HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/03/20 KRGSA AGENDABoard Members:
Rodney Palla, Chair
Gene Lundquist
Bob Smith
KERN RIVER GSA
REGULAR MEETING (See attached notice)
Thursday, June 4, 2020
10:00 a.m.
THERE IS NO PHYSICAL LOCATION FOR THIS MEETING
Please join this meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/moin/658230869
You can also dial in using your phone.
United States: +1 (786) 535-3211
Access Code: 658-230-869#
A /►r\111 A
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the March 5, 2020, Regular Meeting
5. NEW BUSINESS
A. Correspondence received (City Clerk)
B. Finance Updates (Randy McKeegan)
i. Receive and File Financial Report
C. Management Group Updates (Beard, Chianello, Teglia)
i. Proposition 1 and Proposition 68 Grant Updates
D. Kern Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Annual Report Update (Phyllis Stanin)
E. Election of Chair
6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
7. ADJOURNMENT
SPECIAL NOTICE
Public Participation and Accessibility
June 4, 2020 Kern River GSA Meeting
On March 17, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20, which includes a waiver of Brown
Act provisions requiring physical presence of the KRGSA Board or the public in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Based on guidance from the California Governor's Office and Department of Public Health, as well as the County
Health Officer, in order to minimize the potential spread of COVID-19, the KRGSA Board hereby provides notice
that as a result of the declared federal, state, and local health emergencies, and in light of the Governor's order, the
following adjustments have been made:
1. The KRGSA Board meeting scheduled for June 4, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. will have public access via
gotomeeting and teleconference.
2. Consistent with the Executive Order, KRGSA Board and Staff will attend the meeting via gotomeeting or
telephonically and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were physically present.
3. The public may participate in the meeting and address the KRGSA Board as follows:
• Join the meeting from a computer, tablet, or smartphone at hftps://global.gotomeeting.com/ioin/658230869
or dial in usingour 12hone at +1 786) 535-3211 and comment during the public statements portion of the
agenda or after staff's discussion on any agenda item.
• If you cannot attend the meeting and wish to comment on a specific agenda item, submit your comment via
email to the Clerk at RGSA(a_kernrivergsa.org no later than 10:00 a.m. on June 4t" prior to the KRGSA
Board meeting. Please clearly indicate which agenda item number your comment pertains to.
• If you cannot attend the meeting and wish to make a general public comment not related to a specific agenda
item, submit your comment via email to the Clerk at KRGSA fkernrivergsa.o[g no later than 10:00 a.m., on
June 4t" prior to the KRGSA Board meeting.
• Alternatively, you may comment by calling (661) 326-3100 and leaving a voicemail no later than 4:00 p.m.
the Wednesday prior to the KRGSA Board meeting. Your message must clearly indicate whether your
comment relates to a particular agenda item, or is a general public comment. If your comment meets the
foregoing criteria, it will be transcribed as accurately as possible and will not be read but will be included
as part of the permanent public record of the meeting.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
1416 NINTH STREET, P.O. BOX 942836
SACRAMENTO, CA 94236-0001
(916) 653-5791
May 14, 2020
Kern River GSA
1000 Buena Vista Road
Bakersfield, California 93311
Craig Altare
Supervising Engineering Geologist
California Department of Water Resources
901 P Street, Room 213
Sacramento, California 94236
Email: Cri_ .lirep_aer.c.gov
Portal Submission: https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/#qsp
GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
Adopted Groundwater Sustainability Plan, Kern River Groundwater Sustainability
Agency
Dear Mr. Chianello:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject Groundwater Sustainability Plan
(GSP) for Kern River Groundwater Sustainability Agency (KRGSA). One of the chief
goals of the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) State Water Project
California Aqueduct Subsidence Program, is to remediate past and ongoing damage to
the California Aqueduct (Aqueduct), while also addressing the underlying cause(s), as
provided for under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA).
Areas and magnitudes of subsidence impacts on the Aqueduct can be found in the
DWR's California Aqueduct Subsidence Study (CASS) (June 2017) and the associated
Supplemental Report (March 2019).
The KRGSA encompasses approximately 230,830 acres within the Kern Subbasin and
sits approximately five to ten miles east of the California Aqueduct. DWR has reviewed
the Kern River GSA Adopted GSP as required under the SGMA. Based on this review
DWR has the following comments on the GSP:
1) Minimum Thresholds (MTs) for groundwater levels are used as proxies for
land subsidence. These MTs permit groundwater elevation declines below
historical lows. This is of particular concern in the southern portion of the
Agricultural Management Area where past subsidence has been documented.
2) Modeling suggests that unless the Projects and Management Actions (PMAs)
listed are implemented, there will be negative changes in the groundwater
storage under baseline and projected 2030 and 2070 climate conditions. It is
important to know which of these PMAs are the most critical and how likely
they are to be implemented in order to evaluate the risk of overdraft.
Mr. Chianello
May 14, 2020
Page 2
3) The GSP accepts future subsidence in some areas of the KRGSA and while
not adjacent to the Aqueduct, these declines in water levels could contribute
to subsidence elsewhere in the Subbasin.
4) Overall, the KRGSA GSP is not considered protective of the Aqueduct.
DWR has engaged KRGSA through interaction with Kern Groundwater Authority on the
above comments and looks forward to our continued collaboration to improve the GSP.
If you have any questions, please contact DWR's California Aqueduct Subsidence
Program Manager Mike Inamine at (916) 213-3810 or michae1Jnamineft_waft gL.ca.qov.
Sincerely,
Ted Craddock
Acting Deputy Director
State Water Project
May 15, 2020
Electronically submitted via SGMA Portal: https://sgma. water. ca.gov/portal#gsp
Re: Assessment of GSPs for Human Right to Water & Drinking Water Needs
To whom it may concern,
Small and rural low-income communities have long borne a disproportionate
share of the burden from California's groundwater management challenges such as
overdraft and contamination.' Given their small size, these communities are generally
unable to adapt to changing groundwater conditions. Because groundwater is a shared
resource, they are also unable to effectively address the root causes of these trends
independently. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), therefore,
represents a landmark opportunity to address these disparities and advance the human
right to safe and affordable water as affirmed in 2012 under AB 685 through
collaborative, regional groundwater planning.
Prior research, however, indicates that these communities are generally not
represented in Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs)2 and faced significant
hurdles to participating in the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) development
process.' Even where Disadvantaged Community (DAC) representatives are actively
participating in SGMA implementation, the integration of rural drinking water interests
and priorities has not always been forthcoming: The vast majority of community
representatives interviewed in 2019 did not believe that SGMA would protect or
advance drinking water needs. In fact, many saw SGMA as a potential threat, citing the
possibility of deteriorating conditions while still facing increased costs.'
To further develop our understanding of this critical water management process
and its relationship to the human right to water, our research team at the University of
California Davis reviewed all 41 of the unique submitted GSPs posted for public
comment as of April 2020. Our review assesses the degree to which specific elements
of the plans address drinking water and DAC related considerations organized into eight
categories: water quality, water access, drinking water as a beneficial use, participation
1 Carolina L. Balazs et al., "Social Disparities in Nitrate -Contaminated Drinking Water in California's San Joaquin Valley,
Environmental Health Perspectives 119, no. 9 (September 2011): 1272-78, https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1002878; Carolina L. Balazs
et al., "Environmental Justice Implications of Arsenic Contamination in California's San Joaquin Valley: A Cross -Sectional, Cluster -
Design Examining Exposure and Compliance in Community Drinking Water Systems," Environmental Health 11, no. 1 (2012): 84;
Laura Feinstein et al., "Drought and Equity in California," Pacific Institute, 2017; Rose Francis and Laurel Firestone, "Implementing
the Human Right to Water in California's Central Valley: Building a Democratic Voice Through Community Engagement in Water
Policy Decision Making," Willamette L. Rev. 47 (2010): 495.
2 Kristin B. Dobbin and Mark Lubell, "Collaborative Governance and Environmental Justice: Disadvantaged Community
Representation in California Sustainable Groundwater Management," Policy Studies Journal, 2019.
s Kristin B. Dobbin, Jessica Mendoza, and Michael Kuo, "Community Perspectives on SGMA Implementation" (UC Davis, June
2019),
https://environmentalpolicy.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk6866/files/files/person/CommunityperspectivesonSGMA_Final.pdf.
4 Dobbin, Mendoza, and Kuo.
and engagement, affordability, projects and management actions, mitigation, and
governance. Importantly, we do not consider every aspect of the plans that are relevant
to drinking water or DACs, nor do we assess the real or potential impact of each plan on
drinking water users. Thus, additional assessments and analyses are needed to form a
complete picture of how the submitted plans might impact the human right to water in
the state, which the department has a responsibility to consider under AB 685. We
provide these comments merely as a starting place for understanding the scope and
focus of these plans as it relates to drinking water.
In addition to informing the Department and Groundwater Sustainability Agencies
of our findings, in the coming weeks we will work to summarize our findings across the
state to identify general trends across these first GSPs. Among our observations thus
far is that many GSPs failed to identify the full extent of drinking water users in their
area. In particular, community and public water systems not operated by public water or
land use agencies were unacknowledged in many plans. The impact of population
growth on projected water budgets is also not well accounted for in many cases.
Further, we find that many plans provide limited to no discussion of the ways that
drinking water stakeholders were involved in determining local sustainability goals and
management criteria.
Appendix A of this document provides the full review results specific to this GSP.
Appendix B provides a summary compilation of reference data that helps describe the
minimum extent of drinking water stakeholders in the plan area organized by GSA.
Appendix C provides more information about our methods and review process. Please
direct any questions to Kristin Dobbin at kbdobbin(ejucdavis,edu.
Sincerely,
Kristin Dobbin, PhD Candidate
UC Davis Department of Environmental Science & Policy
dix A. Kern River GSP assessment
GSP name:
Kern River Groundwater Sustainability Plan
GSP website link: http://www.kernriverclsa.org
Groundwater basin/subbasin name: Kern
Groundwater basin number.- 5-022.14
Number of associated GSA(s): 2
Names of associated GSA (s): Kern River GSA, Greenfield County Water District GSA
For how many of the following 7 constituents has the plan set
Minimum Thresholds (MTs) and for which?: Nitrates, Arsenic,
Uranium, DBCP, 1,2,3 -TCP, Chromium -6, Perchlorate None based on water quality - proxies for water levels used 5-10,5-28
Does the plan use MCLS for setting MTs for those constituents
listed above? (NA if no MTs for the above 7 constituents set) NA
"Recently, two water quality constituents of concern for
drinking water— 1,2,3-trichlorpropane (TCP) and arsenic—
have been detected above the MCL in numerous KRGSA
wells." "As shown on the figure, most nitrate concentrations
are below the MCL throughout the Plan Area. Localized
areas have a well that has exceeded the MCL at least once
during the Study Period." "As noted on Figure 3-31, none of
the detections exceeded the respective MCL. Almost all
detections represent two soil fumigants,
dibromochloropropane (DBCP) and ethylene dibromide
(EDB)." "As shown on Figure 3-32, TCP has been detected
above the MCL in municipal wellfields in the northern
KRGSA, along the eastern KRGSA boundary, and in other
locations in the southern Plan Area. Many of the detections
outside Metropolitan Bakersfield are associated with small
Does the plan discuss current water quality conditions in terms
water systems." There is detailed discussion of TDS,
of drinking water needs/standards (eg PWS MCL violations,
Nitrate, Pesticides, TCP, Arsenic, and environmental clean 3-32, 3-33
public health concerns for domestic wells etc.)? Yes
up sites with consideration of MCLs and mapping. through 3-42,
While there is no explicit discussion of stakeholder
Does the plan explain how drinking water stakeholders were
involvement in setting the thresholds there is reference to
involved in defining URs, MOs or MTs for degraded
conservations and communication with small drinking water
groundwater quality? Somewhat
systems like East Niles CSD 5-29
Does the plan discuss the potential impacts of MTs for water
quality on drinking water users (domestic wells and public water
systems/cities)? Somewhat
Impacts from undesirable results are discussed: "Degraded
water quality can impair water supply, impact human health
and the environment, and create the need for alternative
water sources. Accordingly, degraded water quality has the
potential to affect beneficial uses of groundwater including
drinking water, agricultural or industrial supply, and
environmental uses. Impacts to drinking water supply wells
can cause expensive response actions including
contaminant investigations, well modifications, increased
sampling and monitoring, increased treatment costs, loss of
wells, and/or a loss of water supply." In the causes of
undesirable results there is also some discussion of impacts
related to the MT but phrases as impacts if declines go
significantly beyond MTs: "If water levels are allowed to
decline significantly below historic lows, arsenic
concentrations could exceed the MCL in wells with current
low concentrations. Although wellhead treatment has been
installed on eleven of the more vulnerable wells identified to
date (Figure 3-33), tens of additional municipal wells have
detected arsenic near or above the MCL and are at risk of
increasing arsenic concentrations over time." 5-26,5-17,
Average depth to water during fall 2015 displayed in relation
to well screens for large municipal wells. "On a system -wide
basis, tops of well screens average about 290 feet deep.",
appears as though "system -wide basis" refers to maybe just
municipal wells. There also some brief references to
Does the plan discuss current water levels/depth to groundwater increasing well depth with newer constructed wells and well
conditions in terms of drinking water needs/access? Somewhat depth in relation to water levels in the MTs sections. 5-13,
Does the plan explain how drinking water stakeholders were
involved in defining URs, MOs or MTs for chronic lowering of
groundwater levels? Yes
While only GSP plan managers and the board are
discussed in how undesirable results were determined
which in turn were the basis for setting MTs and MOs
initially in the discussion of the MTs and MOs there are
various examples of setting these thresholds based on
comments received from drinking water providers including
Fuller Acres Mutual Water company, Lamont PUD and East
Niles CSD. Further there is note of a survey of well owners
informing MTs and MOs in the agricultural management 5-13, 5-15, 5 -
area. 17,
There is included discussion about impacts from
undesirable results: "Chronic lowering of water levels can
adversely impact pumping wells and, in some cases,
prevent practical or economical access to groundwater
Does the plan discuss the potential impacts of MTs on drinking supply. With more than 1,200 active wells estimated in the 5-11, 5-12, 5 -
water users (domestic wells and public water systems/cities)? Yes KRGSA Plan Area, these impacts can be widespread and 15,
"The distribution of DACs in the KRGSA Plan Area by
represent a significant economic impact on KRGSA
census place, tract and block is shown on Figure 2-15." All
groundwater users. As water levels decline, well owners
2-34, PDF
DACs/SDACs Yes listed in C&E plan as well
face an increase in energy costs due to the extra distance
Figure 2-12 shows public supply well density. Drawing on
that the well pump must lift the water from the aquifer to the
wells in addition to 162 municipal wells for a total of 229
ground surface. Well capacity can also decline and may not
Public Water Systems (including cities) Yes very close to our reference data estimate. Figure 2-14
PDF page 526
produce sufficient water to meet the beneficial use. If water
levels decline below the pump intake, the well will no longer
produce. In this case, the pump must be lowered to depths
sufficient to accommodate pumping water levels, sometimes
at considerable cost. For some wells, this modification may
not be feasible, and the well may need to be replaced." No
specific found about the impact of the MT but stated it is
intended to be protective of these impacts: "While
maintaining water levels above the MT in representative
monitoring wells is anticipated to result in improved wellfield
operation in the KRGSA Urban MA, the exact water level
that will prevent undesirable results cannot currently be
quantified with certainty. Rather the MT, MO, and
representative monitoring points will require ongoing testing
and potential future adjustment."
"To estimate the extent of Urban MA wells affected from
declining water levels, average depth to water
during Fall 2015 (see Figure 3-27) was plotted on a one -
square -mile grid across the KRGSA Plan Area and
compared to well screens in the large municipal wellfields.
The average depth to water is shown by the color -ramp on
Does the plan include a technical analysis/discussion of
Figure 5-4; the large municipal well fields are also shown on
potential for domestic wells to go dry given management
the map. On a system -wide basis, tops of well screens
decisions? (beyond simply noting the possibility which would be
average about 290 feet deep." This analysis however
5-13,5-14,
included in the above question) Somewhat
doesn't extend through the rest of the plan area
PDF page 305,
There is extensive discussion of impacts from recent lows
during the drought on City and Cal Water municipal wells.
ES -5, ES -6,
Is there an overview of the drinking water impacts experienced
There is also discussion of issues with the Greenfield CWD
ES -12, 3-27, 3 -
during the 2012-2016 drought? Yes
municipal wells. No clear reference to domestic well impacts
30,5-16,
"The distribution of DACs in the KRGSA Plan Area by
census place, tract and block is shown on Figure 2-15." All
CDPs in our reference data are accounted for. DACs are
2-34, PDF
DACs/SDACs Yes listed in C&E plan as well
page 528
Figure 2-12 shows public supply well density. Drawing on
local and public data the plan estimates 67 public supply
wells in addition to 162 municipal wells for a total of 229
2-17,2-18,
Public Water Systems (including cities) Yes very close to our reference data estimate. Figure 2-14
PDF page 526
No No mention outside of comments received
Draft GSP comment period start date August 21, 2019 515
Draft GSP comment period end date
December 5, 2019
Draft GSP comment period length (days) 77
Date that final GSP was adopted December 5, 2019
Is there a Stakeholder Communication and Engagement Plan
515
SGMA portal
included in the GSP? (Y/N) Yes 493
shows active wells by type in the KRGSA. 22 Public water
systems are listed in C&E plan, very close to the 24 CWSs
identified in our reference data.
Figure 2-13 shows domestic well density in the plan area.
Drawing on local and public data sources the plan estimates
that there are 151 industrial, domestic and other private
wells which is far below the conservative estimate we come
Domestic Wells Somewhat
up with in our reference data of 375.
2-18,2-19,
uVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
"Increases in urban demand for the KRGSA were simulated
using projections of population and per capita water use
from local KRGSA UWMPs including the City of Bakersfield,
Cal Water, NORMWD/OMWC, Vaughn WC, Lamont PUD,
and ENCSD. Using data from the UWMPs and County
population projections, an area -weighted average
population growth rate of 1.17 percent annually through
Does GSP account for increased municipal/domestic water
2040 and a 0.8 percent increase for subsequent years was
demand due to future population growth/development? Yes
incorporated into the model."
4-37,
"The Sustainability Goal of the KRGSA GSP, as defined in
Water Code Section 10721(u), is to manage
groundwater sustainably in the KRGSA Plan Area to:
. Support current and future beneficial uses of groundwater
including municipal, agricultural, industrial, public supply,
domestic, and environmental
• Optimize conjunctive use of surface water, imported water,
and groundwater
Does the sustainability goal mention the importance or
. Avoid or eliminate undesirable results throughout the
protection of groundwater for domestic/municipal uses? Yes
planning horizon."
1-2,5-2,
Does the GSP provide a description of how drinking water users
No discussion of stakeholder involvement in sustainability
input was considered when defining the sustainability goal? No
goal development
Does GSP discuss and/or affirm the human right to water (AB
No No mention outside of comments received
Draft GSP comment period start date August 21, 2019 515
Draft GSP comment period end date
December 5, 2019
Draft GSP comment period length (days) 77
Date that final GSP was adopted December 5, 2019
Is there a Stakeholder Communication and Engagement Plan
515
SGMA portal
included in the GSP? (Y/N) Yes 493
"Specifically, the Communication and Engagement Plan
identifies a series of meetings that were held
during the GSP development process to inform and seek
input from DACs within the KRGSA service area (Appendix
F, Section 3). These interactive workshops were arranged
with the assistance of Self Help Enterprises (SHE), a
nonprofit organization that specializes in communicating
with DACs about water quality and reliability issues." "Two
DAC meetings were conducted during the early stages of
GSP development to gather input and suggestions
regarding any issues or concerns that could be addressed in
the plan. Two additional community workshops were held
with DACs during the Draft GSP review period to provide an
opportunity for feedback from under -represented
communities. In addition, two separate Grower Outreach
Meetings were held at KDWD, which also included
attendees from the DACs, to review specific KRGSA GSP
actions that would directly impact local stakeholders. Those
meetings provided the opportunity for discussion and
feedback from stakeholders/homeowners who rely on
shared domestic wells. As indicated in the materials
Were significant and meaningful attempts at outreach and
provided in the Communication and Engagement Plan in
community involvement in GSP development made? (public
Appendix F, these various outreach meetings have been
workshops, community meetings, targeted outreach,
well attended and attendees have been actively engaged
various/creative communication methods, material development
in discussing issues related to SGMA and groundwater use
etc. Don't count full draft plan public comment period required
in the Subbasin." Documentation also provided for a large
by law but can consider prior comment periods on parts of
series of technical public workshops. Distributed stakeholder 2-33, 2-34, 2 -
preliminary drafts if applicable) Yes
surveys at workshops and other events. 35, Appendix F
"In addition to verbal comments addressed directly during
local outreach meetings, a series of written comments were
received late in the public review period and addressed in
the Public Hearing on December 5, 2019 prior to GSP
adoption. "Regarding the City of Los Angeles comments,
amounts and availability of recycled water were edited in the
Draft GSP as requested in the comment letter. Clarifying
sentences and information on interconnected surface water
and groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs) were
added to the Draft GSP in response to the comments by
CDFW. Comments provided by the Leadership Counsel
involved a series of technical comments, which were
analyzed and addressed directly in the Public Hearing
presentation" "In brief, the KRGSA changed the Draft GSP
sustainable management criteria in the eastern Agricultural
MA to address a concern from small water suppliers in the
Is there evidence of the GSA (s) incorporating public comments
DACs" "Some additional clarifying revisions were made to
into GSP? Yes
the Draft GSP to provide an improved understanding of 2-35,515
several issues mentioned in the comment letters.
Attachment F.6 contains a brief summary of the responses
to the written comments, followed by each comment letter in
its entirety."
"SHE identifies target communities, coordinates publicity,
provides bilingual informational materials, and makes
Spanish-speaking translators available at the meetings." 2-34, Appendix
Translation/interpretation efforts made? (notices, meetings, Appendix F attachments F.4 and F.5 provide copies of F attachments
materials, GSP) Yes translated materials used in meetings and outreach events. 4 and 5
Is there a plan for inclusive public engagement during GSP
Somewhat
Is drinking water affordability discussed in the plan and/or are
accommodations for affordability made (e.g.
exemptions/reductions/rebates for fees or penalties for low-
income users)? Somewhat
"Now that the GSP has been revised and adopted, KRGSA
will continue to seek input and provide updates on the status
of groundwater monitoring and groundwater quality at Board
meetings, in website postings, and by other means as
appropriate. The KRGSA looks forward to a continuing
dialog with interested parties and stakeholders as the GSP
implementation moves forward." "Following adoption of a
GSP by the Board, KRGSA will continue to engage in public
outreach activities. Regular updates on the progress of GSP
management actions and projects will be provided on the
KRGSA website and at Board meetings. Information about
groundwater monitoring and water quality data will be
available through the annual reports provided to DWR.
Additional outreach activities and opportunities for public
input and feedback will be made available as appropriate
during GSP implementation." 2-35,516
One consideration mentioned for setting minimum
thresholds is to ensure the ability of the City to avoid
treatment thereby supporting goal of keeping water rates
lows. 5-28,
Does the plan include projects/actions that specifically address
drinking water needs? (generally reducing pumping or Projects for phase one include increasing the use of
increasing supply not counted whereas targeted recharge to recycled water and the consolidation of small systems to
improve water quality while increasing supply or targeted address drinking water quality issues. Possible water
recharge to protect domestic or otherwise vulnerable wells from exchanges are also envisioned for mitigating water quality
dewatering would count) Yes issues for DACs 7-2, 7-10, 7-12,
Does the plan include projects/actions that directly benefit a Consolidation of small water systems in East Niles CSD
DAC/SDAC? (same stipulations as above) Yes impacts several DACs ES -16,
"Greenfield CWD is cooperating with KRGSA in development of its GSP through an
MOU (Appendix C)." There is also an MOU in place to cover Kern County lands.
Description of plan -wide governance/decision-making system KRGSA leads GSP development with Greenfield participating and separately 1-4,1-1,
for GSP development if applicable adoption. Appendix C
Description of plan -wide advisory or stakeholder committee for
GSP development if applicable None
Drinking water stakeholders represented on
stakeholder/advisory committee? (NA for those without
committee) NA
Management areas and MTs and MOs for specific wells
were set to avoid drinking water impacts. Additionally, "both
small water systems and domestic wells occur throughout
the KRGSA Agricultural Area. Although well problems with
historic low water levels have not been documented, such
problems could be occurring with stakeholders that have not
yet engaged with the GSP process. To account for this
uncertainty, management actions have been included in this
Plan to provide for improved identification and
documentation of wells throughout the KRGSA Agricultural
MA to adapt future sustainable management criteria to
consider all wells and landowners." "KRGSA will support
Plan Area DACs in securing technical, managerial, and
financial assistance through partnerships with local
organizations such as the California Rural Water
Association, as needed. Such agencies offer programs,
Does the GSA propose any actions/projects to mitigate for
including the Specialized Utilities Services Program, which
impacts to drinking water wells caused by the actions (or lack of
could provide ongoing assistance to DACs in the KRGSA
actions) of the GSA? Impacts may include dry wells,
Plan Area. These programs, in conjunction with state and
contamination plume etc. Programs may include mitigation
local grant funding, can support abandonment of poor -
funds, drinking water wells technical assistance, protection
quality wells and/or installation of replacement wells to
zones near DACs and SDACs and other options. Yes
improve drinking water supply." 5-18,7-20,
,a simplistic approach to a Measurable Objective is
incorporated into this GSP. Recognizing the need to
maintain water levels within a reasonable operational range
similar to an historical range, the midpoint of an operational
range is selected as a guide for a MO as explained in the
Does the plan go beyond aiming to prevent further degradation
following sections." MOs were set different for different wells
and strive to remediate groundwater conditions and advance the
but often by using either the average of the historic lows and
human right to water? Yes
historic high conditions or historic high conditions. 5-9, 5-29. 5-30,
"Greenfield CWD is cooperating with KRGSA in development of its GSP through an
MOU (Appendix C)." There is also an MOU in place to cover Kern County lands.
Description of plan -wide governance/decision-making system KRGSA leads GSP development with Greenfield participating and separately 1-4,1-1,
for GSP development if applicable adoption. Appendix C
Description of plan -wide advisory or stakeholder committee for
GSP development if applicable None
Drinking water stakeholders represented on
stakeholder/advisory committee? (NA for those without
committee) NA
DAC stakeholders represented on stakeholder/advisory
committee? (NA for those without committee) NA
"The KRGSA is an exclusive Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) in the Kern
County Subbasin. KRGSA member agencies include the City of Bakersfield, Kern
Delta Water District (KDWD), Kern County Water Agency (KCWA) Improvement
District No. 4 (04), North of the River Municipal Water District/Oildale Mutual Water
Company (NORMWD/OMWC), and East Niles Community Services District
(ENCSD)." 'The KRGSA is governed by a Board of Directors, one from each of the
Description of GSA governing board three largest member agencies, the City of Bakersfield, ID4, and KDWD." 1-1, 1-5,
Description of GSA advisory/stakeholder committee None
Is this GSA a drinking -water provider, or if the GSA is an
MOU/JPA or special district, is one or more drinking -water
representatives on the board? Y City of Bakersfield 1-5,
Does this GSA directly represent a DAC? Or if the GSA is an
MOU/JPA or special district, is one or more DAC
representatives on the board?
Are there specific drinking water stakeholders represented on
stakeholder/advisory committee? (NA for those without
committee) NA
Are there specific DAC stakeholders represented on
stakeholder/advisory committee? (NA for those without
committee) NA
Neither Kern County Water Agency, City of Bakersfield and
Kern Delta Water District correspond to or primarily serve a
DAC 1-5,
Description of GSA governing board Greenfield County Water District board is board of directors of GSA
of GSA advisory/stakeholder committee None
Is this GSA a drinking-water provider, or if the GSA is an
MOU/JPA or special district, is one or more drinking-water
representatives on the board? Y
Does this GSA directly represent a DAC? Or if the GSA is an
MOU/JPA or special district, is one or more DAC
representatives on the board? Y
Are there specific drinking water stakeholders represented on
stakeholder/advisory committee? (NA for those without
committee) NA
Are there specific DAC stakeholders represented on
stakeholder/advisory committee? (NA for those without
committee) NA
dix B. Baseline reference data for Kern River GSP
Kern River 1 Bakersfield 5 Greenfield 26
DEL ORO WC - 30
DEL ORO WC - 241 370
GSA city CDP, Lamont
COUNTRY ESTATES
COUNTRY ESTATES
CDP, Oildale
DIST, STOCKDALE
DIST, STOCKDALE
CDP,
ANNEX MUTUAL WATER,
ANNEX MUTUAL WATER,
Weedpatch
CASA LOMA WATER CO,
CASA LOMA WATER CO,
CDP, Fuller
INC., VAUGHN WC INC,
INC., WM. BOLTHOUSE
Acres CDP
OLD RIVER MUTUAL
FARMS, INC., VAUGHN
WATER COMPANY,
WC INC, OLD RIVER
STOCKDALE RANCHOS
MUTUAL WATER
MUTUAL WATER CO,
COMPANY, STOCKDALE
LAMONT PUBLIC UTILITY
RANCHOS MUTUAL
DIST, OILDALE MWC,
WATER CO, LAMONT
SOUTH KERN MUTUAL
PUBLIC UTILITY DIST,
WATER COMPANY, CWS
OILDALE MWC, SOUTH
- BAKERSFIELD, CWS -
KERN MUTUAL WATER
NORTH GARDEN, EAST
COMPANY, CWS -
NILES CSD, RANCHOS
BAKERSFIELD, CWS -
DEL RIO, BAKERSFIELD,
NORTH GARDEN, EAST
CITY OF, VICTORY
NILES CSD, RANCHOS
MUTUAL WATER
DEL RIO, BAKERSFIELD,
COMPANY, STOCKDALE
CITY OF, VICTORY
MUTUAL WATER CO.,
MUTUAL WATER
ATHAL MUTUAL WATER
COMPANY, STOCKDALE
SYSTEM, PANAMA ROAD
MUTUAL WATER CO.,
PROPERTY OWNERS
ATHAL MUTUAL WATER
ASSOC, WINI MUTUAL
SYSTEM, PANAMA ROAD
WATER COMPANY, EAST
PROPERTY OWNERS
WILSON ROAD WATER
ASSOC, WINI MUTUAL
COMPANY, EL ADOBE
WATER COMPANY,
POA, INC., OASIS
FOUR TWENTY 420
PROPERTY OWNERS
CLUB, EAST WILSON
ASSOCIATION, FULLER
ROAD WATER
ACRES MUTUAL WATER
COMPANY, EL ADOBE
COMPANY, GOSFORD
POA, INC., OASIS
ROAD WATER
PROPERTY OWNERS
COMPANY, DE RANCHO
ASSOCIATION, FULLER
Y MOBILE VILLA WATER,
ACRES MUTUAL WATER
RIVERDALE VILLAGE
COMPANY, GOSFORD
ROAD WATER
COMPANY, DELTA
TRADING WATER
SYSTEM, LAKESIDE
SCHOOL, DE RANCHO Y
MOBILE VILLA WATER,
RIVERDALE VILLAGE
Greenfield 0 NA 1 Greenfield 1 GREENFIELD COUNTY 1 GREENFIELD COUNTY 5 5
County CDP WD WD
Water
District
GSA
Total 1 6 27 31 246 375
Data notes (for more information and data sources see Appendix C):
1. These analyses were limited to only critically overdrafted basins thus for GSPs submitted for non -critically overdrafted basins some reference data is missing.
Missing data is indicated by "missing".
2. DAC, city or water systems that overlap by less than ten percent of their area with a respective GSA not included here.
3. The water boundary tool data is not comprehensive for every public water system in the state, the number of both Community Water Systems (CWSs) and Public
Water Systems (PWSs) are therefore minimum numbers and may very well be missing other existing systems in the GSA area.
4. Rather than using the raw OSWCR data, a cleaned version of the database from Pauloo et al. (2020) is used. This cleaned dataset was then conservatively
filtered to exclude wells constructed during or before 1975 based on the possibility of such wells no longer being despite the fact that we do know that some such
wells are still in use today. The count of domestic wells per GSA, therefore, should also be considered a conservative minimum estimate. Further, the OSWCR
dataset only includes reported wells, unreported wells are likely found in many if not every GSA (Pauloo 2018).
5. Where more than one GSA is covered by a submitted GSP, the total sums of DAC, city, water systems and well counts provided at the bottom of Appendix B
tables includes duplicates where there is overlap between GSPs or where DACs/cities/water systems boundaries span multiple GSAs.
Updated May 15, 2020
Appendix C: Methods and supporting documentation for assessment of GSPs for
Human Right to Water & Drinking Water Needs
Table of Contents:
Acronyms.............................................................................................1
Assessment scope and limitations.............................................................1
GSP assessment methods.......................................................................2
Appendix B reference data sources and methods.........................................3
GSP review protocols by element..............................................................4
Researchteam....................................................................................21
References......................................................................................... 21
Acronyms:
• CDP — Census Designated Place
• C&E - Communication and Engagement
• CWS — Community Water System
• DAC - Disadvantaged Community (used inclusively to encompass DACs and
Severely Disadvantaged Communities (SDACs))
• DWR - Department of Water Resources
• GSA - Groundwater Sustainability Agency
• GSP - Groundwater Sustainability Plan
• MO - Measurable Objective
• MT - Minimum Threshold
• OSWCR - Online System of Well Completion Reports
• PWS — Public Water System
• SDWIS - State Drinking Water Information System
• SGMA - Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
• SMC - Sustainable Management Criteria
• UR - Undesirable Result
Assessment scope and limitations:
Our review of submitted Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) is intended to
capture the degree to which each plan documents engagement with important drinking
water and DAC considerations and stakeholders. Informed by the emergency
regulations for GSPs adopted by the California Water Commission, the review structure
focuses on specific GSP elements that relate to the tenants of state's Human Right to
Water law (AB 685) (safe, clean, affordable and accessible drinking water) as well as to
considerations of fair treatment and meaningful involvement under California Public
Resources Code § 30107.3. Notably, given limited capacity and resources, our review
of even these elements is necessarily incomplete. There are many drinking water and
Updated May 15, 2020
DAC relevant considerations that are not included in this review, for example, the full
and accurate incorporation of drinking water consumptive uses in water budget
calculations. Thus, these assessments are merely a starting place for considering the
relationship between SGMA implementation and current and future drinking water
access.
In addition to its limited scope, three other considerations are also important to
note about our review: First, beyond comparing the drinking water stakeholders
identified in each GSP to publicly available data to estimate a baseline number of
DACs/SDACs, incorporated cities, Community Water Systems, Public Water Systems,
public supply wells and domestic groundwater wells, this review does not assess the
accuracy of information included in a GSP. Second, the review can only consider what
is documented in each GSP, thus reflects the plan's contents rather than the GSP
development process directly. This is particularly true for stakeholder outreach and
engagement. Third, while potentially correlated with discussion of drinking water
considerations and stakeholders, this review does not assess the potential or magnitude
of impacts to drinking water stakeholders under a GSP. Additional assessments and
analyses are needed to understand the potential impacts of submitted GSPs on drinking
water stakeholders and the human right to water in California.
GSP assessment methods:
All 41 unique Groundwater Sustainability Plans posted for public comment were
downloaded from the SGMA portal on February 20, 2020. A copy of our GSP review
matrix, developed based on the above objectives and piloted on draft plans, was made
for each GSP. Each section of the review was then completed in accordance with the
project review protocols (see GSP review protocols by element) by a research team
member. Generally, each review element pertains to one or a few specific GSP
sections/subsections such that a reviewer, after reading the executive summary of the
plan, could jump to those sections (or the equivalent sections according to the GSP
organization statement) to fill out the matrix. For select elements, keyword searches of
the entire plan were used in addition to, or instead of, reviewing specific sections. In
these keyword searches, standard stemming techniques ensured a comprehensive
review.
Aberrations and uncertainties in implementing any of the protocols were noted in
the shared review protocol document leading to updates of the protocols as needed. In
some cases, especially where plans did not follow the DWR annotated GSP outline,
information pertaining to a review criteria was found in sections/subsections other than
those noted for review in the protocol, this information was included in the review so
long as it was fully applicable to the review question. Information included in appendices
was reviewed and considered where applicable and when indicated directly in the plan
text (e.g. see Appendix X for additional details about basin water quality), however,
2
Updated May 15, 2020
appendices were not reviewed independently for relevant content outside of such
mentions. Reference documents included within GSPs such as DWR Best Management
Practice documents were excluded from consideration entirely. Once each section of
the review was completed, the entire matrix was reviewed by the lead researcher for
completeness and accordance with the established protocols. As a final quality
assurance measure, upon completing all of the reviews, each element was reviewed
comparatively across all 41 GSP assessments to ensure consistency in protocol
application.
Appendix 8 reference data sources and methods:
The following data layers/sources were used to compile reference data organized
by exclusive Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA):
DAC Places 2016 (DWR DAC mapping tool: https.//qis.water.ca.gov/app/dacs/,
includes non -DAC CDPs/cities)
• Exclusive GSAs (DWR GSA map viewer:
htts://sgma,water,ca,goy/webgis/index,js laid=gasmasterrz=true)
• Critically overdrafted groundwater basins (DWR water management planning
tool: htt s.//gis.water.ca, ov/app/boundaries/)
• Public Water system boundaries (Tracking California Water Boundary Tool:
htts://trackingcalifornia,or/water-systems/water-systems-landing)
• Cleaned well completion reports for public supply wells (cleaned OSWCR data
filtered by well type: Pauloo, R. et al. (2019), Domestic Well Vulnerability to
Drought Duration and Unsustainable Groundwater Management in California's
Central Valley, v2, UC Davis, Dataset, Il tt .,5:: doii„or�/10„25336/IB6Q31ID)
• Cleaned well completion reports for domestic supply wells (cleaned OSWCR
data filtered by well type: Pauloo, R. et al. (2019), Domestic Well Vulnerability to
Drought Duration and Unsustainable Groundwater Management in California's
Central Valley, v2, UC Davis, Dataset, Il tt .,5:: doii„or�/10„25336/IB6Q31ID)
Using these layers, spatial intersections were completed using QGIS and summarized
to create the following CSV data files: DAC Places inside exclusive GSAs; Cities inside
exclusive GSAs; Public Water Systems inside exclusive GSAs; Community Water
Systems inside exclusive GSAs; public supply wells in exclusive GSAs and domestic
wells in exclusive GSAs. These analyses were limited to only critically overdrafted
basins thus for GSPs submitted for non -critically overdrafted basins some reference
data is missing. For polygon joins, we excluded all those intersections where less than
10% of the area of the DAC, city or water system boundary fell into the respective GSA.
Based on the data layers used in the analysis, three things are important to note
about the reference data summary tables. First, not all public water systems have
voluntarily submitted their boundaries to the state meaning that there are water
3
Updated May 15, 2020
systems, including active ones, missing from our analysis. The number of both
Community Water Systems (CWSs) and Public Water Systems (PWSs) are therefore
more akin to minimum numbers. Second, rather than including unprocessed OSWCR
(Online System of Well Completion reports) data from the Department of Water
Resources, a cleaned version of the database from Pauloo et al. (2020) is used. This
cleaned dataset was then conservatively filtered to exclude wells constructed during or
before 1975 based on the possibility of such wells no longer being despite the fact that
we do know that some such wells are still in use today. Thus the count of domestic
wells per GSA should also be considered a conservative minimum estimate. Further,
the OSWCR dataset only includes reported wells, unreported wells are likely found in
many if not every GSA (Pauloo 2018). Finally, because the data is organized by GSA
rather than GSP, where more than one GSA is covered by a submitted GSP, the total
sums of DAC, city, water systems and well counts provided at the bottom of Appendix B
tables includes duplicates where there is overlap between GSPs or where
DACs/cities/water systems boundaries span multiple GSAs.
GSP review protocols by section:
GENERAL INFORMATION
o GSP name, groundwater basin/subbasin name and number both come
from SGMA GSP portal
o Websites found using the SGMA GSP portal and/or google
o Number and names of associated GSAs from SGMA GSP portal
■ All GSAs covered by the plans are included in Appendix B
reference data however only those GSAs listed as formally affiliated
with the GSP were addressed in the governance sections.
WATER QUALITY
o For how many of the following seven constituents has the plan set
Minimum Thresholds (MTs) and for which?: Nitrates, Arsenic, Uranium,
DBCP, 1,2,3 -TCP, Chromium -6, Perchlorate
■ GSP section: Sustainable Management Criteria, Minimum
Thresholds (Reg. § 354.28) for degraded water quality indicator
■ Notes: MTs for Total Chromium not considered for Chromium -6
o Does the plan use MCLs for setting MTs for those constituents listed
above? (NA if no MTs for the above 7 constituents set)
■ GSP section: Sustainable Management Criteria, Minimum
Thresholds (Reg. § 354.28) for degraded water quality indicator
■ Yes: For those MTs set for the above seven constituents, MTs are
set at or below state MCLs.
■ Somewhat: Either state MCLs used for some but not all MTs set or
MCLs used as MTs generally but exceedances allowed under
4
Updated May 15, 2020
certain conditions (e.g. for those wells with recent exceedances)
■ No: MTs are set at or above state MCLs
■ NA where MTs are not set of any of the seven key drinking water
constituents (Nitrates, Arsenic, Uranium, DBCP, 1,2,3 -TCP,
Chromium -6, Perchlorate)
■ Notes:
• For Chromium -6 the previous state MCL or screening
standards were both considered as using MCLs as was
listing the MT as the revised state MCL if/when adopted.
• In many plans singular or even multiple exceedances of MT
are not grounds for asserting undesirable results or
triggering management actions. Thus the recorded MTs are
not necessarily reflective of the designated threshold for
undesirable results in a basin or minimum -acceptable
conditions as described in the plans.
• If a plan sets different MTs based on well type, drinking
water well MTs were used for this section.
o Does the plan discuss current water quality conditions in terms of drinking
water needs/standards (eg PWS MCL violations, public health concerns
for domestic wells etc.) ?
■ GSP section: Basin setting, Current and Historical Groundwater
Conditions (Reg. § 354.16)
■ Yes: Discussion of groundwater quality includes reference to
drinking water standards/public health, detailed discussion and/or
mapping of contaminant levels, discussion of detections, discussion
of MCL violations etc. included in plan.
■ Somewhat: Plan includes some discussion of constituents of
concern including, at minimum, reference to public health/drinking
water standards, but lacks detailed mapping or discussion of
contaminant levels/distribution in the GSP area.
■ No: There is no discussion of groundwater quality as it relates to
drinking water or public health standards. This includes plans with
thorough mapping and description of groundwater quality issues if
there is no reference to how these levels relate to or impact public
health or compliance with drinking water standards.
o Does the plan explain how drinking water stakeholders were involved in
defining URs, MOs or MTs for degraded groundwater quality?
■ GSP section: Sustainable Management Criteria, Measurable
Objectives (Reg. § 354.30), Minimum Thresholds (Reg. § 354.28)
and Undesirable Results (Reg. § 354.26) for degraded water quality
5
Updated May 15, 2020
indicator
■ Yes: There are specific details of the ways that stakeholders were
involved that are explicitly inclusive of drinking water stakeholders
(for example if they talk specifically about community or city
residents, water system or city staff etc.) or could reasonably be
assumed to be (like community meetings or public meetings).
Enough detail needs to be provided that the reader can reasonably
understand how these stakeholders shaped the process for two or
more sustainable management criteria (URs, MTs, MOs).
■ Somewhat: Plan vaguely talks about stakeholder input at a high
level but without much details on the mechanisms or the plan talks
about drinking -water inclusive stakeholder input only for one
sustainable management criteria (e.g. URs).
■ No: There is no mention or discussion of stakeholder input in
setting SMC or there is only discussion of non -drinking water
stakeholder involvement.
■ Notes: Board of directors involvement without mention or
discussion of broader public not considered as stakeholder
involvement, involvement of an advisory committee is.
o Does the plan discuss the potential impacts of MTs for water quality on
drinking water users (domestic wells and public water systems/cities)?
■ GSP section: Sustainable Management Criteria, Minimum
Thresholds (Reg. § 354.28) and Undesirable Results (Reg. §
354.26) for degraded water quality indicator
■ Yes: There is specific discussion of potential impacts of the
designated MTs for domestic wells and public water systems as
applicable (e.g. increased costs for treatment, MCL violations, need
for blending or replacement water, public health concerns)
■ Somewhat: There is either: 1) high level acknowledgement of
potential impacts of MTs for drinking -water stakeholders but it lacks
detail (e.g. domestic wells could be negatively impacted); 2) there is
a discussion of potential impacts of the MTs but they are not
specific to drinking -water stakeholders or consider only one type of
applicable drinking water stakeholder omitting relevant others (don't
discuss domestic wells or only discuss domestic wells); or 3) there
is discussion of potential impacts of undesirable results for drinking
water stakeholders but no discussion of how MTs specifically could
impact drinking water users.
■ No: There is no discussion of potential impacts or discussion is
limited to non -drinking water stakeholders for both MTs and URs.
X
Updated May 15, 2020
■ Note: Discussion of human health or public health was considered
to be drinking -water specific.
WATER ACCESS
o Does the plan discuss current water levels/depth to groundwater
conditions in terms of drinking water needs/access?
■ GSP section: Basin setting, Current and Historical Groundwater
Conditions (Reg. § 354.16)
■ Yes: Groundwater levels are discussed or graphed in relation to
domestic or public supply well depth.
■ Somewhat: Plan includes discussion of well depths and discussion
of groundwater levels but not in relation to one another or
discussion of the two together is minimal.
■ No: Drinking water well depths are not discussed.
o Does the plan explain how drinking water stakeholders were involved in
defining URs, MOs or MTs for chronic lowering of groundwater levels?
■ GSP sections: Sustainable Management Criteria, Measurable
Objectives (Reg. § 354.30), Minimum Thresholds (Reg. § 354.28)
and Undesirable Results (Reg. § 354.26) for declining groundwater
levels indicator
■ Yes: There are specific details of the ways that stakeholders were
involved that are explicitly inclusive of drinking water stakeholders
(for example if they talk specifically about community or city
residents, water system or city staff etc.) or could reasonably be
assumed to be (like community meetings or public meetings).
Enough detail needs to be provided that the reader can reasonably
understand how these stakeholders shaped the process for two or
more sustainable management criteria (URs, MTs, MOs).
■ Somewhat: Plan vaguely talks about stakeholder input at a high
level but without much detail on the mechanisms or the plan talks
about drinking -water inclusive stakeholder input only for one
sustainable management criteria.
■ No: There is no mention of stakeholder input or there is only
mention of involvement of non -drinking water stakeholder
involvement.
■ Notes: Board of directors involvement without mention or
discussion of broader public not considered as stakeholder
involvement, involvement of an advisory committee is.
o Does the plan discuss the potential impacts of MTs on drinking water
users (domestic wells and public water systems/cities)?
■ GSP sections: Sustainable Management Criteria, Minimum
7
Updated May 15, 2020
Thresholds (Reg. § 354.28) and Undesirable Results (Reg. §
354.26) for declining groundwater levels indicator
■ Yes: There are specific and detailed discussion of potential impacts
of the designated MTs explicitly about domestic wells and/or public
water systems (eg well damage, dry wells, costs for replacement
wells or water source)
■ Somewhat: There is either: 1) high level acknowledgement of
potential impacts of MTs for drinking -water stakeholders (e.g. wells
could go dry); 2) there is a discussion of potential impacts of the
MTs but they are not specific to drinking -water stakeholders or
consider only one type of applicable drinking water stakeholder
omitting others (don't discuss domestic wells or only discuss
domestic wells); or 3) there is detailed discussion of potential
impacts for drinking water stakeholders but only of undesirable
results generally rather than the specific MTs set under the plan.
■ No: There is no discussion of potential impacts or discussion is
limited to non -drinking water stakeholders
o Does the plan include a technical analysis/discussion of potential for
domestic wells to go dry given management decisions? (beyond simply
noting the possibility which would be included in the above question)
■ GSP section: Sustainable Management Criteria, Minimum
Thresholds (Reg. § 354.28) for declining groundwater levels
indicator
■ Yes: Plan includes an analysis that considers well depth (domestic
wells or all wells) in relation to the MTs set that results in
descriptive statistics about dry/impacted wells under MT conditions.
■ Somewhat: Plan includes thorough analysis or discussion of the
possibility of dry wells but stops short of providing analysis results
or an analysis is included but is not comprehensive for the plan
area.
■ No: No analysis or technical discussion of potential well failures
included
o Is there an overview of the drinking water impacts experienced during the
2012-2016 drought?
■ Keywords/phrases searched: Dry wells, emergency, bottled water,
drought, funding, recent drought. Relevant content also found while
reviewing the current and historical basin conditions and other
sections.
■ Yes: Details about the recent drought's impacts on drinking water
impacts are included in the plan (eg reference to bottled water and
E:3
Updated May 15, 2020
emergency interim solutions programs, description of water
shortages, information about emergency drought restrictions)
■ Somewhat: Drinking water impacts of the recent drought are
referenced in passing but not elaborated on (eg small water
systems were impacted by recent drought)
■ No: There is no discussion of drought impacts directly related to
drinking water. This includes, for example, discussion of declining
groundwater levels that aren't related to well impacts.
DRINKING WATER AS BENEFICIAL USE
o Are DACS /SDACs adequately identified as a beneficial user?
■ GSP sections: Description of the Plan Area (Reg. § 354.8), Notice
and Communication (Reg. § 354.10) and Communication and
Engagement Plan (where applicable)
■ Yes: DACs/SDACs in the plan area are at minimum named and
mapped (or locations described) and closely or perfectly mirror the
reference data provided in Appendix B (minor deviations okay
especially where references to 2017 data included)
■ Somewhat: Many but not all of the DACs/SDACs in the area are
named and/or mapped per reference data provided in Tab 2. Or
DACs are mapped at census block or tract level only and there are
DACP places in the plan area.
■ No: None or few DACs/SDACs in the area are named or mapped.
■ NA: There are no DACs/SDACs in the GSP area according to our
reference data (Appendix 2, 2016 DWR data used, intersections of
less than ten percent of DAC area excluded for reference data).
■ Note:
• For the purposes of this review, we did not distinguish
between DACs and SDACs.
• Where no reference data available for comparison, used
online DAC mapping tool from DWR too look at plan area.
o Are Public Water Systems (PWSs, including cities) adequately identified
as a beneficial user?
■ GSP sections: Description of the Plan Area (Reg. § 354.8), Notice
and Communication (Reg. § 354.10) and Communication and
Engagement Plan (where applicable)
■ Yes: Plan includes at least two of the following: Number of public
supply wells, list of public water systems and/or community water
systems, locations of public supply wells and/or water systems, or
descriptive information about public supply well depths.
■ Somewhat: Plan includes at least one of the following: Number of
9
Updated May 15, 2020
public supply wells, number or list of public water systems,
locations of public supply wells and/or water systems, or descriptive
information about well depths. Alternatively, two or more types of
information are provided but the number of public supply wells or
public water systems is significantly below what is identified in the
reference data.
■ No: Plan either does not mention public water systems or they are
mentioned without providing the above details.
■ NA: There are no public water systems in the GSP area according
to our reference data (Tab 2).
■ Notes:
• Our reference data employs the water boundary tool data
which is not complete thus systems are expected to be
identified in the plans that are not shown in our reference
data in Appendix B.
• Where no reference data available assumed their data was
accurate and answer question based on level of
information/detail provided.
o Are domestic wells adequately identified as a beneficial user?
■ GSP sections: Description of the Plan Area (Reg. § 354.8), Notice
and Communication (Reg. § 354.10) and Communication and
Engagement Plan (where applicable)
■ Yes: Plan includes at least two of the following: the total number of
domestic wells, information about their locations (e.g. density map
or discussion of their geographic distribution in the plan area) or
descriptive information about domestic well depth.
■ Somewhat: Plan includes just one of the following: the total number
of domestic wells, information about their locations (e.g. density
map or discussion of their geographic distribution in the plan area)
or descriptive information about domestic well depth. Alternatively,
two or more types of information provided but the number of
domestic wells identified is significantly below what is identified in
the reference data.
■ No: Domestic wells are either not mentioned or their presence is
acknowledged without providing details about number, locations or
depth.
■ Notes:
Because OSWCR data only includes reported wells and
because this data set was cleaned and then filtered to only
those wells constructed after 1975 the reference data
10
Updated May 15, 2020
estimate for domestic wells should be considered a minimum
baseline.
Where no reference data available assumed their data was
accurate and answer question based on level of
information/detail provided.
o Does GSP account for increased municipal/domestic water demand due
to future population growth/development?
■ GSP section: Basin setting, Water Budget Information (Reg. §
354.18)
■ Yes: Projected water budget accounts for growth in both
incorporated and unincorporated communities with clear
information about how/why the given projections were made (eg
Urban Water Management Plan projections). Ideally dispersed rural
residential growth also incorporated but can still receive a yes
designation without it. Also can receive a yes designation is rather
than including growth a citation from a local land use planning
agency is provided justifying the projected lack of growth.
■ Somewhat: Growth rates for cities and unincorporated communities
are incorporated into the projected budget but no
discussion/rationale for the included projections is provided or
growth projections are included for only some but not all the cities
and unincorporated communities in the area.
■ No: Residential growth is not incorporated into the projected water
budget and no local land use planning agency source is provided to
justify this omission.
■ NA where no community water systems present
o Does the sustainability goal mention the importance or protection of
groundwater for domestic/municipal uses?
■ GSP section: Sustainable Management Criteria, Sustainability Goal
(Reg. § 354.24)
■ Yes: Goal explicitly mentions the importance of, or protecting,
groundwater for domestic/municipal uses, drinking water or public
health.
■ Somewhat: Goal broadly discussed protection of beneficial
uses/users, "community" or "residents" broadly
■ No: Goal neither mentions drinking water, public health nor the
protection of beneficial uses/users, residents, or community.
o Does the GSP provide a description of how drinking water users input was
considered when defining the sustainability goal?
■ GSP section: Sustainable Management Criteria, Sustainability Goal
11
Updated May 15, 2020
(Reg. § 354.24)
■ Yes: Plan includes discussion of the process whereby the
sustainability goal was determined that is explicitly inclusive of
drinking water stakeholders (for example if they talk specifically
about community or city residents, water system or city staff etc.) or
could reasonably be assumed to be (like community meetings or
public meetings). Must include enough details that the reader can
understand how stakeholder involvement directly contributed to
shaping the goal.
■ Somewhat: Plan references stakeholder involvement or input on
the sustainability goal but no details are provided.
■ No: Plan does not discuss how the sustainability goal was decided
upon or only non -drinking water stakeholders are discussed as
contributing to development.
o Does GSP discuss and/or affirm the human right to water (AB 685)
■ Keyword search of whole document: human right to water, right to
water, AB 685
■ Yes: Plan affirms the human right to safe clean and affordable
water and/or the right to water is discussed in the plan in relation to
either its' development and/or impact/implementation
■ Somewhat: Human right to water if mentioned but not affirmed or
related to the GSP directly.
■ No: No mention outside of any public comments or reference
documents appended.
PARTICIPATION AND ENGAGEMENT
o The following considerations are recorded for reference. Information was
gathered from the plan directly as well as the DWR SGMA portal (public
hearing notices and resolutions etc.) and when needed, GSA websites.
■ Draft GSP comment period start date
■ Draft GSP comment period end date
■ Draft GSP comment period length (days)
Approximate. Used their count of days when provided in
plan.
■ Date that final GSP was adopted
■ Is there a Stakeholder Communication and Engagement Plan
included in the GSP? (Y/N)
This question is answered as yes where there is a stand
alone communication and engagement document included in
the plan or referenced in plan and publicly available beyond
information required in communications section of the plan.
12
Updated May 15, 2020
Where the included C&E plan is for a whole sub -basin and
not the GSP in question that is noted.
o Were significant and meaningful attempts at outreach and community
involvement in GSP development made? (public workshops, community
meetings, targeted outreach, various/creative communication methods,
material development etc. Don't count full draft plan public comment
period required by law but can consider prior comment periods on parts of
preliminary drafts if applicable)
■ GSP sections: Plan Area and Basin Setting, Notice and
Communication (Reg. § 354.10) and Communication and
Engagement Plan (where applicable)
■ Yes: GSA(s) document several different methods for outreach and
engagement that demonstrate breadth and depth of reach and
tailoring to their specific setting. Discussion of efforts are detailed.
■ Somewhat: GSA(s) document a few outreach and engagement
methods beyond the required public meetings/hearings and
noticing. Discussions of efforts may also be vague or high level or
demonstrate limited effort (stakeholder survey with few responses
etc.). Somewhat is also used where significant efforts were made at
subbasin level but little to no documentation of stakeholder
engagement specific to the GSP at hand is provided.
■ No: There is no or very limited discussion of stakeholder outreach
or engagement. Involvement mechanisms relied upon are primarily
the minimum requirements for transparency including public board
meetings, required public hearings under SGMA, noticing of
meetings and hearings, and the required draft plan comment
period.
■ Notes:
• Stakeholder/advisory committees are not considered in this
section because they are included in the governance
sections.
• While the required draft plan comment period is not
considered, release of pre -drafts for iterative cycles of
comment was counted as an outreach/engagement method.
Future tense references to planned stakeholder outreach
and engagement (especially in C&E plan) not counted where
no clear indication is made that these plans were realized.
o Is there evidence of the GSA(s) incorporating public comments into GSP?
■ GSP sections: Plan Area and Basin Setting, Notice and
Communication (Reg. § 354.10) and Communication and
13
Updated May 15, 2020
Engagement Plan (where applicable). Often found in appendices.
■ Keywords searched: comments, comment period, draft, public
comment
■ Yes: There is documented evidence of GSA(s) receiving,
responding to and incorporating comments such as an appendix of
comments and responses or multiple examples in the plan of
changes made in response to comments.
■ Somewhat: There is reference to receiving and incorporating
comments on the plan but there is no more than one or two clear
examples of this occurring or only high-level discussion of
comments being incorporated without specifics.
■ No: There is no evidence of, or reference to, incorporating
comments on the draft plan.
■ Note: Plans that did not receive any public comments were
assigned no assuming no specific examples were provided in the
plan of incorporating comments from meetings or workshops into
the plan.
o Translation/interpretation efforts made? (notices, meetings, materials,
GSP)
■ GSP sections: Plan Area and Basin Setting, Notice and
Communication (Reg. § 354.10) and Communication and
Engagement Plan (where applicable)
■ Keywords searched: Translation, interpretation, Spanish, language,
English, bilingual
■ Yes: There is more than one example effort at
translation/interpretation documented (e.g. translation of materials,
meeting interpretation provided, non-english language mailers or
media)
■ Somewhat: There is one example of translation/interpretation
documented (eg meetings or materials but not both), translation
efforts are said to have taken plave but are not well described or
translation efforts were made for subbasin wide coordinated
outreach and engagement but no reference to any efforts at the
GSP level are found (where different).
■ No: No reference to language access efforts documented.
■ Notes: Like all stakeholder outreach and engagement efforts, plans
to provide translation in communications and engagement plans or
other planning documents were not counted when exclusively
provided in future tense with no indication they occured.
o Is there a plan for inclusive public engagement during GSP
14
Updated May 15, 2020
implementation?
■ GSP section: Plan Area and Basin Setting, Notice and
Communication (Reg. § 354.10), Plan Implementation and
Communication and Engagement Plan (where applicable)
■ Yes: There is a discussion of plans for stakeholder outreach and
engagement for plan implementation that includes specific
mechanisms for involvement (workshops, advisory committee,
communications) that go beyond public noticing and meetings.
■ Somewhat: There are high-level references to the continuation of
stakeholder outreach and engagement for GSP implementation but
lacks specific details about what this will look like.
■ No: There is no discussion of stakeholder engagement during
implementation
DRINKING WATER AFFORDABILITY
o Is drinking water affordability discussed in the plan and/or are
accommodations for affordability made (e.g.
exemptions/reductions/rebates for fees or penalties for low-income
users) ?
■ GSP sections: Introduction, Agency Information (Reg. § 354.6),
Implementation, Estimated Cost of Implementing the GSP and the
GSA's Approach to Meet Costs
■ Keyword searches: affordability, low-income
■ Yes: Plan includes discussion of affordability for drinking water
users specifically. This may include how the plan might impact
affordability, incorporating affordability into assessment of funding
options or plans to employ low-income rates or reduced
fees/penalties.
■ Somewhat: Affordability is mentioned but not specifically related to
the GSP or addressed/accommodated for. Discussion is vague or
high-level.
■ No: No mention or discussion.
PROJECTS AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
o Does the plan include projects/actions that specifically address drinking
water needs? (generally reducing pumping or increasing supply not
counted whereas targeted recharge to improve water quality while
increasing supply or targeted recharge to protect domestic or otherwise
vulnerable wells from dewatering would count)
■ GSP section: Projects and Management Actions to Achieve
Sustainability Goal (Reg. § 354.44)
■ Yes: One or more project or management actions have specific
15
Updated May 15, 2020
drinking water benefits as discussed in plan. For example water
quality benefits centered around Title 22 standards, targeted
recharge near public water systems or domestic wells that is
discussed as benefiting those drinking water users, water
conservation programs etc. General recharge projects or efforts
that support sustainability generally without having unique drinking
water related benefits are not counted even when led by a drinking -
water provider.
■ No: None of the included projects or management actions have
specific drinking water benefits.
■ Notes: Potential projects that are discussed as possibilities are
excluded from consideration. Where a GSP projects/management
action are prioritized or ranked, only top priority/tier/planned
projects are considered in this assessment.
o Does the plan include projects/actions that directly benefit a DAC/SDRC?
(same stipulations as above)
■ GSP section: Projects and Management Actions to Achieve
Sustainability Goal (Reg. § 354.44)
■ Yes: One or more project or management actions have specific
DAC benefits. For the purposes of this review DAC benefits means
that the project is discussed or proclaimed as having direct benefits
to one or more DAC/SDAC such as targeted recharge, well
rehabilitation, water conservation programs, infrastructure
improvements etc. General recharge projects or efforts that support
sustainability generally without having unique DAC related benefits
are not counted.
■ No: None of the included projects or management actions have
specific DAC benefits.
■ NA: No DACs/SDACs in plan area according to our 2016 DWR
reference data (see Appendix B).
■ Notes: Potential projects that are not committed to are excluded
from consideration. Where a GSP projects/management action are
prioritized or ranked, only top priority/tier/planned projects are
considered in this assessment.
MITIGATION
o Does the GSA propose any actions/projects to mitigate for impacts to
drinking water wells caused by the actions (or lack of actions) of the GSA?
Impacts may include dry wells, contamination plume etc. Programs may
include mitigation funds, drinking water wells technical assistance,
protection zones near DACs and SDACs and other options.
16
Updated May 15, 2020
■ GSP sections: Projects and Management Actions to Achieve
Sustainability Goal (Reg. § 354.44) also Sustainable Management
Criteria, Minimum Thresholds (Reg. § 354.28) and Basin setting,
Management Areas (as Applicable) (Reg. § 354.20).
■ Yes: The plan includes discussion of one or more planned efforts to
protect drinking water users outside of setting minimum thresholds.
■ Somewhat: Plan includes discussion of potential mitigation efforts
but they are not fully committed to.
■ No: No such projects or management actions are planned or
considered in the GSP.
o Does the plan go beyond aiming to prevent further degradation and strive
to remediate groundwater conditions and advance the human right to
water?
■ GSP sections: Sustainable Management Criteria, Measurable
Objectives (Reg. § 354.30) for degraded groundwater quality and
declining groundwater levels indicators
■ Yes: Both the MO for declining groundwater levels and the MO for
degraded water quality are fully or mostly set above recent lows.
■ Somewhat: Either the MO for declining groundwater levels or the
MO for degraded water quality are set above recent lows but not
both.
■ No: Neither the MO for declining groundwater levels nor the MO for
degraded water quality are set above recent lows
GSP GOVERNANCE (this section is only applicable where there are multiple
GSPs in a basin or subbasin, deleted for all other plans)
o Descriptives
■ Description of plan -wide governance/decision-making system for
GSP development if applicable
■ Description of plan -wide advisory or stakeholder committee for
GSP development if applicable
Notes: Technical advisory committees were not counted as
stakeholder or advisory committees. Committees by other
names (eg groundwater planning commission, rural
communities committee) were counted where their purpose
was discussed as supporting involvement of stakeholders or
beneficial uses/users inclusive of drinking water
stakeholders.
o Drinking water stakeholders represented on stakeholder/advisory
committee? (NA for those without committee)
■ GSP sections: Introduction, Agency Information (Reg. § 354.6) and
17
Updated May 15, 2020
Notice and Communication (Reg. § 354.10), Communications and
Engagement Plan (where applicable). When committee is
discussed but composition is not detailed in the plan, also
consulted GSA website
■ Keywords searched: stakeholder committee, advisory committee
■ Yes: The stakeholder/advisory committee explicitly includes one or
more drinking water stakeholder including domestic well owners,
city residents, city staff/officials, public water system
representatives
■ No: The stakeholder/advisory committee does not include one or
more drinking water stakeholders explicitly ("landowners" and
"growers" were not assumed to be domestic well owners unless
specified as such)
■ NA: No GSP wide stakeholder or advisory committee mentioned in
plan.
■ Unclear: Plan nor website provides enough information to know the
composition of the mentioned committee.
■ Notes: Where drinking water stakeholders were non-voting
members they were not counted as represented.
o DAC stakeholders represented on stakeholder/advisory committee? (NA
for those without committee)
■ GSP sections: Introduction, Agency Information (Reg. § 354.6) and
Notice and Communication (Reg. § 354.10), Communications and
Engagement Plan (where applicable). When committee is
discussed but composition is not detailed in the plan, also
consulted GSA website
■ Keywords searched: stakeholder committee, advisory committee
■ Yes: The stakeholder/advisory committee explicitly includes one or
more DAC stakeholder including residents, public water system
representatives from a system serving a DAC/SDAC, city
officials/staff where that city is a DAC, or community organizations
or environmental justice organizations noted as being related to
DACs.
■ No: The stakeholder/advisory committee does not include one or
more DAC stakeholders explicitly.
■ NA: No GSP wide stakeholder or advisory committee mentioned in
plan.
■ Unclear: Plan nor website provides enough information to know the
composition of the committee
■ Notes: Where DAC stakeholders were non-voting members they
18
Updated May 15, 2020
were not counted as represented.
GSA GOVERNANCE (this section is repeated for each GSA listed as affiliated
plan per the SGMA portal submitted GSP database)
o Descriptives
■ Description of GSA governing board
■ Description of GSA advisory/stakeholder committee (NA if none)
Notes: Technical advisory committees were not counted as
stakeholder or advisory committees. Committees by other
names (e.g. groundwater planning commission, rural
communities committee) were counted where their purpose
was discussed as supporting involvement of stakeholders or
beneficial uses/users inclusive of drinking water
stakeholders.
o Is this GSA a drinking -water provider, or if the GSA is an MOU/JPA or
special act district, is one or more drinking -water representatives on the
board?
■ GSP section: Introduction, Agency Information (Reg. § 354.6)
■ Yes: Either the GSA itself is a community/public water system or
city, one or more member agencies represented on the GSA board
is a community/public water system or city or there is one or more
appointed seats on the governing board for domestic well or
drinking water system representation.
■ No: None of the above criteria apply
o Does this GSA directly represent a DAC? Or if the GSA is an MOU/JPA or
special act district, is one or more DAC representatives on the board?
■ GSP section: Introduction, Agency Information (Reg. § 354.6)
■ Yes: Either the GSA itself represents a DAC/SDRC (city or
community water system serving a DAC/SDAC), one or more
member agencies on the GSA board represents a DAC/SDAC or
there is an appointed seat for DAC/SDAC representation on the
board. See notes below on what constitutes an agency that
represents a DAC/SDAC.
■ No: None of the above criteria apply
■ Notes: Agencies representing a DAC/SDAC were considered to be
agencies that primarily represent one or more DACs/SDACs
meaning the DAC/SDAC make up more than half of the agency's
service area/connections. Larger regional districts like Counties,
irrigation districts, Investor Owned Utilities, storm water districts etc
are not counted.
o Are there specific drinking water stakeholders represented on
19
Updated May 15, 2020
stakeholder/advisory committee? (NA for those without committee)
■ GSP sections: Introduction, Agency Information (Reg. § 354.6) and
Notice and Communication (Reg. § 354.10), Communications and
Engagement Plan (where applicable). When committee is
discussed but composition is not detailed in the plan, also
consulted GSA website
■ Keywords searched: stakeholder committee, advisory committee
■ Yes: The stakeholder/advisory committee explicitly includes one or
more drinking water stakeholder including domestic well owners,
city residents, city staff/officials, public water system
representatives.
■ No: The stakeholder/advisory committee does not include one or
more drinking water stakeholders explicitly ("landowners" and
"growers" were not assumed to be domestic well owners unless
specified as such)
■ NA: No stakeholder or advisory committee mentioned in plan.
■ Unclear: Plan nor website provides enough information to know the
composition of the committee
■ Notes: Where drinking water stakeholders were non-voting
members they were not counted as represented.
o Are there specific DAC stakeholders represented on stakeholder/advisory
committee? (NA for those without committee)
■ GSP sections: Introduction, Agency Information (Reg. § 354.6) and
Notice and Communication (Reg. § 354.10), Communications and
Engagement Plan (where applicable). When a committee is
discussed but the composition is not detailed in the plan, we also
consulted the GSA website.
■ Keywords searched: stakeholder committee, advisory committee
■ Yes: The stakeholder/advisory committee explicitly includes one or
more DAC stakeholder including residents, public water system
representatives from a system serving a DAC/SDAC, city
officials/staff where that city is a DAC, or community organizations
or environmental justice organizations noted as being related to
DACs.
■ No: The stakeholder/advisory committee does not include one or
more DAC stakeholders explicitly.
■ NA: No such committee mentioned in plan.
■ Unclear: Plan nor website provides enough information to know the
composition of the committee.
■ Notes: Where DAC stakeholders were non-voting members they
20
Updated May 15, 2020
were not counted as represented.
Research team:
• Kristin Dobbin, PhD candidate
• Darcy Bostic, MS candidate
• Michael Kuo, research assistant
• Jessica Mendoza, research assistant
References:
Pauloo, R. A., Escriva-Bou, A., Dahlke, H., Fencl, A., Guillon, H., & Fogg, G. E. (2020).
Domestic well vulnerability to drought duration and unsustainable groundwater
management in California's Central Valley. Environmental Research Letters,
15(4), 044010.
Pauloo, Richard et al. (2019), Domestic Well Vulnerability to Drought Duration and
Unsustainable Groundwater Management in California's Central Valley, v2, UC
Davis, Dataset, Ih tP. //dii„oirg/10„25338/IE 8Q31ID
Pauloo, Rich (2018, April 30). An Exploratory Data Analysis of California's Well
Completion Reports. Retrieved from https://richpauloo.github.io/oswcr 1.html
21
NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN
AMAY 26 AM11' INVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
DATE: May 26, 2020
TO: State Clearinghouse, Agencies, Organizations, and interested Parties
PROJECT: SPA-GPA/ZC No. 19-0342 (McAllister Ranch Groundwater Banking Project)
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) has been prepared to notify agencies and interested parties that the City of
Bakersfield (City), as Lead Agency, is preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for Specific Plan Amendment -General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No.
19-0342 (Project). The City is requesting input from reviewing agencies and the public regarding the scope and
content of the EIR.
The NOP is available for review on the City's website at: h,flt s, ft:x- kgsfie dc qy:vQg� 1!J,opbA,-,J.yg!i; pmenl
n ..sieryic�2s _docun1er0!S.[,)frr% Copies are available for review
at the Development Services Department office, 1715 Chester Avenue, 2nd Floor, Bakersfield, CA 93301. A CID
version of the NOP can also be requested at the Development Services Department office.
The Project is a change to the land use designation of approximately 2,072 acres of undeveloped land,
commonly known as McAllister Ranch (Property or McAllister Ranch) in western Bakersfield to enable the
construction and operation of a groundwater recharge and recovery facility. The Project applicant is the
Buena Vista Water Storage District. The Project will include and 'involve the following actions:
1. Specific Plan Amend ment/General Plan Amendment (SPA -GPA) to:
a. rescind the McAllister Ranch Specific Plan, including all goals, policies, and implementation
measures;
b. amend the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) to change
the designation of the Property from SIR (Suburban Residential), LR (Low Density Residential), LMR
(Low Medium Density Residential), HMR (High Medium Density Residentiall), HR (High Density
Residential), and GC (General Commercial) to R -EA (Resource - Extensive );
c. amend the Circulation Element of the MBGP to remove all McAllister Ranch interior street
alignments approved by Resolution 094-07, including McAllister Drive, Canfield Parkway, Old
Settler Road, Stetson Way, Erikson Drive, Marino Parkway, Conestoga Way, and any other
unnamed local streets within the Plan boundary with no other changes to Circulation for
Panama Lane, the West Beltway, or South Allen Road; and
d. amend the Housing Element of the MBGP to remove the housing units approved with, the
McAllister Ranch Specific Plan from the City's Vacant Land Inventory.
2, Zone Change (ZC) for the Property from R-1 (One Family Dwelling), E (Estate), R-2/PUD (Limited Multiple
Family Dwelling/Planned Unit Development), R-3/PUD (Multiple Family Dwelling/Planned Unit
Development), C-1/PCD (Neighborhood Commercial/Precise Commercial Development), C -C -/PCD -
PE (Commercial Center/Precise Commercial Development -Petroleum Extraction Combining) and Di
(Drill Island) to A -WR (Agriculfure-Water Recharge Combining); and
3. Design, construction, and approval of a wafer banking facility (storage and recovery) on the Property,
including water conveyance to and from the Property and spreading and recovery facilities onsite at
the Property.
1--11-1-
Page 1of2
In accordance with, CEQA, the City requests that agencies review the description of the Project provided in
the NOP and provide comments or guidance on the scope of environmental issues related to the statutory
responsibilities of the Lead Agency.
The EIR will be used by the City when considering approval of the Project and by other Responsible and Trustee
Agencies to support their discretionary actions related to the Project, as applicable. The City is also seeking
comments from residents, property owners, and concerned citizens regarding issues they believe should be
addressed in the EIR. The Project description, location map, and a preliminary listing of potential environmental
effects are included in the attached materials.
A scoping meeting is scheduled for June 9, 2020, at 12:00 pm at the City of Bakersfield's Council Chambers, at
1501 Truxtun Ave, Bakersfield, CA 93301. The scoping meeting will include a brief presentation describing the
Project and a preliminary review of potential environmental effects. The scoping meeting will include time for
the public and stakeholders to provide input on the scope and content of the EIR, including any input regarding
potential mitigation measures or possible alternatives to the Project.
The issuance of the NOP triggers a 30 -day public scoping period.
The scoping period begins on May 26, 2020 and ends on June 24, 2020. Comments may be sent any time during
the 30 -day public scoping period. Please focus your comments on issues related to the scope and content of
the environmental analysis that will be included in the EIR. All public and agency scoping comments must be
received or postmarked by June 24, 2020. Due to the time limits mandated by state law, the City recommends
that your feedback is provided at the earliest possible date, but not provided later than 30 days (June 24, 2020)
after receipt of this notice. If applicable, please include the name of a contact person for your agency. Ail
comments should be directed to:
City of Bakersfield - Development Services Department
Attn: Steve Esselman, Principal Planner
11, 715 Chester Avenue, 2nd Floor
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Comments may also be emailed to DEVPn(�b:AieiiO ciy, j�
....... ... !
Page 2 of 2
KERN RIVER GSA
MINUTES
MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2020
Conference Room A, City Hall North, 1600 Truxtun Avenue
1. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR MEETING - 10:00 a.m. ACTION TAKEN
2.. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman Palla,
Board Members Lundquist and Smith
Absent: None
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
None
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - of the February 6, 2020,
Regular Meeting
Motion by Board Member Lundquist, seconded by APPROVED
Board Member Smith, for approval of minutes.
5. NEW BUSINESS
A. Correspondence Received
None
B. Finance Report
i. Receive and File Financial Report
Randy McKeegan, Finance Director,
made staff comments.
Motion by Board Member Smith, seconded by Board APPROVED
Member Lundquist, to receive and file the financial
report.
5.
Bakersfield, California, March 5, 2020 - Page 2
NEW BUSINESS continued ACTION TAKEN
C. Management Group Updates (Beard, Chianello,
Teglia)
GSP Annual Report Update
Steve Teglia, Chief Operating Officer of
Kern Delta Water District, made staff
comments.
ii. Well Access Agreement Update
Steve Teglia, Chief Operating Officer of
Kern Delta Water District, made staff
comments.
iii. Approval of Change Order with Horizon KRGSA 16-001(2)
Water and Environmental CCO1
Art Chianello, Water Resources Manager,
made staff comments. Staff recommends
approval of the change order.
Motion by Board Member Lundquist, seconded by APPROVED
Board Member Smith, to approve the change order.
iv. Approval of per Acre Charge to
Landowner Participants, and other Entities
covered by KRGSA's GSP
Dave Beard, ID4 Manager, made staff
comments.
Art Chianello, Water Resources Manager,
made additional comments.
Steve Teglia, Chief Operating Officer of
Kern Delta Water District, made
additional comments. Staff recommends
approval of invoicing Landowner
Participants and other Entities covered by
KRGSA's GSP.
Motion by Board Member Smith, seconded by Board APPROVED
Member Lundquist, to approve invoicing Landowner
Participants and other Entities covered by KRGSA's GSP.
Bakersfield, California, March 5, 2020 — Page 3
8. COMMITTEE COMMENTS ACTION TAKEN
9. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Palla adjourned the meeting at 10:21 a.m.
Chair of the Kern River
Groundwater Sustainability Agency
ATTEST:
SECRETARY of the Kern River
Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Bakersfield, California, March 5, 2020 — Page 4
***THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK***
Kern River GSA
Report of Receipts and Disbursements
for the 2019-20 Fiscal Year
Report information as of May 29, 2020
Beginning Balance of KRGSA Trust as of July 1, 2019 $ 82,678.40
Receipts
Date
Amount
Received
Received from:
Received
7/1/2019
Kern County Water Agency
$ 50,000.00
7/11/2019
City of Bakersfield
50,000.00
7/22/2019
Kern Groundwater Authority
GUMP
107,715.00
8/8/2019
Kern Delta Water District
50,000.00
8/30/2019
Kern County Water Agency
50,000.00
10/29/2019
Olcese Water District
Member Fee
1,021.73
12/10/2019
Buena Vista Water Storage District
GUMP
914.17
12/13/2019
Henry Miller Water District
GUMP
914.17
12/16/2019
Olcese Water District
GUMP
914.17
12/26/2019
City of Bakersfield
25,000.00
12/30/2019
Kern Groundwater Authority
GUMP
16,455.00
12/30/2019
Department of Water Resources
Grant Inv #1
980,549.30
1/15/2020
Kern Delta Water District
25,000.00
1/24/2020
Kern Groundwater Authority
GUMP
111,033.00
1/29/2020
Kern County Water Agency
25,000.00
3/6/2020
Kern Groundwater Authority
Grant Share
10,661.53
3/23/2020
Department of Water Resources
Grant Inv #2
63,143.88
5/11/2020
Grimmway Farms
Member Fee
33.48
5/11/2020
Lakeview Farms
Member Fee
2,293.38
5/18/2020
AJ BOS
Member Fee
661.23
5/18/2020
Lamont PUD
Member Fee
7,984.98
5/22/2020
Buena Vista Dairy
Member Fee
3,766.50
5/26/2020
East Niles CBD
Member Fee
17,581.38
5/27/2020
NOR MWD
Member Fee
429.60
Total Receipts in this Fiscal Year $ 1,601,072.50
Kern River GSA
Report of Receipts and Disbursements
for the 2019-20 Fiscal Year
Report information as of May 29, 2020
Disbursements
Authorized
Date
COB Check
Amount
for payment
Paid
Payee
Number
Paid
by KRGSA on:
7/19/2019
Todd Groundwater
694142
$ 48,010.08
7/11/2019
7/19/2019
Horizon Water & Environmental
694131
30,659.96
7/11/2019
8/8/2019
Todd Groundwater
694142
56,154.27
8/1/2019
8/29/2018
Horizon Water & Environmental
695740
15,764.51
8/21/2019
8/29/2019
Todd Groundwater
695840
64,259.20
8/21/2019
10/17/2019
Horizon Water & Environmental
697899
13,283.96
10/3/2019
10/17/2019
Todd Groundwater
698026
65,783.75
10/3/2019
12/19/2019
Horizon Water & Environmental
700645
12,833.20
12/5/2019
12/19/2019
Todd Groundwater
700761
71,593.36
12/5/2019
1/16/2020
Horizon Water & Environmental
701627
46,448.03
1/9/2020
1/16/2020
Todd Groundwater
701771
46,260.01
1/9/2020
1/16/2020
Kern Groundwater Authority
701645
26,022.27
1/9/2020
1/16/2020
Kern Groundwater Authority (Grant Disb)
701646
220,390.41
1/9/2020
1/16/2020
Kern Groundwater Authority (Grant Disb)
701647
82,779.53
1/9/2020
1/16/2020
Kern Groundwater Authority (Grant Disb)
701648
177,551.67
1/9/2020
1/16/2020
Kern Groundwater Authority (Grant Disb)
701649
147,206.16
1/9/2020
1/16/2020
Olcese Water District (Grant Disb)
701700
1,466.06
1/9/2020
1/16/2020
Henry Miller Water District (Grant Disb)
701621
7,504.54
1/9/2020
1/16/2020
Buena Vista WSD (Grant Disb)
701567
13,770.57
1/9/2020
2/13/2020
Horizon Water & Environmental
702944
19,351.32
2/6/2020
2/13/2020
Todd Groundwater
703068
21,726.41
2/6/2020
2/13/2020
Stoner & Schlenker
703058
671.25
2/6/2020
2/13/2020
Bakersfield Californian
702862
227.42
2/6/2020
3/5/2020
Horizon Water & Environmental
703920
13,632.64
6/4/2020*
3/5/2020
Todd Groundwater
704031
18,412.40
6/4/2020*
4/3/2020
Todd Groundwater
705308
12,836.10
6/4/2020*
4/3/2020
Kern Groundwater Authority (Grant Disb)
705212
2,172.60
6/4/2020*
4/3/2020
Kern Groundwater Authority (Grant Disb)
705213
35,440.13
6/4/2020*
4/24/2020
Todd Groundwater
706083
7,378.60
6/4/2020*
5/1/2020
Horizon Water & Environmental
706266
6,959.39
6/4/2020*
5/22/2020
Todd Groundwater
707102
4,147.00
6/4/2020*
5/28/2020
Horizon Water & Environmental
707302
9,016.55
6/4/2020*
Total Disbursements in this Fiscal Year
Balance in KRGSA Trust as of report date
(city trust account: Fund 618)
* - date disbursement reported to KRGSA Board
6MMURNA919161
$ 384,037.55
Scope 2
$ 82,000.00
Scope 2 - Grant Application
Acct. 17.022
Scope 3 Scope 4
$ 89,263.00 $ 49,620.00
Scope 3- Grant Admin.(208-09) Scope 4 -Prop 68 Grant App
Acct. 18.020 Acct. 19.043
Authorized
Kern River GSA
Remaining
Remaining
Contract Monitoring Worksheet
Date
COB Check
Invoice
for payment
Report information as of May 29, 2020
A¢reement # 16-001-
Horizon Water & Environment LLC
Contract
Amount
Amount
Date
Notes
Scope 1
Original Contract
$ 194,000.00
August 4, 2016
Paid
$ 199,733.32
Amendment#1
$ 82,000.00
Feb. 1, 2018
Grant Application
Amendment#2
$ 89,263.00
May 3, 2018
Grant Administation
$ 82,000.00
Amendment#3
$ 49,620.00
12/2/2016
Prop 68 App
1887
Amendment 44
$ 5,733.32
March 5, 2020
GSP Plan
82,000.00
$ -
$ 420,616.32
2/10/2017
654461
1994
2/2/2017
7,434.19
190,79029 '..
Scope 1-GSA/GSP (208-05)
89,263.00
6/9/2017
659813
Acct. 16.036
Scope 2
$ 82,000.00
Scope 2 - Grant Application
Acct. 17.022
Scope 3 Scope 4
$ 89,263.00 $ 49,620.00
Scope 3- Grant Admin.(208-09) Scope 4 -Prop 68 Grant App
Acct. 18.020 Acct. 19.043
Remaining
Amount Contract
Paid Balance
$ 49,620.00
$ - 49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
S:\Accounting\KRGSA\report of receipts and disbursements May 2020CM - Horizon 5/29/20208:05 AM
Authorized
Remaining
Remaining
Remaining
Date
COB Check
Invoice
for payment
Amount
Contract
Amount
Contract
Amount
Contract
Paid
Number
Number
by KRGSA on
Paid
Balance
Paid
Balance
Paid
Balance
Beginning Balance
$ 199,733 32 '..
$ 82,000.00
$ 89,263.00
12/2/2016
651494
1887
12/1/2016
$ 1,508.84
198,224 48
$ -
82,000.00
$ -
89,263.00
2/10/2017
654461
1994
2/2/2017
7,434.19
190,79029 '..
82,000.00
89,263.00
6/9/2017
659813
2125
6/1/2017
3,933.73
186,856 56
82,000.00
89,263.00
7/21/2017
661850
2258
7/13/2017
7,556.23
179,30033 '..
82,000.00
89,263.00
9/15/2017
664192
2310
9/7/2017
6,243.69
173,056 64
82,000.00
89,263.00
9/15/2017
664192
2332
9/7/2017
18,489.96
154,566 68 '..
82,000.00
89,263.00
10/13/2017
665404
2418
10/5/2017
11,770.43
142,796 25
82,000.00
89,263.00
12/15/2017
668122
2459
12/7/2017
-
142,796 25 '..
18,974.18
63,025.82
89,263.00
12/15/2017
668122
2467
12/7/2017
4,246.16
138,550 09
63,025.82
89,263.00
12/15/2017
668122
2501
12/7/2017
-
138,55009 '..
44,825.60
18,200.22
89,263.00
2/9/2018
670500
2546
2/1/2018
3,481.05
135,069 04
18,200.22
89,263.00
2/9/2018
670500
2557
2/1/2018
-
135,069 04 '..
17,881.04
319.18
89,263.00
2/9/2018
670500
2586
2/1/2018
2,058.42
133,010 62
319.18
89,263.00
4/13/2018
673428
2710
4/5/2018
1,637.45
131,37317 '..
319.18
89,263.00
4/13/2018
673428
2761
4/5/2018
2,574.96
128,798 21
319.18
89,263.00
5/11/2018
674720
2818
5/3/2018
2,115.03
126,683 18 '..
319.18
89,263.00
6/15/2018
676259
2878
6/7/2018
5,035.13
121,648 05
319.18
89,263.00
6/15/2018
676259
2911
6/7/2018
121,648 05 '..
319.18
3,909.00
85,354.00
8/10/2018
678844
2959
8/2/2018
4,705.64
116,942 41
319.18
85,354.00
8/10/2018
678844
2958
8/2/2018
116,942 41
319.18
5,219.56
80,134.44
9/14/2018
680452
3029
9/6/2018
5,532.98
111,409 43 '..
319.18
80,134.44
9/14/2018
680452
3032
9/6/2018
111,409 43
319.18
2,530.56
77,603.88
10/12/2018
681851
3100
10/4/2018
4,027.79
107,381 64 '..
319.18
77,603.88
11/16/2018
683333
3155
11/8/2018
9,072.02
98,309 62
319.18
77,603.88
12/14/2018
684455
3230
11/8/2018
3,359.13
94,95049 '..
319.18
77,603.88
1/18/2019
685915
3281
1/10/2019
-
94,95049
319.18
5,965.12
71,638.76
1/18/2019
685915
3291
1/10/2019
3,234.36
91,71613 '..
319.18
71,638.76
1/18/2019
685915
3337
1/10/2019
6,120.85
85,595 28
319.18
71,638.76
3/15/2019
688388
3418
3/12/2019
-
85,595 28 '..
319.18
3,002.35
68,636.41
4/12/2019
689632
3480
4/4/2019
3,479.31
82,115 97
319.18
-
68,636.41
4/12/2019
689632
3520
4/4/2019
-
82,115 97 '..
319.18
2,698.63
65,937.78
5/10/2019
690810
3516
5/2/2019
8,265.03
73,85094
319.18
65,937.78
6/14/2019
692547
3691
6/6/2019
1,285.40
72,565 54 '..
319.18
65,937.78
7/19/2019
694131
3736
7/11/2019
72,565 54
319.18
22,267.48
43,670.30
Remaining
Amount Contract
Paid Balance
$ 49,620.00
$ - 49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
49,620.00
S:\Accounting\KRGSA\report of receipts and disbursements May 2020CM - Horizon 5/29/20208:05 AM
S:\Accounting\KRGSA\report of receipts and disbursements May 2020CM - Horizon 5/29/20208:05 AM
Scope 1-GSA/GSP(20805)
Scope 2- Grant Application
'.. Scope 3- Grant
Admin.(208-09)
Scope 4 -Prop 68 Grant
App
Acct. 16.036
Acct. 17.022
Acct.
18.020
Acct. 19.043
Authorized
Remaining
Remaining
Remaining
Remaining
Date
COB Check
Invoice
for payment
Amount
Contract
Amount Contract
Amount
Contract
Amount
Contract
Paid
Number
Number
by KRGSA on ,J,,,,�
Paid
Balance
Paid Balance ,,,,�
Paid
Balance
Paid
Balance
7/19/2019
694131
3749
7/11/2019
4,990.64
67,574 90
319.18
43,670.30
49,620.00
7/19/2019
694131
3676
7/11/2019
67,574 90 '..
319.18
3,401.84
40,268.46
49,620.00
7/19/2019
694131
3676
7/11/2019
67,574 90 '..
319.18
40,268.46
49,620.00
8/29/2019
695740
3891
8/21/2019
3,941.28
63,633 62 '..
319.18
40,268.46
49,620.00
8/29/2019
695740
3894
8/21/2019
63,633 62 '..
319.18
11,823.23
28,445.23
49,620.00
10/17/2019
697899
3970
10/3/2019
63,633 62 '..
319.18
2,769.93
25,675.30
49,620.00
10/17/2019
697899
3956
10/3/2019
10,514.03
53,11959 '..
319.18
25,675.30
49,620.00
12/19/2019
700645
4010
12/5/2019
11,793.21
41,326 38 '..
319.18
25,675.30
49,620.00
12/19/2019
700645
4052
12/5/2019
41,326 38 '..
319.18
1,039.99
24,635.31
49,620.00
1/16/2020
701627
4104
1/9/2020
12,958.51
28,367 87 '..
319.18
24,635.31
49,620.00
1/16/2020
701627
4101
1/9/2020
28,367 87 '..
319.18
24,635.31
19,520.00
30,100.00
1/16/2020
701627
4100
1/9/2020
28,367 87 '..
319.18
13,969.52
10,665.79
30,100.00
2/13/2020
702944
4169
2/6/2020
19,351.32
9,016 55 '..
319.18
10,665.79
30,100.00
3/5/2020
703920
4254
6/4/2020*
9,016 55 '..
319.18
5,251.40
5,414.39
30,100.00
3/5/2020
703920
5255
6/4/2020*
9,016 55 '..
319.18
5,414.39
8,381.24
21,718.76
5/1/2020
706266
4381
6/4/2020*
9,016 55 '..
319.18
5,414.39
2,508.19
19,210.57
5/1/2020
706266
4382
6/4/2020*
9,016 55 '..
319.18
4,451.20
963.19
19,210.57
9,016.55
(0.00)
319.18
963.19
19,210.57
S:\Accounting\KRGSA\report of receipts and disbursements May 2020CM - Horizon 5/29/20208:05 AM
Kern River GSA
Contract Monitoring Worksheet
Report information as of May 29, 2020
Scape 1
Agreement N 16-002 & N 19-003 - Todd Groundwater
Scape 2 Scape 3
S -p, 4
Scape 5
Ortginai -1-t
Date
A--,2016
Amoun
$360,000,00-
Amoun Amoun
Amoun
Amou
Nates
Amendment4l
Apr86, 2017
$ (36.00)
Scope lad�ur[ment
Amendment 41
Apr86, 2017
$431,957.00 $ -
$ -
$ -
Scope lamendment
Amendment42
Sept. 6, 2018
$ 36.00
Scope ladj--,t
Amendment42
Sept. 6, 2018
$ 190,000.00
Scope 3 amendment
Amendment43
Aprfl4, 2019
$173,029.00
Scope lamendment
Amendment44
Jan. 9, 2020
$ 32,761.00
Scope lamendment
Orig ContaR(KGA)
Feb. 7, 2019
$ 241,385.00
C --Model
Orig ContaR(KRGSA)
Feb. 7, 2019
$ 94,383.00
C --Model
D"ginai Contact
Jan. 9, 2020
$ 40,000.00
GSP l -i---
pigmentation$1523S1i00
$
$565,79000
Scape 1
$431,95).00 $ 190,00000
Scape2 Scape3
$ 335,768.00
$ 40,000.00
Scape4
Scape4
-h--d
IA -.(62306) GSA/GSP
A-(62307) Sub-ba-Modeing;,, %,ACR.(62306)
IA -.(62308)
Acct(62311)
Date
COB Check
Invoice
for payment
Amount C -t-
Amount C -t- Amount C -t-
Amount
C -t- Amount
C -t -
Paid
Number
Number
by KRGSA.
Paid Balance
Paid Baiane Paid Baiane
Paid
Balance Paid
Balanc
Beg, -g Balance
$565,)90.00
$ 431,95).00 $ 190,000.00
$ 335,768.00
$ 40,00000
11/10/2016
650665
623069-16
11/3/2016
$ 2,256.25 563,533.75
43195700 1901000.00
33576800
40,000.00
12/2/2016
651513
62306-10-16
12/1/2016
15,436.42 548,097.33
43195700 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
2/10/2017
654488
62306-11-16
2/2/2017
75430 547,343.03
43195700 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
4/14/2017
657389
62306 -02 -IJ
4/6/2017
6,360.40 540,982.63
43195700 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
6/9/2017
659826
62306-03-17
6/1/2017
10,255.60 530,727.03
43195700 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
6/9/2017
659826
62306-04-17
6/1/2017
9,080.05 521.646.98
43195700 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
7/21/2017
661879
62306-05-17
7/13/2017
15,855.15 505,791.83
43195)00 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
7/21/2017
661879
6230) -OS -17
J/13/2017
505,79183
13,24420 41871280 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
9/15/2017
664209
62306-06-17
9/7/2017
11,48076 494,311.07
41871280 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
9/15/2017
664209
62307-06-17
9/7/2017
494,311.07
19,361.80 39935100 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
9/15/2017
664209
62306-07-17
9/7/2017
6,052.13 488,258.94
39935100 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
9/15/2017
664209
62307-07- 7
9/7/2017
488,258.94
5,012.80 39433820 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
10/13/2017
665471
62306 -OS -17
10/5/2017
1,92730 486,33164
39433820 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
10/13/2017
665471
62307 -OS -17
10/5/2017
486,33164
6,626.95 38771125 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
12/15/2017
66815)
62306-09-17
12/7/2017
12,770.02 473,56162
38771125 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
12/15/2017
66815)
6230)-09-17
12/7/2017
473,56162
9,70225 37800900 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
12/15/2017
668157
62306-10-17
12/7/2017
19,61275 453,948.87
37800900 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
12/15/2017
668157
62307-10-17
12/7/2017
453,948.87
3,391.00 37461800 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
2/9/2018
670509
62306-11-17
2/1/2018
8,967.85 444,98102
37461800 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
2/9/2018
670509
62307-11- 7
2/1/2018
444,98102
3,322.15 37129585 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
2/9/2018
670509
62306-12-17
2/1/2018
10,00975 434,971.27
37129585 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
2/9/2018
670509
6230)-12-17
2/1/2018
434,971.27
2,49595 36879990 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
3/9/2018
671936
62307-04-17
3/1/2018
434,971.27
5,67835 36312155 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
3/9/2018
671936
62306 -01 -IS
3/1/2018
32,415.05 402.556.22
36312155 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
3/9/2018
67 19 36
62307 -01 -IS
3/1/2018
402.556.22
12,30070 35082085 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
4/13/2018
673441
62306 -02 -IS
4/5/2018
29,575.55 372.98.67
35082085 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
4/13/2018
673441
62307 -02 -IS
4/5/2018
372.98.67
16,977.06 33384379 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
5/11/2018
67474)
6230) -03 -IS
5/3/2018
372 .98.67
15,554.50 31828929 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
6/15/2018
676276
62306 -03 -IS
6/7/2018
42,854.09 330,126.58
31828929 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
6/15/2018
676276
62306 -04 -IS
6/7/2018
9,899.04 320,227.54
31828929 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
6/15/2018
676276
62307 -04 -IS
6/7/2018
320,227.54
30,834.85 28745444 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
8/10/2018
678868
62306 -05 -IS
8/2/2018
29,028.50 291.199.04
28745444 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
8/10/2018
678868
62307 -05 -IS
8/2/2018
291.199.04
34,263.00 25319144 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
8/10/2018
678868
62306 -06 -IS
8/2/2018
18,102.83 273,096.21
253 191 44 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
8/10/2018
678868
62307 -06 -IS
8/2/2018
273,096.21
28,326.97 2248644) 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
9/14/2018
680462
62306 -07 -IS
9/6/2018
21,55222 251.543.99
22486447 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
9/14/2018
680462
6230) -OJ -IS
9/6/2018
251.543.99
44,568.85 18029562 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
10/12/2018
681868
62306 -OS -IS
10/4/2018
24,34877 227,195.22
18029562 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
10/12/2018
681868
62307 -OS -IS
10/4/2018
227,195.22
33,997.62 14629800 190,000.00
33576800
40,000.00
11/16/2018
683354
62306-09-I8
11/8/2018
21,40522 pp 205,790.00
14629800 3,220.85 pp 186,779.15
33576800
40,000.00
11/16/2018
683354
62307 -09 -IS
11/8/2018
205,790.00
32,255.42 11404258 186,779.15
33576800
40,000.00
12/14/2018
684474
62306 -10 -IS
12/6/2018
205,790.00
11404258 16,628.05 170,151.10
33576800
40,000.00
12/14/2018
684474
62307 -10 -IS
12/6/2018
205,790.00
51,501.56 6254102 170,151.10
33576800
40,000.00
1/18/2019
685939
62306 -11 -IS
1/10/2019
205,790.00
6254102 17,14240 153,00870
33576800
40,000.00
1/18/2019
685939
6230) -11 -IS
1/10/2019
205,790.00
34,577 9J 27 66305 153,008 J0
33576800
40,000.00
2/15/2019
687153
62306 -12 -IS
2/7/2019
205,790.00
2766305 12,040.60 140,968.10
33576800
40,000.00
2/15/2019
687153
6230) -12 -IS
2/7/2019
205,790.00
19,928,70 JJ3435 140,968.10
7343
33576800
40,000.00
3/15/2019
688415
62306 -12 -IS
3/12/2019
2.1179.
;-� 205,790.00;;
;;. 21,21536 119,752 J4
;:
33576800 y)
401000.00
S'.\ACCOunting\KRGSA\reprt
of receipts and
disbursements May 2020CM -Tadd
5/29/20208'05 AM
Date COB Check
Paid Number
Scape 1 Scape2 Scape3 Scape4 Scape4
-horned IA -(62306) GSA/GSP A-(62307) Su -b n M odein ,,. ACR.(62306) I-.(62303) Acct(62311)
IrnoRe for payment Amount Cont- Amount Cont- Amount Cont- Amount Cont- Amount Cont -
Number by KRGSA on ;,i,� Paid Balance Paid Balance Paid Balance Paid Balance Paid Balance
3/15/2019 633415
62307-12-13 3/12/2019 205,7790.00 3,71133 402302 119,752774 33576800 40,000.00
3/15/2019 688415
62308-1-19 3/12/20L9 205,790.00 402302 119,752774 14,991.51 320 777649 40,000.00
3/15/2019 638415
62303-1-119 3/12/2019 205,790.00 402302 119,75274 11,124.68 30965131 40,000.00
4/12/20 L9 689644
623062-0 4/4/2019 205,790.00 402302 16,756.85 102,995.89 30965181 40,000.00
4/12/2019 639644
62308-2-19 4/4/2019 205,790.00 402302 102,995.89 11,795.76 29735605 40,000.00
4/12/20 L9 639644
62303-1-219 4/4/2019 205,790.00 402302 102,995.89 5,461.77 29239428 40,000.00
5/10/2019 690823
623063-0 5/2/2019 205,790.00 402302 36,91721 66,073.63 29239428 40,000.00
5/10/2019 690823
62307-3-0 5/2/2019 205,790.00 3,60130 42172 66,073.63 29239428 40,000.00
5/10/2019 690828
62308-3-19 5/2/2019 205,790.00 421772 66,078.68 22,167.03 27022)25 40,000.00
5/10/2019 690823
62303-1-319 5/2/2019 205,790.00 421772 66,073.63 8,667.58 26155967 40,000.00
6/14/2019 692563
623064-0 6/6/2019 205,790.00 42172 37,63332 23,39536 26155967 40,000.00
6/14/2019 692563
623034-0 6/6/2019 205,790.00 42172 23,39536 14,53285 24702632 40,000.00
6/14/2019 692563
62308-140 6/6/2019 205,790.00 421772 28,39536 15,274.15 231 775267 40,000.00
7/19/2019 694142
623065-0 7/11/2019 205,790.00 42172 20,525.11 7,87025 23175267 40,000.00
7/19/2019 694142
6230)-5-0 7/11/2019 205,790.00 1,673.50 (1251778) 7,87025 23175267 40,000.00
7/19/2019 694142
62308-5-19 7/11/2019 205,790.00 (125173) 7,87025 15,901.92 21535075 40,000.00
7/19/2019 694142
62308-1-519 7/11/2019 205,790.00 (1251778) 7,87025 9,9tl9.55 20594120 40,000.00
8/8/2019 694906
623066-0 8/1/2019 9,233.60 196,551.40 (125 173) 7,87025 0.00 20594120 40,000.00
8/8/2019 694906
62308-6-19 8/1/2019 205,790.00 (1251778) 0.00 ZJ,912.11 ll802903 40,000.00
3/8/2019 694906
62303-1-619 3/1/2019 196,551.40 (125 173) 0.00 11,133.25 16689573 40,000.00
8/29/2019 695840
62306)-0 8/21/2019 24,791.60 171.759.80 (1251778) 0.00 16689578 40,000.00
3/29/2019 695840
62308-7-19 3/21/2019 171.759.80 (125 173) 0.00 29,290.45 13760533 40,000.00
3/29/2019 695340
62303-1-719 3/21/2019 171.71960 11 zs17s) o.00 la,v7.15 1n 4zs 1s 40"oo.o0
10/v/z019 693026
623063-19 10/3/2019 33,736.67 137,9]3.13 (125173) 0.00 12742313 40,000.00
10/17/2019 693026
62303-1-819 10/3/2019 137,973.13 (1251778) 0.00 4,851.33 12257635 40,000.00
10/ll/200 698026
62308-8-19 10/3/2019 137,973.13 (125173) 0.00 277,145.75 9543110 40,000.00
12/19/2019 700761
623069-0 12/5/2019 7,286.73 130,686.40 (1251778) 0.00 9543110 40,000.00
12/19/2019 700761
62308-9-19 12/5/2019 130,686.40 (125173) 0.00 17,906.05 7752505 40,000.00
'2 13
12/19/2019 700761
62303-1-919 12/5/2019 130,686.40 0.00 4,16J.4tl 773357 65 40,000.00
12/19/2019 700761
62306-10-0 12/5/2019 27,229.60 103,456.80 (125 173) 0.00 7335765 40,000.00
12/19/2019 700761
62303-10-0 12/5/2019 103,456.80 (125178) 0.00 10,230.55 6312) 10 40,000.00
12/19/2019 700761
62303-1-109 12/5/2019 103,456.80 (125 173) 0.00 4,773.b3 5835407 40,000.00
1/16/2020 J011Jl
62306-11-0 1/9/2020 18,150.65 85,306.15 (1251778) 0.00 5835407 40,000.00
1/16/2020 701771
62308-11-0 1/9/2020 35,306.15 (125 173) 0.00 24,729.71 3362436 40,000.00
1/16/2020 70 77
62308-1-119 1/9/2020 85,306.15 (1251778) 0.00 3,379.65 30244771 40,000.00
2/13/2020 703063
62306-12-0 2/6/2020 13,177.11 72.129.04 (125173) 0.00 3024471 40,000.00
2/13/2020 703068
62303-12-0 2/6/2020 72.129.04 (125 173) 0.00 7,095.10 2314961 40,000.00
2/13/2020 703063
62308-1-129 2/6/2020 72.129.04 (1 251778) 0.00 1,454.26 2169541 40,000.00
3/5/2020 704031
62308-120 6/4/2020* 72.129.04 (125 173) 0.00 9,681.10 1201431 40,000.00
3/5/2020 704031
62308-1-120 6/4/2020* 72.129.04 (1251778) 0.00 3,tl7tl.9tl 894341 40,000.00
3/5/2020 704031
62311-120 6/4/2020* 72.129.04 (125 173) 0.00 894341 5,660.40 34,339.60
4/3/2020 705303
62311-220 6/4/2020* 72.129.04 (125178) 0.00 894341 12,836.10 21,503.50
4/24/2020 706083
62311420 6/4/2020* 72.129.04 (125 173) 0.00 894341 7,373.60 14,12490
5/22/220 70702
62303-1420 6/4/2020* 72.129.04 (1251 773) 0.00 286.56 866291 14,12490
5/22/2020 707102
62303-520 6/4/2020* 72.129.04 (125173) 0.00 3,866.50 479641 14,12490
-date disbursement reported to -SA Board
S'.\-- nt,n g\KR GSA\rep- of receipts and disbursements May 202OCM -Todd 5/29/2020 3 95 AM
Kern River GSA
Contract Monitoring Worksheet
Report information as of May 29, 2020
Kern Groundwater Authority - authorized letter from KRGSA - Sept. 1, 2016
Amount Date Notes
Original Contract $ 55,685.00 Sept. 1, 2016 letter agreement
Remaining
Date COR Check Invnice Amnunt Contract
Authorized
for payment
by KRGSA on:
beginning balance
Authorized
Contract
for payment
> »,uu�,.uu
by KRGSA on:
6/9/2017
659815
2017-05
$ 31,146.00
24,539.00
6/1/2017
12/15/2017
668129
2017-35
$ 12,272.00
12,267.00
12/7/2017
5/11/2018
674733
2018-39
$ 10,430.82
1,836.18
5/3/2018
Kern Groundwater Authority - authorized letter from KRGSA - May 3, 2018
Amount
Date
Notes
Original Contract
$ 9,535.44
May 3, 2018
letter agreement
Remaining
Authorized
Date
COB Check
Invoice
Amount
Contract
for payment
Paid
Number
Number
Paid
Balance
by KRGSA on:
Beginning Balance
$ 9,535.44
8/10/2018
678848
2018-69
$ 9,683.76
(148.32)
8/2/2018
Kern Groundwater Authority - authorized letter from KRGSA - January
10, 2019 (#19-001)
Amount
Date
Notes
Original Contract
$ 10,278.35
Jan. 10, 2019
letter agreement
Date COR Check Invnice A—unt
beginning balance
3/15/2019 688391 2019-03 $ 10,278.35
S:\Accounting\KRGSA\report of receipts and disbursements May 2020CM - KGA
Remaining
Authorized
Contract
for payment
Balance
by KRGSA on:
$ 10,278.35
-
3/12/2019
5/29/20208:05 AM