NCSD Water Use Regulation 01/30/08

NCSD 02/27/08 Markman update slides (pdf)
NCSD 02/27/08 Markman update on Litigation wma 9 format  64mb

Time        Name
00:00:00.091    Markman
00:00:29.495    Nipomo Mesa NMMA map
00:01:38.917    C9 Exhibit of water levels
00:02:02.967    Court declined to make any determination of a Nipomo sub-basin
00:02:32.813    Ag Pumping had been spread out
00:02:49.227    NCSD and rural pumping in a confined area
00:02:58.979    NCSD pumping Started to create a problem
00:03:08.267    Third slide of "pumping" below sea level (not static water levels)
00:03:46.811    Exhibit C11 an other way to look at the problem
00:04:47.559    Local problem that got a separate management area
00:05:10.603    First page of Judgment (page 5)
00:05:34.367    Case Driven by Quite Title and Cross-Complaints
00:06:11.982    Page 6
00:06:31.116    Log the loyal Opposition
00:07:17.370    Most important is paragraph 5 everyone shall monitor
00:08:19.985    no party has a pre-stip right to twitchell
00:09:08.919    Continuing Jurisdiction
00:09:48.782    Access to court with motion, advantage  of this litigation
00:10:30.096    Page 7 Allocation and Denial of rights
00:10:44.678    Prescriptive rights a massive over statement
00:11:19.913    prescriptive right is 100's of acre feet not thousands
00:12:00.747    Return flow
00:13:36.599    Northern Cities
00:14:04.740    No evidence of production during prescription
00:14:37.620    Injunctions (page 8)
00:15:39.435    A difficult concept, All Real property, Novel injunction
00:17:18.200    In rem or In persome
00:19:04.739    Settlement is incorporated in the Judgment (Page 10)
00:20:21.793    Page 11
00:22:25.270    All Water co-mingled
00:23:03.909    Storage space
00:25:42.176    Ground water monitoring
00:26:30.938    Don't let anyone tell you this judgment forces metering
00:27:23.042    Monitoring program by Late July
00:29:15.380    Physical Solution (page 13)
00:30:49.349    No other parties are to be charged for the supplemental water
00:31:40.062    What happens if NCSD does not get the Water
00:32:20.616    anything else depends on getting the supplemental water
00:34:38.278    There's a lot of speculating, that's the reason for the monitoring
00:34:43.293    Impacts on Mesa Water Productions Rights
00:35:14.966    With out supplemental water nothing happens
00:37:55.268    That is the deal
00:38:17.989    Technical Group (Page 15)
00:39:52.955    Condition to get a sever water shortage condition that requires action
00:40:57.436    Comment on slide
00:41:22.446    49,000 AF to Ocean, (Markman has no idea)
00:42:56.113    $500,000 per year/ 32,000 AF/Y = $15
00:43:26.410    Markman clearly does not know that both Nipomo and Orcutt GSWC is outside the SMVWCD or the Twitchell place of use
00:44:44.226    Markman unclear on actual Twitchell cost for the TMA of $15/AF/y vs the old assessments
00:46:12.449    Questions
00:50:40.959    Mike Winn notes that the graphing by SAIC is miss leading because of the use of the same specific yield for all groundwater
00:51:47.015    Is 65% return flow static? unless someone shows its "wacky"
00:57:27.172    Markman long term view of purveyor pumping
00:59:37.730    Public Comment
01:02:53.855    Markman reply to public comment

 

 

NCSD 01/30/08 Water Use Regulation audio mp3 format  66mb
NCSD 01/30/08 Water Use Regulation audio wma 9 format  25mb

h:mm:ss Notes on Comments made
0:00:01 Mike Winn
0:01:22 Cliff Trotter
0:01:41 James Harrison
0:01:56 Larry Vieheilig
0:02:22 Ed Eby
0:02:52 Mike Winn
0:06:06 Bruce Buel
0:08:27 Brad Newton
0:19:14 Consumptive use and demand
0:19:54 Supply
0:22:09 26 years of rain to average annual recharge
0:23:03 Claims Rainfall is only source of "Natural Native average annual recharge" or blue line
0:24:31 Escalation of Use
0:31:05 Key points
0:31:33 Over consumption
0:31:44 12 to 14 Years of water left with current use
0:35:49 Max storage 120K AF we Don't get any more water then that
0:40:40 Bruce Buel
1:02:53 Mike Winn
1:06:25 Phill Hennry
1:10:47 Jim ??
1:12:10 Ian Wallace
1:15:45 Bill Petrick
1:20:18 Sharon Petrick
1:21:43 Mark Westfall
1:23:27 Terry
1:28:03 Rick Dean
1:31:48 John Snyder
1:35:27 TEXT
1:37:32 Gene Taylor
1:40:00 Bill Larson
1:43:42 Pat Eby
1:47:28 Noel Heal
1:48:23 Howard Elson
1:49:44 Ian Cook
1:50:45 Ingmar Lauringson
1:53:38 ? Sigman
1:55:49 Steve Forst
1:58:54 Dan Gattes
2:00:46 Mike Winn End of public Comment
2:01:35 Bruce Buel on County land use authority
2:03:32 May be some ways to address new wells
2:07:21 Perception that saving now will punish you tomorrow
2:08:05 What State are we in now?
2:08:49 Fall measurement
2:11:14 Brad Newton
2:14:15 We need to make simplifications
2:17:03 "you have to have a boundary that's the one we chose"
2:17:18 Bruce Buel where did the 27,000 AF go?, Laughs
2:17:23 Brad Newton, Um, there may be, I would like to Um, I would like to understand the what the typical cyclical pattern of groundwater in storage is on an inter-annual basis.
2:17:45 I don't know what it is I have not made those calculations yet, it may be that variations between spring and fall are large,
2:17:54 measurements made at monitoring wells and how that number rolls in to groundwater storage what we do know from this round of monitoring this fall
2:18:06 At specific monitoring wells through out the Mesa, On average water table dropped 25 feet, 25 feet in 6 months that as a lot, that's a huge drop that's not 5 feet it's 25 feet over 20,000 Acres, Thats a huge drop
2:18:27 It's largely because of the lack of rain fall last year and there is likely a imbalance in inflow and outflow with the sub surface of Santa Maria but I don't know exactly how much that is.
2:18:38 There is certainly an amount of pumpage, there is outflows to the ocean, we don't precisely know exactly all of the inventories that account for that 25 foot drop.
2:18:47 The fact is when the county employ went around to all the monitoring wells and measured the depth to water, it had dropped 25 feet on average across the Mesa
2:18:59 It would be interesting to know what variations we would typical see in the record, but I don't know.
2:19:14 Jon Seitz
2:19:49 Number of reports...that reach same conclusion
2:20:34 County independently came to same conclusion
2:22:52 The district as the primary advocate sought and got county ordinance 3090
2:26:20 Ed Eby
2:27:31 NCSD should not bear the burden alone
2:29:34 in 12 years according to this report the water in storage will be below sea level
2:31:40 schedule to bring in water in 2-3 years
2:32:05 Larry Vierheilig
2:34:19 Cliff Trotter
2:36:09 James Harrison
2:38:51 Mike Winn

 

NCSD 01/16/08 Water Use Regulation audio wma 9 format  21mb

NCSD 01/16/08 Water Use Regulation audio wma 9 format  44mb

h:mm:ss Notes on Comments made
0:00:01 Item E4 Water Use Regulations
0:00:26 Bruce Buel presentations
0:02:58 Bruce Buel ask the board to sanction a version for 1/30 meeting
0:03:37 Ed Eby Question The bottom trigger point of 70,000 why is it not 60,000 AF
0:04:34 Jon Seitz recollection of SAIC's comment
0:05:47 Bruce Buel Add to response
0:06:33 Mike Winn, No discernible damage, no Sea water intrusion
0:06:53 Ed Eby He said no sea water intrusion, 10,000 AF buffer
0:07:22 Bruce Buel Dr Newton used number on December 12th
0:07:37 Larry Vieheilig:
0:08:43 Cliff Trotter: Woodlands has changed entire equation
0:09:08 Mike Winn: 10,000 AF gives us a larger buffer
0:09:37 Public Comment: John Snyder
0:10:02 SAIC failed to consider Geology
0:10:24 SAIC fails to consider subsurface flows by assuming inflow = outflow
0:11:05 Assuming Rainfall is only source of water
0:12:31 Pat Eby
0:13:11 Mike Winn: Cleaned up copy will be provided
0:13:57 Ian Wallace
0:14:26 local rain gauges are different then the Tribune readings
0:14:50 Bruce Buel Comments, SAIC used an integrated approach to looking at groundwater
0:15:38 Bruce Buel: does compute an inferred volume of recharge.. also there are assumptions on inflow and outflow around the perimeter
0:16:18 Mike Winn It would be fair to say that We and SAIC would like to have more data on subsurface flows, working with county
0:17:08 Jon Seitz, the first Regulation model used rain fall, using rain not the most accurate way
0:18:31 SAIC not inconsistent with others
0:19:29 Mike Winn, Broad issues
0:19:46 ED Eby
0:20:28 Ed Eby, 50% conservation by the entire mesa would only result in 2 years out of 14
0:21:51 Ed Eby, Get supplemental water, Conservation doesn't do it.
0:22:51 Ed Eby, We have to have regulations in place to let other people know we mean business
0:23:40 Ed Eby what we are doing if you look at it really hard will not be effective at keeping sea water intrusion out.
0:23:47 Mike Winn, Ed I think your analysis is correct.
0:24:30 Ed Eby Commissions will ask what else have you done, it will be in place
0:27:33 Mike Winn, Question what do you do with people who won't pay the surcharges
0:28:01 ED Eby if you don't pay the bill you don't get water
0:29:28 Ed Eby You don't Jail your Customers
0:29:43 Clifford Trotter, We supply 1/2 water on Mesa
0:29:56 Clifford Trotter, .... the court done, dictate this degree of conservation be imposed on woodlands and others
0:30:24 Your Board is being requested (by who?) to take the lead .. as the largest purveyors ... to set an example
0:30:46 Bruce Buel, the court sanction will prevail
0:31:31 Ed Eby, If we come up with an ordinance, Can Golden State impose an ordinance (like this)
0:32:09 Bruce Buel the court has directed (it has not) the Technical Group for at least two phases of demand reduction
0:33:17 Jon Seitz Can district compel? No, Can the court compel? Yes
0:33:59 The county may or may not have jurisdiction
0:34:14 Ed Eby is there any road blocks to others doing it?
0:35:14 Jon Seitz on tech committee
0:37:00 Clifford Can the Tech committee act without the full set of members
0:37:27 The only real action of the Technical committee is to make the recommendations to the court of those trigger points, the court will decide
0:38:37 Mike Winn
0:39:25 Bruce Buel
0:45:08 Discussion on Wording of Use Regulation
0:45:30 Larry Vieheilig comments
0:51:32 Bruce Buel
0:52:22 Mike Winn, Start at beginning of draft?
0:52:36 Break
0:53:17 Back to order
0:53:32 Page 1
0:53:56 Ed Eby, Conflict with subsurface flow between SAIC and Where as, solve by deleting references
0:55:15 Mike Winn Questions if SAIC was correct that these (sub surface flows) are a wash
0:57:10 Ed Eby request the amount of the "Safe yield", I believe it is 6000AF/Y
0:58:17 Ed Eby I don't think the number is known to a great accuracy but at least to an order of magnitude
0:59:34 Mike Winn, Mixed Use
1:03:32 James Harrison, Base Year on page 3
1:06:41 Mike Winn, Page 4
1:08:33 Mike Winn, Page 5
1:08:43 Ed Eby, Levels 10,000 less
1:16:01 Clifford Trotter, Car Washing
1:24:51 Mike Winn end of page 6
1:25:35 Mike Winn Page 7
1:27:42 Ed Eby, all we should have in this is allocations, remove "feel good"
1:29:11 Mike Winn all conservation is feel good, if we do 50% we get two years.
1:29:33 Ed Eby, this is a water conservation but it's not supported by data
1:32:29 Mike Winn, the water savings alone did not change the picture for the region, sent a useful message
1:42:07 Mike Winn Page 8
1:51:13 d Eby expects to punch hole in wall to garden
1:51:34 Bruce Buel, It's up to the individual property owner to comply with state law.
1:52:05 James Harrison, That's illegal (gray water use)
1:53:47 Bruce Buel this would require irrigation meters to be locked and get 0
1:53:54 Mike Winn, Nipomo Park goes Dry... no trees no nothing, Yes
2:00:39 Mike Winn, If our standards are adopted mesa wide, as we hoping will happen
2:02:48 Bruce Buel on fines and surcharges vs income
2:03:55 Mike Winn Page 10
2:06:13 Mike Winn on removing meters vs locking meters
2:14:35 Mike Winn Page 11
2:16:27 Mike Winn Page 12
2:17:05 Mike Winn Page 13
2:18:49 Mike Winn Send to staff for 1/30/08
2:19:15 Mike Winn to closed session