“A IRWM region must be designed
or configured to diversify or strengthen the regional water management portfolio.”
- California Department of Water Resources
Tuolumne/Stanislaus IRWMP: This boundary with our region
is easily justifiable. The county line and the watershed boundary are the same.
Add Comments View Comments
Madera County Implementation IRWMP: Report
from the March 9 meeting.
Madera
County has a completed IRWMP that was adopted in April 2008. Although this plan is complete, it does not contain
a list of priority projects with an implementation schedule, so there is an advisory group that is meeting to decide how to
decide to assemble a "Regional Water Management Group" within that county so that this group can decided how
to implement projects in Madera County. Note that the existing IRWMP, although adopted, was done so under the old state regulations
so it needs to be updated to comply with the new regulations. This includes completing the Regional Acceptance Process for
the area, which much be done before any projects or planning is eligible for state funding. Essentially, Madera has to pursue
two parallel processes, one to get regional acceptance and update its plan and one to implement projects under its existing
IRWMP. At the March 9 meeting, the main discussion involved the governance structure of the group of individuals that would
be making decisions and recommendations for project implementation (not regional acceptance or the planning update). In their
existing IRWMP, which is available on the county's Web site, the plan suggests that "at least twice per year,
the Lead Agency will provide draft implementation measures to public, private, and non-profit entities for review and comment."
So based on their current plan, they are already planning on frequently engaging the public on a regular basis (so it seems
that the public and stakeholders in the area would continually be expecting IRWMP activities).
Add Comments View Comments
Madera IRWMP: Notes from the March 5th meeting.
Brenda/Leona Introduction:Integrated
Regional Water Management Plans – This is a preliminary meeting with Mariposa, Madera,
and Merced stakeholders to discuss potential future collaboration, boundaries, and cooperation options. The Chowchilla River
and Lower Streams Watersheds are shared by all Counties. Developing and describing the boundaries and relationships between
watersheds is a requirement of the Regional Acceptance Process (RAP). DWR discourages overlaps and gaps between watersheds.
Discussed change regarding how money and funding is provided. Provided due date of
April 28th for the RAP application and web address/link for requirements.
The RAP application must include:
1) A transparent public outreach and involvement
process
2) Governance structure which
will bring people from a region together in a cooperative manner to deal with water issues at local levels. It must define
who is involved and how they are working together.
3) Regional boundaries. IRWMPs are primarily watershed based; other issues will come into play
based upon the area covered.
The
integrated water plans came about in 2002 from proposition 50. Guidelines were provided for the first round
of planning. In 2008 the planning act was repealed and replaced with the IRWMP act which defined new guidelines.
The new guidelines include defining regions through the RAP process. Even regions with approved IRWM plans
must go through the RAP process. DWR’s goal is to cover California with adjoining and not overlapping
IRWM’s to promote collaboration and cooperation between communities based on a watershed planning approach.
Regions must be approved prior to any planning or implementation money being provided.
Watershed description: From mountaintop to mountaintop – an
ecological system defined by water flow to a river or stream. The natural unit which defines an area based
upon how the water drains.
Issue:
How to manage overlaps and separations. One original boundary of the Madera IRWM was the San Joaquin River.
However, the health of the river is affected by the actions on both sides. This is the state’s
definition of watershed as defined in the California State Water Plan Update 2009, Public Review Draft, Volume 2 Resource
Management Strategies, Chapter 27 Watershed Management: “In its historical definition, a watershed is the divide
between two drainage streams or rivers separating rainfall runoff into one or the other of the basins. In recent years, the
term has been applied to mean the entirety of each of the basins, instead of just the divide between them. The Continental
Divide is a watershed according to the earlier definition, where rainfall runoff is directed towards the Gulf of Mexico or
toward the Pacific Ocean. The Mississippi River basin and the Colorado River basin are watersheds under the new definition.
Other parts of the world use the terms catchment, or river basin, to describe the drainage area between (historical) watersheds.
It is from the earlier definition of watershed that we derive the phrase “watershed event” – an occurrence
that changes the pattern of all that follows, moving the flow of events toward a different outcome. A watershed embraces
all its natural and artificial (manmade) features, including its surface and subsurface features: climate and weather patterns,
geologic and topographical history, soils and vegetation characteristics, and land use. A watershed may be as small as a house’s
roof, gutter and downspout, and as large as the Sacramento, San Joaquin or Klamath River basins.” The
state wants to see groups come together.
Concern:
The water of the central valley is going to the golden gate – there was a general discussion of how some participants’
ideas disagree with what the state is trying to do here.
Explanation: The South Sierra
RWMG (Regional Water Management Group) is committed to coming to agreements for adjoining areas where watersheds and county
lines are different– coordination between counties (even though challenging), is needed. Collaborating
together from the beginning will streamline the issues as they arise. The important thing is
to include all the land to make sure projects and plans represent public needs and the health of the central state’s
watersheds. Points are awarded from DWR for cooperation.
Watershed Map: Madera County Stream Group, San Joaquin
River, Chowchilla River, Fresno River, Sierra River, Merced River, Mariposa
Stream Groups
Planning efforts - important
to have the Chowchilla River included in the watershed. It goes up into Mariposa
as well as Merced County and diverted by MID into Fresno River. Is it possible to use the San Joaquin River as
boundary? – Discussion ensued between maintaining the IRWM as originally proposed, the Madera county line or modifying
it to include the watershed approach. One modified proposal includes the whole San Joaquin watershed. There
was some concern expressed that Madera County has completed years of data collection. If the boundary moves
to include some of Mariposa County, will projects have to be delayed until the data can be collected and the outreach performed
in the area added to the Madera IRWM?
Brenda:
the lower part of Madera county – state watershed regions, including upper chunk of Fresno county and all of Merced
county are together in central valley, upper and lower Merced. The state will approve
or disprove the submittals.
Question:
So the state is in control?
Answer:
It is emphasized that the state does not want overlaps. State will approve or not recommend,
but the people have the choice as to how the dividing lines should be drawn.
Concern: There are a couple of issues
if the planned area takes the entire San Joaquin watershed. One key stakeholder there is the water shed assessment coordinator
(Steve Hayes) and he’s working on projects and wants to be an active participant to ensure that the necessary
funding is in place. There are political realities as well as watershed realities. Fresno
County may not accept that Madera County “takes over” the central valley. Madera
IRWMP was accepted before 9/30/08 and now they can apply for conditional funding from prop 84 for projects. Timing
is the key.
Note: IRWMPs are voluntary,
non- regulatory planning documents – regulations are up to jurisdictional authorities. No one “takes over”
any areas; it is a stakeholder driven process. No one has to participate, but if you need state water funding, your area and
projects must be included in an IRWMP.
Question: Why
couldn’t something be done with the regions which are currently in place?
Response: We can use the existing planning document
to expand the areas to insure everything is covered. At best, we can cooperate in the future
– thoughts were voiced that there is not enough time to redefine boundaries and that months have already been spent
to create what agreement we have at the moment.
Question/Concern: Two steps are involved if you want to apply for implementation
money and follow the process of the grant package. In order for Madera to receive funding it must pass
step one and have the region approved. If Madera expands its boundaries to include the watershed up into
Mariposa County, Madera can go on with conditional acceptance and apply for the money for updating the plan within two years.
However, no one can apply for any implementation or planning funds until step one is passed and the state has accepted the
regional boundary. The concern was voiced that if Madera stays with the boundaries which align with its
accepted IRWMP, the state will reject the region and Madera will not be able to apply for any implementation funding.
Answer: As I understand it, the new planning grants allow
areas without a plan and those with new plans to be awarded money.
Question: Madera’s current plan would not
be an accepted region?
Answer: Making
the region follow county lines cannot be the only justification. Madera feels that it
is meeting all the guidelines. IRWM has limitations by county jurisdictions. Counties define local laws
regarding parcel size within political boundaries. Comment by Larry Balew: Madera
County 1996 was accepted at the federal levels as a “home rule” county – issues expand upward as
well as downward.
Response: We need to get
away from thinking of Madera County IRWMP – this should instead be a group plan that is not just Madera County. We
need to consider the watershed impact of San Joaquin River, discussion of the political boundaries. The
irrigation districts are dependent upon the water from Millerton. (Greg) The watershed and
water rights are a slam dunk for justifying regional boundaries.
Question: Is the Fresno side of San Joaquin watershed
controlled by Edison Co.? We don’t have much control over that. Consider that the applicant
would be the county and 6 years of studies have been done already.
Concern: Cole – wants to have input from Steve
Hayes regarding the watershed which affects his projects.
South Sierra has asked Madera County to come in and provide input regarding how that water is used.
Response: To follow a watershed or sub watershed is one way
of looking at things, but we need to be practical. San Francisco is the smallest county with good reason – there is
a lot going on in that small space based upon need, etc. Other areas can be bigger since there are not as many people, needs,
or issues. The area south of the Merced River corridor receives water through tunnel – ‘fake’ watershed.
Water rights and water usage comes into play. There are many things to consider.
Question:
Whenever you adjust boundaries is the county going to be able to drive projects if the area is too big?
Note: It is a stakeholder driven process, counties
are among the stakeholders. Any group, entity, or organization can serve as a project proponent for IRWMP projects.
Question: How much Edison water goes to Kings Canyon & San Joaquin? Merced
is building stakeholder group and committee can grow and change as needed. Merced, Madera and Mariposa are working together.
Merced has attended this meeting specifically to say they are willing to work together.
Question: If it ends up that the three counties work together,
is it important to have a single boundary or can we say that we’re willing to cooperate?
Answer: If you leave the boundaries following
the county line, you’ll have to justify it. This program is meant to address this issue differently
than simply by county line. The RAP application has to provide the plan regarding
how things are going to be done in partnership, across county lines. A governance structure must be set up to say how things
will be done. Getting grant money is reliant upon the coordination of the counties and all other stakeholders involved.
In terms of the RAP, when the submittal is made, DWR is looking for proposed boundaries. They
are not looking for future changes which will cover all areas and watershed. If you adjust the boundaries
after you have passed the RAP process, you’ll have to go through the RAP process again. The
boundaries must show what you’re thinking. They want to see a map with the actual proposed boundaries.
You can say that you’re still working on getting MOU and the specific agreement with stakeholders.
Concern:
There is worry about missing the application deadline if the boundaries need to be revamped. If
Madera received prior IRWMP approval under the old regulations, if now they get the regional processed passed, could they
get funding on the current IRWMP. Yes. Implementation and planning grant applications
can be submitted simultaneously. The existing plan could be updated within two years at the same time implementation
projects move forward. (Tanya Meeth will verify.) Regions that are well thought out and show agreement
between entities will score more highly.
Question:
Are all regional water management plans done with counties?
Concern:
The current local jurisdictions have water rights agreements in place. The needs are different in
different areas.
Response: Regions and planning
are not solely based on water rights. IRWMPs are intended to ensure that all projects take into consideration the impact
for the watershed system as a whole as part of the big picture.
Question:
Does Mariposa County have a stakeholder meeting that would go over this information?
Response: There is another meeting scheduled on March 26.
Also, the website is allowing all stakeholders to add comments regarding thoughts via chat to get input considering time constraints.
Question: Won’t Mariposa have the same problem of not
have an accepted region if they cut themselves off from the Merced?
Response:
What are the constraints, commonalty of use and goals, direction? We need to ensure
that the boards’ decisions are based upon common goals. Justification has to be provided. Current
policies are good and work in all counties; however, Merced and Mariposa and Madera all have to talk and
bring the understanding regarding lines between all three counties. Land use will not be dictated by the state.
They just want to make sure that any land use decisions are made using the big picture. The big picture
does not stop at county lines. Information regarding the process when the RAP
is submitted: Guidelines say that conditional acceptance may not be
eligible for the grant money. Info would then have to be resubmitted in the next cycle. Application should
be pretty firm. They will Approve, Disapprove or Conditionally Approve.
Question: Will the funding be by state?
Response:
Yes and no, there are pots based by population and hydrologic units as well as statewide pots.
Concern: Madera county fish and game has cooperated with Mariposa
County on the Chowchilla project with a shared watershed. Why can’t they relieve them
of the closure of that river for fishing (for the last 11 years)?
Action:
Brenda will bring add this to the issues section of the stakeholder comments.
“We
like the fact that our plan [Madera IRWMP] was based upon water flowing from the sources and uses”
– we can and should use that information to explain why certain boundaries were and were not
desirable. That is the type of wording and thought process we are looking for to determine the best possible way to justify
dividing the areas. Various alternatives were
discussed for the drawing of boundaries. Participants can access this website (www.IRWMP.org)and make comments
regarding the pros and cons of each:
Ø Mariposa/Madera/Merced
(all separate)
Ø San
Joaquin/Merced (Central Watershed)
Ø Madera
& Chowchilla & San Joaquin
Ø Central
Sierra, Foothill and Mountain with San Joaquin
Ø
Central Sierra, Foothill and Mountain without San Joaquin
Ø
$57 Million (entire hydrological area as defined by the state)
Ø
Lower Madera, Upper Fresno, Merced
Ø
Merced, Madera, Part of Fresno, Mariposa, Part of Stanislaus.
Thought:
The greater region (3 plus two ½ counties) would be best to use when utilizing the knowledge
of all sources to ensure that there are no gaps. We can come together as a group and create
a strong region. That might help us get through the RAP and we can apply for a massive planning grant which will
cover projects for all counties as well as those which cross county lines.
Question: Can we get confirmation if that idea would be acceptable
and not get rejected?
Response:
The whole goal is to have the right regions and I’m sure that would not penalize you.
The RAP could be a model for the entire area.
Action:
Tanya Meeth will call to verify that it is acceptable to submit information utilizing the 3 plus two ½ counties
as one large region. Tanya will also verify that if Madera County becomes part of this larger
region, and if this region is accepted, it can apply for implementation funding under its current IRWMP.
Question:
Would it be possible to get it in writing?
Clarification:
You want to make sure that by expanding the region in a big way, with Madera being included in a successful region;
will they still be able to submit projects under their existing IRWMP? True, Tanya will verify.
Additional
Action Items:Determine if anyone is working on a similar project for StanislausTanya will coordinate
with DWR senior peopleAll participants are invited to visit the website at www.IRWMP.org to provide suggestions,
concerns and questions – Brenda will disseminate information and provide a compilation of all pertinent information.
Brenda will coordinate with Southern Sierra and the other adjoining
IRWMP regions.
We
will use e-mail to set up additional meetings.
Please report errors and omissions.
Add Comments View Comments
MAGPI IRWMP: I attended the MAGPI board meeting in Merced because they had IRWMP/ RAP/ Regional Boundary on their
agenda:
Who is MAGPI? Merced Area Groundwater Pool Interests (MAGPI), formed in 1997 under the authority of the California
Groundwater Management Act (AB3030), is made up of water purveyor agencies within the Merced Groundwater Basin. This basin
is approximately 500,000 acres in area, bordered by the Merced River to the north, San Joaquin River to the southwest, the
Chowchilla River to the southeast and the Merced/Mariposa county line to the east. The agencies within MAGPI include: the
County of Merced; Merced Irrigation District (purveyor of agricultural water); the cities of Merced, Atwater, & Livingston;
LeGrand-Athlone; Merquin; Turner Island and Stevinson Water Districts; Winton Water & Sanitary District; the Planada and
LeGrand Community Services Districts; the Black Rascal and Meadowbrook Water Companies; and UC Merced. The East Merced Resources
Conservation District is a member at large.
I learned about the drought
and resulting water supply. Grim news. The last time the water supply has been this low was in 1993. Lake McClure is estimated
to be at approximately 21% capacity at the end of this year’s irrigation season, about 5% lower than it was at the end
of last year season.
They spent a lot of time discussing the
Merced Water Supply Plan; there were a lot of comments from the public. This is actually a study and not a plan and has a
groundwater model that needs to be updated. The bigger issue with the study is that it relies on mitigation measures to recharge
groundwater to maintain water supply. Developers use the study as proof of water supply (a legal requirement for development),
even though the mitigation measures are not in place. So, since all the mitigation measures are not in place, the “proof
of water” is really questionable and misleading.
Compared to our IRWMP/
RAP meeting on February 19th, the education, process information, and discussion was relatively short. The possibility of
a broader Merced/ Chowchilla/ San Joaquin Rivers regional watershed boundary was brought up. In the end, the MAGPI Board decided
to pursue a boundary defined by water rights, using the rivers as their boundaries rather than selecting watershed boundaries.
Their justification is basically that they are satisfied with their current boundaries and want to stay focused on their area.
A little more time was spent on the Mariposa/Merced boundary, and the current group thought is that the foothill/ valley differences
are valid boundary justification. Also, there was acknowledgment that the specific boundary needs to be adjusted from the
county line considering the dam, “lower streams” watershed, and flood control devices. There will be follow up
meetings and we will continue to work together to explore options for refinement.
MAGPI
is submitting the RAP due to the fact that no other entity in the Merced area has stepped up to the plate. Since they are
the ones submitting the RAP application, at this time, the MAGPI Board is making the decisions. The public is invited to their
meetings and does have the opportunity to comment. They also have assigned a representative subcommittee to work on their
RAP application. This subcommittee is expected to meet twice per week. The main project they would like to pursue is the update
of the groundwater model.
I am referring to this as the “MAGPI IRWMP” since it specifically covers
the MAGPI area, neither including the entire Merced County nor the entire Lower Merced Watershed. Please report errors, omissions,
and/or clarifications. Thanks!
Add Comments View Comments