty day permit had engineering fees of about $50,000 that decreased substantially with the subsequent permits since we're just updating information. Because of the flood control projects, there's a lot of times when the dams are making flood control releases, but we are not able to divert any of that water because we have not hit the thresholds identified in the 9020 methodology, which if not not sure if anyone's familiar with that.
What that requires is looking at thirty years of average daily flow for that specific day. And if we're at the ninetieth percentile of that flow, then we're allowed to divert. So really has to be at the the top top end of historical flows. If we were allowed to divert, the flood control projects would be able to release more water correspondingly and provide more immediate evacuation of the flood water that's stored behind the facilities. And then lastly is the permit conditions.
So with our five year permit, it was CEQA exempt, but CDFW did kinda take a second bite at the apple for environmental conditioning. And they added that a burrowing owl survey must be conducted every time prior to a recharge activity. And these were existing facilities. They went through CEQUA when they were built. And it is very difficult to have a biologist available that morning to come out and do a burrowing owl survey because we it is day by day that we know if we're able to divert water storage.
Because of that, it is unlikely that we will ever use our five year permit. Yes. And not not wanting to complain without providing some suggested improvements. Would definitely recommend continuing with the CEQA exemption, and we we relied on that. It would be nice I don't know how exactly how this would work, but to make it a true exemption so that the regulatory agencies can't use permit conditioning as a workaround, And it's almost we're almost worse off that it's a condition of the permit, whereas if it was through CEQA, we could have done some sort of mitigation.
Well, technically, we already mitigated it when we built projects. But if it was a separate CEQA process, we could have done some mitigation to make it a much less burdensome impact. Cost remains an issue, and the permit permit fees can be steep, especially because the diversion amount is a it's a it's a true gamble. We have no idea how much water is gonna be available to divert that year. One option to consider is if it's possible to tie permit fees to actual diverted volume rather than face value of the permit, That that could bring the cost down substantially.
And then the consultant costs are high related to data collection. Once you get over that first year, it's a little better. But if there was a maybe state subsidy like we were able to benefit from for getting that first year of data together, that would be of great benefit. And I think it was brought up with the chair of the water board, streamlining the water availability analysis with some different or better methodology would be very helpful. Again, because the 9020 method, there's flood water that's flowing past us, but we're not able to divert it because we haven't reached those peak those peak flood flows with the updates to the water rights system.
You know, it seems easy from our perspective. Maybe it's a different perspective from the water board, but since the water board's managing all the water rights, if they could just tell us at what flow that day, all existing water rights will be satisfied and we can divert beyond that, that that would be easier than trying to get thirty years worth of data together so they can look at the the average flows for the day. And that's all I have. Thank you for your time. I'd be happy to take any questions.
Speaker 5
Yeah. Good morning, madam chair. Mike Wakeman, general manager of Omotumne Hartnell Water District. And, madam chair, you did a great job of pronouncing our name in our district because most people can't do that. We are a district that was formed in back in 1953.
The original purpose of our district was actually to take water from the consume or the Folsom South Canal for surface water and then provide that to our growers down in the area. The district did not sign up to get, you know, a permanent contract, so what they did is they were just taking interim water, and then they eventually took Sly Park water from the Bureau project. So it's you know, it it it has evolved as we move forward. What we then started looking at as a district, I wasn't involved in it back then, but what we started looking at was actually putting in some flashboard dams in the Cosumnes River. And I think we're one of the few rivers, of course, it's an unden river, if you might know, that has these type of flashboard dams that we actually use to hold back the water.
And the purpose of these dams was for allowing riparian water users to use that water off the river when they're flood irrigating. And the other purpose was groundwater recharge. And one of the interesting things, was going back through some of the old minutes of the of the board, and they actually mentioned groundwater recharge as one of their major things that they are looking at for these flashboard dams on the river. And the reason why is because within the Kissimmons River, there are some pockets there that actually recharge greatly. Back in 2006, we actually did a diversion off the Folsom South Canal.
In conjunction, we called it a pre wetting. This river disconnects during during the summertime. And so we actually did a pre wetting where we pulled water off the Folsom South Canal, ran it down to about 99. And let me explain our district. We're on the Cosumnes River from in the Sacramento County, from Jackson Highway down to about Highway 99, and in between, we're about 30,000 acres.
And what we did is we ran it down about three or four miles down Highway 99, but it never reached Highway 99 no matter how much water it seemed like we put in the river at that time of the year. It was in August because there are spots that the river would run and actually stop, and you'd see it actually disappear. So groundwater recharge has always been a big thing for our district going back to the days. The problem is is as we we move forward in in time, you know, from the sixties and seventies, and agriculture got a lot more efficient with the ground with irrigation. So we're you know, we moved really hard in agriculture to become, you know, drip irrigation, micro strain coolers, and these type of things.
And in reality is we're finding out that that might have cost us in many ways because we're not bringing that extra surface water into the area where we're doing groundwater recharge with agriculture and their flood irrigation. Also, within that process, within our district, what happened is that as we began moving away from flood irrigation and move moving to the drip systems, we started installing we had to have clean water to move through the drip system. Water coming down the Cosumnes River was also very variable because we're not a managed dam. I mean, you know, flows, we have them or with flows, we don't. They don't go all year long, so farmers needed reliability.
So they moved into using the groundwater, and they were which is much cleaner and less classy in order to clean up for those drip systems. So you saw the farmers really moving off of the river. We've have very few growers currently that actually use the river right now on surface water. Something we'd like to encourage a little bit more, but, you know, that is a cost thing for them in order to be survive in ag industry. So as we move forward, keep going forward in time, 2012, the district actually secured a prop 84 grant to do a groundwater recharge.
And it was originally similar to what they did in Stocktonese where we put the ponds out. We actually flooded those areas. We are working with a local agency. We're gonna actually transfer their water rights to a diversion point down downstream because they were upstream and use their water rights to actually flood that area. But it turns out they didn't wanna, you know, get messy, evolving, doing the changing their point of use for their water rights.
They had change in management, and they sort of backed out of the the project. So, literally, our project sat for about three or four years before we really decided what are we gonna do with this money we got from prop eighty four. How are we gonna sort of revamp the project? And then we hired Laura Foglia and their firm at Larry Walker to come in. And what we decided to do is actually use a system where we go out and we flood vines.
We flood those areas, about a thousand acres of vines, for our project. At that same time, the temporary use permits came along. We looked at the hundred and eighty day permit to be able to use through the process. And what I think one of the things we found out going through the process is you had to have everybody lockstep and barrel with you. And I had the fortunate ability or not ability, but the fortunate to work with a lot of people in the industry.
And some of the people like Melinda Frost Hart Herzl, who actually did a great job of sort of corralling some of the agencies and the people within the agencies. She helped us really corral the environmental group. So we had every the whole consumerist coalition up and down the up and down the river working together for the same thing. We got US Fish and Wildlife actually do our fleet stream flow analysis for us. And, you know, we are one of the first permits for the five years in the process.
And I think the reason we were able to move forward with that is because the support we had among everybody. That stream for flow analysis US Fish and Wildlife Service did I mean, came from US Fish and Wildlife Service. So people are saying, hey. That's good. They did their job.
They know what they're doing. California department excuse me. Cal Department Fish and Wildlife Service. I still use fish and gang. Shows my age.
Looked at the analysis and agreed with it. So as we move forward in the process of obtaining these permits, we had the backing before we even went to the state water board for the permit process. So they looked at it and said, okay. This is good. But since they still had their process to go through.
And literally, by the time we went for our first hundred and eighty day permit, we got it mid January. And our flow time is December through through February 15 on one pump and March 15 on the other due to fish screen issues we have to have. So we got the pump a little bit, but not much at first that first year. Second year, we went through the second process, couldn't get the permit in or in time. We missed a window, and I don't think we permitted pumped anything that second year.
Five year permit came along, and that was a big thing. I mean, thank you very much for sponsoring that bill. It really made life a lot easier for our district. We went through and we applied for the five year permit. Having all the history and stuff that from the previous permits made the process a lot smoother.
We were the first year five year permit person. Good and bad. I mean, you it's good being first. It's bad being first because nobody's been through the process. And so you have to, you know, go through those hoops to make sure the process is.
Being good about the first five year, you know, we might have been able to slide with little things. You know, I we have pretty much avoided the 9020 rule being first through the permit, and we did have a good stream stream analysis, which helped us through that process. So I think it's it was a great start to move forward. But, again, cost is a big thing. We are a small district.
I am a part time consultant for the district. Our budget is prior to Sigma, was only about a 150 a $120,000, our revenues. After Sigma, of course, that doubles to be able to implement Sigma, and all our growers love us for all the fees we're putting on them now. But we have a a little bit more of a budget, but still I mean, if you're spending $5,060,000 dollars on, no offense to Laura, consultant fees and those type of things in order to apply for these permits. These small districts can't do that.
It is huge. Even the fees for the water board. And I like the suggestion Dustin just made about, you know, maybe it's what we can actually pump out for that year is what our fee is and that we don't have that big upfront fee. I mean I mean, that was a that was a good thing. And a lot of things that chairman Escobar was talking about, some of those reforms are really, really good.
I mean, I started writing down and really veered off from my, you know, written testimony I have here, but I think those are good things that we need to look at as we move forward in the process. A couple of the things that I think that we really that you know, CEQUA, of course, is the big one. I'm gonna go all the way back to my CEQUA fees are crazy. I'm sorry. It's it it's just in out of control.
If we're looking to expand our project and if it wasn't for the relationship that I developed with DWR and Jenny Moore at Floodmar Jenny Moore at Floodmar, We wouldn't be able to afford to do what we're doing. They've really supported us. We did an ECOFIP evaluation of the Cosumnes River, which allowed us to find areas where where there are floodplain inundations we could do, which have great recharge areas, which is also beneficial to flood control. There are things within our CEQUA that we have to do an addendum because we want to expand our project. And as assemblyman Gallagher was saying, well, you've only pumped out this much.
Well, if we were to rely only on those years where we have certain flood flows and didn't get the five year permit, we wouldn't be able to pump hardly at all because we don't have the facilities to take a huge amount of water off at a time. I mean, some of our I mean, we're only pumping maybe thirty, forty CFS coming off off the river max. But so in order for us to meet our permit, which I believe is at four thousand acre feet, we've been pumping, you know, for 300, 400, 500 a year. We have a facility restriction on ours, so we gotta be able to expand. So DDBR saw the opportunity to see one of their five year permits, saw the opportunity for a district that's sort of the board hasn't fired me yet for coming up with some crazy ideas to come, you know, and do these type of projects and has given me a lot of leeway to to move forward with some new ideas that are sort of, I wouldn't say cutting edge.
I mean, it's been around forever. Everybody knew about groundwater. But how do we actually implement what we're looking to do? So cost. And we've talked about it.
No matter what the cost is, where it is, is it's gotta be kept in control, and it's gotta be simple. It can't get too complicated. A lot of your small districts like the ones I work for, they don't have resources. I'm one of the few districts in my area in the Cosumnes Basin and and a lot of except for the Metroplais, Sacramento area, small ag districts. They don't have staff to do this stuff.
So it's gotta be simple, but yet they have some areas where it would work really good for them. They got some streams, creeks, and things if we're able to pull off with keeping something something simple. I don't have specific recommendations on keeping it simple other than we gotta cut down some of the regulations and stuff that in order for this process to work. Talked about CEQA reform. One of the things that you know, understanding that, you know, we gotta keep track of the water and accounting of water.
One of the things that we did notice on our last five year permit was a requirement that we had to have sign owner landowners saying that they're taking out that first amount of water they put in. I realized that is a way of accounting, but on a district like ours, where we're using about 20,000 acre feet a year in order to you know, within the district to irrigate. If our district can show that we are gonna use that water within our district, I don't see the need for a landowner to sign a piece of paper saying their first water they're extracting from the ground is actually that water that we put in the ground. Landowners, especially in our district, are very cautious of government, and they don't. If you sign something like that, they think you're messing with their groundwater rights.
Okay? So that is one of the main concerns that we had with our permit as we went forward. I know Laura is gonna talk about the 20 the ninety twenty rule and some of the other really specifics on our permit, but I'd just like to emphasize definitely five year permit. If we can make it ten year permit, that's great. I know we'd get a lot of pushback maybe from the state board, but because of the Cosumnes River, way you are, one of the years we had so much water in '23, we we couldn't pump because we are flooded.
I had six feet of water on our our vineyards. Yeah. And so, you know, I I couldn't use the permit, didn't need to use permit during that year. So, I mean, there's some a lot of variabilities in the different areas, and it was mentioned earlier. Different areas have different issues, and that variability needs to be addressed.
But, again, I I I go back, Keep it simple, cost effective, and I think you'd get a lot of buy in on this and really help our water situation in California. So thank you.
Speaker 9
Thank you, madam chair. And, yeah, I'll take you through, actually, three examples of free the free of the five year permit that you have in your list. And
Speaker 9
Okay. Okay. So the the three per permits that five year five year temporary permit I work with are Scott Valley Irrigation District, so we are up in Siskiyou County. Scott River is a tributary to the Clamat River, so a lot of different issues and perspective up there. And this is the the longest one.
We started working on this permit. Actually, UC Davis started back in 2016. And that permit has 5,400 acre feet of water permitted. Then we will go to the amount of water that actually is diverted. Then recently, we worked a lot with the Sierra Valley Groundwater Management District.
It's a new it's a new GSA. They are developing their groundwater management plan. And we recently obtained a five year permit just last year, and permit is for three forty seven acre feet of water. I want to put things in perspective. We are talking about small basins.
So in Sierra Valley, for just just to give you a sense, they pump less than 10,000 acre feet of water per year. If through efficiency and some research, they could save a couple of thousand, they would be fine. They would they would be sustainable. They would really solve their issues. Obviously, these are numbers that are very different from Stockton.
So it's always like a question of each business its own need type of needs. And then Mike just spoke a lot about OHWD. And I for this one specifically, I want to take you through 9020 versus a standard permit. So why, the OHWD board accepted and moved forward with a standard permit and not the 9020? In the the small district, actually, one thing, they tend to use existing infrastructure.
There are no fundings for building up a lot, and there is no staff. So this district, Oh is is lucky. They have they have Mike working for them. The other district, basically, they don't have anybody. So that is something that it needs to be taken into account.
And the reason why they move forward with this permit is because because of the SIGMA grants from DWR. So SIGMA pretty much combined with other type of grants, have to say, in Scott Valley, a lot of the funding came at the very beginning from NIFWIF, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. They funded a lot of the beginning of the project. So in terms of Oh, and this is just a picture. So these are the way the vineyards are flooded in the Kazannes River.
And I think that the big difference for OHWD, it's really the fact that we were successful in in getting a standard permit instead in the 9020 permit. Also, lot of stakeholder interest and engagement that made a huge difference that didn't happen in other of in the other places. We also combined a lot of work through academia, so a lot of UC Davis and Lawrence Burke Lawrence Berkeley Lab work. So we have really an an impressive amount of data that has been collected for this basin to really show the benefit. So that's the goal at the end.
So the challenge, as Mike said, is mostly infrastructure. I think there would be enough water quite a few times over the year to pump more, but the infrastructure are not there yet. And if we look at the numbers in terms of the streamlined permits, so the 9020 rule versus the standard permit. If we look at the number of days when you would be able to do recharge, the two plots are on the same scale. The one on the top is on the streamlined permit, so we barely get to forty days per year.
If we move down in the bottom plot is on standard permitting, and that take us up to almost a hundred days per year in some years. So the the reason with the with the 9020, we found out that only five years out of the last thirty five would have provided greater than twenty days of diversion availability. And none of the years have a number of days that are enough to justify the amount of water that is permitted. So with a standard permit, we calculated at least twenty days of discharge in 27 of the last thirty five years. And so it it really changed completely the the perspective.
And I remember presenting it to the board and the board saying, no. We take the risk, and we try with a standard permit because the 9020 may not even just give us justification for spending the money, even if, again, at the time, the money was from grants. When we move into Scott Valley, I have a quick it was an interesting process. So in the first pilot project was 2016, was basically really started from colleagues at UC Davis. We managed to recharge something like $6.06 75 acre feet.
And, again, the total permit amount is 5,400. Then 2022, we use we got the permit too late. And here, I have to say, in in this basin up north, the state water board, unfortunately, has to put up with a lot of objections. So we had to spend months and months working on objection. Then we changed the strategy.
And instead of submitting the permit, we were first talking to all the objectors many times and then just to reduce the amount of letters received by the state of the board. So 2022 was basically 28 acre feet of water, so almost nothing. Twenty twenty twenty twenty three was still kind of tricky because we got the permit too late. And that year, all the water happened between the December and early January. We got the permit in January 18.
It was too late, and it was not possible to really recharge. Then we have the magic 2024 when we started earlier. We learned a lesson. We talked to all the protesters and the permit was issued in November, and we managed to recharge more than 2,500. So 2,500 in a basin like Scott Valley, it's a lot of water.
And we have a really big network of groundwater levels. We could see areas that went up. Groundwater levels increased by almost 20 feet in three, four weeks. So the the the soil can take it. It's just a question of being able to do it.
2025, it it has been a weird year because there was so much water everywhere. So there was a lot there were a lot of flooding issues, flood houses that were already flooded, so we could not do much more than what was already there. What we have seen anyway with the '24, '25 and okay. This year is kind of a difficult one, But we can see groundwater level being higher and consistently higher every year quite by quite a bit. And in 2026, we obtained the the temporary permit for five years, so we started.
Unfortunately, we could not use it right away because we were dealing with the stream bed alteration agreement with Fish and Wildlife. And that's maybe solved right now, but that was a big problem because this district so the way Recharge Japanese in Scott Valley is just the the diversion that they use for irrigation in the summer is used in the winter for Recharge. So no infrastructure at all. It's just the same ditch that is used. It needs an unlined ditch, so leaks a lot of water.
And then if we go into Sierra Valley, this is a small basin, as I said. It's up just North of Lake Tahoe. And there, it's a very dry the eastern side is very dry. The western side is very important because it's a big wetland, one of the biggest wetlands that needs to be protected. It's generally pretty that you don't see much runoff usually, but when it rains, you could see a lot of runoff that doesn't come necessarily through creeks.
It just comes naturally through the through the landscape. So the idea was, can we capture some of those that runoff excess runoff during the winter and then help this basin be sustainable again because it might not be a huge effort. And so we found a couple of location in the Southern Eastern part of the valley where somebody had a year round water rights. So we used the DWR grant and the opportunity for this recharge to basically revamp some of the older diversion that were not used for a long time. Again, we are talking about places where fundings are not really coming through easily.
And so we did some temporary structure like the ones that you see in the picture to really just hold the water up a little bit. It has been in Sierra Valley, it's been a great process in terms of all the collaboration with the other agencies. So CDFW was very cooperative and they kind of provided good guidances. One of the thing is still that Sierra Valley is the the the first permit and the only one that is upstream of Auroville. That is our big sticky point because it's a 9020.
So as you have seen in the previous example, unfortunately, ninety-twenty is very random. You never know if you get enough water. But basically, in Sierra, the recharge can happen only when Auroville is spilling. So it's it's something that we are starting talking about with people responsible for Auroville, and we were wondering maybe there will be new permits coming from upstream Auroville from other basin, maybe not. We understand that it's difficult to say, yeah, let's let's approve the permit, and and maybe then there is there is a potential impact to downstream water users.
Maybe having some type of of fuel. So we were thinking like, let's say, that altogether potential permits stream of Auroville, if it's less than 0.1% of the inflow, maybe that would be possible even if Auroville is not spilling? Or coming up, we we are brainstorming kind of ideas because because we understand it's it's complicated. It's it's but it's a big requirement. Basically, Auroville spilling is can be a very a very significant limiting factors for these permits.
And again, these are all the structures that are in place up in Sierra Valley. It's pretty they are mostly temporary structure that are all only meant to hold on water for a little longer. And then we managed also to install through Fish and Wildlife grant a temporary dry well to see if we can go through the impermeable layers and just do recharge directly. And this is pretty much I think the take home message is in in some ways, we need to really do more if we can. I think a lot of a lot of infrastructure are in place, but infrastructure and and funding is still one of the big issues for for this district.
I have to say the benefit of having this temporary permit is that we brought people around the table. And so the stakeholders now are responsive. And my my my lesson with, for example, Scott Vale was you start and stakeholders say, I'm not sure I really want this extra water. And then at some point, everybody calls us, like, can you divert some in my land? Because then they see they see the benefit.
They see that everybody is really coming together. So I I believe that all these I I would say we are still in a pilot phase for these permits, but it was good because it made us it gave us the opportunity to to try and see what works and what doesn't work. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you, madam chair. I'm gonna have questions for each of the presenters. I'll begin with mister Hopkins, if I can. I wanted to drill down on the difference between the hundred and eighty day and the five year permit process. You had stated that it was a long process and costly for the hundred and eighty days, and I just wanted to reaffirm that you felt it was more cost effective to use the five year permitting process as just as your organization found out.
Is that correct?
Speaker 2
That's very helpful for the other organizations that have not applied or are currently using the hundred and eighty day process to evaluate their own cost effectiveness as they're going forward. You spoke about a state subsidy. Can you speak to how much you received and what percentage of the total cost that was?
Speaker 8
So we never received the funding directly from the state. The DWR received funding from somewhere in the budget, and they paid for all the cost. So they they paid the water board their fees. They paid the consulting engineer their their fees. We just got to have the benefit of of permit at the end of the day.
Speaker 2
That process of having fees paid is one I'm hoping that we can work on as the legislature to create more avenues for organizations to receive that as you then have the opportunity, specifically with your size, to recharge large amounts. I do want to follow-up. You said your recharge was ultimately minuscule, and it was in part because of that daily need of a biologist to look at the burrowing owl. Can you speak to why that would be implemented or why it would be necessary? Is it it greatly affects your ability to recharge, and just wanted to get your thoughts on that.
Speaker 8
Yes. So the burrowing owl condition was a condition on our five year permit. So this is the first year we've had the five year permit, and I don't know that that is the only reason we haven't diverted any water. The the big hurdle for us throughout all the permits over the four years is the ninety twenty methodology. I'm just hitting that ninetieth percentile daily flow rate downstream of a flood control facility is is very difficult.
Speaker 2
We heard of the standard permit being available based on the water availability assessment. Is that not applicable for your permit, and why are you utilizing the ninety twenty instead of how much the flood flows are?
Speaker 8
Largely for timing. It takes a lot longer to go through the water availability analysis. The the ninety twenty methodology was, you know, proposed by the the water board. Therefore, it was immediately acceptable. And since we wanted to get a permit for that diversion season, that was the best option.
We have some other permits regular water right applications, I should say, not permits, that we've been working to perfect over decades. And then we have we're probably 7 figures into water availability analysis. So very very different paths.
Speaker 2
If there was a statewide water availability assessment, would that again decrease costs for you and increase your ability to do more recharge rather than the ninety twenty?
Speaker 8
Potentially. Depending on who agrees to the water availability assessment there.
Speaker 2
Understood. I'll move on to mister Wachman if I can. I I first wanted to grab onto your point that with sustainability and moving towards drip irrigation, that has greatly affected our ability to groundwater recharge overall. Historically, there was a great advantage to using that flood irrigation. And while we've improved the sustainability, it then has affected our basins.
I think that's an important lesson for us to learn.
Speaker 5
Yeah. And, you know, it's do I have analysis to prove that? No. But you you look over the years of being a fifth generation farmer in the, you know, in the area, and you look at the up and down the valley, and it's it's common sense. We're bringing in a lot of surface water into the valley.
With CVPIA and all, you know, surface water restrictions and everything else, you cut that surface water out. And then what happened, especially down in the South Valley, you see a lot of guys move into groundwater. Okay? You don't have that recharged. You get water quality issues.
You get, you know, water supply issues, not having that surface water into the area. So I think it's a combination. Water efficiency, yeah, we need to be more efficient, but then we gotta figure out, okay, so when we do have these excess waters, when we do have these waters, is there a way to bring that into those areas where we can do some really good recharge? Problem is is that within agriculture, as we moved away from flood irrigation, all of those systems disappeared as you saw in the picture that showed ours. I when it we went in in our district.
We put in about with our prop $84, about a million dollars worth of piping within our back end to the system. And there's some pretty good pipes. We have 24 inch pipes running through there so we could pump a lot of water. And I we oversized it knowing that our current system does not have the ability to put that much water into it. But I figured, you know, eventually, we're gonna add to the system.
But what we did too is we just have simple plastic roll out pipe. And it was just a farmer solution. We're just flood irrigating again. It's basically what we did. And we're able to do it on the vines are unique, grapevines, because they're they go dormant.
And we have a one of our growers has a large amount of grapevines within this area that takes that we can do this. And so we just roll it out, and we'll be able to flood all clear up probably until about March 15. We could probably go to the probably the April 1 without having any any effects on the vines at all. But the other benefit of that is is for grapevines, we're we're taking that, you know, six feet of soil profile and pre basically, prewatering it before they start needing the that to grow. So we're eliminating maybe one or two irrigations in the process in the spring by doing this groundwater recharge.
So there are some other advantages. I mean, our soil, more of a sandy loam soil, a little bit more unique. Maybe some of the sandier soils where it'll just flow through. You don't get that benefit. But in our area, you're gonna get that.
So it is a conundrum that we put ourself into. So, you know, when we look about, you know, what can we do, how do we address things, and putting back flood irrigation isn't as evil as we all all thought it was in the past.
Speaker 2
That's interesting regarding the permeability of the soil, how it may ultimately allow for some of the irrigation that's necessary for the following years. Having practiced medicine in Selma, which is the raising capital of the world, we had quite a number of grapevines and
Speaker 2
Understood that importance to make sure we were doing those flood irrigations. I wanted to come back to your comment regarding fees. Fees based on what was permitted versus what you were able to deposit and or recharge. Madam chair, it may be something for us to consider regarding can they deposit the money based on the totality of what they can recharge and then either get refunded or have credits for following years so that, ultimately, they're not paying for potential recharge that they're not using.
Speaker 5
Yeah. And I think it's the it's the upfront fees. You know, it's it's that upfront fee and which being involved in multiple programs, area of dance program and these programs, we keep seeing fees increased on throughout the years on a lot of these different things. And I'm not sure what the upfront fee I mean, Laura has more information about it because, you know, we're the fourth year of five years, so we haven't done it in a while. But I know those fees are getting increased.
And that would be a concern. I like the ideas. If you're gonna put that up front, maybe then that gets credited to what you actually those fees you pay, you actually use type of thing. So, yeah, definitely, for a small district like ours, you know, $10.15, $20,000 fees up front is a big nut to get your board members to really go through. And you're you know, Lord is us farmers, we're tight.
We complain about everything. Mhmm. You know? But we complain about fees the most because that's something that, you know, we're not investing in. It seems like for the amount of money we're investing, we're only getting a small little bit out of it.
My board members, why are we putting so much money in? And, you know, I gotta continue to convince them. It's a long term process that you need to look at long term for sustainability within your district.
Speaker 2
Can you speak to what you spoke about regarding the landowner signing? Why is that necessary, and and why is it the first that needs to come out?
Speaker 5
Yeah. And I I think it's an accounting process for the state board. Mhmm. So they wanna be able to, when you're putting that water in and you heard it from your colleague here, you you wanna be able to account for that water coming back out and being used. So, basically, what we're looking at, that groundwater recharge that we're doing has to be the first use during the year so we know that we use that water per state requirements, that you're using that groundwater within the year that you recharge it or within that water year you recharge it.
Because there's not a beneficial use for groundwater recharge in itself. So you have to use that for some beneficial use. So that Our previous our first permits, we weren't required to have line landowners sign. We actually did an analysis where we're saying we're using within our district, we're gonna use 20,000 acre feet of water. We're gonna our max amount, we're gonna apply as 4,000 acre feet.
So we're basically saying those within our district, they're that first 4,000 acre feet they're pumping is we're gonna consider our groundwater use. When we look for the five years when it was it was almost a last minute thing if I remember it, and I'm not, you know, you gotta have the state board actually maybe comment on it. I'm not exactly sure why they put it in there, but I think it was more of an accounting process to be able to count in and out. I can understand if you're putting a lot more in than what you're using within your district, then you're almost getting into water banking situation for further down the road or something where you really need to account for that water, where it's going and what's happening with it and losses and those type of things like that. But we're talking such a small time period that we've gotta use the that water.
I don't really see the necessary thing. And it was I had to pull teeth on
Speaker 5
We yeah. We had to rearrange and make sure, you know, we put stuff in there about water rights and everything else for our you know, one of our larger landowners to sign on the dotted line to say, yeah. I agree to that to make sure that they weren't giving up any groundwater rights. And perceived or not. I mean, perception is about becomes reality to many of the growers out there because they're not involved in-depth like we are dealing with this every day.
Speaker 2
Yeah. I I understand much of that healthy distrust of government that many of these landowners may have that I question, madam chair, why we can't have the agencies insist since it's simply an accounting issue that, the water that goes in ultimately comes out in that same year rather than having to have each individual landowner sign on because it's unlikely that many are going to have that trust even with all of the clarifications that you've provided. Last question for you. You spoke about flashboard dams. What is that exactly, and how does that work?
That's not something we
Speaker 5
Well, it's old it's old school. Basically, within the Cosumnes River, they went in and they put in cement, like, cement foundation and cement sites. And we actually go in the river during the springtime after there is a disconnection at the river down below, and we actually put in boards, wood boards that hold the water back. And in in certain areas, we have pretty good recharge. Like I said, originally, it was for riparian users to be able to use the water for a longer period of time since we are not a managed river.
We're an undammed, you know, all the way up and have a very much variability in flows during the years. So we put them in the spring. We have to have them out by September 15, and it is an old old permit before there was a state water resources control board. So, yeah, it was when that was issued by believe it was reclamation board actually issued the permit back in the day.
Speaker 2
Thank you, sir. Now for miss Faglia, if I can. You spoke about the infrastructure need. Is that mostly for conveyance, for building the moving of water from where it is to where you wanna do the recharge?
Speaker 9
Yeah. It it is that or in in the case of Khazamnes is also to enhance the pumps because some of these pumps were preexisting, and river is way more incised by now. So now the pump, they don't go down enough into the riverbed, and so they are not capable of pumping what they were supposed to pump. So that's one part. For the other basins, at the end, if you manage to look into existing infrastructure, you may not need so much, but you always need some kind of improvements.
Because in some of the small district, if a diversion is not really used, maybe it's not very well maintained. So if you want to use it for recharge, you have to be able to monitor how much recharge you really do. You need to have all the data, so you need to revamp the infrastructure. So far, I have to say, really, all the DWR grants pretty much funded this type of this type of work. The the the data collection and the reporting, anyway, I think it's critical because you want to be able to show if if there is a benefit.
That's the only way to get the next grant. Right? So you need to show so we really invested a lot. In all the three example that I presented, we invested a lot on on data. And and and, hopefully, that that's gonna be the way to also keep the stakeholders on board.
If they see the benefit, then they will approve it a little more. But I think it's a combination in terms of funding of infrastructure and the data that are needed to show that things are moving into the right direction.
Speaker 2
That's great to hear that DWR is currently helping with those infrastructure needs.
Speaker 9
to get through. OH didn't get the the DWR grant, so we got diff different combination of grants. Yeah. A little bit with UC Davis, Livermore, Berkeley.
Speaker 2
You spoke about the standard permits versus the 9020. Were you referencing the standard permits to be the five year permit? Is that correct?
Speaker 9
No. The standard permit is just not look looking at the ninetieth percentile of the flow, but looking at a different number, which is based on the actual flow needs or whatever. As Mike said, for Cosomnes, we were able to work with U. S. Fish and Wildlife, a lot of the local stakeholders and NGOs, and we came up with a calculation month by month.
So we have a different threshold in December, January, February, March, which is ways lower, as you saw in my numbers, way lower than the ninety-twenty. In in Scott Valley, we also managed to get the standard permit, so not the 90% rule. And that's because there is a US Forest Service water rights, and we managed after eight years of a lot of engagement. We managed to get the CDFW to agree that that number was protective, so that was enough. So no need to go into the ninetieth percentile.
And that's why in 2024, we recharged for almost three months.
Speaker 2
Can you comment on the different recharge availability from the standard permit to the five year permit? What what are the differences? And
Speaker 9
No. It's the standard permit, I I call it standard. Don't know exactly. I don't know if there is a definition. It's not regarding basically, in Scott Valley, for example, we have and also in Oh, it's a five year permit with, let's say, standard rules for flows.
So they are both five years permit. It's just the way you calculate the flow availability that makes a difference. So instead of going with the 9020, which is streamlined, it takes way less, really, than like, way less work than the whatever standard rule. But it's it's the same. In terms of permits, it's exactly the same.
It's just we don't have in Oh and Scott Valley, they don't have to obey and wait for the ninetieth percentile of the flow every day.
Speaker 2
Madam chair, that may be something that we look towards as we improve June, whether we can align with the standard permit as that would increase the availability of recharge. And just to reiterate, there is a cost effectiveness that occurs from looking at the five year permit that if we could align with the standard permit, we would then increase number of opportunities to be able to do recharge, which should increase the options for many of these agencies to look towards that five year permit and to get us above 1% usage usage right now. Mhmm. So thank you, madam chair, for allowing me to sit on the dais and commenting on this bill.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you, Assembly Member Rambliaf, for coming up with the idea in the first
Speaker 1
don't know if we can improve upon it. A couple questions. I'm intrigued by the fees and the idea of perhaps changing the structure, but we'd have to look at what are the fees used for on the front end. I can see the chair of the water board is nodding his head behind you. But I would like to take a look at that, and if we can somehow tie that to what you ultimately are able to get, you know, then when you have to report back to your board, it becomes a much more realistic and tangible goal in a lot of ways.
And then the second thing I had is, so has the DFW mandate of this daily review of the OWL? I think you said, you left me hanging. Has it been that it shut down your ability to divert at any given day or any given time? I know you have to do the analysis, but did it actually prevent you?
Speaker 8
Yes. So I actually don't know the answer to that. That that was a condition of the most recent permit we received in October, and we have not performed any burrowing out surveys, but I also don't know that we've had any opportunities to divert because of the 9020 methodology.
Speaker 1
It would be something worth looking at if it actually ultimately impedes your ability. You go through all this and then there's no ability to do it would be, you know, troubling, especially on a daily review. So I was intrigued by it. Okay. I I don't have any further questions, but we'll talk about the money upfront because that's a big issue.
Oh, I forgot about that. Okay. Thank you all so much for being here. We're actually gonna go to public comment. So if there is public comment, please come forward and, give us a quick rundown.
You know, we'll give you no more than a minute or so. Seeing no public comment please. Gotta jump up quickly. Good more.
Speaker 10
morning. My name is Betsy Elsafon, and I'm also with Larry Walker Associates, and I work with Larafolia. And I just wanted to emphasize one of the things that she brought up about Sierra Valley, is which the groundwater sustainability plan that I work with. As she noted, we're it's a very small district. We're the only groundwater project that's been permitted that's above Oroville, and the and the Oroville I just wanna emphasize the Oroville condition is extraordinarily restrictive.
If we this year, we were actually able to divert under the 90 we met the ninety twenty condition. I think it was seventy days because we had such a good year. And we only met Oroville. It was less than half of those days. And had we been able to divert with just the ninety twenty and these numbers aren't gonna sound huge to you, but we would have been able to divert oh, actually, it was bigger than that.
It was in the hundreds. We could have done about 200 acre feet or more of diversion. And under the with Oroville, we were only able to divert about 20 acre feet. And all of those numbers sound small, but also, as Laura said, are to meet the sustainable yield, the district only needs to reduce pumping or all that by about it's about 1,500 to 2,000 feet. And so the amount that we were able to divert under the permit was one to 2%.
But had the Oroville condition not been there, we wouldn't have been able to divert we would have been able to address 10 to 20% of that yield. And the big reason that we can't that we need to meet this Oroville condition is to make sure that all of the allocations downstream of Oroville, all the water rights downstream of Oroville are met, which are huge. But the amount that we're diverting on a daily basis, it's at the most, it's two and a half CFS. And the inflow to Oroville on a low day is 3,000 to 5,000 CFS. So we're talking about a flow that's less than 0.1% of the inflow to Oroville.
And so that is a huge issue. And again, this is a very small GSA. Sierra Valley has a population of 1,500 people. The groundwater management district has a staff of two part time people. And we would not have been able to do any of what we've done without the DWR grants.
But it would have a big effect on our ability to meet our sustainable yield, or if it was not a condition. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Good morning, chair and members of the committee. I am Cam Besdeck with Northern California Water Association, and we are the water districts, water companies, small towns, rural communities, and landowners that beneficially use both surface and groundwater resources in the Sacramento Valley. Sustainable groundwater management is woven into the very fabric of the Sacramento Valley, and it is one of our highest priorities across the region. We are very grateful to the legislature and specifically to this committee for reviewing this important topic today. We also look forward to working with the legislature and the administration on adjustments to the current system so that we can scale up our recharge efforts and utilize this opportunity to build towards long term groundwater sustainability.
Thank you.
Speaker 12
Good morning, Madam Chair. Soren Nelson with the Association of California Water Agencies. I just wanted to express my appreciation to to you and the committee for moving forward with this review. I think it's it's timely. It's topical.
It's a consensus item for the water community that this is important and not working well. So it's it's an appropriate focus for the the legislature. I wanted to focus on on two sort of themes that I heard today that sort of extend out into other issues in the water world. The first being infrastructure funding. I think you're probably all very tired of hearing the water community come asking for infrastructure funding.
But this is a really good example of what we're talking about when we talk about that. Prop four had just $75,000,000 in it for conveyance funding. And listening to the the testimony today, there's sort of a chicken and egg problem of, you know, why go out and get a permit and do the work to get the ability to to divert if you don't have the facilities to move the water to where you can recharge it. And for a small district like the ones that we heard from, that's really important to have that state support. The other thing and I'll preface this by saying that I'm I'm married to a civil servant.
I'm the son of two civil servants. But sometimes the the inertia of the state apparatus doesn't lend itself to the goals that the legislature and that the governor have set around recharge. I think we've maybe run into the limit of what the the state water board can do without more help from, the legislature. I think they've done what they can, to extract time and, value out of the process that exists, and so we've probably reached a point where it's appropriate for the legislature to give them the help that they need. So really appreciate the attention, and thank you.
Speaker 5
Good morning. Kyle Jones representing the San Joaquin Valley Water Collaborative Action Program, which is comprised of caucuses that include environmental groups, drinking water groups, local agencies, agriculture, and water supply providers who all, have diverse opinions on the topic of how to do groundwater recharge right, but all agree that it needs to be done in in, ever increasing manner to to, make sure the San Joaquin Valley stays, sustainable in the long term. And so we appreciate this conversation happening today. We know there's a lot of policies that are gonna be discussed this year, and we look forward to working together. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Anybody else? Going once, going twice? Thrice? We'll stand in adjournment.
Thank you all.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.