Notice of Regular Board of Directors Meeting

NOTICE OF REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

3:00 P.M. WEDNESDAY, JULY 8, 2015 VENTURA RIVER WATER DISTRICT 409 OLD BALDWIN ROAD, OJAI, CA 93023

Right to be heard: Members of the public have a right to address the Board directly on any item of interest to the public, which is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board. The request to be heard should be made immediately before the Board’s consideration of the item. No action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless the action is otherwise authorized by subdivision (b) of 54954.2 of the Government Code and except that members of a legislative body or its staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights under section 54954.3 of the Government Code.

1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. CONSENT AGENDA: A. FINANCIAL EXPENDITURES FOR JUNE 2015 B. MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING JUNE 3, 2015 C. ANNUAL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES

4. PUBLIC COMMENT – FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (LIMIT PER PERSON – 5 MINUTES)

5. APPROVAL OF THE VENTURA RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN AND THE INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN

6. LEAK APPEAL 94 MONTEREY

7. VACATION OF EASEMENT – BURNHAM RD @ ROCKAWAY

8. APPROVAL OF REMY, MOOSE, MANLEY AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES – SB CHANNELKEEPERS LAWSUIT

9. GROUND WATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY – UPDATE KUEBLER & LEE

10. GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT ON WELLS, WATER STATUS

11. OLD & NEW BUSINESS – ACWA Nominations, CSDA Elections

12. EXECUTIVE SESSION – An executive session will be held regarding litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9, Government Code, Small vrs. VRWD case # 56-2015-00464077-CU-EI-VTA; City of Ventura vrs. VRWD, CPF-14-513875.

13. MEETING ADJOURNMENT If you require special accommodations for attendance at or participation in this meeting, please notify our office 24 hours in advance at (805) 646-3403 (Govt. Code Section 54954.1 and 54954.2(a).

Board Packet Page 1 Board Packet Page 2 Board Packet Page 3 Board Packet Page 4 Board Packet Page 5 VENTURA RIVER WATER DISTRICT MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JUNE 3, 2015

Pursuant to due and official notice, a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Ventura River Water District was held at 409 Old Baldwin Road, Ojai, California.

Directors present were M. Hanson, T. Jamison and B. Kuebler. Also present were Legal Counsel Lindsay Nielsen, General Manager/Board Secretary Bert Rapp. Public present was Mr. Bill O’Brien.

1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER – Treasurer B. Kuebler Called the meeting to order at 3:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Led by B. Kuebler. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: A. Financial expenditures for May 2015 and financials for December 2014 & January 2015 B. Minutes for regular meeting May 13, 2015 T. Jamison moved for approval, seconded by M. Hanson. Action carried 3-0. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT – None

5. REVIEW OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO WATER RATE CASE AS RELATED TO VRWD RATES – L. Nielsen reported that the California Association of Water Agencies, League of California Cities and the Council of California Counties plan to submit a petition to the California Supreme Court Supreme Court to depublish the court of appeal’s decision, and in the alternative to take the decision up on appeal sua sponte. L. Nielsen recommended the District make no changes to the rates at this time and forward to Mr. Peterson the formal claim form. T. Jamison moved to direct the General Manager to study the tiered rate structure to assure it matches the cost of water service and provide an update to the Board at the September 9th meeting along with a schedule for possible implementation. Seconded by M. Hanson and carried 3-0.

6. APPROVAL OF ANNUAL NEWSLETTER – B. Kuebler recommended emphasizing that the District must cut back as a whole and there are no individual water budgets for each customer. T. Jamison moved for approval of the newsletter seconded by M. Hanson and carried 3-0.

7. APPROVAL OF BUDGET - FY 2015/2016, SALARY RANGE SCHEDULE AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM – B. Rapp reported that revenues this year are projected to be $280,000 lower than last year but the budget has been balanced by cuts and delays of capital improvement projects. A 10% rate increase is projected for January 2016 and Well #7 is scheduled to be drilled in winter/spring 2016. M. Hanson moved for approval of the 2015/16 Budget, Capital Improvement Program and Salary Range Schedule. Seconded by T. Jamison and carried 3-0.

8. GROUND WATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY – WAIVER FOR BHFS – B. Rapp explained that Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck (BHFS) are requesting a waiver because of potential conflicts related to the City of Ventura Cross Complaint on the Santa Barbara Channelkeepers lawsuit. All the other agencies have approved the waiver except Ventura and Casitas. Bill O’brien recommended that the District try to avoid the lawsuits and work instead towards the collaborative Groundwater Sustainability process. B. Kuebler shared a bullet point list of reasons why the GSA process would be better than the legal process. T. Jamison moved to authorize the Board President to sign the waiver after all the other participating agencies have approved the waiver. Seconded by M. Hanson and carried 3-0.

9. GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT ON WELLS, WATER STATUS – B. Rapp reported that customer conservation has reached 18% with only 7% to go to achieve 25% from 2013. Ground water levels at Well #2 are at record low levels for June 1st at 63.7 feet below the ground surface. The wells are producing 1,077 GPM and are pumping about 17 hrs per day on warm days.

Board Packet Page 6 10. OLD & NEW BUSINESS – ACWA-JPIA Candidates, SDRMA Election. The Board decided to not vote for the candidates in the ACWA-JPIA and SDRMA elections.

The meeting adjourned to executive session at 4:04 p.m.

11. EXECUTIVE SESSION – An executive session was held regarding litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9, Government Code, Small vrs. VRWD case # 56-2015-00464077-CU-EI-VTA, Cross-Complaint City of Ventura case #CPF-14-513875.

No action was taken in executive session. The meeting reconvened at 4:27 p.m.

T. Jamison moved that the District use the legal services of Rob Sawyer with Remy, Moose, Manley along with technical assistance from Kear Groundwater. Seconded by M. Hanson and carried 3-0. T. Jamison moved for the Board to support the concept of putting the Channelkeeper lawsuit on hold and work with other defendants to get a delay in the Channelkeeper lawsuit allowing the GSA process to proceed. Seconded by M. Hanson and carried 3-0.

12. MEETING ADJOURNED at 4:35 p.m. to Wednesday July 9, 2015

Attested:

______Bruce Kuebler, Treasurer Marvin Hanson, Director

Board Packet Page 7 VENTURA RIVER WATER DISTRICT PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF DISBURSEMENT TO STAFF & DIRECTORS FYE 2015

JULY 2014 7/12/14 C LEE CHECK #12484 $129.00 REIMBUIRSE FOR UNIFORM PANTS 8/4/14 C LEE CHECK#12516 $120.00 D‐2/T‐2 CERTIFICATION RENEWAL FEE

JUNE 2015 6/12/15 J SCHAEFER CHECK #12963 $248.49 REIMBURSE FOR HOTEL AND MILAGE FOR GASB 68 TRAINING

Board Packet Page 8 VENTURA RIVER WATER DISTRICT

DATE: July 8, 2015 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Bert J. Rapp, P.E. General Manager

SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE VENTURA RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN AND THE INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN

SUMMARY The Ventura River Watershed Council has worked with Lorraine Walter, Watershed Coordinator, to prepare the Ventura River Watershed Management Plan. The Executive Summary of the plan is attached. The entire 837 page plan is available at: www.VenturaWatershed.org. The Ventura County Watersheds Coalition has also prepared an update to the Integrated Regional Watershed Management Plan (IRWM) which is ready for approval. The introduction to the plan is attached. The plan may be found at: www.ventura.org/wcvc/IRWMP/2014IRWMP.htm. Lorraine Walter will present the plans at the July 8th Board Meeting.

RECOMMENDED ACTION The General Manager recommends that the Board take the following action: 1. Approve the Ventura River Watershed Management Plan. 2. Approve the 2014 Integrated Regional Watershed Management Plan.

BACKGROUND The General Manager and Director Bruce Kuebler provided review and comments to pertinent sections of the Ventura River Watershed Management Plan.

FISCAL SUMMARY There is no fiscal impact associated with adopting the plans. Should the District elect to apply for grants under Proposition 84 or 1 it will need to have approved the IRWM.

Board Packet Page 9 Executive Summary

The Watershed’s Story ...... xxvii A Collective Management Strategy ...... xxxi Going Forward ...... xxxii Goals and Core Findings ...... xxxii The Plan and the Process ...... xxxviii www.venturawatershed.org

Lake Casitas Intake Structure Under Construction, 1958 Photo courtesy of Casitas Municipal Water District

Board Packet Page 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xxvii Executive Summary

The Watershed’s Story The Ventura River watershed is a rare and remarkable coastal southern California treasure; it is water-self-reliant, providing clean water to many farms and residents both within and outside its boundaries. Stream networks in surrounding watersheds are often channelized and hard to recognize as streams; in the Ventura River watershed river and streams The Ventura River watershed is are largely unchannelized. Urban development dominates much of the a rare and remarkable coastal landscape of southern California; yet cities comprise only three percent of the Ventura River watershed, and developed land only 13%. A unique southern California treasure; it set of circumstances has left this small watershed with a relatively healthy is water-self-reliant, providing ecosystem, containing over 100 special status plant and animal species. clean water to many farms At 226 square miles (144,833 acres), the Ventura River watershed is the and residents both within smallest of Ventura County’s three major watersheds. The watershed and outside its boundaries. extends from its Matilija Creek headwaters in the steep Transverse Ranges of the Matilija Wilderness to the Pacific Ocean, 33.5-miles downstream. The beginning of the Ventura River itself is marked by the confluence of Matilija Creek with North Fork Matilija Creek, 16.2 miles from the Pacific Ocean. The river flows south along the western edge of the Ojai Valley; past the City of Ojai and the communities of Meiners Oaks, Mira Monte, Oak View, Casitas Springs, and through the edge of the City of Ventura. In its final stretch, the river flows through the Ventura River estuary, and if the sandbar is breached, proceeds to the ocean. Along the river’s route it picks up water from tributaries, the most significant being San Antonio Creek.

What is a watershed? A watershed is a basin that catches rain and snow and drains into a central waterbody—in this case, the Ventura River. Every area of land is part of a watershed. Watersheds come in all shapes and sizes and often contain smaller “subwatersheds.” There are complex interrelationships among the streams, aquifers, lakes, habitats, people and economies that make up a watershed system, such that changes or impacts to one part of a watershed can ripple through and affect other parts.

Board Packet Page 11 xxviii VENTURA RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN

VENTURA COUNTY

Los Padres r. National C j a i l Forest i t a M k Ma r tilija rt h Fo Cre o ek N n o

y n n a o

y on C

y n

n y a

e a l

C a d

r t c ri

r o n G Matilija a i a

n w r r e Reservoir e t a S SANTA S B

n o k BARBARA y e

Coyo teCreek r e n r C e a l k

C l e

COUNTY v e k x e e

i N r e Meiner s o r

c C Cree k C F s R M e e Oaks r e v or h e R e m Sa nta An a T ha c a Cr eek a r Upper S yc u t Ojai Ojai n Mira e Monte V k ·þ150 e C ree k e a ny on r L i o n C C io n to Oak n View A n a S

Lake Casitas Cas itas k ee Springs Cr a g r a L d a Ca ña

·þ33

P a c i f ¤£101 i c O c e a ·þ126 n

Ventura Ventura River Estuary ¤£101 Miles ¯ 00.5 1 2 3 4 Watershed Overview

Ventura River Watershed

U.S. Forest Service

Urban Areas

Data Source: California Protected Areas Database v1.8 Urban Areas: FMMP Map Created by GreenInfo Network using Esri software October 2013 www.greeninfo.org

Watershed Overview Map

Board Packet Page 12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xxix

The watershed is comprised of five subwatersheds: Matilija Creek, North Fork Matilija Creek, San Antonio Creek, Cañada Larga Creek, and Coy- ote Creek. Cycles of drought and flood Steep mountains and foothills comprise most of the land area, with are the norm. Since 1906, altitudes ranging from 6,010 feet to sea level. Valley floors are home to communities and farms. 67% of the years have had Rainfall varies geographically, seasonally, and from year to year. Cycles less than average rainfall. of drought and flood are the norm. Since 1906, 67% of the years have had less than average rainfall. Many parts of the stream network are typically dry during much of the year. Surface water readily disappears underground in some stream reaches (segments); in others, groundwater regularly feeds streamflow. Rainfall in the Matilija Wilderness, the river’s headwaters, is the highest Major or moderate floods in Ventura County, averaging 35.17 inches a year, which is over twice have occurred once every five that of rainfall at the coast where the yearly average is 15.46 inches. This rain sometimes comes in large storms, which, when combined with the years on average since 1933. steep topography, can produce fast-moving floodwaters. Major or moderate floods have occurred once every five years on average since 1933. Agriculture is the dominant land use: including grazing, it comprises 18.5% of the watershed’s land area. About half of the water supply goes to agricultural users. The agricultural economy and the watershed’s water supply system grew up together, and have a long history of interdepen- dence. Fifty-four percent of the watershed is federally managed. Agriculture is the dominant Limited land development and large areas of protected habitat help land use: including grazing, it support water that is relatively clean; however, surface waters are still considered “impaired” for a number of factors, including trash, algae, comprises 18.5% of the land area. water diversion/pumping, eutrophic conditions, low dissolved oxygen, nitrogen, fish barriers, coliform, bacteria, mercury, and total dissolved solids. Cities comprise only 3.17% of the watershed. Residental land uses occupy 4% of the land area. 44,140 people live in the watershed. The population is 58% white, 37% Hispanic or Latino, 2% Asian, and 3% other Cities comprise only races. Income varies widely, and several areas qualify as disadvantaged 3.17% of the watershed. or severely disadvantaged communities. The strength of the community’s existing stewardship is one the watershed’s greatest assets. Part 3 of this plan, the “Watershed Characterization,” offers a much more detailed story of the watershed. In mostly nontechnical language, and with many photos and illustrations, the various factors influencing the watershed—from geology and climate to local policies and infrastructure—are described. The Watershed Characterization provides a reference for anyone wanting to know more about the watershed.

Board Packet Page 13 xxx VENTURA RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN

Chapter 2.3, “Campaigns,” also tells the watershed’s story—in this case the story of the work already underway to improve conditions in the watershed, the people doing it, the ways they are working together, and some of the key proposed projects and programs that would further advance this work.

Quick Facts

Main Tributaries & Subwatersheds Matilija Creek, North Fork Matilija Creek, San Antonio Creek, Cañada Larga Creek, Coyote Creek Jurisdictions Of the watershed area in Ventura County: County of Ventura (49.1%), US Forest Service (47.7%), City of Ojai (1.9%), City of Ventura (1.2%). A small corner of the watershed is in Santa Barbara County (3.9% of the entire watershed). Population 44,140 Headwaters Transverse Ranges Mouth Pacific Ocean (Santa Barbara Channel) Length 33.5 miles (16.2 miles of main stem, plus 17.3 miles of Matilija Creek headwaters) Area 226 sq. mi., 144,833 acres Average Annual Precipitation 15.46" (lower watershed) 21.31" (middle watershed) 35.17" (upper watershed) Median Annual Precipitation 14.12" (lower watershed) 19.20" (middle watershed) 28.74" (upper watershed) Discharge Average – 65 cubic feet per second (cfs); Maximum – 63,600 cfs (1978) Elevation Highest: 6,010 ft. Lowest: sea level

Ventura River Estuary Looking out to the Santa Barbara Channel Photo courtesy of Santa Barbara Channelkeeper

Board Packet Page 14 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xxxi A Collective Management Strategy Chapter 2.3, “Campaigns,” outlines a strategy to collectively solve shared watershed problems and manage shared resources. As an alternative to focusing on separate individual priority projects or programs, the Coun- cil chose to widen the perspective and focus on a short list of six priority regional “campaigns.” The campaigns build upon work already underway, and illustrate specific watershed interrelationships and why collaboration is so important at the watershed scale. Advancing these priority campaigns depends upon implementation of a variety of different types of projects and programs, involving many different stakeholders at many different levels of effort. By presenting the Council’s priority projects and programs in this broader perspective, the campaigns offer a realistic framework for collectively achieving improvements. The Council’s six implementation campaigns are: • River Connections Campaign. Seeks to increase understanding, appreciation, and stewardship of the Ventura River and its watershed by connecting people with the river, with information about its history and issues, and with the community working to keep it vital. • Resiliency through Infrastructure Campaign. Seeks to strengthen both infrastructure and local policy in order to reduce the vulnera- bility of the watershed and its residents to extended droughts, major floods, seismic hazards, and water supply contamination. • Extreme Efficiency Campaign. Seeks to maximize the conservation of water by all water users by continually realizing greater water use efficiency from equipment, technology, and people; pursuing more opportunities to reuse water; and rewarding conservation. • Water Smart Landscapes and Farms Campaign. Seeks to improve and innovate residential and commercial landscape and farm management practices in order to protect, supplement, and extend water supplies, and protect the long-term viability of farms. • Arundo-Free Watershed Campaign. Seeks to remove, and keep at bay, the invasive non-native plant Arundo donax, which consumes excessive amounts of water, poses a major fire hazard, clogs flood control channels, and destroys native habitat. • Healthy San Antonio Creek Campaign. Seeks to increase the flow Matilija Creek of clean water in San Antonio Creek, increase recharge of the interconnected Ojai Valley Groundwater Basin, and improve the creek’s riparian and instream habitats.

Board Packet Page 15 xxxii VENTURA RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN Going Forward Implementation of this plan through the six campaigns will be achieved by individuals and organizations working both independently and collectively. The extent of implementation will depend upon the availability of grant funds and the priorities and budget conditions of dozens of different organizations, as well as landowners and businesses. The Council is committed to continuing its work on integrated watershed planning, and building upon the momentum and assets it has established thus far. Goals and Core Findings The Council developed and approved seven goals for the watershed management plan. All the goals put together form the Council’s “vision” and big-picture priorities for the watershed. Each goal is supported by key findings, which describe the key factors that underlie that goal. These goals are: Sufficient Local Water Supplies. Sufficient local water supplies to allow continued independence from imported water and reliably support ecosystem and human (including urban and agricultural) needs in the watershed now and in the future, through wise water management. Clean Water. Water of sufficient quality to meet regulatory requirements and safeguard public and ecosystem health. Integrated Flood Management. An integrated approach to flood management that improves flood protection, restores natural river processes, enhances floodplain ecosystems, increases water infiltra- tion and storage, and balances sediment input and transport. Healthy Ecosystems. Healthy aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem structures, functions, and processes that support a diversity of native habitats. Access to Nature. Ample and appropriate opportunities for the public to enjoy the watershed’s natural areas and open spaces associated with aquatic habitats, to provide educational opportunities, and to gain appreciation of the need to protect the watershed and its ecosystems. Responsible Land and Resource Management. Land and resources managed in a manner that supports social and economic goals and is compatible with healthy ecosystem goals.

Board Packet Page 16 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xxxiii

Coordinated Watershed Planning. A Watershed Council that fairly represents stakeholders; collaborates on developing an integrated watershed management plan to guide watershed priorities; facilitates communication between public, private, and nonprofit stakeholders; educates and engages stakeholders; provides a forum for collecting, sharing, and analyzing information about, and creatively and proac- tively responding to, watershed issues; and maximizes grant funding opportunities. Each of the seven goals has a set of objectives that identify the assump- tions about what needs to be accomplished in order to achieve the goal. Section “2.1.2 Goals, Objectives, and Findings” lists each set of objectives.

Core Findings

A set of findings was developed for each goal. These findings are the backstory of each goal; they describe the current watershed characteris- tics, strengths, challenges, and other factors that give rise to the goal and its objectives. Section 2.1.2 contains the detailed list of findings; the core findings, a subset of the full list, are provided below.

Sufficient Local Water Supplies • The Ventura River watershed is 100% dependent upon local water sources. Groundwater comprises almost half of the total water pro- duced. The Lake Casitas reservoir is the watershed’s main source of surface water and was designed to maintain supplies during a multi- year dry period. • Surface water and groundwater are closely connected. Subsur- Lake Casitas face conditions influence instream surface water levels and flows. Photo courtesy of Michael McFadden Groundwater basins can be quickly recharged. • There are currently 182 active wells in the Ojai Valley Groundwater basin, 64 of which have been drilled since 2000; in the Upper Ven- tura River Groundwater Basin, there are currently 149 active wells, 44 of which have been drilled since 2000. • Wastewater is being beneficially reused. There is potential for and stakeholder interest in pursuing opportunities to expand its use. • There are opportunities and widespread stakeholder support for supplementing water supplies by capturing additional rainwater and surface flows. • Many large and small water suppliers serve the watershed, most of whom have some dependency on Lake Casitas.

Board Packet Page 17 xxxiv VENTURA RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN

• Because water supplies are 100% local and the amount of rainfall received annually is highly variable, supplies must be managed with caution. • Water originating in the Ventura River watershed is used both inside and outside of the watershed, and use is divided roughly equally between the agricultural and urban sectors. Data on groundwater use are incomplete. • State and federal requirements regulating the amount of surface water that must be available for endangered species affect management of the watershed’s water resources. Potential requirements to provide increased instream flows could further reduce water available for municipal, agricultural, and other uses. • Groundwater is estimated to provide almost half of the local water supply; however, the locations and volumes of groundwater extracted and the effects on streamflow are not accurately known. This data gap inhibits analysis and planning. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, signed into law in September, 2014, should result in more groundwater management plans with additional data gathering that will help fill this gap. • The invasive exotic riparian plant Arundo donax, which can be found throughout the watershed, removes scarce water from stream channels at a rate three times that of native riparian plants. • Increased demand for water has been relatively low; changes in this trend would present management challenges. • While considerable improvements in conservation and efficiency have been made, significant potential for reducing water demand remains.

Clean Water • Surface water quality is good compared with more developed watersheds in the region and has improved notably in recent decades. • Despite relatively good water quality, all of the watershed’s major waterbodies are on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies. Between these waterbodies there are 14 different types of impairments. Ojai Valley Sanitary District • Further efforts are required in order to improve instream water qual- Wastewater Treatment Plant ity conditions and meet water quality regulations. • The effort and resources devoted to compliance with water quality regulations are considerable and could benefit from better efficien- cies, integration, and new funding sources.

Board Packet Page 18 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xxxv

• Groundwater quality is generally good enough for drinking and irrigating, though a few parameters exceed standards with some regularity and are monitored and managed accordingly. • Casitas Municipal Water District and the Bureau of Reclamation maintain proactive programs to maintain good water quality in Lake Casitas.

Integrated Flood Management • Major or moderate floods have occurred once every five years on average since 1933. • The steep terrain of the Ventura River watershed, coupled with intense downpours that can occur in the upper watershed, result in flash flood conditions where floodwaters rise and fall in a matter of hours. East Ojai Flooding • Besides riverine flooding, the watershed also experiences alluvial Photo courtesy of David Magney fan, coastal, and urban drainage flooding, and related hazards. • Flood protection infrastructure, including all three levees, is in need of improvement. Important water and sewer facilities are vulnerable to flood damage because of their location. • High sediment loads carried and deposited by local streams are a very significant factor in local riverine flood risk and present major challenges to flood management. • Alterations in natural sediment transport regimes have exacerbated coastal erosion and increased coastal flooding risk. • Restoring natural floodplain functions where feasible is favored by stakeholders as a least cost/greatest gain strategy for long-term flood management.

Healthy Ecosystems • The Ventura River watershed supports a remarkable array of healthy and biodiverse southern California natural habitats. • The watershed’s river and stream network remains largely unchannelized and is supportive of considerable wetland and riparian habitats. These riparian habitats are especially critical in dry southern California. Red-Legged Frog • The Ventura River estuary, a place where river water and ocean water Photo courtesy of Chris Brown converge, is an exceptionally valuable wetland habitat and ecological resource. • Streamflow and pools support aquatic systems in some reaches; other reaches are typically too dry to sustain aquatic habitats.

Board Packet Page 19 xxxvi VENTURA RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN

• The watershed is home to numerous protected species and habitats, including 137 plants and animals protected at either the federal, state, or local level. The watershed is also challenged by invasive, non-native species. • The federally endangered southern California steelhead is of par- ticular significance. The streamflow and pools, and associated food chain, required for its survival are indicators of healthy aquatic ecosystems. Allocating that “environmental water,” given the watershed’s often dry and always variable climate, is challenging and a continuing source of stakeholder controversy. • Controlling Arundo donax (giant reed) is a priority for habitat restoration, as well as fire prevention, flood protection, and water supply enhancement. • Removing Matilija Dam is a priority restoration project with widespread stakeholder support. A coalition of stakeholders has been working to remove Matilija Dam since 1999. • Local land conservancies have proven to be very effective at acquir- ing, protecting, and restoring strategic habitats for the benefit of the watershed. • Facilitating the recovery of the steelhead is important to many stakeholders. • Lack of funding is preventing the US Forest Service from effectively addressing important management issues of concern, including fish passage barriers, illegal and destructive marijuana farms, and the spread of invasive species. • A changing climate could modify the biological diversity and viability of the watershed’s ecosystems.

Access to Nature • Residents and visitors are more likely to gain appreciation of the need to protect the watershed when given the opportunity to visit and learn about the diverse ecosystem processes and services provided by its aquatic habitats. Access to nature is available, though educational opportunities could be substantially improved. • The watershed is fortunate to have many organizations committed to providing the public with safe access to nature and nature-based Teens Relocating Crawdads, Lower recreation opportunities. Ventura River • The availability and ease of public access to nature-based activities varies in different parts of the watershed and for different user types.

Board Packet Page 20 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xxxvii

• The vision of a “Ventura River Parkway”—a network of trails, vista points, and natural areas along the river—is being actively pursued by a coalition of stakeholders.

Responsible Land and Resource Management • Developed land comprises only about 13% of the total land area in the watershed. • Local policies and physical constraints have effectively limited development on the watershed’s privately owned land. • Agriculture is the dominant land use and is a critical factor in the management and stewardship of the land and water. • Agriculture plays a critical role in maintaining many services sup- Ojai Valley’s East End portive of a healthy watershed. • The viability of agriculture is seriously threatened by water supply issues, high land costs, continued threats from exotic pests, and the challenges of competing in the modern industrial-scale farming business. • Residential land use makes up about 4% of the area of watershed, and much of this is rural and low density. • Oil extraction is a significant commercial land use, making up about 3.5% of the area of the watershed. • Wildfires can threaten local water quality and supply. Moderate wildfires occur once every 10 years on average, and extreme wildfires once every 20 years. • The population of the watershed is relatively small and the rate of growth low. • Employment opportunities are diverse. Leisure and hospitality jobs, which rely on the natural beauty and recreational assets of the watershed to attract visitors, dominate the employment landscape.

Coordinated Watershed Planning • Coordinated watershed planning offers a wide range of fiscal and management benefits. • Through their participation, Watershed Council members have demonstrated a commitment to the value of a collective approach. • While participants clearly value the Watershed Council and understand the benefits of integrated watershed planning, process problems challenge the implementation of such planning.

Board Packet Page 21 xxxviii VENTURA RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN The Plan and the Process The Ventura River Watershed Management Plan was developed over the Watershed-level planning course of three years, from 2012 to 2015. has taken hold across the The Ventura River Watershed Council, a large and diverse group of globe as understanding grows stakeholders, put considerable effort into developing the plan: they met regularly as a group and in subcommittees; conversed in emails and on that water is not bound phone calls; faced disagreements; worked out compromises; edited and by arbitrary jurisdictional re-edited draft language. authorities; water is This management plan is not mandatory and it has no regulatory teeth. It bound by the watershed. crosses multiple jurisdictions and authorities. Its implementation success depends upon the priorities and budget conditions of dozens of different organizations, as well as landowners and businesses. Even so, watershed-level planning has taken hold across the globe as understanding grows that water is not bound by arbitrary jurisdictional authorities; water is bound by the watershed. The interconnected biological, chemical, and physical parts and processes that comprise watersheds do not correspond to the fragmented patchwork of land and water regu- Ventura River near Meiners Oaks latory jurisdictions.

Board Packet Page 22 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xxxix

The Ventura River, Looking Upstream from Main Street Bridge Photo courtesy of Santa Barbara Channelkeeper

In California, watershed-level planning is not yet mandatory, but is “highly encouraged,” (for example with preferential access to grant funding) and there is a growing move to institutionalize the watershed-level view. Some water quality regulations are now issued by watershed. This plan was developed to serve as a guiding document for the Coun- cil and to inform the public about the watershed and the factors that influence its conditions. The plan outlines the Council’s priorities for maintaining and improving the watershed’s health and sustainability for the benefit of the people and ecosystems that depend upon it. The plan initiates the integration of the many parts and processes of the watershed through recommendations for projects and programs developed with the complexity of the Ventura River watershed in mind. The Ventura River Watershed Council was formed in 2006 to work on watershed planning. Twenty-one different organizations now serve on the Council’s Leadership Committee (voting members), representing a balance of perspectives and interests, including government, water and sanitary districts, land management and recreation organizations, environmental nonprofits, agricultural organizations, and businesses.

Board Packet Page 23 xl VENTURA RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Ventura River Watershed Council

Between 2011 and 2014, the Council established its Leadership Com- mittee; developed a mission statement, a logo, and a governance charter; tripled stakeholder involvement and grew member diversity; developed a useful, content-rich website; compiled and inventoried over 500 documents, plans, and policies relevant to the watershed; professionally mapped 36 different aspects of the watershed and posted a Map Atlas online; and developed this plan. Over $400,000 in local support and grant funding has been invested in building the Council’s capacity as an organization—and it shows. The Council has built capability; it has built confidence; and it has a plan. The strengthening of the Watershed Council for the purposes of producing this plan is in itself an important achievement. The Council now The Council cultivates provides a structure for continued input from and dialogue between relationships and facilitates stakeholders. The Council’s meetings, website resources, e-newsletters, partnerships and collaboration. and other services offer opportunities for improved community understanding, interest, and leadership in watershed issues. Compiled data and information help reduce duplicative work efforts and efficiently advance new research and analysis. The Council cultivates relationships and facilitates partnerships and collaboration. The Council identified four primary purposes of the plan: 1. To tell the story of the watershed and its many interdependencies. 2. To identify and prioritize water-related concerns in the watershed. 3. To outline a strategy to collectively solve our shared watershed problems and collectively manage our shared resources. 4. To better position ourselves for funding.

Board Packet Page 24 2014 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan

SECTION 1.0 ‐ INTRODUCTION

1.1 Integrated Regional Water Management in Ventura County

Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) is a new paradigm for managing water and related resources that was established with the passage of Proposition 50 in 2002 and Proposition 84 in 2006. This approach integrates on a regional level the many facets of water resources management, such as water supply, water quality, flood management, ecosystem health, and recreation through enhanced collaboration across geographic and political boundaries and diverse stakeholder groups. IRWM “regions” have been formed across California to develop plans that identify water management challenges, resolve conflicts over the best use of resources, bridge gaps in data, find common ground, and seek innovative solutions among stakeholders. Ultimately the goal is implementation of projects and programs that efficiently address water management priorities.

A significant motivation for formation of these new regions, which are as diverse as the state itself, was the availability of substantial grant funding, which has leveraged, and continues to leverage, local funds for project implementation. The grant funds have helped communities throughout the state to enhance the availability of clean water supplies for the benefit of people and the environment, to protect communities from flood damage, and provide access to water‐related recreation opportunities. In addition to grant funding, participants in these IRWM regions benefit from the cost‐sharing, collaboration, and effective problem‐solving made possible by joining together.

IRWM is, first and foremost, a process built on collaboration and coordination among the people and interests in each region. This process brings together stakeholders that in the past may have worked in parallel, rather than closely together, to identify and solve water‐related problems. IRWM offers a framework for the consideration of diverse water resource management issues that incorporates science, engineering, history, natural processes, planning, culture, and economics. The integration of these disciplines and a new approach to identifying and implementing water resource development and protection projects has resulted in new synergies and solutions that expand the possibilities for managing our scarce water resources. In some respects, IRWM is as much art as science as it is a creative process that includes adaptive management and problem‐solving. California’s water challenges will always require innovative management strategies, particularly as the state’s population grows and climate change impacts our resources. IRWM offers a flexible, inclusive approach to assuring that our water supplies are protected, our resources preserved and our communities continue to thrive.

1.2 Successful Water Management in Ventura County – Historical Perspective

The Watersheds Coalition of Ventura County (WCVC) IRWM Region, which encompasses the majority of Ventura County, was formed to serve as the “region” responsible for IRWM planning and implementation. The Region has been very successful in bringing diverse interests together to manage water resources on a regional level. Ventura County is the ideal size and composition for successful collaboration and represents a microcosm of issues and resources facing the state as a whole. The County has a thriving agricultural industry, miles of coastline and rivers offering recreational opportunities, a strong economy, a mix of communities large and small, research institutions, valuable and abundant pristine ecosystems and forest land, local groundwater and surface water reserves, as well as access to imported state water. The County

1‐1 Section 1.0 ‐ Introduction Board Packet Page 25 2014 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan

is blessed with rich natural, economic, social, and cultural resources. Due to a long history of collaborative management of water resources in the County, the existing IRWM program was built on a strong, established foundation.

History of Water Management in Ventura County

 Regional collaboration, starting in 1970s – 208 Water Quality Management Plan  1994 – Regional Water Management Plan adopted  2006 ‐ IRWM Plan adopted – funded by Prop. 50 Planning Grant  2006 – Watersheds Coalition of Ventura County formed  2007 – Received $25 million Prop. 50 Implementation Grant, which resulted in the successful implementation of 11 water management projects  2011 – Received $17.5 million Prop. 84 Implementation Grant, including implementation of eight water management projects  2005‐20012 Three IRWM Planning Grants Received (Prop 50 ‐ $220,000, Prop 84 ‐ $1 million)  2013 – Recommended for $13.5 million in Prop. 84 Implementation Grant funds, including 6 projects.

Agencies and organizations in Ventura County have a long history working together to address water resources issues dating back to the early 1970s. In the past 40 years numerous water supply and conservation, water quality, wetland restoration, and reclamation projects have been planned and implemented. Many individuals and agencies have collaborated to ensure effective management of local water resources and protection of water‐dependent environmental resources and species habitats. These entities include local retail and wholesale water districts, Cities, sanitary districts, the County of Ventura, environmental and non‐profit organizations, the Association of Water Agencies, State and Federal agencies, and many others.

Background

1974 Ventura County Designated as 208 Planning Area The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly known as the Clean Water Act, was originally enacted in 1948. The Act was amended by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of

1972 (Public Law 92‐500) by Congress with the primary purpose of "restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's water" and "to achieve a level of water quality by July 1983, which provides for recreation in and on the water; and for the propagation of fish and wildlife." Section 208 of the amendments and the requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR's) specified general designation procedures, time constraints, grant funding criteria, and minimum plan content requirements. Ventura County was designated as a 208 Planning Area in 1974.

Funded by a Federal 208 grant from the Environmental Protection Agency, Ventura County undertook a comprehensive assessment of its water quality problems between 1975 and 1978. The initial 208 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) was adopted in 1978 by 23 local agencies. The Plan recommended short‐term programs to remedy those water quality problems that required immediate attention as well as governmental action aimed at enhancing water quality over the long term. The Ventura Regional Sanitation District was the lead agency for the initial 1975 to 1978 effort. In October of 1978, the Board of Supervisors of Ventura County was designated by the State to implement the Plan as well as the continuing planning program.

1‐2 Section 1.0 ‐ Introduction Board Packet Page 26 2014 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan

1980 208 Plan

From 1979 to 1980, the Ventura County Water Quality Planning Program identified additional water quality issues, updated the Population/Land Use Forecasts, and reevaluated the 1978 Water Quality Management Plan's Regional Goals and Policies. As a result of these efforts, the 1978 plan was updated, revised, and adopted by the County Board of Supervisors as the 208 Areawide Water Quality Management Plan (1979‐1980). Following review of the Areawide Water Quality Management Plan, the County Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 431 establishing a countywide plan for the protection, preservation, and enhancement of countywide water resources. The resolution summarized the direction given by the Board to address seawater intrusion, water conservation, two specific water reclamation projects, local State Water entitlements, creation of the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency, and Sespe Creek water rights issues.

1994 ‐ Water Management Plan Update

In 1994, the County continued the Water Quality Management Planning Program effort by updating the 1980 Areawide Water Quality Management Plan to include the developments in water management planning during the previous 14 years. This update was referred to as the Water Management Plan Update and was overseen by a committee which included representatives of the Countywide Planning Program (CPP) and Association of Water Agencies (AWA). The Water Management Plan Update fulfilled the requirements of Section 208 of the Clean Water Act. This Update: 1) provided compliance with required legislation; 2) included an update of technical data to provide an adequate information base for decision‐ making; 3) was a comprehensive planning document consistent with other regional plans; and 4) was formatted to facilitate easy referencing and updating. The 1994 Update contained specific goals, policies and program recommendations of the Water Management Plan and summarized the implementation status of 1980 Plan recommendations, including construction of the Vern Freeman Diversion, Pumping Trough Pipeline, and creation of the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency, as required as a condition of funding of these two construction projects to address seawater intrusion and groundwater overdraft. The Plan also addressed the legislative history of water management planning and water supply, demand management, and quality issues.

1996‐2006 ‐ Local Water Management Activities

Local entities have undertaken water management efforts at both the regional (countywide) level and at the watershed level.

Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Planning Process (1996 – Present)

Agencies within the Calleguas Creek Watershed began working together in 1996 to develop the Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan (WMP or Plan). This process has been a comprehensive, stakeholder driven effort to develop a resource management and protection program and strategy for the 343 square‐ mile Calleguas Creek Watershed in southeastern Ventura County. Watershed stakeholders initiated the WMP in response to a clear need to work cooperatively and responsibly to develop a comprehensive plan that would enhance the long‐term health of natural resources in the watershed and result in the implementation of a coordinated water quality and land use planning strategy for the watershed as a whole. Led by a broadly representative Steering Committee (local property owners, water and wastewater agencies, environmental groups, agricultural parties, governmental entities, and other private interests), the WMP completed its first phase, which was the development of action recommendations and technical

1‐3 Section 1.0 ‐ Introduction Board Packet Page 27 2014 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan

tools to address coordinated environmental and resource management by public agencies and private sector participants. The Phase I Report (2004) contains the recommendations and actions developed during Phase I. As part of the watershed planning process, parties responsible have organized to act collectively to address significant water quality improvements and meet the mandatory standards of the Federal Clean Water Act and California Porter‐Cologne Act.

In June 2005 local stakeholders, under the direction of the Steering Committee, adopted an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the Calleguas Creek Watershed. This plan incorporated the 2004 Phase I Report of the Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan (Volume I), which contains an action plan to address identified problems in the watershed as a result of more than nine years of stakeholder review and study and an Addendum (Volume II), which addresses the elements required in the State Guidelines for integrated regional water management plans.

Ventura Countywide Integrated Regional Water Management Planning (VCIRWMP) Group (2002 – 2006)

Early in 2002, in anticipation of the approval of a statewide water bond with grant funds for integrated regional water management, a “coalition” of 27 water‐related agencies in Ventura County met to identify priority projects for these grant funds that would address key water problems facing the County (water quality, reliability, etc.) as identified during the earlier water management planning efforts. This water bond passed in the form of Proposition 50. Through this coalition, called the VCIRWMP Group, local agencies worked together, in conjunction with State and Federal regulatory agencies, to discuss water issues facing the Region and seek solutions. The areas included were the Ventura River and Santa Clara River Watersheds. As described above, the Calleguas Creek Watershed issues were being addressed through a separate management plan and stakeholder process. In early 2004, a consensus of VCIRWMP Group members recommended that staff from the Ventura County Executive Office (CEO) and County Resource Management Agency Planning Division should coordinate the preparation of a Ventura Countywide Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (VCIRWMP) to be used as the basis to apply for grant funding and future water project funding opportunities. In the fall of 2004, the Board of Supervisors approved County collaboration with the VCIRWMP Group and a share of funding to develop the VCIRWMP and apply for Proposition 50, Chapter 8 Planning Grant and Implementation Grant funds. In May of 2005, the VCIRWMP Group adopted two resolutions formally authorizing the County Resource Management Agency Planning Division to apply for both the Planning and Implementation Grants under Proposition 50.

Watersheds Coalition of Ventura County (WCVC) ‐ Formed in 2006

In April 2006 local stakeholders came together to form the Watersheds Coalition of Ventura County (WCVC) for purposes of integrated regional water management planning and to serve as the Regional Water Management Group for entities within Ventura County. This merger was the result combining the VCIRWMP Group with the Calleguas Creek Steering Committee described above. It was felt that an IRWM region encompassing most or all of the County was more appropriate for planning and implementation purposes. Subsequently, WCVC’s governance structure was established to coordinate individual watersheds with the Region as a whole.

1‐4 Section 1.0 ‐ Introduction Board Packet Page 28 2014 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan

Summary of Water Management Collaboration Efforts in Ventura County

Local water districts, sanitation districts, Cities, the County of Ventura, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Department of Water Resources, environmental and public interest groups, and many other interested local, State and Federal organizations and individuals have historically worked together and continue to pursue comprehensive water management goals in the Region. From the inception of a comprehensive Water Quality Management Plan in 1975, through the 1994 Countywide Water Management Plan approved and submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board, to the collaborative efforts of WCVC stakeholders to prepare and update an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan and develop projects for implementation, numerous efforts have been successfully implemented to better manage and improve the County’s water resources.

Given the complexity of the issues being addressed and the diverse nature of the stakeholder groups, it is imperative that the water resource planning and implementation process continue into the future. The planning process has been an opportunity for local parties to take a greater role in governing local resources, balancing the needs of all stakeholders, and assuring healthy and sustainable watersheds for future generations.

1.3 Proposition 84 Overview

Proposition 84: Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Act of 2006 was passed by voters in November 2006 and is administered by the Department of Water Resources (DWR). The Proposition 84 Integrated Regional Water Management Grant Program (Chapter 2) provides funding for projects that assist local public agencies (such as WCVC) to meet long‐term water needs of the state including the delivery of safe drinking water and the protection of water quality and the environment.

Chapter 2 of the Act provides $1 billion for water‐related grants statewide, including $215 million to the Los Angeles/Ventura County Funding Area. Projects funded by Chapter 2 must be consistent with a locally adopted and State approved Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Plan. The intent of the Proposition 84 IRWM Grant Program is to encourage integrated regional strategies for management of water resources and to provide funding through competitive grants for projects that protect communities from drought, protect and improve water quality, and improve local water security by reducing dependence on imported water. The IRWM Grant Program is administered by the State Department of Water Resources (DWR) and is intended to promote an integrated and regional approach to water management. The IRWM Grant Program consists of Planning and Implementation Grant funding that meets the following criteria:

Planning Grants are provided to eligible applicants to develop new, or to update existing, IRWM Plans that meet the requirements of the IRWM Grant Program Guidelines (Guidelines). Proposals that develop, complete, or modify a component of an IRWM Plan are also eligible. See Appendix B for a copy of the IRWM Plan standards. WCVC has received a total of 1.2 million in Planning Grants from Proposition 50 and 84 for IRWM Plan development and related studies.

Implementation Grants are provided to eligible applicants to implement proposals that meet the requirements of the IRWM Guidelines (Guidelines). To date, WCVC has received almost $56 million in Implementation Grant funding from Propositions 50 and 84 for 25 projects.

1‐5 Section 1.0 ‐ Introduction Board Packet Page 29 2014 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan

Because of the State’s continuing budget problems, water bonds are of significant importance to local and regional water agencies. Additional water‐related legislation is being prepared and another water bond measure is on the November 2014 ballot in California.

1.4 Purpose of the Watersheds Coalition of Ventura County, Integrated Regional Water Management Plan

The purpose of the IRWM Plan is to integrate planning and implementation efforts and facilitate regional cooperation with the goal of improving water supply reliability, water recycling, water conservation, recreation and access, flood control, and environmental and habitat protection. Specifically, it will provide ongoing guidance for implementation of projects and programs to meet the Plan’s goals and objectives.

An objective of the IRWM Plan is to build on a long‐standing foundation of cooperation and the ongoing efforts of local entities and others such as the County, cities, water agencies, wetlands/habitat protection groups and ongoing watershed management committees. The objective of the IRWM Plan is not to duplicate existing and ongoing plans, but to better integrate these efforts and utilize the results and findings of existing plans to put forward the projects needed to address local goals. In general, the benefits of the IRWM Plan include the following: 1. A process for ongoing decision‐making. 2. Identification of water related issues, goals, and potential solutions. 3. Integration and coordination among local, state and federal agencies, and individuals. 4. An inclusive and participatory public involvement process to ensure meaningful input. 5. Appropriate level of scientific watershed assessment information. 6. A long‐term perspective. 7. Phased implementation and staging of resources. 8. Ongoing monitoring of project and plan implementation. 9. A means for adaptive planning and management.

1.5 Ahwahnee Watershed Principles

The Local Government Commission (LGC), in partnership with the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) and the League of California Cities, developed a comprehensive and integrated set of principles and policies (based on whole system planning) called the Ahwahnee Water Principles for Resource Efficient Land Use. The Ahwahnee Water Principles offer communities common sense and straightforward ways to address multiple water resource issues with smart planning and land use decisions.

Maintaining adequate water supplies and water quality, and protecting the beneficial uses of water, depends largely on land use decisions made by local governments. These decisions can either cause or avoid physical impacts to wetland, riparian habitat, urban pollution, and alteration of flow regimes and groundwater recharge. The disconnect between water supplies and quality, and land use regulation has resulted in permitting conflicts, costly regulatory delays, and inadequate resource protection. The relationship between land use and water will become increasingly critical given California’s projected population growth and urbanization.

1‐6 Section 1.0 ‐ Introduction Board Packet Page 30 2014 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan

The Ahwahnee Water Principles provide the communities of California a broader, more coordinated, and more flexible water management system that addresses water quality, supply and flood risks together. Implementation of the Ahwahnee Water Principles helps communities develop solutions for long‐term regional and watershed‐wide benefits.

The Board of Supervisors of Ventura County adopted the Ahwahnee Water Principles for Resource Efficient Land Use in March 2006 and implements the principles in its land use decision making process.

The Ahwahnee Water Principles

Community Principles

1. Community design should be compact, mixed use, walkable and transit‐oriented so that automobile‐generated urban runoff pollutants are minimized and the open lands that absorb water are preserved to the maximum extent possible. (See the Ahwahnee Principles for Resource‐Efficient Communities) 2. Natural resources such as wetlands, flood plains, recharge zones, riparian areas, open space, and native habitats should be identified, preserved and restored as valued assets for flood protection, water quality improvement, groundwater recharge, habitat, and overall long‐term water resource sustainability. 3. Water holding areas such as creek beds, recessed athletic fields, ponds, cisterns, and other features that serve to recharge groundwater, reduce runoff, improve water quality and decrease flooding should be incorporated into the urban landscape. 4. All aspects of landscaping from the selection of plants to soil preparation and the installation of irrigation systems should be designed to reduce water demand, retain runoff, decrease flooding, and recharge groundwater. 5. Permeable surfaces should be used for hardscape. Impervious surfaces such as driveways, streets, and parking lots should be minimized so that land is available to absorb storm water, reduce polluted urban runoff, recharge groundwater and reduce flooding. 6. Dual plumbing that allows graywater from showers, sinks and washers to be reused for landscape irrigation should be included in the infrastructure of new development. 7. Community design should maximize the use of recycled water for appropriate applications including outdoor irrigation, toilet flushing, and commercial and industrial processes. Purple pipe should be installed in all new construction and remodeled buildings in anticipation of the future availability of recycled water. 8. Urban water conservation technologies such as low‐flow toilets, efficient clothes washers, and more efficient water‐using industrial equipment should be incorporated in all new construction and retrofitted in remodeled buildings. 9. Ground water treatment and brackish water desalination should be pursued when necessary to maximize locally available, drought‐proof water supplies.

1‐7 Section 1.0 ‐ Introduction Board Packet Page 31 2014 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan

Implementation Principles

1. Water supply agencies should be consulted early in the land use decision‐making process regarding technology, demographics and growth projections. 2. City and county officials, the watershed council, LAFCO, special districts and other stakeholders sharing watersheds should collaborate to take advantage of the benefits and synergies of water resource planning at a watershed level. 3. The best, multi‐benefit and integrated strategies and projects should be identified and implemented before less integrated proposals, unless urgency demands otherwise. 4. From start to finish, projects and programs should involve the public, build relationships, and increase the sharing of and access to information. 5. Plans, programs, projects and policies should be monitored and evaluated to determine if the expected results are achieved and to improve future practices.

1‐8 Section 1.0 ‐ Introduction Board Packet Page 32 VENTURA RIVER WATER DISTRICT

DATE: July 8, 2015

TO: Board of Directors

FROM: Bert J. Rapp, P.E. General Manager

SUBJECT: LEAK APPEAL 94 MONTEREY

SUMMARY

Between April 16th and May 19th the meter for 94 Monterey registered 70 units of water. The typical usage at the property has been from 4 to 13 units of water per month.

RECOMMENDED ACTION

The General Manager recommends that the Board grant Mr. Doherty’s request and charge him the tier one rate for the leaked water for a cost of $196.70 instead of the actual May 31st bill of $290.98.

BACKGROUND

On June 3, 2015 the General Manager visited Mr. Doherty’s property at 94 Monterey Drive, approximately two to three weeks after the high meter reading. The quantity of water involved in the leak was likely 66 units of water in April/May and perhaps another 8 units of water in March/April (if the normal usage was 4 units per month). See the attached table and chart of the water usage on the property.

When the meter was read on May 19th it was noted that there was a high read. Another water operator was sent to the property and verified the meter reading was correct, there was no leak occurring at that time and left a door hanger notifying the owner that they had a high reading.

When the General Manager visited the property there was no observable evidence on the property of a leak such as erosion, green weeds or saturated soil. There is

Board Packet Page 33 Board Page 2 of 3

no practical way a person could steal the water, if they put it in a water truck it would take too long, if they ran a hose to a neighboring home it is too large a quantity to not be noticed.

If the leak was a small one at a rate of .75 to 1.25 gallons per minute it could have started about April 1st and continued until about May 15th. Because there was no evidence of a green or saturated soil the leak would have had to be inside the home and going down the sewer. A leak at a rate of 0.75 to 1.25 gph could be caused by leaky toilet flapper valve or running faucet or a combination of leaks occurring at the same time. But at that flow rate it would have been significant and noticeable.

However, Mr. Doherty is adamant that he observed no leak. He has paid the $290.98 associated with the leak.

The meters used by the District cannot spin unless water goes through them.

How do you balance the fact that the meter registered 70 units of water and the confidence Mr. Doherty has that there was no leak? He has a track record of closely monitoring his water usage and there is no obvious evidence of a leak. In this case, the General Manager recommends granting Mr. Doherty’s request.

FISCAL ANALYSIS

Mr. Doherty is requesting that the leak be charged at the tier one rate which would be at a cost of $2.60 per unit of water. This would equate to a total bill for June of $196.70 instead of the $290.98 charged, a savings of $94.28.

Board Packet Page 34 Board Page 3 of 3

Water Use at 94 Monterey Drive

2013 2014 2015 % Decrease Date 2013‐25% Usage Usage Usage from 2013 1/31/2013 3 18 4 2 ‐33% 2/28/2013 12 13 4 9 ‐37% 3/31/2013 13 10 4 10 ‐39% 4/30/2013 16 15 12 12 ‐41% 5/31/2013 22 13 70 17 ‐16% 6/30/2013 29 11 4 22 ‐6% 7/31/2013 32 20 24 ‐16% 8/31/2013 23 20 17 ‐13% 9/30/2013 28 16 21 ‐18% 10/31/2013 23 16 17 ‐21% 11/30/2013 23 13 17 ‐25% 12/31/2013 10 6 8 ‐27% Annual Total: 234 171 Average Decrease from 2013 for the last 12 months: ‐24%

Board Packet Page 35 Chris Doherty June 12,2015 94 Monterey Drive Oak View,Ca. 93022

To VRCWD Board,

I am a customer of VRCWD for the past eight and a half plus years at 94 Monterey Dr., Oak View. I am the Sole owner and do all the maintenance on the house and yard. Myself and one other adult live on the property. I have adhered to all water cutback request and then some. Since the beginning of the year ,my daily water usage ranges between 90 and 150 gallons per day. Water bills from 25-48 dollars per mo. June 1st. 2015, I received a bill for $ 290.38, claiming my usage at 1587 gal. per day for 33 days. After questioning the bill with VRCWD Rep. Bert Rapp ,we arranged an on sight inspection on the property the following morning .After inspection ,Bert Rapp agreed no signs of leaks or lush growth to indicate such usage. No running toilets, no leaking faucets. Most watering by hose. Rotating sprinklers on 15 minutes every 2 weeks on hill in back .A shower now every other day 7, flushing only when "Its Brown", are only a few of my water saving commitments. My eight and a half year History with VRCWD shows a longtime effort to conserve water...never a bill close to this! The idea that close to 1600 gallons of water a day, ran thru my meter for 33 days...and I live like this ?Highly Improbable ! I keep a close eye on all water use. There has to be a better explanation ! Perhaps with rising operating costs, quesstamating meter usage might be a possibility...only problem under estimating leads to giant balance due at actual reading...at the highest rates. Maybe meter readers need to be re -calibrated. Open to other explanations. Apparently this vast amount of water passed thru my meter. Don't know how, when or where it went. Can't believe occurred all of a sudden...gushed...and then stopped on its own...then returned to regular usage. All happening in my presence and me not knowing...NO WAY !! More probably, this water was dispersed over many many months. I ask VRCWD to revise this bill, and charge water used at base rate.

Thank You, Chris Doherty Phone: (310) 844-2588 94 Monterey Dr. Oak View PLEASE SUBMIT AT JULY VRCWD MEETING After inspection, Bert Rapp agreed no signs of such water usage.

VENTURA RIVER WATER DISTRICT

DATE: July 8, 2015 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Bert J. Rapp, P.E. General Manager

SUBJECT: VACATION OF EASEMENT – BURNHAM RD @ ROCKAWAY

SUMMARY A property owner on Rockaway Rd. has requested that the District vacate the easement running between the homes for one block between Rockaway Rd. and Burnham Rd. The District does not have any known facilities in the easement and no anticipated use for the easement. The water mains are in the streets surrounding the block. See attached Exhibits A and B.

RECOMMENDED ACTION The General Manager recommends that the Board take the following action: 1. Direct the General Manager to notify the affected property owners of the proposed vacation and date for Board action on the vacation. 2. Vacate the easement at no cost to the property owners.

BACKGROUND County Waterworks District #7 purchased the easement in 1950 at a cost of $10. To the best of the knowledge of staff the easement has never been used by the District.

The Ventura River Water District took over maintenance of County Water Works District #7 in 1968 and in 1979 District #7 was conveyed to Ventura River Water District.

Vacation Procedure: The General Manager recommends that letters be sent to all of the affected property owners notifying them of the intended vacation of the easement and setting a public meeting for the vacation at the regular September 9th Board meeting.

Board Packet Page 36 Board Page 2

FISCAL SUMMARY Vacating the easement requires the recordation of a quitclaim deed with the County Recorder. There is no fee charged to the District for the recordation. There are twelve property owners affected so the cost of postage will be minimal. There will be perhaps four hours of staff time involved with preparing staff reports and mailing the letter to the property owners. The total cost to the District to abandon the easement will be about $350.

The purchase price of the easement was $10 in 1950. The present worth adjusted by the Los Angeles/Orange County Consumer Price index is about $105. It would likely cost more than the $105 to try to collect monies for the abandonment of the easement therefore the General Manager recommends that the easement be vacated at no cost to the property owners.

Board Packet Page 37 Board Page 3

ROCKAWAY EASEMENT EXHIBIT A

Board Packet Page 38 Board Page 4

WATER MAINS ON ROCKAWAY

EXHIBIT B

Board Packet Page 39 Board Packet Page 40 Board Packet Page 41 Board Packet Page 42 VENTURA RIVER WATER DISTRICT

DATE: July 8, 2015 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Bert J. Rapp, P.E. General Manager

SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF REMY, MOOSE, MANLEY AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES – SB CHANNELKEEPERS LAWSUIT

SUMMARY The recent cross-complaint by the City of Ventura has made the Ventura River Water District and all other water pumpers a party to the Santa Barbara Channelkeeper lawsuit. The District needs special legal counsel that specializes in water law to assist on this case. General Counsel Lindsay Nielsen recommends that the District utilize the services of Robert Sawyer with the firm Remy, Moose, Manley, LLP (RMM) out of Sacramento. The Meiners Oaks Water District is planning to utilize Mr. Robert Sawyer as well so the two water agencies would share the legal expenses.

RECOMMENDED ACTION The General Manager recommends that the Board take the following action: 1. Authorize the Board President to sign the Legal Services Agreement with Robert Sawyer of Remy, Moose, Manley, LLP.

BACKGROUND General Counsel, Mr. Lindsay Nielsen will coordinate the work of Mr. Sawyer and separate the costs on the RMM invoices for Ventura River and Meiners Oaks. For the most part expenses are expected to be shared 50-50.

FISCAL SUMMARY The rate for Mr. Robert Sawyer is $325 per hour. Travel expenses should be low because an addendum has been added to the agreement indicating there will be no travel expenses when meetings are coordinated with Mr. Sawyers regular trips to Ventura County. This work is budgeted in account # 84700000 in the amount of $20,000.

Board Packet Page 43 Board Packet Page 44 Board Packet Page 45 Board Packet Page 46 Board Packet Page 47 Board Packet Page 48 Board Packet Page 49 Board Packet Page 50 Board Packet Page 51

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Board Packet Page 52 VENTURA RIVER WATER DISTRICT

DATE: July 8, 2015 TO: Directors FROM: Bert J. Rapp, P.E. General Manager SUBJECT: WELLS, PRODUCTION, USAGE, AND CONSERVATION UPDATE

Wells & Production The static aquifer level at Well # 2 on July 1, 2015 was 69.0 feet below the surface. The level dropped 5.3 feet since the first of last month. The aquifer is currently 33 feet below the 25 – year average for July 1st. Well #1 is pumping 755 GPM this month down 19 GPM from last month. Well #3 is pumping 279 GPM down 24 GPM from last month. Well #2&4 are not pumping due to low water levels. Total available well production: 1,034 GPM, a decrease of about 43 GPM from last month. The Wells are currently pumping about 18 to 20 hours per day on high demand days. We will need to use some Casitas water soon. Supplemental Water from Casitas No supplemental water was purchased from Casitas this month. Usage Sales dollars billed on June 30, 2015 amounted to $179,700. Last year we billed $175,718 during the same period. Water sold in June 2015 amounted to 34,098 HCF, a decrease of 42% below the 58,444 HCF sold in June 2013, and a decrease of 32% below the 50,162 HCF sold in May 2014. Charts are enclosed to depict the ground water status and water usage. On July 1, 2015 Lake Casitas level was 47.9% of full capacity at elevation 507.2, 59.9 feet below spill elevation of 567.1 with storage of 121,621 AF. The lake has dropped 0.9% or 1.3 feet and -2,588 AF feet since last month. Conservation No Notice of Violations or penalties were issued in June. Customer Complaint Log A copy of the Customer Complaint Log is attached.

Board Packet Page 53 Ventura River WD Water Usage Compared to 2013 10%

12 Month Rolling Average of Reduction from 2013 0% 0%

‐10% ‐10% ‐10% ‐12% ‐13% ‐15% ‐16% ‐17% ‐16% ‐20% ‐18% ‐21% ‐21%

‐30% ‐28% ‐29%

2014 Target Reduction ‐20% 2015 Target Reduction ‐25% ‐35% ‐40% ‐42%

‐50% Aug‐14 Sep‐14 Oct‐14 Nov‐14 Dec‐14 Jan‐15 Feb‐15 Mar‐15 Apr‐15 May‐15 Jun‐15

Board Packet Page 54 DEPTH TO GROUND WATER IN WELL #2 ON THE FIRST OF JULY Ground Surface

0 564 11.1 ‐

14.0 ‐ 15.7

‐10 ‐ 554 17.2

‐ 20.6 21.3 ‐ ‐

23.8 23.8 24.4 ‐ ‐ ‐20 ‐ 544 28.4 surface 29.3 ‐

30.2 30.3 ‐ 30.7 ‐ ‐ ‐

35.0

‐30 ‐ 534

40.8 ‐ 42.0 42.6 ‐ ‐ 44.9 45.6 ‐ ground ‐40 ‐ 524

48.7 ‐ 51.1 ‐ 52.4 ‐ Elevation

‐50 57.1 514 ‐ 61.6 below ‐

63.3 ‐60 ‐ 504 69.0 ‐ ‐70 494 Depth ‐80 484 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

BoardCHART Packet Page 1 55 AQUIFER LEVEL BELOW REFERENCE VRWD WELL # 2 FIRST DAY OF THE MONTH

25 Yr AVG Aquifer Full 1990 Well #3 Shut Off Well #2 & #4 Shut Off 2014 2013 2015

Sounding Pipe Elevation = 563.65 0 Aquifer Full 554 -10

544 -20 25 year Average 534 -30 1990 524 -40 2013 514 -50 2014 2015 504 -60

494 Well #2 & 4 Shut Off Elev. 497 -70

484 -80 Well #3 Shut Off Elev 483 ELEVATION ABOVE SEA LEVEL SEA ABOVE ELEVATION 474 -90

Projected 2015 Groundwater Levels Surface Below Depth Ground 1990 464 -100 Jul Oct Apr Jan Jun Feb Mar Dec Nov Aug May Sept WATER LEVEL HYDROGRAPH

CHART # 2 Board Packet Page 56 VRWD WELL PUMPING COMPARISON IN HUNDRED CUBIC FEET-ALL WELLS

2012 2013 2014 2015 Usage + Drought Purchases

80,000

2015 70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000 Units of Water of Units

20,000

10,000

0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC CHART # 3 Board Packet Page 57 RAIN ACCUMULATION PER MONTH 35

2007

2008

30 2009

2010

2011 25 2012 2013

Ave

2014

RAIN 20 2015 OF

15 INCHES

0 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

CHARTBoard Packet Page 586 VENTURA RIVER WATER DISTRICT CURRENT GROUND WATER LEVEL

AS OF: July 1, 2015

Water Storage Tank

Well Head

Aquifer Full Level - 12.0 Feet -10 Ground Level

-20

-30 Average July 1st Static Water Level - 36.1 Feet

-40

-50

Static Water Level, July 1, 2015 -69.0 Feet -60

-70

-80 Definitions

Static Level: is the level of water in the well when no water is being taken (pumped) from the well. -90 Critical Static Level Pumping Level: is the level of water in the Pumping Level well during pumping.

-100 Critical Satic Level: is the level where many of our wells can no longer pump water and we must use much more water from Lake Casitas. -110 ALWAYS CONSERVE WATER!

-180

Rainfall -190 AVERAGE ANNUAL FAINFALL - 24"

Pump Suction RAINFALL SINCE OCTOBER 1, 2014 9.2" -200 40-YEAR AVERAGE RAINFALL SINCE OCTOBER 1ST 23.5"

-210 Board Packet Page 59 Inches of Rainfall 10 20 30 40 50 60 0

1978 48.0 1979 28.8 1980 32.6 1981 18.3 1982 22.2 1983 50.6 1984 17.1 1985 15.7

1986 35.2 Office VRWD At - Rainfall Annual Historic 1987 10.9 1988 18.3 1989 11.9 1990 3.7 1991 22.0 Board 1992 28.5 1993 43.8 Rain YearRain Packet 1994 13.8 CHART 4 1995 47.1 1996 16.8 Page 1997 23.3 1998 53.4 60 1999 10.7 2000 19.9 2001 27.2 2002 7.5 2003 24.2 2004 15.3 2005 48.3 2006 25.1 2007 6.0 2008 23.7

2009 13.1 17" = Typical

2010 26.0 (Mode) 2011 28.9 2012 11.6 2013 8.6 2014 9.1 2015 9.2

CUSTOMER COMPLAINT LOG FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015

PRESSURE LEAK CUSTOMER SERVICE A DATE LOCATION/ADDRESS S HIGH/LOW T SIDE or METER FINDINGS COMMENTS 6/8/2015 9096 VENTURA AVE X CUSTOMER CAN NOT ACCESS HIS METER THAT IS GATED ON NEIGHOBER PROPERTY. 6/11/2015 410 VALLERIO AVE LOW MJZ FOUND GOOD PRESSURE OUTSIDE, PROB WITH WATER SOFTENER 6/11/2015 551 RAYMOND X CAL CUSTOMER KIDS LEFT THE WATER HOSE ON

Board Packet1OF 1 Page 61 Board Packet Page 62 Board Packet Page 63 Board Packet Page 64 Board Packet Page 65 Board Packet Page 66 Board Packet Page 67 Board Packet Page 68 Board Packet Page 69 Board Packet Page 70