One or more Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board members may attend.

CV-SALTS Executive Committee Meeting Thursday, January 16, 2020 – 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM - Sunset Maple Room

Sacramento Regional Sanitation District 10060 Goethe Rd, Sacramento 95827

Teleconference (712) 770-5505 Code: 279295# Go-To-Meeting Link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/996494061

Posted 01-07-2020 – Revised 01-15-2020

CVSC Lunch Meeting - 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM

1) Welcome and Introductions – Chair – (15 mins)a) Committee Roll Call and Membership Rosterb) Review and Approve November 14, 2019 Meeting Notes

2) Basin Plan Amendments – Update and Implementation – Patrick Pulupa, (20 mins)− OAL submittal/approval− Program Implementation

• Implementation Postcard Distribution• Nitrate Notice to Comply in Priority 1 Areas• Notice to Comply for Salinity - P&O - Stormwater Determination

3) Management Zone Pilot Studies – Richard Meyerhoff, Tess Dunham (30 mins)− Project Update, SB-200 Update− Templates: Links Only to Early Action Plans – Kings River, Turlock

o EJ Community Comment Letter

4) P&O Study Comment Letter – Patrick Palupa (30 mins)− Scope of Plan and Westlands/Bureau of Reclamation

o James Irrigation District Comment Letter

5) Management Zone Governance – Parry Klassen, Daniel Cozad, Richard Meyerhoff (45 mins)− Possible Management Zone Organizational Structures

6) PEOC Update – Nicole Bell (20 mins)- Links to Outreach materials:

o Outreach Matrix - Outreach Trackingo Web pages on new regulations now live at cvsalts.info

7) Review Meeting Schedule/Location – (10 mins.)− PEOC Meeting: February 11, 2020, 3:00-4:00 PM – Conference Call− Policy Meeting: February 13, 2020, 9:00 – 3:00 @ Regional Board Office

CV-SALTS meetings are held in compliance with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act set forth in Government Code sections 11120-11132(§ 11121(d). The public is entitled to have access to the records of the body which are posted at http://www.cvsalinity.org

PACKAGE - Page 1

CV‐SALTSCommitteeRosters

Voters Category/StakeholderGroup Name 16‐Aug 20‐Sep 18‐Oct 15‐Nov 10‐Jan 21‐Feb 28‐Mar 25‐Apr 23‐May 20‐Jun 15‐Aug 19‐Sep 24‐Oct 14‐Nov 16‐Jan

1 Central Valley Water Board Patrick Pulupa ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Alt Central Valley Water Board Anne Walters ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔2 State Water Resources Control Bd. Darrin Polhemus ✔3 Department of Water Resources Barrett Kaasa ✔ ✔Alt Department of Water Resources4 US Bureau of Reclamation Dan Deeds ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔5 Environmental Justice6 Environmental Water Quality TBD

  CV Salinity Coalition1 So. San Joaquin WQC Nicole Bell ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔2 City of Stockton Deedee Antypas ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔3 California Cotton Growers Chris McGlothlin ✔4 City of Fresno Rosa Lau‐Staggs ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔5 CA Leaque of Food Processors Trudi HughesAlt CA Leaque of Food Processors Rob Neenan ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔6 NCWA/SVWQC Bruce Houdesheldt ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔7 City of Tracy Stephanie Hiestand ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Alt City of Tracy ✔ ✔8 Sacramento Regional CSD Rebecca Franklin ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Alt Sacramento Regional CSD Sam Safi ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔9 San Joaquin Tributaries Authority Dennis Westcot10 Valley Water Management Melissa Thorme ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Alt Valley Water Management Jason Meadors ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔11 California Rice Commission Tim Johnson ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔12 City of Davis Josie Tellers ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔13 Tulare Lake Drainage District Mike Nordstrom ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔14 Western Plant Health Assoc. Renee Pinel15 City of Vacaville Mindy Boele ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Alt City of Vacaville Justen Cole16 Dairy Cares J.P. Cativiela ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Alt Dairy Cares ✔17 Westlands Water District Edith Ramirez ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Alt Westlands Water District Kit Campbell ✔ ✔

  Comm. Chairs/Co‐chairs       1 Chair Executive Committee Parry Klassen, ESJWQC ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔2 Vice Chair Executive Committee Debbie Webster CVCWA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Technical Advisory Committee Roger Reynolds, S Engr.Technical Advisory Committee Nigel Quinn, LBL

4 Public Education and Outreach Nicole Bell5 Economic and Social Cost Committee David Cory, SJVDA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔6 Lower San Joaquin River Committee Karna Harrigfeld, SEWD ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

CV‐SALTSExecutiveCommitteeMeetings‐2019‐2020ExecutiveCommitteeMembership

3

PACKAGE - Page 2

Last First Organization 20‐Sep 18‐Oct 15‐Nov 10‐Jan 21‐Feb 28‐Mar 25‐Apr 23‐May 20‐Jun 15‐Aug 16‐Sep 24‐Oct 14‐Nov 16‐Jan

Agus Eva East Bay MUD ✔Amico Paul Carollo Engineers ✔Archibald Elaine CUWAAshby Karen LWABaptiste Anne Diepenbrock Elkin GleasonCarlo Penny Carollo EngineersCarlton Gary   Kennedy/Jenks ✔ ✔Cady Mark CDFA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Callman Elissa City of Sac/SRSWPP ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Chapman Nico  CWC ✔Claiborne  Mike Leadership Counsel ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Clary Jennifer CWA ✔Cory Wesley SJVDA ✔ ✔Currie Mary Catalyst Communications ✔Dransoff Zack CRC ✔ ✔Dunham Tess Somach Simmons ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Dunn Debra Kings River Cons District ✔Escobar Juan DWR ✔Flaherty Ryan Sustainable Conservation ✔Gallock Charlotte KRWQC ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Garcia Rick CRC ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Gonzalez Armando Occidental Oil & Gas ✔Glavin Mike CRC ✔Gleason Nicole Diepenbrock Elkin GleasonGore Bob  Gualco Group ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Grijalava Julian CRC ✔Grovhoug Tom LWA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Gudel Casey LANDIQ ✔ ✔Hatton Scott CVRWQCB ✔Horne Randall ✔ ✔Howard Meredith CVRWQCB ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Johnson Michael MLJ Environmental ✔Kimmelshue Joel LANDIQKnght Jay Kennedy/Jenks ✔Kotin Adam Wine Institute ✔ ✔Krachey Julie ApexKretsinger Grabert Vicki LSCE ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

ADDITIONAL PARTICIPANTS: 

ParticipantNames CV‐SALTSExecutiveCommitteeMeetings‐2019‐2020CV‐SALTSCommitteeRosters

PACKAGE - Page 3

CV-SALTS Committee Rosters

Last First Organization 20-Sep 18-Oct 15-Nov 10-Jan 21-Feb 28-Mar 25-Apr 23-May 20-Jun 15-Aug 19-Sep 24-Oct 14-Nov 16-Jan

Laputz Adam CVRWQCB ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Larson Bobbi CASA ✔LeClaire Joe LeClaire & Associates ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Liebersbach Debbie Turlock Irrig DistLiu Yuan CCWD ✔ ✔Longley Karl CVRWQCB ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Lovley Tim MacPherson OilMarshall Jim CVRWQCB ✔ ✔McConnell Sue CVRWQCB ✔Meeks Glenn CVRWQCB ✔ ✔Mendes Justin Tulare Lake Basin WSD ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Meyerhoff Richard GEI Consultants ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Miller Todd Kennedy/Jenks ✔Moore Tim Risk-Sciences ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Ores Debi CWC ✔ ✔ ✔Plachta Walt CVRWQCB ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Pritchett Gregory ChevronReedy Chris VWMRivera Willie CIPA ✔ ✔Rodgers Clay CVRWQCB ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Roelofs Austin Seneca Resources ✔Sawyer Steve City of Vacaville ✔Rutherford Sara Provost & Pritchard ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Savage Chris GalloSeaton Phoebe LCJASilva Megan AeraStarr Bonnie Starr Consulting ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Stevens Brett CVRWQCB ✔ ✔ ✔Thomas Bill KRCDTillman Stephanie LANDIQ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Tristao Dennis J.G. Boswell ✔ ✔ ✔Vanden Heuvel Geoff Dairy Cares ✔ ✔Trouchon Mike LWA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Wackman Mike SJ County/Delta Water ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Waldron Jim Valley Water MgmtWarren Eric CVRWQCB ✔ ✔ ✔West Doug CDFA ✔Whitlock Wayne Pillsbury Law ✔Zimmerman Christine IOPA ✔ ✔

ADDITIONAL PARTICIPANTS:

Participant Names CV-SALTS Executive Committee Meetings -2019-2020

PACKAGE - Page 4

CV-SALTS Executive Committee Meeting - Summary Action Notes For November 14, 2019 – 9:00 PM to 11:30 AM

Attendees are listed on the Membership Roster

DISCUSSION ITEMS

1) Welcome and Introductions a) Executive Committee Chair, Parry Klassen, brought the meeting to order, and roll call was completed. b) Melissa Thorme moved, and Tim Johnson seconded, and by general acclamation the October 24, 2019,

Meeting Action Notes were approved.

2) Basin Plan Amendments – Update and Implementation Patrick Pulupa and Anne Walters provided an update on the CV-SALTS timeline for implementation. A

signed copy of the final resolution adopted at the State Board meeting on October 16, 2019 was forwarded to the Committee during the meeting. The anticipated timeline:

− Administrative Record to OAL by the end of November − Implementation Postcard mailed, along with LYRIS announcement, in January − OAL approval in January − Notices to Comply mailed in March

3) Management Zones Pilot Study Richard Meyerhoff provided an update on the Management Zone Pilot projects for Turlock and Kings

River. Both Management Zone projects met the second week of November, (Turlock 11/12, Kings River/AID 11/13). Draft Management Zone Proposals and a revised Early Action Plan were presented to both committees.

• Stakeholders were asked to review and comment on the Draft Management Zone Proposal by November 25th.

• There are no individual dischargers currently participating in either group. Three key issues that still need to be addressed by the two pilot projects:

o The baseline water volume to provide to households. A concern was raised during the meeting in Dinuba that the timing for implementation

of the alternative water program vs. the timing for installation of filling stations leaves residents waiting too long for replacement water.

o Community Outreach – This was not done in the Pilot Zones. o Governance – There was general agreement that governance structures should be put in place,

at least on an interim basis, as soon as possible. A more in-depth discussion of governance structures, including a survey of existing

models, will be added to the January Executive Committee agenda. Daniel Cozad presented the CVSC Management Zone Committee (MZC) Support concept. This item was

was moved to the CVSC meeting for further discussion. Two additional Management Zone templates were presented: Management Zone Pathway Regulatory

Requirements, and Guidance to Facilitate Outreach to Other Permitted Dischargers within a Proposed Management Zone Boundary.

4) P&O Study Workplan Draft Workplan Acceptance – The Draft Workplan was accepted by the committee. There were no

objections.

PACKAGE - Page 5

5) PEOC Update Nicole Bell provided an update on Outreach activities.

− Implementation Postcard – Parry Klassen will provide additional edits to Regional Board staff. − Outreach to Consulting firms – Nicole Bell will be contacting committee members to begin

compiling a list of consultants. PEOC is proposing a targeted workshop for consultant/engineering firms, to educate the firms on potential Management Zone efforts and bring them up to speed on implementation time frames. It was also suggested the firms be included in the distributions of the Postcard and Notices to Comply.

6) Review Meeting Schedule/Location PEOC Meeting: December 17, 2019, 3:00 - 4:00 PM – Conference Call PEOC Meeting: January 14, 2020, 3:00 - 4:00 PM – Conference Call Policy Meeting: January 16, 2020, 9:00 – 3:00 @ Regional San

PACKAGE - Page 6

1

dcozad@cvsalinity.org

From: Pulupa, Patrick@Waterboards <Patrick.Pulupa@waterboards.ca.gov>

Sent: Monday, January 6, 2020 9:57 AM

To: dcozad (dcozad@cvsalinity.org)

Cc: Walters, Anne@Waterboards; Laputz, Adam@Waterboards; Plachta, Walter J.

@Waterboards

Subject: Stormwater and Wetlands NTCs Under the Salt Control Program

Hi Daniel, The Board's CV-SALTS implementation team has been meeting internally with the Board's water quality programs to generate a list of permittees that will be receiving Notices to Comply under the Board's new Salt Control Program. In analyzing existing requirements, the Board will likely be following the below courses of action for stormwater and wetlands, and we wanted to make sure that the Coalition was kept informed of these tentative decisions. Stormwater After looking at how permittees under the State Water Board's Construction Stormwater, Industrial Stormwater, and Municipal Stormwater programs are regulated, we have concluded that the Board will not be issuing notices to these permittees. The rationale for this decision is as follows:

* Construction Stormwater: No construction stormwater site that the Board is aware of discharges significant amounts of salts, and no construction stormwater site that the Board is aware of would have discharges in excess of the 700 μS/cm EC threshold that would require participation in the Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach. * Industrial Stormwater: The Industrial Stormwater Permit currently in effect statewide has removed EC as a parameter ("[t]his General Permit removes the requirement to analyze for specific conductance as part of the minimum analytic parameters. Specific conductance is not required by U.S. EPA for any industry type"). All salt piles that may be mobilized in storm water discharges must be protected by BMPs to ensure that salts are not discharged in stormwater from industrial sites. * Municipal Stormwater: After reviewing monitoring reports, we are not aware of permittees under the Municipal Stormwater Program that would discharge in excess of the 700 μS/cm EC threshold. However, the Board reserves the discretion to add monitoring and reporting requirements to any of the above permittees to ensure that the relationship between salinity and stormwater is adequately assessed in the CV-SALTS Program Assessment Report, P&O Study and/or the Stormwater Recharge Master Plan Study. The Board may also require permittees to participate in the P&O Study should additional monitoring reveal categories or individual sites that exceed the 700 μS/cm EC threshold. Such discussions regarding the status of these sites should continue between the Board and the Salinity Coalition. Wetlands In August of 2016, the Central Valley Water Board adopted a resolution directing Board staff to review whether managed wetlands should be included in the Board's Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP). After a review of water quality issues related to managed wetlands, it is becoming apparent that wetlands may not be a good fit to be regulated under the ILRP. However, one of the few constituents of concern for certain managed wetlands is salt. This means that the Board has an interest in requiring certain managed wetlands to contribute to the P&O Study, even if they are removed from the ILRP. One proposal under consideration is to regulate many managed wetlands solely under a monitoring and reporting program. That monitoring program may require the payment of per-acre fees to the P&O Study similar to ILRP P&O assessments. These conversations are ongoing, and additional input would be appreciated. With respect to tidal wetlands restoration projects, stakeholders have expressed concerns that the P&O study should adequately capture salinity impacts due to major restoration efforts currently planned for the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta. While the Delta RMP will be studying these issues, it is the Board's expectation that the P&O Study will also take these restoration efforts into account as the P&O Study develops a comprehensive understanding of salinity impacts and tradeoffs in the Central Valley.

PACKAGE - Page 7

2

Again, thanks for all your help on this, and have a great new year. Yours, Patrick

Patrick Pulupa Executive Officer Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 11020 Sun Center Drive, Suite 200 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Phone: (916) 464-4818 Email: Patrick.Pulupa@waterboards.ca.gov<mailto:Patrick.Pulupa@waterboards.ca.gov>

PACKAGE - Page 8

12/2/19 Dear Mr. Meyerhoff, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the template early action plan (EAP) developed through the Central Valley Basin Plan Amendment (CV-BPA) pilot process. The comments below are based off the draft EAP created for the Alta Management Zone pilot project, but as to the extent the Turlock EAP template is similar, our comments are applicable to both. We recognize a significant amount of work has gone into the development of template management zone implementation plans (MZIP), which include EAPs. While there is valuable information within the EAP template, there are also numerous issues with the template that violates both the letter and intent of the CV-BPA and State Water Board CV-BPA approval resolution (Resolution). This letter lays out a series of concerns and proposed recommendations that we believe will meaningfully improve community engagement and further the goals of providing safe water to impacted communities. Our recommendations are rooted in over a decade of work engaging with and on behalf of impacted communities in the San Joaquin Valley. Coordination with the State Water Board’s Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Program Throughout the process to develop MZIPs and EAPs, management zones should coordinate with State Water Board staff working to implement the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund program to ensure coordinated, and not duplicative, activities are occurring. Management zone participants would benefit from the expertise in drinking water solutions the Board has, and the Board would benefit from having a clear understanding of what on the ground drinking water projects are being implemented. Timeline and EAP Effective Date As an initial point we question the management zones interpretation of “EAP effective date” and the corresponding unreasonably long timeline towards providing safe drinking -- and as such we urge the timeline to be revised to reflect the urgency warranted by communities lacking access to safe water. As used in the template, it is unclear what will actually be accomplished during the planning phase, as most of the work to both identify and then provide drinking water solutions will be occurring after EAP submission, or as the template calls the “EAP effective date”. For example, the locations of the public access water facilities (PAWFs) do not have to be identified until 30 days after EAP submission. Based on the timeline provided, safe drinking water will likely not be provided until approximately about 10 months after EAP submission. The State Water Board agreed to approve the CV-BPA in order to ensure communities are provided safe drinking water as soon as possible. Instead, based on the proposed timelines, it will likely be over 2

PACKAGE - Page 9

years after SWB approval, in the final quarter of 2021, before the first drinking water solutions through the BPA process will be offered, and then mid-2022 before all the interim drinking water solutions are offered. The CV- BPA states that under EAPs that drinking water solutions, “will be undertaken to ensure immediate access to safe drinking water for those who are dependent on groundwater from wells that exceed the Primary MCL for nitrate...” (BPA, 85). We would not call nearly a year after EAP submission to be “immediately” and thus the timeline can only be interpreted as violating the requirements of the CV-BPA. 1.3 Community Outreach to Develop EAP Approach While the EAP provides some concepts for how to conduct outreach to potentially impacted residents after EAP submission, the EAP includes no information on how to actually engage communities during the development process. This is a glaring omission and must be fixed by providing a clear proposal for engagement with communities during the EAP process, as the absence of a community engagement proposal as part of EAP development implies that this stage is not a priority. In reality this is a critical first step that will help frame how implementation of the CV-BPA will move forward and will have implications far beyond the EAP. Outreach for the development of the EAP must occur first and is required by both the CV-BPA and the State Water Board Resolution (Resolution). The CV-BPA states that the EAP must include, “[a] process to identify affected residents and the outreach utilized to ensure that impacted groundwater users are informed of and given the opportunity to participate in the development of proposed solutions.” The Resolution also states that “[i]n developing and implementing early action plans and Management Zone Implementation Plans, dischargers shall meaningfully consult with affected residents, affected water systems, representatives of environmental justice organizations, and other stakeholders.” The Central Valley Board should include with the MZIP templates a clear statement that effective community outreach and engagement must be part of the EAP development process and that without it the plan should be deemed incomplete. 2.4 Potentially Impacted Domestic Wells The template acknowledges that there is record of domestic wells within public water system boundaries, but then says “[i]t was assumed that any domestic wells within the boundaries of a PWS would not be used for drinking and were removed from this estimation of the number of potentially impacted domestic wells.” (EAP, 25). This is a false assumption and should be rectified. While we understand the assumption, in reality many residents within public water system boundaries do rely upon a private domestic well. For example, a board member of the Yettum Community Services District (CSD) lives within the boundaries of the water system, yet is not connected to the system and relies upon a private well. Acknowledging the existence of these wells is important not just for EAP outreach, but later when the final MZIP is in place and service connections are considered for impacted wells. Future management zones cannot be allowed to make the same false assumption as it undercounts the number of potential residents impacted by nitrate contamination. 4. Process to Identify Potentially Affected Residents The template states that the management zone “should at a minimum target” nitrate impacted areas identified through modeling. (EAP, 31). However, there is no “minimum” requirement in identifying potentially impacted residents in the BPA. The BPA states the Preliminary MZIP must include “[d]ocumentation of process utilized to identify affected residents and the outreach utilized to ensure

PACKAGE - Page 10

that they are given the opportunity to participate in development of an Early Action Plan” (BPA, 67). Therefore, management zones must work to identify all impacted residents, to the best of their ability, and cannot fall back on a “minimum” requirement of targeting only those who live within areas of the management zone where modeling identifies them as potentially impacted. We do acknowledge, and appreciate, the template document also discusses conducting a management zone-wide mailing campaign which will not only target a specific area. But this does not address a significant gap, that there needs to be a plan for reaching tenants, especially where the property relies upon PO Boxes. Reliance upon landlords passing on the information to their tenants is insufficient and in many cases will unfortunately never occur. Door knocking may be the only means to reach these residents and thus the EAP should include consideration of such a campaign. Finally, the template fails to provide a plan for filling the gaps in water quality data. The State Water Board Resolution approving the CV-BPAs requires in 4(d) that the MZIPs must include a residential sampling plan, yet there is no mention of this in the template document. While some data may come in through well testing conducted as part of the bottled water delivery and Point of Use (POU) installation application process, it may prove insufficient to properly fill in those gaps. 5. Temporary DW Provisions Despite the lack of community engagement in the creation of the template EAP, it strongly pushes PAWFs as the primary source of safe drinking water. As noted below, there are a number of reasons why PAWFs as the primary means of drinking water supply are problematic. The largest issues, however, are that they do not provide safe drinking water directly to one’s home and place the burden of obtaining safe drinking upon the community impacted by unsafe drinking water rather than those who are responsible for providing safe drinking water. The push for PAWFs as the primary source of safe drinking water without community engagement is thus advancing a solution that dischargers have deemed the economically preferable option to themselves over the needs of communities. Instead, bottled water deliveries or POU devices1are in most cases the better solutions to meet a household’s needs and result in the smallest disruption in residents’ lives. PAWFs can, in certain limited and targeted instances, potentially play a supplementary role to fulfill the needs of households that willingly choose not to sign up for bottled water or POU, or for households reliant upon bottled water who periodically need additional water supplies. But to reiterate, PAWFs should not be put forward as a management zone’s primary strategy or means for providing temporary safe water to impacted communities.

Public Access Water Facilities (PAWFs) As stated above, PAWFs are being promoted as the ideal solution for the vast majority of residents, without any sort of community outreach. PAWFs require residents to drive or take public transit to obtain water sufficient to meet their family’s consumptive needs. It requires they pay for that transportation, as accessing the PAWF may be out of their way; it takes time out of what might already be very busy days; and it is physically demanding to carry heavy 5-gallon jugs, to name just

1 POU devices, as explained later in this letter under the “Point-of-use” header, can also be problematic if they do not come with adequate testing and education.

PACKAGE - Page 11

a few burdens borne by community residents who are forced to rely upon PAWFs. Further, this is all assuming that the stations are open at times that work for residents’ schedules and the stations are not in such high demand that long lines are common. While the goal should be the stations are open 24/7, already pilot project participants are admitting many may not, and that can cause an additional barrier to accessing safe drinking water. Additionally, the time it takes to implement a PAWF is far longer than organizing bottled water deliveries or installing POU devices. This plays a significant role in the unreasonably long timeline proposed through this pilot project before residents are able to obtain safe drinking water. Finally, while pilot project participants who are also currently struggling to meet the requirements set on them through the State Water Board settlement process say that the lessons learned from that process will help facilitate the EAP process, the proposed timeline tells a different story. However, we are looking at a timeline that sets drinking water solutions being offered around 10 months post-EAP submission. One way to fast track the process would be to require EAPs to identify locations and to at least be in the process of obtaining the necessary permits and finalizing contracts by the time of EAP submission, with a deadline of finalizing sites and all the necessary permitting and contracting 30 days post-EAP submission, rather than 180 days after EAP submission as is proposed in the template.

Alternative Water Program (AWP) Bottled water and POU should not be considered “alternative” sources of water, but instead must be elevated to the primary source of drinking water for impacted communities. Therefore, the EAP’s assertion that people can apply for the AWP only if “they are unable to access a PAWF” (EAP, 39) and then be subject to a management zone representative reaching out to “...confirm that obtaining water from a PAWF established within the Management Zone is not a viable option” must be struck from the template. This violates both the BPA and the Resolution as it fails to take into consideration community needs and instead allows the management zone participants to dictate the appropriate solution2 Ability to access and viability of accessing a PAWF have no role to play in whether a residents chooses to rely upon a PAWF. By setting bottled water and POUs as an “alternative” source of water, one that someone must provide an ‘excuse’ for why the PAWF does not work for them, it does not take into account actual community needs. Residents must be allowed to opt into the use of a POU or bottled water delivery if they so choose, and not be required to provide a reason for why they are choosing that option. The other requirements listed, such as well testing, are acceptable for these solutions, however the template application is far too wordy and unnecessarily involved. It also requests certain information that could be a barrier to completion of the application for some residents, such as the name and contact information of the landlord where a property has been leased. We understand this was a first draft and thus we look forward to working with management zones to ensure actual application forms are more accessible.

2 As noted earlier the CV-BPA requires that the EAP includes, “A process to identify affected residents and the outreach utilized to ensure that impacted groundwater users are informed of and given the opportunity to participate in the development of proposed solutions.”

PACKAGE - Page 12

In regards to testing, the EAP says that it will notify an applicant if they qualify for the AWP within 60 days of the initial application. However, this ignores the acute impact of nitrates over the MCL. Nitrates must be tested within 48 hours of collection, and bacteria within 24 hours. Laboratories that conduct well testing will notify the party who requested the well test immediately if it is noted that the water is being used for domestic purposes. Management zones must opt into this and if a well test comes back above the MCL for nitrate, the management zone needs to immediately notify the home of the result. Further, letters notifying residents of their test results, must be clear and not create a false sense of safety in the water. This is especially important for test results that show no nitrate exceedance. Notice letters must clearly inform the recipient that only nitrates were tested for but that other contaminants may be found in their water so the household is recommended to test their well for other drinking water contaminants.

Point-of-Use (POU) Installing a POU devices, if done correctly and with adequate education to the user, can be a viable interim drinking water solution. However, if done improperly, the installation of a POU can actually cause more harm than good. As such, we strongly recommend that management zones contract with a technical assistance provider to provide proper installation and maintenance of POU devices, and that these contracts be closely coordinated or funneled through the Board’s Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund program, and that there also be a strong community outreach and engagement component to facilitate effective community implementation of the POU devices. There are multiple reasons why this is critical. First, if it is unknown what other contaminants may exist in the source water, the installation of a POU device can create a false sense of security in the safety of the water. If the source water contains only nitrates, and no other contaminants, then a POU will provide safe drinking water unless the nitrate level is very high. However, if there are other contaminants, the POU will not necessarily be providing safe drinking water. This leads to the second issue: the presence of certain contaminants can impact the efficacy of the POU device. Bacteria and TDS can cause a POU device to fail prematurely. The presence of other contaminants may also impact the POU efficacy and is something a management zone would ensure will not happen. Therefore, management zones choosing to offer POU installation as a potential solution, need to test for more than just nitrates for homes applying for a POU device to ensure safe water is being provided. It may be that the initial testing is only for nitrates, but if the results come back as exceeding the nitrate MCL, other common contaminants for the area must also be tested for. 5.2 Community Outreach Program The identified community meetings must be held early and often. The language within this section furthers the, perhaps unintentional, inference that true community outreach will not begin until after EAP submission. The EAP lays out a number of meetings including “Initial Public Outreach Meetings” (which are not held until 6 months after EAP submission) where the management zone will explain to the public what an early action plan is as well as where the PAWFs will be located and how to apply to the AWP. Communities are critical stakeholders in this process and it appears that they will not be meaningfully included not only in the EAP development process, but also in the EAP implementation phase. Further, there will be a significant gap in time between community engagement in the EAP development process and when the “initial” public outreach meetings will be held. Community meetings after EAP submission must be held every other month to ensure

PACKAGE - Page 13

the community is kept abreast of program updates and any revised timelines to provide safe drinking water. As to public notice activities we suggest adding to the list of places where management zone updates and meeting notices are posted to include schools or other public meeting areas. Oftentimes these are important places for disseminating information to a community. It is also concerning that the EAP template proposes that notice of an operational PAWF may not occur until upwards of 30 days after it is operational. Notice must go out no later than a week after the PAWF is operational. 5.3 Monitoring and Data Management We appreciate the data that will be collected as part of both the PAWF and AWP and agree as to the scope of this data. It will be critical to amending and updating the program. We believe that the data should be analyzed at clear milestones, such as at one month, three months, and six months as an initial matter, rather than “periodically”. After the initial check-ins on the data to ensure the programs are moving forward smoothly, analysis can be done on a more periodic basis, but the first few months and year will be essential to allow for rapid course correction if the program is not in fact meeting its stated goals. Further, we ask whether if this data will be publicly accessible through reporting to the Regional Water Board or other means.

Sincerely,

Debi Ores Senior Attorney Community Water Center

Jennifer Clary Water Program Manager Clean Water Action

Michael K. Claiborne Senior Attorney Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability

Cc: Patrick Pulupa, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Walt Plachta, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Daniel Cozad, CV Salinity Coalition Laurel Firestone, State Water Resources Control Board Phil Wyels, State Water Resources Control Board Kristin Peer, CalEPA

PACKAGE - Page 14

PACKAGE - Page 15

PACKAGE - Page 16

PACKAGE - Page 17

I N F O R M A T I O N A N D D I S C U S S I O N T O P I C S T H A T A R EI M P O R T A N T T O T H E F O R M A T I O N A N D

I M P L E M E N T A T I O N O F M A N A G E M E N T Z O N E S

Management Zone Governance

PACKAGE - Page 18

Management Zone Establishment

Not New, Similar to Integrated Regional Water Management Planning, ILRP and SGMA regions Locally Controlled

State Approved

Funding is local and may be State

Outreach and Community support is vital to success

Lessons can be learned from these programs Existing organizations have an advantage and are busy with

current work

Early adopters have funding advantage

Larger areas are often more efficient and bureaucratic

PACKAGE - Page 19

CV-SALTS Basin Plan Standards

Performance based standards allow creativity and flexibility while focusing on results

Implementation standards in the Approved Basin Plan and changes in the 12 Month BPA Boundaries and continuity

Outreach and community involvement

Adequacy of early action and long term plans

Plan Development Process requirements

Implementation and reporting requirements

Developing MZ Best Practices reduce paperwork and low value effort and focus on results

PACKAGE - Page 20

Conceptual Standard - Governance

Adequate coverage completeness Representation of important entities Participation of relevant and appropriate groups Authority – conveyed or developed Powers – contracting, fee collection etc. Accessibility, acceptance, and documentation Institutional capacity and fiscal responsibility Performance monitoring reporting evaluation and

adaptation Program, policy development and improvement

PACKAGE - Page 21

Governance Best Practices

Long history of local governments and industry organizing

Enduring success factors for regulatory programs Policy

Vision

Leadership

Representation/Organization

Business/Technical

Capacity

Knowledge

Financial

Developmental

PACKAGE - Page 22

Governance Development

MZ will not begin fully formed

Organization and governance develops

Typical cycle

1. Formation or Ad-Hoc Group – Ephemeral –Consensus – Exploratory

2. Coordination Group MOU – Temporal –Consensus but enforceable

3. Agreement or Advisory Association – Term of Agreement – Collaborative/advisory Legislative

4. Institutional Agency or JPA – Semi Permanent – Legislative

5. Fully Integrated – into permanent institutions (City/County Government) – Legislative

PACKAGE - Page 23

Potential Opportunities

Debate about SGMA and ILRP leads

Pilots Areas ILRP group lead

Water related special district (public agency)

Many other potential options are available (handout)

PACKAGE - Page 24

Organizational Efficiencies

Two primary needs

Local Representative Organization (Council/Commission/Board)

MZ representatives

Community Accessibility and involvement

Outreach and Impacted DW users

Policy decision-making and direction to “staff”

Business Entity (SGMA Entity, Coalition, NGO, Local Govt. County)

Contracting/ “staffing”

Fairly collecting and disbursing funds

Organizing and documentation

Recordkeeping

PACKAGE - Page 25

Possible Management Zone Organizational Structures

Title and Description Pros Cons

Special Commission or Task Force Established

by an Existing Entity This is a common method organize special or ad-hoc

efforts of an area or entity. The committee structure

in some organizations may work, or a task force

named by County Supervisors, a specific

organization set forth by the highest level

governments in the group.

Highly varied and specialized in nature. This type

can be customized and brought together quickly.

It can also be dissolved quickly, if support falters.

The chartering or sponsoring organization can

quickly and usually efficiently institute such a task

force. Additionally other parties can be brought

into the efforts by an advisory or blue ribbon

committee of experts, industry or community

leaders. These efforts have been successful and

some over many years.

If the convening group is not benevolent

others may not participate. Governance can

be complicated by the less standard structure.

The entity can not itself hold contracts staff,

except by and through its parent organizations.

Control of the group typically oscillates with

interest and can take on different missions

over time. Funding maybe more difficult

depending on who pays and who receives or

holds the funds.

Unincorporated or MOU Based Group This is one of the most flexible forms or assembling

parties of varying types and purposed to work

together. This group can also be formed as an

alliance or coalition. Usually best if a single purpose

or limited duration mission.

Fairly easy to assemble and document because

participation and funding are totally voluntary.

Governance is by unanimous consent or

acclamation and essentially anyone can stop any

effort. No legal standing to sue or be sued and

liability falls to all groups participating.

Because it is not an entity, it can not easily

transact business, funding or hire staff etc.

The governance or lack there of can be a

problem if underlying trust is not established or

controversial issues are encountered. The

MOU may be as difficult to establish as a more

binding agreement or charter.

California Mutual Benefit Non-Profit Corporation

or AssociationThis association is similar to a trade association or

industry group in areas of interest to its members

without commercial for profit or political activities IRS

section 501-C6. Examples are some Chambers of

Commerce, Economic Partnerships and industry

associations.

Settled customizable governance and board

requirements established in law, this form is

familiar to both business, local government

agencies and cities. If all cities and organizations

were members it would have most of the capacity

of a public benefit corporation.

Contributions to this association are generally

business expenses, but not personally

deductible like charitable contributions.

Purposes are generally to benefit its members.

California Public Benefit Non-profit Corporation

or FoundationThis foundation allows tax exempt efforts in the areas

of charity, religious literary, scientific, and education

IRS section 501-C3 tax exempt. Examples are the

Silicon Valley Joint Venture, many non-profit

environmental and charitable organizations.

Effective governance as required in the Bylaws

and articles. Tax Exempt contributions can be

made and other foundations, significant capacity

to assist and educate the general public or

specific communities.

Generally does not have significant

government members and some grants are

not available to such entities. This type must

maintain efforts according to it Bylaws and

does not frequently develop infrastructure.

California for Profit CorporationStandard California Corporation with the rights and

responsibilities of any Corporation under the code.

Simple well understood governance, voting and

other procedures. Able to maintain focus on

board priorities. Members/stockholders can

actively vote with their contributions on issues.

Has the opportunity to build funding and equity for

the corporation and for the stockholders within its

business purposes. The corporate structure

provides audit and other assurances and the

board oversight of the operations could provide

streamlined efforts and comfort for other business

and corporate members.

Some Public Agencies and non-profit

foundations may not be comfortable with the

Corporate structure. Grants to for profit

corporations may be more difficult.

Chartered OrganizationThis entity is a special act district or corporation that

is chartered for a specific purpose such as the

Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Federal Home

Loan Mortgage Corporation, Amtrak, as well as

Redevelopment Districts, Special Districts and

Conservancies. The chartering entity must have the

authority to charter and empower the entity. This

could be federal or California legislature, The

governor, board of supervisors or other group.

The broad powers and ability to incorporate

government, corporate and public entitles and

advisor members are robust. The governance

structure is variable, but can be selected from

Corporate to Governmental or potentially a hybrid.

Significant benefits can come from these unions

of interests and powers and may be useful for a

green economic zone.

There are some disadvantages to this type of

entity. It requires an act of a legislative body

capable of creating it, the higher or more

powerful the chartering entity, the more difficult

to get it established. Political interests at the

higher level may dominate the entity. Some

will dislike another layer of government being

created and or fear regulatory standing. Any

change must be approved by the chartering

entity.

Joint Powers AuthorityA JPA is the Joint exercise of Powers that are held in

common by municipal or other government entities in

California

Allows the coordinated powers of government to

be exercised and managed by an entity.

Governance is variable and can be customized.

Powers can include borrowing, collecting fees,

taxing, condemnation, police powers, etc.,

providing such powers are established in the

members of the JPA.

No membership option for non-government

organizations, except as advisory. Some

object to additional or shadow government

type entities. Member are usually appointed

rather than directly elected.

PACKAGE - Page 26

Approved CV-SALTS Meeting Calendar

1 2 3 Light Red conflicts

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

1 1 2 3 4 5 1 PEOC Committee

2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Third Thursdays Where possible

3 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 11 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Executive Committee Meetings

4 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 12 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Policy or Admin Calls 1:00 or 1:30pm

5 26 27 28 29 30 31 9 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 13 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Yellow Salty 5

14 29 30 31 State Board Worshops/Hearings

TAC Meeting

4 5 6 PEOC Committee

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

14 1 2 3 4 18 1 2 23 1 2 3 4 5 6

15 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 19 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 24 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

16 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 25 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 26 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

18 26 27 28 29 30 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 27 28 29 30

23 31

7 8 9

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

27 1 2 3 4 31 1 36 1 2 3 4 5

28 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 32 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 37 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

29 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 33 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 38 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

30 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 39 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

31 26 27 28 29 30 31 35 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 40 27 28 29 30

36 30 31

10 11 12

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

40 1 2 3 49 1 2 3 4 5

41 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 50 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

42 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 46 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 51 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

43 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 47 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 52 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

44 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 48 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 53 27 28 29 30 31

49 29 30

Notes/Key

January February March

April May June

September

October November December

2020

July August

11/21/2019

PACKAGE - Page 27