TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Brian D. Bordona, Director of Planning, Building, and Environmental Services
REPORT BY: Kendall Sawyer, Staff Services Manager
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment for Groundwater Sustainability Agency Special Revenue Fund
RECOMMENDATION
title
Approve a Budget Amendment increasing both revenue and appropriations by $1,500,000 in the Groundwater Sustainability Agency Fund to cover unanticipated and increased expenditures associated with implementation of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan. (Fiscal Impact: $1,500,000 expense, Groundwater Sustainability Agency Fund, Not Budgeted, Discretionary)
[4/5 vote required].
body
BACKGROUND
On December 17, 2019, the Napa County Board of Supervisors approved Resolution 2019-152, establishing the Napa County Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA). In accordance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA), the Napa County GSA is charged with sustainable management of groundwater in the Napa Valley Subbasin. The Napa Valley Subbasin (Subbasin) has been designated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) as a high-priority groundwater basin, requiring the development and implementation of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP), which was submitted to DWR on January 31, 2022, and approved on January 26, 2023.
The GSA SRF funds agreements associated with GSP implementation including the Technical Advisory Group (TAG), technical consultants, and other initiatives to achieve a sustainable Subbasin. At the time the fiscal year 2023-24 budget was being developed, it was projected that the GSA would need a minimum of $2 million to implement the GSP and move towards a sustainable basin. The GSA concurrently pursued additional revenue from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Prop 68, Round 2 grant program. The grant revenue was anticipated to provide a maximum of $8.8 million over three years.
The GSA was not awarded the $8.8 million in grant funding. Irrespective of not receiving grant funds from DWR, the necessity for the GSA to aggressively pursue sustainability of the Subbasin remains. The requested Budget Amendment would allow for the continued funding of the following items:
• Increased level of effort by the technical support team from Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers (LSCE), Stillwater Sciences and ERA Economics related to development of the Groundwater Pumping Reduction Workplan, the Water Conservation Workplan, and the Interconnected Surface Water and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Workplan, and Annual Report for Water Year 2022/23.
• Significant time spent by staff and consulting teams on the $8.8M grant proposal to DWR for Prop 68, Round 2 funding.
• Increased level of effort related to support of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) and Drought and Water Shortage Task Force.
• Significant effort by the technical support team from LSCE in assisting County with well inventory in GIS.
• Revamped monitoring web map with online visualization to make groundwater data more accessible and usable to the public.
• Increased level of effort related to the communication and engagement surrounding the public release and comments to the three Workplans.
• Increase in staff and consultant time to implement the Governor’s Executive Orders N-7-22 and N-3-23 which necessitated revisions to the County’s Water Availability Analysis and well permitting standards, within the context of recent court decisions and public trust considerations.
• Pursuing establishment of two CIMIS stations in the Subbasin.
• Subsidence surveys of select monitoring wells.
• Increased outreach and communication with stakeholders such as Wine Growers of Napa Valley, Napa Valley Grapegrowers, Napa County Farm Bureau, Napa Resource Conservation District and Napa Green.
• Extra Help staff to assist with data gathering related to RCD’s Stream Watch Program.
At the time the fiscal year 2023-24 budget was being developed, the implementation costs associated with the development of the initiatives were underestimated, particularly within the context of the increased level of stakeholder communication and outreach, and in the absence of the California Department of Water Resources’ Proposition 68 grant funding, make a Budget Amendment necessary.
GSP implementation will be ongoing in 2024 and beyond until the Subbasin has reached the point of “sustainability,” which is mandated by DWR to occur by 2042, but which is being pursued with all due haste. County will need to identify ongoing funding sources for its administration.
The Director of Planning, Building, and Environmental Services requests a Budget Amendment in the amount of $1,500,000 to fund the initiatives required to implement the GSP and to ensure a sustainable basin, and to prevent the GSA SRF from running a deficit at fiscal year-end.
Requested Action:
Approve and authorize a Budget Amendment increasing consulting services appropriations by $1,500,000 in the Groundwater Sustainability Agency Fund (2720000-52310) to cover unanticipated and increased expenditures associated with the implementation of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan and unrealized grant funds, offset by transfer-in revenue (48200) from the General Fund.
FISCAL & STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT
|
Is there a Fiscal Impact? |
Yes |
|
Is it currently budgeted? |
No |
|
Is it Mandatory or Discretionary? |
Discretionary |
|
Discretionary Justification: |
The General Fund contribution to the GSA as well as the increase in appropriations is necessary to cover expenditures as part of the State mandated and Board approved GSP. If this Budget Amendment is not approved, the GSA will not be able to cover its expenditures and will end the fiscal year in a deficit. |
|
Is the general fund affected? |
Yes |
|
Future fiscal impact: |
There is no future fiscal impact. |
|
Consequences if not approved: |
The Groundwater Sustainability Agency will not have appropriate spending authority for FY 23-24 to implement the unfunded State mandate and the County would not comply with State law. |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed action is not a project as defined by 14 California Code of Regulation 15378 (State CEQA Guidelines) and therefore CEQA is not applicable.