Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers MSR

Final Report Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review Prepared for: Merced County LAFCO Prepared by: Berkson Associates and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. As Adopted by LAFCO, June 16, 2022 Resolution #2022-1 EPS #201013 Table of Contents 1. OVERVIEW OF THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW .............................................................. 1 Methodology .......................................................................................................... 1 2. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY ................................................................................... 3 Groundwater Sustainability ...................................................................................... 3 Drought ................................................................................................................. 4 Service Providers .................................................................................................... 5 Findings ................................................................................................................ 8 Determinations ....................................................................................................... 9 Sphere of Influence (SOI) Reviews .......................................................................... 12 3. AMSTERDAM WATER DISTRICT (AWD) ...................................................................... 13 Governance and Operations .................................................................................... 15 Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services ...................................................................... 15 Demand and Capacity ............................................................................................ 15 Determinations ..................................................................................................... 16 Sphere of Influence Review .................................................................................... 17 4. BALLICO-CORTEZ WATER DISTRICT (BCWD) .............................................................. 18 Governance and Operations .................................................................................... 20 Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services ...................................................................... 20 Demand and Capacity ............................................................................................ 20 Determinations ..................................................................................................... 20 Sphere of Influence Review .................................................................................... 21 5. CENTRAL CALIFORNIA IRRIGATION DISTRICT (CCID) ..................................................... 22 Governance and Operations .................................................................................... 24 Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services ...................................................................... 24 Demand and Capacity ............................................................................................ 24 Determinations ..................................................................................................... 26 Sphere of Influence Review .................................................................................... 27 6. EAGLE FIELD WATER DISTRICT (EFWD) .................................................................... 28 Governance and Operations .................................................................................... 30 Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services ...................................................................... 30 Demand and Capacity ............................................................................................ 30 Determinations ..................................................................................................... 30 Sphere of Influence Review .................................................................................... 31 7. GRASSLAND WATER DISTRICT (GWD) ...................................................................... 32 Governance and Operations .................................................................................... 35 Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services ...................................................................... 36 Demand and Capacity ............................................................................................ 37 Determinations ..................................................................................................... 39 Sphere of Influence Review .................................................................................... 40 8. LAGUNA WATER DISTRICT (LWD) ........................................................................... 41 Governance and Operations .................................................................................... 44 Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services ...................................................................... 44 Demand and Capacity ............................................................................................ 44 Determinations ..................................................................................................... 45 Sphere of Influence Review .................................................................................... 45 9. LEGRAND-ATHLONE WATER DISTRICT (LGAWD) ......................................................... 46 Governance and Operations .................................................................................... 48 Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services ...................................................................... 49 Demand and Capacity ............................................................................................ 49 Determinations ..................................................................................................... 50 Sphere of Influence Review .................................................................................... 51 10. MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT (MID) ...................................................................... 52 Governance and Operations .................................................................................... 54 Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services ...................................................................... 55 Demand and Capacity ............................................................................................ 56 Determinations ..................................................................................................... 57 Sphere of Influence Review .................................................................................... 59 11. MERQUIN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (MCWD) ............................................................. 60 Governance and Operations .................................................................................... 62 Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services ...................................................................... 62 Demand and Capacity ............................................................................................ 63 Determinations ..................................................................................................... 63 Sphere of Influence Review .................................................................................... 64 12. PACHECO WATER DISTRICT (PWD) .......................................................................... 65 Governance and Operations .................................................................................... 67 Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services ...................................................................... 67 Demand and Capacity ............................................................................................ 68 Determinations ..................................................................................................... 68 Sphere of Influence Review .................................................................................... 69 13. PLAINSBURG IRRIGATION DISTRICT (PID) .................................................................. 70 Governance and Operations .................................................................................... 72 Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services ...................................................................... 72 Demand and Capacity ............................................................................................ 72 Determinations ..................................................................................................... 72 Sphere of Influence Review .................................................................................... 73 14. SAN LUIS WATER DISTRICT (SLWD) ........................................................................ 74 Governance and Operations .................................................................................... 76 Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services ...................................................................... 77 Demand and Capacity ............................................................................................ 77 Determinations ..................................................................................................... 79 Sphere of Influence Review .................................................................................... 80 15. STEVINSON WATER DISTRICT (SWD) ....................................................................... 81 Governance and Operations .................................................................................... 83 Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services ...................................................................... 83 Demand and Capacity ............................................................................................ 84 Determinations ..................................................................................................... 84 Sphere of Influence Review .................................................................................... 85 16. TURNER ISLAND WATER DISTRICT (TIWD) ................................................................. 86 Governance and Operations .................................................................................... 88 Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services ...................................................................... 89 Demand and Capacity ............................................................................................ 89 Determinations ..................................................................................................... 90 Sphere of Influence Review .................................................................................... 91 APPENDIX A: ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAPS (CLAYTON AND CENTINELLA WATER DISTRICTS) List of Figures Figure 1 Map of Groundwater Subbasins in County ........................................................... 6 Figure 2 Amsterdam Water District Boundary and Sphere of Influence .............................. 14 Figure 3 Ballico-Cortez Water District Boundary and Sphere of Influence ........................... 19 Figure 4 Central California Irrigation District Boundary and Sphere of Influence .................. 23 Figure 5 Eagle Field Water District Boundary and Sphere of Influence ............................... 29 Figure 6 Grassland Water District Boundary and Sphere of Influence ................................. 34 Figure 7 Laguna Water District Boundary and Sphere of Influence .................................... 43 Figure 8 LeGrand-Athlone Water District Boundary and Sphere of Influence ....................... 47 Figure 9 Merced Irrigation District Boundary and Sphere of Influence ................................ 53 Figure 10 Merquin County Water District Boundary and Sphere of Influence ..................... 61 Figure 11 Pacheco Water District Boundary and Sphere of Influence ................................ 66 Figure 12 Plainsburg Irrigation District Boundary and Sphere of Influence ........................ 71 Figure 13 San Luis Water District Boundary and Sphere of Influence ............................... 75 Figure 14 Stevinson Water District Boundary and Sphere of Influence ............................. 82 Figure 15 Turner Island Water District Boundary and Sphere of Influence ........................ 87 List of Tables Table 1 Summary of Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers ............................................ 7 Table 2 Summary of Amsterdam Water District Governance and Operations ..................... 13 Table 3 Summary of Ballico-Cortez Water District Governance and Operations .................. 18 Table 4 Summary of Central California Irrigation District Governance and Operations ......... 22 Table 5 Summary of Eagle Field Water District Governance and Operations ...................... 28 Table 6 Summary of Grassland Water District Governance and Operations ........................ 33 Table 7 Summary of Laguna Water District Governance and Operations ........................... 42 Table 8 Summary of Le Grande-Athlone Water District Governance and Operations ........... 46 Table 9 Summary of Merced Irrigation District Governance and Operations ....................... 52 Table 10 Summary of Merquin County Water District Governance and Operations. ............... 60 Table 11 Summary of Pacheco Water District Governance and Operations .......................... 65 Table 12 Summary of Plainsburg Irrigation District Governance and Operations .................. 70 Table 13 Summary of San Luis Water District Governance and Operations .......................... 74 Table 14 Summary of Stevinson Water District Governance and Operations ........................ 81 Table 15 Summary of Turner Island Water District Governance and Operations ................... 86 1. OVERVIEW OF THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW State law requires that LAFCOs conduct regional studies of municipal services (Municipal Service Reviews, or MSRs) every five years, or as necessary, in conjunction with reviews of city and district spheres of influence (SOIs).1 The Commission may assess various alternatives for improving efficiency and affordability of infrastructure and service delivery within and contiguous to the agencies SOI, including, but not limited to, the consolidation or dissolution of governmental agencies, and modification to the SOI. MSRs provide a tool for LAFCOs to evaluate the adequacy of public service providers, improve the organization and provision of services, and inform updates of agencies’ SOIs. MSRs support LAFCOs’ mission to plan and shape “the logical and orderly development and coordination of local governmental agencies.”2 Merced LAFCO prepared the prior Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review in 2008. Several updates to selected districts occurred, as necessary, to enable requested changes to district boundaries and SOIs. Methodology Merced LAFCO retained Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) and Berkson Associates to update the MSRs for agricultural irrigation service providers in Merced County originally prepared in 2008.3 EPS, Berkson Associates, and LAFCO staff reviewed recent Groundwater Sustainability Plans to extract information relevant to the districts and to update the prior MSRs. Each provider was contacted and requested to review updated information tables and to provide information and documents such as master plans, budgets, and maps. Some agencies did not provide financial documents and EPS used public information from the State Controller’s Office, when available. EPS and Berkson Associates, in coordination with LAFCO staff, prepared draft profiles for each agency. The profiles and determinations were submitted to each agency for review. LAFCO circulated the Public Review Draft MSR, which incorporated the districts’ comments, to solicit public input and comment. Chapter 2 provides an overview of agricultural irrigation services and issues in the County organized by required determinations, highlighting key findings of LAFCO concern. Chapter 3 includes a summary of agencies, key findings and determinations, which includes a review of 1 Government Code Section 56425 directs LAFCOs to review and update agencies’ SOIs, as necessary, every five years, and Section 56430 requires MSRs to be conducted before or in conjunction with the sphere updates. 2 Government Code Section 56425. 3 County of Merced Water and Sewer Service Providers Municipal Service Review, Prepared by EPS (#17053), as Approved by LAFCO October 23, 2008. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 1. Overview of the Municipal Service Review Page 2 “Governance and Operations,” “Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services,” and “Demand and Capacity,” followed by conclusions about the individual agency, listed under the required determinations. Subsequent chapters are devoted to each of the districts. In accordance with State law, entities that did not provide information sufficient to complete their MSR and determinations will not be allowed to obtain LAFCO approval for various actions, e.g., SOI updates, unless and until their MSRs are completed. Appendix A provides a summary of abbreviations and acronyms, and Appendix B includes maps of the Centinella and Clayton water districts, which are referenced in the following chapter but not addressed in this MSR/SOI update. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 2. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY Groundwater Sustainability The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)4 established a new structure for managing California’s groundwater resources at the local level by local agencies. In the State’s high and medium priority basins and subbasins, SGMA required the formation of Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) by June 30, 2017. Thereafter, the GSAs were tasked to develop local Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) that identify how groundwater resources will be sustained into the future and adopt the GSPs by January 31, 2020. Coordination of the GSA member agencies typically is executed through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) or a Joint Powers Agreement/Authority (JPA). The legislative intent of SGMA is to recognize and preserve the authority of cities, counties and special districts to manage groundwater according to their existing powers. Local control of GSA planning of water resources has prompted some unincorporated communities to form a special district for the purpose of participating in or forming a GSA rather than rely on the County to conduct GSA planning for the community. In other cases, an existing district (i.e., Turner Island Water District) has expanded its boundaries to assure that adjacent areas with related activities and interests are included in the same GSA to more closely coordinate water planning in the expanded area. Merced County falls within the San Joaquin Valley Basin, portions of which have been identified as critically overdrafted,5 largely towards the southern end of the basin;6 in the north, the Merced and Delta-Mendota subbasins have been identified as critically overdrafted.7 Overdraft occurs when the average annual amount of groundwater extraction exceeds the long-term average annual supply of water to the basin. Effects of overdraft that could affect the County include land subsidence, groundwater depletion, and/or chronic lower of groundwater levels. Districts within the County that rely on groundwater may have deficient water services in the future. 4 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpandedbranch.xhtml?tocCode=WAT&division=6 .&title=&part=2.74.&chapter=&article. 5 https://water.ca.gov/programs/groundwater-management/bulletin-118/critically-overdrafted-basins 6 PPIC, “A Reality Check on Groundwater Overdraft in the San Joaquin Basin,” March 11, 2020. https://www.ppic.org/blog/a-reality-check-on-groundwater-overdraft-in-the-san-joaquin- valley/#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20yes.,feet%20(maf)%20per%20year. See also PPIC summary of water budgets for overdrafted subbasins: https://www.ppic.org/data- set/ppic-san-joaquin-valley-gsp-water-budgets/ 7 Merced Groundwater Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan, Nov. 2019, pg. ES-1. PPIC summary of water budgets for overdrafted subbasins. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 2. Background and Summary Page 4 The Merced County portion of the San Joaquin Valley Basin consists of four groundwater subbasins: the Merced, Delta-Mendota, Turlock, and Chowchilla subbasins.8 GSPs have been developed to manage groundwater resources in these basins. All of the agricultural irrigation service providers reviewed in this MSR belong to at least one GSA and participate in the preparation of the GSPs and ongoing implementation. Drought Drought conditions worsen overdrafting because water supplies to replenish basin groundwater are reduced. As of February 15, 2022, the San Joaquin Valley Basin is experiencing a “severe drought.”9 The Bureau of Reclamation announced a zero-water allocation from the Central Valley Project (CVP) for irrigation districts, and cities that receive water from the CVP in the Central Valley and parts of the Bay Area were allocated 25% of their historical water use. The CVP also supplies agricultural water users with senior rights predating the project’s construction, called “settlement and exchange contractors”, with up to 75% allocations under their contracts during critically dry years. Farmers receiving no allocation “are going to have to rely upon groundwater if it’s available.”10 Some landowners are also able to transfer water from one district which has available water into another district when surface water supplies are limited (a common occurrence within the San Luis Water District). As reported in March 2022, water agencies that serve 27 million people and 750,000 acres of farmland “will get just 5% of what they’ve requested this year from state supplies beyond what’s needed for critical activities such as drinking and bathing... down from the 15% allocation state officials had announced in January, after a wet December fueled hopes of a lessening drought...Current predictions estimate the state will have about 57% of its historical median runoff April through July.”11 The GSPs seek to determine a “water balance” to assure long-term groundwater sustainability and include implementation measures to help achieve this goal. Districts reviewed in this MSR are undertaking various steps to address the drought and groundwater conditions. 8 Merced County SGMA webpage. https://www.co.merced.ca.us/2798/Sustainable-Groundwater--- SGMA. 9 https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?West 10 “As drought persists, minimal water deliveries announced for the Central Valley Project”, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 24, 2022. 11 Kathleen Ronayne, Associated Press, 3/20/22. See also: https://water.ca.gov/News/News- Releases/2022/March-22/SWP-Allocation-March Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 2. Background and Summary Page 5 Service Providers Merced County has a total of fourteen active independent districts providing agricultural irrigation services or working to secure water supplies through the implementation of local GSPs. Since the 2008 MSR, one new district was formed (Amsterdam Water District) and one district was dissolved (Family Farms Water District). Another district which was included in the 2008 MSR should be dissolved (Centinella Water District). The district landowners sold their water contract with the US Bureau of Reclamation to the Westlands Water District on February 26, 2006.12 This inactive district performs no functions and is not included in this MSR. However, a map of the Centinella Water District is presented in in Appendix B. One other district, the Clayton Water District (Clayton), formerly located in Madera County experienced a large annexation which caused a majority of its territory to be within Merced County. Clayton does not provide any water service and has a separate MSR document adopted by Madera LAFCO on August 28, 2019. For reference purposes, a map of the Clayton Water District is included in Appendix B, and the MSR document can be found on the Merced LAFCO Website at www.LAFCOMerced.org under the “Municipal Service Review” heading. Eleven of the districts are water districts formed and operated subject to California Water Code Sec. 34000 et seq. The other three districts are irrigation districts formed pursuant to California California Water Code Sec. 20500 et seq. In general, water districts have a more expansive list of potential services assuming those services are authorized in enabling legislation or by LAFCO. In addition to providing water for irrigation, the range of additional services provided by districts include habitat preservation, provision of potable water, and sanitary sewer services. All of the districts participate in a GSA with the exception of Laguna Water District. In the cases of Turner Island Water District and Merced Irrigation District (MID), district territory falls within multiple GSAs. All of the GSAs have produced GSPs. A map of the groundwater subbasins in the County is provided as Figure 1, and a table summarizing the Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers addressed in this MSR is provided as Table 1. 12 Contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Westlands Water District Distribution District 1, dated May 29,2020 (Contract No. 7-07-20-W005SB-IR5-P) Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 2. Background and Summary Page 6 Figure 1 Map of Groundwater Subbasins in County Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 2. Background and Summary Page 7 Table 1 Summary of Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers # of Groundwater Annual Customers/ Sustainability Member of Production District Area Served Landowners Area (GSA) GSA? Capacity Amsterdam Water District 6,662 acres 3 landowners Merced Subbasin Yes 7,181 AF GSA Ballico-Cortez Water District 6,800 acres not reported East Turlock GSA Yes N/A Centinella Water District (1) 840 acres 1 N/A N/A N/A Central California Irrigation 143,000 1,600 San Joaquin River Yes 532,000 AF District acres landowners Exchange Contractors GSA Eagle Field Water District 1,325 acres 2 corporate Central Delta- Yes 4,550 AF (2) landowners Mendota GSA Grassland Water District 55,000 acres 192 Grassland GSA Yes 150,000 AF (2) Laguna Water District 417 acres 1 San Joaquin River No 800 AF (2) Exchange Contractors (SJREC) GSA Le Grand-Athlone Water 29,500 acres 200 Merced Subbasin Yes 6,500 AF District GSA Merced Irrigation District 164,000 2,200 Merced Irrigation- Yes 500,000 AF acres customers Urban Groundwater Sustainability Agency (MIUGSA) Merquin County Water 9,961 acres 100 Merced Subbasin Yes 14,211 AF (2) District GSA Pacheco Water District 4,999 acres 13 Central Delta- Yes 9,455 AF Mendota Region Multi-agency GSA Plainsburg Irrigation District 5,250 acres N/A Merced Subbasin Yes N/A GSA San Luis Water District 55,316 acres 280 ag (340 Central Delta- Yes 76,100 AF (2) connections) & Mendota GSA 325 municipal & industrial connections Stevinson Water District 3,628 acres 2 (Merquin Merced Subbasin Yes 26,400 AF Water Dist. & GSA SWD property owner) Turner Island Water District 14,692 acres 5 Turner Island Yes 15,542 AF Water District GSA #1 and #2 (1) In 2006 CWD sold its contract with BOR to the Westlands Water District. LAFCO will pursue dissolution of CWD in the future. (2) Annual maximum allocation from Bureau of Reclamation. Recent years vary between 0%-20% of supply. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 2. Background and Summary Page 8 Findings Governance and Operations All agencies have five board members (with the exception of Laguna Water District’s three seats) and most seats are filled; the manner in which they are filled – either by landowner or registered voter election – varies. In the event of a vacancy, State law provides a method to fill the seat until an election. Few of the districts pay or provide benefits to board members; the exceptions are the larger districts including MID. All districts reported compliance with agenda posting requirements. Nearly all districts with the exception of Ballico-Cortez Water District (BCWD), have procedures to comply with the Brown Act and Public Records Act requests. Currently, most districts maintain websites. Four districts, Laguna Water District (LWD), LeGrand-Athlone Water District (LGAWD), Stevinson Water District (SWD) and Turner Island Water District (TIWD) do not have a website; LGAWD and SWD adopted findings required for an exemption per State law, and TIWD reports its website is under development. On September 14, 2018, the Governor signed SB 929 which added Government Code Section 6270.6 and 53087.8 which required that every independent special district in California maintain a website by January 1, 2020. Exceptions can be made by districts facing hardship, as adopted by majority vote of those districts’ governing boards. The intent of the bill is to provide the public easily accessible and accurate information about the district.13 AB 2257, approved on September 9, 2016, requires district and governmental websites to include Board meeting agendas for all meetings occurring on or after January 1, 2019.14 In an effort to encourage special districts to establish websites, Merced LAFCO co-hosted a training and demonstration with the California Special Districts Association (CSDA) on December 4, 2019. All districts indicated some degree of public outreach and communication including, at a minimum, posting of board meeting notices which is required by law. All districts also facilitated public engagement through mailings and website postings. Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services Services provided by districts vary significantly. For example, the BCWD and LWD own no infrastructure and provide no services other than participation in GSA planning and, in LWD’s case, obtaining water from USBR when allocations are available. Larger districts own and maintain substantial water distribution systems. Demand and Capacity Most districts generally indicated the ability to meet current demand notwithstanding the impacts of drought conditions and corresponding reductions in water supply. In response to the ongoing droughts and impacts on water supply, districts indicated the approach involves participation in GSP water supply and conservation program implementation and pursuit of additional water 13 Senate Bill No. 929, filed September 14, 2018. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB929. 14 Assembly Bill No. 2257, filed September 9, 2016. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB2257. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 2. Background and Summary Page 9 sources. Water demand varies significantly depending on the type of crops grown, with lands planted in permanent crops (such as trees and vines) requiring a consistent supply when compared to land planted in field crops which can be fallowed in a dry year. There is a wide variation in the role of irrigation districts in water supply between eastern and western Merced County. While westside farms rely heavily on imported surface water supplies delivered by the public districts, on the east side of the County many farmers have historically relied upon groundwater from their own private wells in an effort to reduce costs, even when irrigation district water was available. Groundwater monitoring and pumping restrictions being implemented through adopted GSPs led to a more coordinated effort to balance district-supplied ground and surface water supplies with the private use of groundwater and to impose limits on private groundwater pumping. Determinations The following is a summary of each required determination and applicability to Merced County service providers. Each district chapter includes determinations specific to the corresponding district. (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. This determination evaluates future growth and whether it can be adequately served by the agency which would more typically apply to urban service providers rather than agricultural water deliveries. None of the districts providing agricultural irrigation services are urbanized and include few, if any, residents and therefore are not directly affected by population growth. To the extent that urban communities rely on groundwater, increased urban growth near irrigated areas may suffer from diminished or contaminated groundwater as would agricultural activities. (2) The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. This determination assesses the prospect of including neighboring “disadvantaged unincorporated communities” (DUCs) when an agency’s SOI is updated or expanded. DUCs are inhabited communities, containing 12 or more registered voters, that constitutes all or a portion of a “disadvantaged community” (DAC) as defined by Section 79505.5 of the Water Code. A DAC more broadly refers to a community in an incorporated or unincorporated area with an annual median income of less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median household income (MHI), and a Severely DAC is a community with less than 60 percent of the State’s MHI.15 15 See the California Water Code Cal. Water Code §79505.5. According to the U.S. Census, median household income, or MHI (in 2020 dollars) is $78,672 (see https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/ca). A Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community is 80% or less of MHI which equals $62,938 or less to qualify as a DUC. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 2. Background and Summary Page 10 Most of the districts providing irrigation services do not include significant residential populations or DUCs/DACs,16 and do not provide services to these communities. Exceptions include larger districts such as MID and Central California Irrigation District (CCID). MID includes cities and incorporated urban communities within its boundaries. Although MID provides stormwater collection and electric power services in some communities, it does not presently provide potable water services to any unincorporated communities or cities within its boundaries. In western Merced County, CCID does not include any urban communities within its boundaries but it does partially surround the following six cities: Newman, Gustine, Los Banos, Dos Palos, Firebaugh and Mendota. Three of these cities are Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) and the other three are Severely DACs. The cities of Newman, Gustine, Los Banos, Firebaugh and Mendota rely entirely on groundwater to meet their demand. (3) Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. This determination refers to the adequacy of existing and planned public facilities in relation to how public services are, and will be, provided to residents. Infrastructure can be evaluated in terms of capacity, condition, availability and quality, and plans for future improvement and/or expansion. State agencies provide water quality and wastewater information for each agency, in addition to self-reported data, and document violations, if any, of State standards. Most of the districts reported that facilities and services are adequate to meet current demand. The larger districts typically indicated they regularly reviewed and updated their facility master plans to assure that infrastructure was adequate and properly maintained to serve their territory. The supply of water for irrigation has become more challenging with a variety of approaches being implemented, depending on the water sources available to individual districts, including recharging groundwater in “wet” years for use during dry years and transferring surface water supplies from fallowed land to other properties with permanent tree and vine crops in western Merced County. Many small districts such as BCWD, Centinella Water District (Centinella), Clayton, LWD and Plainsburg Irrigation District (PID) do not own any facilities and were formed for the purpose of obtaining access to water. Most districts indicated that they continued to seek additional, reliable sources of water particularly during drought years. As indicated under Determination number 2 above, none of the districts provides potable water to disadvantaged unincorporated communities, although some areas benefit from stormwater drainage and/or electric services from MID. (4) Financial ability of agencies to provide services. This determination evaluates whether the agency has the financial ability to provide adequate services now, and/or in the future. This determination can be particularly relevant when considering SOI changes and potential annexations to the agency. 16 Disadvantaged Communities Mapping Tool: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/dacs/. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 2. Background and Summary Page 11 Although drought conditions and the availability of water create financial challenges for sustainable revenues, none of the districts demonstrated an inability to fund current services. Water-related charges and assessments are the primary sources of funding and are used as mechanisms to adjust revenues as necessary to cover expenditures. One district, the LWD, was designated by the State Controller's Office as an “inactive district” for FY17-18 and FY18-19. An “inactive district” is a district that had no financial transactions in the previous fiscal year, has no assets or liabilities, and has no outstanding debts, judgments, litigation, contracts, liens, or claims. LWD was removed from the list of inactive districts for FY19-20. LWD owns no infrastructure and provides no services other than obtaining water from USBR when allocations are available and transferring that water supply to other lands under the same ownership located within the San Luis Water District (SLWD). The availability and adequacy of reserves varied significantly. Small districts typically reported minimal reserves, large districts such as MID reported adequate reserves consistent with their scale of operations and infrastructure. (5) Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. This determination reviews current sharing arrangements with other agencies, if any, and whether opportunities exist to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of services through sharing, collaboration, or functional consolidation. Most every district providing irrigation services share water conveyance networks with neighboring districts and/or other agencies for the purpose of water distribution and to receive water from other sources (including Federal and State water projects). Opportunities for shared facilities, in addition to collaboration on GSP activities, are identified as noted for specific districts. As noted earlier, the desire to share facilities and existing water infrastructure was the motivation behind several newly formed and recently expanded water districts. (6) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. This determination reviews whether an agency follows "best practices" to a) facilitate cost- effective and efficient delivery of services; and b) enable review and input by residents, customers, LAFCO, and other agencies and stakeholders, including providing adequate reporting documents and website access. This determination can also consider governance options (e.g., consolidation) to improve efficiencies and accountability. Most of the districts follow all legal requirements for Brown Act compliance, public records requests, transparency and outreach, and maintenance of a website. The majority of the districts have websites as required by SB 929, although important information items, such as the district’s budget and rate schedules, were lacking in certain instances as noted in the corresponding MSR chapters. Five districts have no website: LWD, which adopted a Resolution of Hardship; LGAWD indicated it is considering developing a website; TIWD reported that its website is under development; EFWD, which did not indicate a hardship or whether it would develop a website; and, PID, which does not maintain a website and has not adopted a Resolution of Hardship to exempt itself from the website requirement. No governmental structure opportunities or options were identified during the course of the MSR preparation. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 2. Background and Summary Page 12 (7) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. In 2017, the Turner Island Water District annexed lands under agreement with LAFCO that it would abstain from providing services to the annexed area, except as related to SGMA, absent approval by LAFCO. The Clayton Water District expanded into Merced County through a 13,542-acre Sphere of Influence Amendment and 9,457-acre annexation approved by Madera LAFCO in 2019. The District has no water supply but hopes to obtain water through GSP participation in both the Merced and Chowchilla Water Subbasins. The MSR prepared by Madera County is bound separately and is accessible on the Merced LAFCO website. No other matters were identified during the course of MSR preparation. Sphere of Influence (SOI) Reviews The MSR determinations provide the basis for confirming or modifying an agency’s SOI. None of the districts has plans to modify its boundaries and/or Sphere of Influence within the next five years, with the exception of annexation actions by cities which results in detachments from CCID. None of the districts plans to activate services not already provided. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 3. AMSTERDAM WATER DISTRICT (AWD) The Amsterdam Water District (AWD) was approved by LAFCO17 in 2018 by applications initiated by petition of landowners for the purpose of increasing their role in the groundwater management efforts under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The District was formed pursuant to the California Water Code. Table 2 summarizes general District information. The AWD has all the powers identified in Water Code section 35400-35509 with the exception of sewer service and urban residential, municipal and industrial water service not directly related to agricultural irrigation and groundwater recharge activities. AWD serves an area nearly ten square miles with a population consisting of three households; the area is not a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC). The territory is owned by two sets of extended family members. the district area is rural consisting of rangeland and grassland, and areas developed into permanent crops (almonds, walnuts and grapes).18 Figure 2 shows the boundary and Sphere of Influence (SOI) which is coterminous with the boundary. Table 2 Summary of Amsterdam Water District Governance and Operations Year of Formation 2018 Type of Agency Water District Enabling Act or Code Water Code Section 34000 et seq. Area 6,662 acres Population 3 households Governing Body Board of Directors Number of Directors 5 Board Meeting Dates 2nd Tuesday of the Month Board Meetings/Location 2941 S. State Hwy 59 Merced, CA 95341 Link to Current Agenda http://amsterdamwater.org/board-of-directors.html # of Staff 0 staff; District retains outside contractor # of Customers 3 landowners 17 See Merced LAFCO Executive Officers Report, March 21, 2018, and related documents https://www.lafcomerced.org/pdfs/meetings/2018/03- 21/Item%20VI.%20A%20&%20B%20Amsterdam%20Reorg%20and%20SOI.pdf 18 LAFCO, March 21, 2018. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 3. Amsterdam Water District (AWD) Page 14 Figure 2 Amsterdam Water District Boundary and Sphere of Influence Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 3. Amsterdam Water District (AWD) Page 15 AWD lies within the Merced Subbasin and is a member of the Merced Subbasin GSA; the General Manager serves on the GSA Technical Committee and attends every GSA meeting. AWD’s ability to seek additional water supplies or implement water conservation does not depend on the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP)19 prepared by the GSA. Governance and Operations All five board seats, elected by landowners, currently are filled. Board members receive no pay or financial benefits. AWD prepares an agenda for each meeting which is posted at least 72 hours before the meeting outside the meeting location and on a website. AWD has adopted procedures to ensure compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act for agenda noticing, public hearings, and decision-making. The District does not have adopted policies for public records act requests. AWD maintains a website with a direct link to its current meeting agenda. AWD undertakes public outreach and communication through its website and emails.20 AWD adopted its first budget (FY20-21) November 10, 2020, including assessment revenue of $172,000. For 2021, the District charged $44.27 for irrigable acres and $.66 for non-irrigable acres. Staff performs a rate assessment in November of each year in preparation for the following years budget. The voluntary assessments funded District operation costs including administration, management fees, engineering, and other overhead. AWD has no long-term debt. The District utilizes contract staff to provide services. AWD assessments contributed to reserves which AWD determined should be maintained equal to at least one year’s operating expenditures for operating and emergency reserves;21 the District is building these reserves over its initial three years of operations. The District prepared an audit of its financial statements.22 AWD budget and audit are not available on its website.23 Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services AWD owns no infrastructure. The District provides services related to the planning and acquisition of water sources and participates in GSA activities. Demand and Capacity The District’s total use in 2020 was 7,181 acre-feet annually and its peak daily flow was 24 cubic feet per second. Of the total, 98 percent was derived from groundwater and 2% from imported water. To respond to drought conditions, AWD has entered into a 10-Year Water Transfer Agreement with Merced Irrigation District in the amount of 1,390 acre-feet annually and is party to an Application to Appropriate Floodwater. Landowners access non-District water from Merced 19 Merced Groundwater Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Nov 2019). 20 AWD Survey Response, 2021-09-29. 21 AWD Reso. 19-8, Sept. 8, 2020. 22 AWD Independent Auditor’s Report, Bryant L. Jolley, April 1, 2021. 23 As of Nov. 14, 2021. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 3. Amsterdam Water District (AWD) Page 16 Irrigation District (MID) which delivered 160 acre-feet in 2021, and can provide up to 1,390 acre feet annually. The recent cost of water was $300 per acre-foot.24 AWD records groundwater production once a month from private wells within its boundary once a month and groundwater levels twice a year, once in the Spring and once in the Fall. The District is not experiencing groundwater subsidence. Determinations (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. The AWD area is not urbanized and no significant increase in the current household population is anticipated. (2) The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. No disadvantaged unincorporated communities exist within or adjacent to AWD boundaries. (3) Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. Facilities, services, and water sources are adequate to meet current demand. (4) Financial ability of agencies to provide services. AWD has the financial ability to provide services, with assessment rates most recently set in 2021 (5) Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. The District does not utilize shared facilities but did receive 160 acre-feet of irrigation water from MID facilities. The District also has a 10-year water agreement with MID which could increase surface water deliveries to 1,390 acre-feet in the future. (6) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. AWD follows all legal requirements for transparency and its website. The District should post documents on its website including its budget and financial audit. (7) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. No other matters were identified. 24 AWD Survey Response, 2021-09-29. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 3. Amsterdam Water District (AWD) Page 17 Sphere of Influence Review The District has no plans to modify its boundary and/or Sphere of Influence within the next 5 years. The District’s SOI was established in 2018 and no justification for the change was identified. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 4. BALLICO-CORTEZ WATER DISTRICT (BCWD) The Ballico-Cortez Water District (BCWD) was formed in 1970 pursuant to the California Water Code in anticipation of water from the New Melones Reservoir via the Eastside Canal. The Eastside Canal was not built, but the District was reactivated in 1988 in anticipation of obtaining water from the Turlock Irrigation District (TID).25 26 Table 3 summarizes general District information. BCWD serves farmers in an area of approximately 6,800 acres27 and a population of 250. Table 3 Summary of Ballico-Cortez Water District Governance and Operations Year of Formation 1970 Type of Agency California Water District Enabling Act or Code California Water Code Section 34000 et. seq Area 6,800 acres Population 250 Governing Body Board of Directors Number of Directors 7 Board Meeting Dates Quarterly (January, April, July, October) on the 3rd Wednesday of the month Board Meeting Location 12937 N. Cortez Avenue Turlock, CA 95380 Link to Current Agenda https://ballicocortezwaterdistrict.water.blog/agend as/ # of Staff none # of Customers not reported BCWD lies within the Turlock subbasin and is a voting member of the East Turlock GSA. 25 County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Providers Municipal Service Review, as approved by LAFCO Oct. 23, 2008, prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 26 History of BCWD is summarized at https://ballicocortezwaterdistrict.water.blog/ 27 https://ballicocortezwaterdistrict.water.blog/ Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 4. Ballico-Cortez Water District (BCWD) Page 19 Figure 3 Ballico-Cortez Water District Boundary and Sphere of Influence Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 4. Ballico-Cortez Water District (BCWD) Page 20 Governance and Operations All seven board seats, elected by landowners, currently are filled. The BCWD board members do not receive compensation or reimbursement for any of their expenses.28 The District indicates that the agenda is posted at least 72 hours before the meeting at the meeting location and on the website. District has not adopted procedures to ensure compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act for agenda noticing, public hearings, and decision-making. The District does not have adopted policies for public records act requests. BCWD maintains a website; the home page has a direct link to its most current agenda. The District indicates that it undertakes public outreach and communication through "mailed and emailed newsletters and postcards to landowners.”29 BCWD’s FY21-22 adopted budget relies on assessment revenue of $20,604.30 The District charges $3 per acre in assessments since fiscal year 2019-2020; no assessment studies have been conducted.31 The assessments pay for administrative, legal and accounting expenses. $20,000 was set aside for projects; the budget did not specify the nature of those projects or whether the funds were expended in the current year. BCWD does not have a reserve policy. The District has no outstanding debt. The District prepares an audit of its financial statements every year. The BCWD budget and audit are not available on its website, instead it posts its financial statements, prepared by the District’s accountant, which is equivalent to an audit.32 Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services BCWD owns no infrastructure. The District works with the GSA to resolve overdraft issues.33 Demand and Capacity The District does not manage water supplies and does not monitor groundwater levels which will be addressed by the GSP. Determinations (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. The BCWD area is not urbanized and no significant increase in the current household population is anticipated. 28 Adopted Ballico-Cortez Water District Budget July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022 and comment received from Karen Bass, on behalf of BCWD on 5/31/22. 29 BCWD Survey Response, 2021-09-29. 30 Adopted Ballico-Cortez Water District Budget July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. 31 BCWD Survey Response, 2021-09-29. 32 Based on District confirmation. 33 BCWD Survey Response, 2021-09-29. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 4. Ballico-Cortez Water District (BCWD) Page 21 (2) The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. No disadvantaged unincorporated communities exist within or adjacent to BCWD boundaries. (3) Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. BCWD does not own any infrastructure or public facilities. (4) Financial ability of agencies to provide services. BCWD has the financial ability to provide present services. The BCWD identifies $20,000 of “savings for projects” but does not identify those projects. The BCWD financial reports for FY18- 19 show expenditures for the GSP in addition to administrative costs. (5) Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. The District does not utilize shared facilities and no sharing opportunities were identified. (6) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. BCWD follows all legal requirements for transparency and its website, and the District confirmed the most current agenda is posted on its website. The District also posts its annual “financial statement” on its website. (7) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. No other matters were identified. Sphere of Influence Review Within the next 5 years, the District is planning to annex two parcels totaling 138 acres of agricultural land. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 5. CENTRAL CALIFORNIA IRRIGATION DISTRICT (CCID) The Central California Irrigation District (CCID) was formed in 1951.34 The District provides agricultural irrigation service to approximately 143,000 acres in western Fresno, Merced, and Stanislaus Counties. The District was formed pursuant to the California Water Code Sec. 20500 – 29978. Table 4 summarizes general District information. CCID’s service area extends to approximately 160,000 acres (approximately 48,000 acres of the District's service area are within Merced County).35 CCID's 1,600 landowners36 are all agricultural. The District also provides water from its wells in addition to the Bureau of Reclamation's allocation. In addition to irrigation services, the District conveys water to wildlife refuges within its service area. Figure 4 shows the boundary and Sphere of Influence (SOI). CCID nearly surrounds the following six cities: Newman, Gustine, Los Banos, Dos Palos, Firebaugh and Mendota. Three of these cities are Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) and the other three are Severely DACs. The cities of Newman, Gustine, Los Banos, Firebaugh, and Mendota rely entirely on groundwater to meet their demand. The City of Dos Palos has poor quality groundwater and has an agreement with CCID to transfer and treat surface water.37 Table 4 Summary of Central California Irrigation District Governance and Operations Year of Formation 1951 Type of Agency Irrigation District Enabling Act or Code Water Code Sec. 20500 - 29978 Area 143,000 acres Population Unknown Governing Body Board of Directors Number of Directors 5 Board Meeting Dates 4th Wednesday of the month Board Meetings/Location 1335 West "I" Street Los Banos, CA 93635 Link to Current Agenda https://ccidwater.org/ # of Staff 75 # of Customers 1,600 landowners 34 San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors GSP, 12/1/2019, pg. ii. 35 County of Merced Water and Sewer Service Providers Municipal Service Review, Prepared by EPS (#17053), as Approved by LAFCO October 23, 2008. 36 Confirmed by CCID through review of Draft MSR. 37 San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors GSP, Dec. 19, pg. 120. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 5. Central California Irrigation District (CCID) Page 23 Figure 4 Central California Irrigation District Boundary and Sphere of Influence Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 5. Central California Irrigation District (CCID) Page 24 CCID lies within the Delta-Mendota Subbasin and is a member of the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors (SJREC) GSA; the District indicates, “[it] takes the lead for managing SJREC GSA/GSP.”38 Governance and Operations39 All five board seats, elected by registered voters, currently are filled. Board members receive $50/meeting and the Director receives $660.23 for medical insurance benefits. CCID prepares an agenda for each meeting which is posted at least 72 hours before the meeting outside the meeting location and on a website. The District indicates it complies with the Ralph M. Brown Act for agenda noticing, public hearings, and decision-making. CCID maintains a website with a direct link on its home page to its current agenda. The District indicates that it undertakes public outreach and communication through the District's website, mailings, and annual growers meetings and workshops. The majority of CCID revenues of $21.8 million40 are from water sales and services; the District also receives property taxes and assessments. A rate review was completed in May 2021. Rates established in Feb. 16, 2021, charge $17.00/acre-foot up to 2.5 acre-foot (gross acres) and $40.00/ acre-foot up to .5 acre-foot under then-declared critical conditions. The District targets reserves not exceeding 50 percent of its annual General Fund budget. The District has no outstanding debt. CCID prepares a two-year audited financial report; the FY19-20 report showed an unrestricted net position of $45.8 million.41 The website does not post financial documents. Meeting agendas are available on the website, however, meeting minutes and documents (e.g., staff reports, budget, etc.) were not included. Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services42 CCID has an annual water allotment of 532,400 acre-feet, delivered through the Delta-Mendota Canal, a component of the Bureau of Reclamation's Central Valley Project. Groundwater from 67 CCID wells supplements peak period supplies. The District is on track with its infrastructure master plan; it is starting on preparing its next ten- year capital improvement plan and continues its ongoing annual maintenance program. Demand and Capacity The District has a surface water allocation of 532,400 acre-feet/year from the Delta-Mendota Canal. Groundwater is used intermittently to meet peak demand. Daily usage ranges from 0 to 2,000 cfs. Annual usage is about 500,000 acre-feet. 38 CCID Survey Response, 2021-09-30 (Q17). 39 CCID Survey Response, 2021-09-30 (Q1-Q9). 40 2019 State Controller’s data. 41 CCID Basic Financial Statements for the Years Ended Dec. 31, 2020 and 2019. 42 CCID Survey Response, 2021-09-30 (Q10-Q12). Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 5. Central California Irrigation District (CCID) Page 25 CCID is a member of the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors (SJREC) with one other district and two privately held water companies and has senior rights to San Joaquin River water supplies. As part of a contract signed in 1939, the Exchange Contractors retained the right to receive San Joaquin River water supplies when the Bureau of Reclamation allotment from the Delta-Mendota Canal does not meet contract levels. In “exchange”, the Exchange Contractors allowed the transfer of San Joaquin River water to federal projects that diverted surface water to the east side of the San Joaquin Valley. This contract has helped ensure more consistent water supplies and reduce water costs for CCID customers. 43 CCID primarily has unlined major canals. The major canals contribute to recharge of the upper aquifer every year. This canal seepage helps maintain a healthy aquifer in and around the SJREC service area.44 The CCID, in its role as part of the San Joaquin River Exchange partners (SJREC), has a partnership with the Grasslands Water District (GWD) and the state and federal refuge complex in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin. Some of the water provided to the wetland and waterfowl habitat in the GWD and the associated wildlife refuges is delivered through the SJREC facilities. From 2009-2018, the SJRECWA wheeled about 200,000 acre-feet per year on average to the grassland area. Since 1996, the CCID has prepared an annual Deep Well Study Summary of CCID Wells and Private Wells. In a few management areas, where the aquifer is stressed during times of drought, trigger levels have been established to limit transferring groundwater out of the area. Groundwater transfers from the area are allowed consistent with the CCID Rules Governing Pumping of Private Wells for Water Credits in Other Districts.45 Degraded water quality is managed to mitigate the impacts of the migration of poor-quality water from lands outside of the GSP. The Camp 13 area of CCID has been actively mitigating the impacts of drainage water entering the service area.46 A portion of CCID (Camp 13) is engaged in litigation over the migration of poor quality (high electrical conductivity and high selenium) from upslope drainage areas to the south and west. Resolving this issue is of the utmost concern for CCID for healthy soils and groundwater and also successful implementation of the SGMA. While this issue remains unresolved, CCID has developed several management actions to help control the further migration of this poor-quality groundwater.47 43 Delta Mendota Sub-basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan, December 2019, Executive Summary Page i. 44 San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors GSP, Dec. 19, pg. 54. 45 San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors GSP, Dec. 19, pg. 36. 46 San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors GSP, Dec. 19, pg. v. 47 San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors GSP, Dec. 19, pg. 121. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 5. Central California Irrigation District (CCID) Page 26 Determinations (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. The CCID service area is not urbanized and no significant increase in the current household population is anticipated. (2) The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. No disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) exist within CCID boundaries. However, CCID nearly surrounds the following six cities: Newman, Gustine, Los Banos, Dos Palos, Firebaugh and Mendota. Three of these cities are Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) and the other three are Severely DACs. The cities of Newman, Gustine, Los Banos, Firebaugh and Mendota rely entirely on groundwater to meet their demand. (3) Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. Facilities, services, and water sources are adequate to meet current demand. (4) Financial ability of agencies to provide services. CCID has the financial ability to provide services. Although, the FY21-22 budget shows a net annual shortfall of approximately $2.1 million, the District chose to use reserve funds to keep water rates low. (5) Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. The District helps supply surface water to the City of Dos Palos due to poor groundwater conditions around the City. In 1989, CCID worked with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Dos Palos Area JPA to change the point of diversion for surface water from the Colony Main Canal to the San Luis Canal. The CCID also allows for the transfer of water through District canals to serve wetland habitat within the Grasslands Ecological Areas, in agreement with the Grasslands Water District and state and federal partners. (6) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. CCID follows all legal requirements for transparency and its website. The District should post documents to its website including its budget and financial audit, in addition to meeting minutes and meeting documents. (7) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. As a member of the San Joaquin River Exchange partners with one other water district and two privately held water companies, CCID has senior rights to San Joaquin River water supplies. When Federal water deliveries through the Delta-Mendota Canal are reduced to below contract Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 5. Central California Irrigation District (CCID) Page 27 levels, CCID and the other “exchange” partners are able to receive San Joaquin River water supplies to supply their customers. Sphere of Influence Review CCID did not indicate any plans to alter its boundary or service area, with the exception of city annexations that result in detachment from CCID. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 6. EAGLE FIELD WATER DISTRICT (EFWD) The Eagle Field Water District (EFWD) was formed in the early 1950s pursuant to the California Water Code. EFWD lies within the Delta-Mendota subbasin and is a steering committee member of the Central Delta-Mendota Region GSA. Table 5 summarizes general District information. EFWD serves two corporate farms in an area of approximately 1,325 acres and shares office space with Bennett Ranches. Table 5 Summary of Eagle Field Water District Governance and Operations Year of Formation early 1950's Type of Agency California Water District Enabling Act or Code California Water Code Section 34000 et. se Area 1,325 Population n/a Governing Body Board of Directors Number of Directors 5 Board Meeting Dates First Wednesday of each Quarter Board Meetings/Location 51170 W. Althea Ave. Firebaugh, CA 93622 Link to Current Agenda No website, no agenda link # of Staff none (contract for annual audit) # of Customers 2 corporate landowners Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 6. Eagle Field Water District (EFWD) Page 29 Figure 5 Eagle Field Water District Boundary and Sphere of Influence Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 6. Eagle Field Water District (EFWD) Page 30 Governance and Operations The Eagle Field Water District was formed in the early 1950s. It serves two corporate agricultural customers with a total of 1,325 acres of land. The boundaries of EFWD are identified in Figure 5. These landowners also comprise the District’s five-member Board of Directors. EFWD has no employees; EFWD contracts out administrative services such as the annual audit. Accounting functions and operations are administered by the District landowners. The District purchases its water from the Bureau of Reclamation. In 2021, the District entered into a “Conversion Contract” with the Bureau in accordance with the “WIIN” Act48 to ensure the long-term and reliable delivery of water to the District, similar to other Districts in the Delta- Mendota subbasin. In 2020, total expenditures, including utility and administrative costs, were $360,410, as reported on the State Controller’s website. Bills are received from the Bureau of Reclamation and passed on directly to landowners in proportion to the amount of land they own. The District is self-financed by landowners. Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services The EFWD is allocated a maximum of 4,550 acre-feet annually from the Bureau of Reclamation. The water source is the Delta-Mendota Canal. It has two canal turnouts and no other facilities, vehicles, or equipment. Due to ongoing drought and water management issues, the District rarely receives this maximum allotment. For the past two years, the Bureau of Reclamation has provided a zero allocation and districts are forced to bank water, use groundwater, or seek a water transfer. Demand and Capacity The District does not anticipate any expansion beyond its two agricultural customers. Current water supplies are marginally adequate to meet demand, as is common for most water districts in the Delta-Mendota subbasin. Determinations (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. The EFWD service area is not urbanized and no population growth is anticipated. (2) The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. No disadvantaged unincorporated communities exist within or adjacent to EFWD boundaries. (3) Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, 48 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (Public Law 114-322, 130 Statutes 1628). Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 6. Eagle Field Water District (EFWD) Page 31 municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. Facilities, services, and water sources are marginally adequate to meet current demand within the District, as in similar districts in the Delta-Mendota subbasin. Allotments received from the Bureau of Reclamation have been severely reduced recently and a zero-allotment is proposed for the 2022-23 irrigation season. (4) Financial ability of agencies to provide services. EFWD had $360,410 in expenditures in 2020 according to the State Controller’s website. The District is self-financed by landowners. (5) Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. The District shares office space with Bennett Ranches. (6) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. Accounting functions and operations are administered by the District landowners. Annual audits are completed by an independent accounting firm and submitted to state and local government agencies. EFWD does not have a website, and LAFCO is not aware whether the District has adopted a Resolution of Hardship to exempt itself from the requirement to maintain a website. (7) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. No other matters were identified. Sphere of Influence Review The District has no plans within the next five years to modify its boundary and/or Sphere of Influence. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 7. GRASSLAND WATER DISTRICT (GWD) The Grassland Water District (GWD) was formed in 1953 to receive Federal Central Valley Project water. The Grassland Water District (GWD) was formed under Section 34000 of the California Water District Law. The District’s primary function is to protect, secure and deliver water to the 75,000-acre Grassland Resource Conservation District’s (GRCD) critical wetland habitat within its boundaries. The GWD also delivers water to state and federal wildlife refuges on the behalf of the Bureau of Reclamation.49 Table 6 summarizes general District information. In 1995 GWD established the Grassland Environmental Education Center (GEECe), a no-fee field trip facility that provides an opportunity for school students to learn about the ecologically significant wildlife habitats located in the San Joaquin Valley’s Grassland Ecological Area (GEA). The GEECe is fully funded by The Grassland Fund, a 501c3 non-profit organization devoted to the protection of the Grassland water supply and legal defense against encroachment of harmful land use practices to the habitat.50 The boundaries of GWD encompass 51,537 acres as shown in Figure 6. GWD’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) is coterminous with its boundary. The boundaries have not changed since the 2008 MSR; at that time GWD was considering annexing 2,640 acres of GRCD lands. Almost all land within the GRCD and GWD is privately owned and maintained as wetland habitat, primarily within waterfowl hunting clubs. In the 1920s duck hunting began to become prevalent, and by the 1950s duck hunting became the predominant use of the land within the District’s area. Clubs began to develop shallow open water to attract wintering waterfowl by mimicking historic wetlands and hydroperiods.51 About 2,600 acres are in agriculture. The remainder, about 49,000 acres, consist of managed wetlands and grassland/upland areas.52 GWD has “very few permanent residents”.53 There are no DUCs within or adjacent to the GWD. Approximately 860 acres in the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) Area 1, including GWD and GRCD, are identified as “Urban/Developed”.54 According to the GSP, “there are no urban communities or residential areas within the Plan Area, and there are very few agricultural water users.”55 Residential structures consist of cabins, RVs and mobile homes located as temporary housing by the various independent duck clubs. 49 http://gwdwater.org/gwd-who-we-are/ 50 Website accessed 9/30/2020, http://gwdwater.org/2017/01/grassland-fund/ 51 Grassland GSP, pg. 2-12. 52 Grassland GSP, pg. 2-7, Table 2-2, Area 1. 53 Grassland GSP, pg. 2-4. 54 Grassland GSP, pg. 2-7, Table 2-2, Area 1. 55 Grassland GSP, pg. 2-37. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 7. Grassland Water District (GWD) Page 33 Table 6 Summary of Grassland Water District Governance and Operations GWD formed the Grassland Groundwater Sustainability Area (GGSA) and prepared a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) in cooperation with Merced County Delta-Mendota Groundwater Sustainability Agency (MCDMGSA). The GGSA includes the 75,000-acre Grassland Resource Conservation District (GRCD) which encompasses most of the 51,537-acre GWD. GGSA territory is designated “Subarea 1” in the GSP area.56 Subarea 2 of the GSP area encompasses portions of the MCDMGSA totaling about 30,000 acres. 56 Grassland GSP, pg. 2-4. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 7. Grassland Water District (GWD) Page 34 Figure 6 Grassland Water District Boundary and Sphere of Influence Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 7. Grassland Water District (GWD) Page 35 Governance and Operations A five-member Board of Directors, elected by landowners, holds public meetings on the second Tuesday of each month. The GWD budget reports $72,000 of annual expense for “Dues, Directors Expenses, Conference Registrations.”57 The District indicates that the agenda is posted at least 72 hours before the meeting at the meeting location and on the website and has adopted procedures to ensure compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act for agenda noticing, public hearings, and decision-making. The District has adopted policies for public records act requests.58 GWD maintains a website and a link to the most current agenda.59 The website does not provide past agendas and meeting materials, minutes, financial documents (budgets, financial reports), or capital facility assessments or plans. No employee compensation is reported or links provided to compensation information. Although managed by a separate board, GWD works closely with the GRCD. GWD staff provide services, and the GWD budget funds GRCD’s minimal expenses. The District indicates that it undertakes public outreach and communication through its website, letters to landowners, and annual landowner meeting. GWD’s operations are largely funded by its rates and charges, supplemented by grants and funding from other organizations. The District receives minimal property taxes. FY20-21 revenues of $3.5 million exceeded $3 million of operating costs for administrative and operational staff, and repair and replacement of monitoring equipment, and maintenance of water distribution canals and associated levees, head gates, drainage canals, and other infrastructure.60 After 14 years of unchanged rates, in 2018 GWD adopted a three-year schedule of rate increases beginning in 2019 based on its staff analysis.61 GWD identified multiple factors affecting their costs including: the costs of operating and maintaining GWD’s water conveyance and delivery system and assuring adequate water supplies; compliance with new state and federal regulatory programs such as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act requiring increased monitoring equipment and reporting; and (3) costs associated with participation in significant local, state, and federal water and land use matters (e.g., formation and participation in the GSA). The 57 GWD Proposed Budget FY21-22, Approved April 13, 2021 (Attachment #1 to LAFCO Data Request Sept. 27, 2021. Director’s pay and benefits were not separate provided for response to LAFCO Data Request. 58 GWD Survey Response, 2021-09-27 (Q1-Q9). 59 http://gwdwater.org/board-meeting-notices/ 60 GWD Proposed Budget FY21-22, Approved April 13, 2021 (Attachment #1 to LAFCO Data Request Sept. 27, 2021. 61 GWD Notice of Proposed Rate Increases, posted on: gwdwater.org/news-and-district-updates/notice-of-proposed-increase-to-water-service-fees/ Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 7. Grassland Water District (GWD) Page 36 District currently does not anticipate increasing or implementing new fees, charges, or assessments.62 According to the District “additional funding is needed to secure long-term water supply sources to enable the USBR to fulfill its obligation under its water service agreement with the District.”63 GWD’s Unrestricted Net Position, which indicates the value of reserves (excluding capital asset value) net of obligations is minimal and represents about four months of average operating expenditures to cover operating cash flows. The District prepares an audit of its financial statements every year. The GWD budget and audit are not available on its website64 but were provided upon request for the purpose of this MSR update. Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services GWD’s infrastructure includes the wetland water delivery systems it owns and operates. GWD uses water pumped from nine District-owned wells (22 private wells) that are metered and monitored to supplement its surface water supplies.65 GWD has a water management plan.66 GWD supplies 192 private and public landowners67 via 135 miles68 of pipes and canals. The GWD is undertaking a number of water use efficiency projects that include the replacement of aging water delivery infrastructure with modern facilities that enable the water operators to minimize spill from the conveyance system while improving the ability to meet demands. The GWD is also in the process of constructing a water recirculation project (North Grasslands Water Conservation and Water Quality Control Project) that will save the District approximately 14,000 AFY.69 The District indicated that the current infrastructure is in "good condition - improvements are needed in the water management plan" and there are no other service needs or deficiencies.70 The District indicates there are no shared facilities, but it is "working with Central California 62 GWD Survey Response, 2021-09-27 (Q19d). 63 GWD Survey Response, 2021-09-27 (Q19c). 64 As of Dec. 27, 2021. 65 Grassland GSP, pg. 2-37. 66 GSP Appx. C, Waster Master Plan (WMP 2018) 67 Grassland WMP 2018, pg. 3. 68 Grassland WMP 2018, pg. 9. 69 Grasslands GSP, pg. 2-37. 70 GWD Survey Response, 2021-09-27 (Q10-Q11). Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 7. Grassland Water District (GWD) Page 37 Irrigation District and San Luis Water District to construct facilities at the Los Banos Creek Detention Reservoir to develop additional water storage."71 Demand and Capacity Water Use and Demand Wetlands in the Plan Area are typically inundated with shallow ponded water starting in late August or September and retained through early spring. This cycle mimics historical hydrologic periods to provide foraging and loafing habitats for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and other resident wildlife. The vast majority of lands in the Plan Area are managed seasonal wetlands. In the spring, water is also used for irrigation purposes to grow grasses for migratory birds and to provide habitat for local breeding birds and other wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. An evaluation of the District’s spring and summer water supply required to optimize habitat estimated supply at approximately 55,000 acre-feet, referred to as Incremental Level 4. Fall flood up was estimated at 125,000 acre-feet (Level 2), totaling a full need of 180,000 acre-feet (Level 4).72 GWD's strategy is to reserve a minimum 70% of its 100% Level 4 water supply to provide fall and winter waterfowl habitat; any additional water is reserved for habitat enhancement in the spring and summer. Demand is not expected to grow.73 Water Sources and Capacity The District receives Central Valley Project (CVP) water from the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) (Level 2) and Level 4 water from various sources, including groundwater and recycled water (90% surface, 10% groundwater).74 Surface water for the GGSA is obtained through federal contracts with the USBR from the CVP.75 Water is delivered via the federal Delta-Mendota Canal (DMC), which can be diverted directly from the Canal for irrigation, or conveyed by canals from the Mendota Pool which stores Delta- Mendota Canal water.76 The GWD has imported an average of 150,000 acre-feet per year of water from the DMC.77 According to the GSP, refuge agencies in the GGSA "rarely receive full entitlement under federal law, which is needed to optimally manage the habitat.”78 The GSP 71 GWD Survey Response, 2021-09-27 (Q23). 72 Grassland GSP, Appendix C (GSP pg. 746-7), Grassland Resource Conservation District Water Management Plan, Final plan submittal date, September 30, 2018, pg. 3 (Grassland WMP 2018). 73 GWD Survey Response, 2021-09-27 (Q19a). 74 GWD Survey Response, 2021-09-27 (Q13). 75 Water Service Contract 17-WC-20-5027. 76 Grassland GSP, pg. 2-9. 77 Grassland GSP, pg. 732, Appendix B – Kenneth D Schmidt & Associates - HCM and GW Conditions Report. 78 Grassland GSP, pg. 2-37. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 7. Grassland Water District (GWD) Page 38 states that the GWD receives an average of 150,000 AFY from USBR sources.79 Additional water sources are required for the USBR to provide the full 180,000 AFY to the District as required in its water service contract.80 Groundwater supplements surface water in years when surface water deliveries are not adequate to meet wetland demand. GWD pumping averages 15,000 AF/year but varies from near zero during wet years to 28,000 AF in below normal or critical years.81 GWD is pursuing a project to increase its access to groundwater.82 This project allows the District to acquire up to 29,000 acre-feet per year of privately held groundwater supplies and/or exchange a portion of its surface water for such groundwater supplies.83 The District has implemented several groundwater exchange projects with local CVP contractors in which Level 2 refuge water is exchanged for a greater volume of groundwater. The District is working closely with the USBR to develop additional water supplies via groundwater, recycled water, and surface water from future projects, such as Contra Costa Water District's Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion.84 In addition to groundwater, GWD also receives operational spill and storm water from neighboring lands in order to meet demands within the GSP Area. The wetlands are drained in the spring (when soil temperatures are optimal for seed germination and subsequent wetland plant growth) to initiate the growing season. GWD participates in the Interagency Refuge Water Management Team, along with State and federal agencies, to collaborate on water schedules and acquisition of Incremental Level 4 supplies to assure that its full needs are met. The District is working with other districts to diversify its source of Level 2 supplies.85 Water Quality The most important chemical constituents in terms of the GWD and the wildlife refuges are total dissolved solids (TDS), selenium, and boron.86 The GWD Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Board have established water quality objectives for these chemical constituents. The GSP 79 Grasslands GSP, pg. 732, Appendix B – Kenneth D Schmidt & Associates - HCM and GW Conditions Report. 80 GWD Survey Response, 2021-09-27 (Q18). 81 Grassland GSP, pg. 2-26, Table 2-3. 82 Incremental Level 4 Groundwater Development Project Initial Study and Negative Declaration, February 1, 2016. 83 Grasslands GSP, pg. 724, Appendix B – Kenneth D Schmidt & Associates - HCM and GW Conditions Report. 84 GWD Survey Response, 2021-09-27 (Q19b). 85 Grassland WMP 2018, pg. 5. 86 Grassland GSP, pg. 724, Appendix B – Kenneth D Schmidt & Associates - HCM and GW Conditions Report. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 7. Grassland Water District (GWD) Page 39 identifies supply wells in the area with groundwater quality “that was acceptable for pumping into the GWD system.”87 Drought Contingency Planning The CVP Drought Contingency Plan (DCP) prioritizes allocations to water users in a Shasta Critical Year.88 Needs were ranked with municipal health and safety first, preservation of Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta water quality second, the protection of threatened and endangered habitats third, and agricultural users are considered last.89 In June, 2020 GWD notified its customers that Level 2 water deliveries would be 100% and incremental Level 4 supplies would be 50%.90 The District addresses drought conditions by adjusting allocations of fall/winter flood-up water, and through the use of groundwater and the District's recirculation system.91 Determinations (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. The GWD area is not urbanized and no significant increase in the current household population is anticipated. (2) The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. No disadvantaged unincorporated communities exist within or adjacent to GWD boundaries. (3) Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. GWD’s current infrastructure is in good condition and adequate to meet current demand. The District continues to pursue additional sources of water. (4) Financial ability of agencies to provide services. GWD has the financial ability to provide services. 87 Grassland GSP, pg. 739, Appendix B – Kenneth D Schmidt & Associates - HCM and GW Conditions Report. 88 A “Shasta Critical Year” occurs when the forecasted inflow to Shasta Lake for a particular water year is equal to or below 3.2 million acre-feet. 89 Grassland GSP, pg. 2-23. 90 GWD Announcement June 12, 2020. 91 GWD Survey Response, 2021-09-27 (Q20). Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 7. Grassland Water District (GWD) Page 40 (5) Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. The District does not utilize shared facilities but is working with Central California Irrigation District and San Luis Water District to construct facilities at the Los Banos Creek Detention Reservoir to develop additional water storage. (6) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. GWD follows all legal requirements for accountability. GWD’s website includes its current agenda; however, its website should also include past agenda and minutes, related reports, and GWD financial documents. The District undertakes public outreach and communication through its website, letters to landowners, and annual landowner meeting. (7) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. No other matters were identified. Sphere of Influence Review The District has no plans to modify its boundary and/or Sphere of Influence within the next five years.92 92 GWD Survey Response, 2021-09-27 (Q29). Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 8. LAGUNA WATER DISTRICT (LWD) As indicated in the 2008 MSR, The Laguna Water District (LWD) was acquired by Red Fern Ranches in 1997 as part of a land purchase.93 LWD, as a water district, has the ability to obtain water from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation from the San Luis unit of Delta-Mendota. Table 7 summarizes general District information. The district covers approximately 417 acres as shown in Figure 7. The California State Controller's Office identified LWD as an “inactive district” for FY17-18 and FY18-19. An “inactive district” is a district that had no financial transactions in the previous fiscal year, has no assets or liabilities, and has no outstanding debts, judgments, litigation, contracts, liens, or claims.94 After Merced LAFCO contacted the district about this designation, the district discontinued the practice of paying bills from their Redfern Ranch account and established a bank account for the Laguna Water District. The main transactions involve payment for water from the US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), through payments to the San Luis – Delta-Mendota Water Authority. As a result, LWD was removed from the list of inactive districts for FY19-20.95 If the district had been dissolved by LAFCO, it would have lost the rights to obtain water from the USBR which would have impacted farming operations on other properties where the water is transferred to. The District is a member of the San Luis & Delta Mendota Water Authority (Authority). Within the Authority, the District participates in their water transfer program through an activity agreement. Red Fern Ranches reportedly received U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) commodity subsidies most years from 1995 through 2015; no subsidies are listed for subsequent years 2016-2020.96 93 County of Merced Water and Sewer Service Providers Municipal Service Review, Prepared by EPS (#17053), as Approved by LAFCO October 23, 2008. 94 Gov. Code Sec. 56042. 95 California State Controller's Office List of Inactive Districts per Chapter 334, Statutes of 2017 (SB 448) Source: Special Districts Financial Transactions Reports, Fiscal Year 2019-20, https://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_local_rep_freq_requested.html 96 https://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?custnumber=A09424927 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 8. Laguna Water District (LWD) Page 42 Table 7 Summary of Laguna Water District Governance and Operations LWD lies within the Delta-Mendota Subbasin but is not a member of the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors (SJREC) GSA. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 8. Laguna Water District (LWD) Page 43 Figure 7 Laguna Water District Boundary and Sphere of Influence Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 8. Laguna Water District (LWD) Page 44 Governance and Operations97 All three board seats are elected by landowners who are owners of Redfern Ranch and are currently being filled. Board members do not receive pay or benefits. LWD prepares an agenda for each meeting which is posted at least 72 hours before the meeting outside the meeting location. The District indicates it complies with the Ralph M. Brown Act for agenda noticing, public hearings, and decision-making. LWD does not maintain a website and has adopted a Resolution of Hardship as required by Govt. Code 53087.8(b) which exempts the District from requirements for a website. The District indicates that it undertakes public outreach and communication by posting Board meeting notices. The District provided no budget or financial reports in response to the MSR Update data request, and no information is available from the State Controller’s Office Special Districts’ Financial Transactions Report. However, in response to LAFCO’s consideration of a possible dissolution of the District in 2019, the District has created bank accounts and made payments to the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority for surface water obtained from the USBR from this recently established account. Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services LWD owns no infrastructure and provides no services other than obtaining water from USBR when allocations are available and transferring the water allotment to other lands owned by Redfern Ranch located within the San Luis Water District. The District is a member of the San Luis & Delta Mendota Water Authority (Authority). Within the Authority, the District participates in its water transfer program through an activity agreement. Demand and Capacity LWD can obtain up to 800 ac/ft from the USBR. In 2021 LWD received no allocation of water from USBR. 97 LWD Survey Response, 2021-11-16 (Q1-Q9). Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 8. Laguna Water District (LWD) Page 45 Determinations (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. The LWD area is not urbanized and no population growth is anticipated. (2) The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. No disadvantaged unincorporated communities exist within or adjacent to LWD boundaries. (3) Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. Facilities, services and water sources are not adequate to meet current demand within the District. Due to historic water shortages, no irrigation water is applied within the District boundary. All allotments received from the Bureau of Reclamation are transferred to other lands under the same ownership but located within the San Luis Water District. (4) Financial ability of agencies to provide services. LWD has no reported expenditures. (5) Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. The District does not utilize shared facilities and no sharing opportunities were identified. (6) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. LWD follows all legal requirements for transparency and has adopted a Resolution of Hardship to exempt itself from the requirement to maintain a website. (7) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. No other matters were identified. Sphere of Influence Review The District has no plans within the next 5 years to modify its boundary and/or Sphere of Influence. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 9. LEGRAND-ATHLONE WATER DISTRICT (LGAWD) The LeGrand-Athlone Water District (LGAWD), formed in 1964, provides surface water for farmland irrigation in a portion of the County of Merced. Table 8 summarizes general District information. In addition, according to the legislation enabling the District's formation, the District has the unauthorized latent powers to provide drainage service, generate and distribute electric power, reclaim wastewater, provide sewage disposal, and construct and operate incidental recreational facilities. In 2018 LGAWD applied to Merced County LAFCO to expand its sphere of influence and annex approximately 5,800 acres which required an update of the prior 2008 Municipal Service Review (MSR).98 The current MSR incorporates and updates the 2018 MSR. 99 The 29,500 acres100 of the District are located near the southeastern corner of Merced County, and most of the District is located between Santa Fe Avenue and Highway 99. The district is located in a rural area of Merced County designated for “Agricultural” uses in the General Plan. There is no urban development planned and no planned increase in population except for housing for landowners and farmworkers on rural parcels. The community of LeGrand is located to the north of the District’s northern boundary. Figure 8 shows the boundary and Sphere of Influence (SOI). Table 8 Summary of Le Grande-Athlone Water District Governance and Operations 98 County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review, Final Report as Approved by LAFCO on October 23, 2008. 99 LeGrand-Athlone Municipal Service Review Final Report, as approved by LAFCO Sept. 20, 2018, prepared by EPS and Berkson Associates. 100 2018 MSR reported 23,700 acres plus its 5,800-acre annexation. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 9. LeGrand-Athlone Water District (LGAWD) Page 47 Figure 8 LeGrand-Athlone Water District Boundary and Sphere of Influence Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 9. LeGrand-Athlone Water District (LGAWD) Page 48 The District is a member of the Merced Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) Joint Powers Authority (JPA), which is one of three Groundwater Sustainability Agencies for the Merced Groundwater Subbasin. One of the primary reasons for District participation and for its 2018 expansion was to assure that local farmers are represented in the Merced Subbasin GSA/JPA. The District shares a seat, on a rotating basis, with the neighboring Plainsburg Irrigation District. Governance and Operations101 All five board seats, elected by landowners,102 currently are filled. Board members receive no pay or financial benefits. AWD prepares an agenda for each meeting which is posted at least 72 hours before the meeting outside the meeting location and on a website. The LGAWD Board and officers “are aware of the requirements of the Brown Act [and] legal counsel attends board meetings” to ensure compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act for agenda noticing, public hearings, and decision-making.103 The District has not adopted policies for public records act requests, but is unaware of any such past requests – the District indicated that it would consider policies if it received such requests. LGAWD does not have a website nor has it adopted a Resolution of Hardship as required by Govt. Code 53087.8(b) which exempts the District from requirements for a website; the District currently is considering the feasibility of creating and maintaining a website. The District holds regular monthly board of directors meetings. In addition, the District has held several landowner outreach meetings on topics such as Proposition 218 election, water conveyance projects, and water purchases available to landowners. The District anticipated holding another outreach meeting in the last quarter of 2021 to inform landowners about a water delivery intertie being constructed by the District under a grant and how that will benefit District landowners. The 2018 MSR indicated that LGAWD had experienced financial shortfalls through FY16-17 requiring the drawdown of reserves to balance its budget. The District successfully passed a Proposition 218 election to approve assessments beginning in 2018 to provide additional funding to support a balanced budget, build reserves, to engage in SGMA and the GSA, and to develop and implement projects and programs to help stabilize and improve groundwater district conditions within the District. LGAWD did not provide a copy of its budget or financial report as requested during this MSR update; however, information available from the State Controller indicated total FY18-19 revenues of $347,800 including $247,800 of assessment revenues, $80,800 of operating revenues from sales and charges, and the balance in various other non-operating revenues which exceeded expenditures. The District owes $85,265 in debt which will be paid off in 101 LGAWD Survey Response, 2021-10-08. 102 LeGrand-Athlone Municipal Service Review Final Report, as approved by LAFCO Sept. 20, 2018, prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. and Berkson Associates. 103 LGAWD Survey Response, 2021-10-08 (Q6). Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 9. LeGrand-Athlone Water District (LGAWD) Page 49 2023.104 The District has no reserve policies;105 reserve balances were not reported because no financial documents were provided in response to LAFCO’s data request. The District is planning another Proposition 218 election to increase its assessments; it has charged the maximum $10 per acre for 2018 through 2021. The District periodically reviews and updates its charges for delivery of water through District facilities. Direct deliveries of surplus water from non-District operated MID conveyances are not metered or billed by the District. Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services The District has 4,300 feet of water main pipelines with no wells, tanks, or pump stations.106 The water main is connected through the 42’’ pipeline directing water from the MID Fancher system to the District. The pipeline has an existing capacity of 30 cubic feet per second (CFS). The District currently has a long-crested weir107 which was rehabilitated within the last few years.108 In addition, the District has an easement for its pipeline and owns a parcel consisting of 8 acres for recharge purposes. The District’s immediate efforts are directed to improving its MID connection to allow for the importation of greater amounts of surface water from MID than has historically occurred. The District plans an intertie project to further connect the District with MID and allow greater amounts of surface water to enter the District.109 The District does not currently have an approved infrastructure master plan. However, as a member of the Merced Subbasin GSA/JPA, the District is participating in the GSP for the subbasin to evaluate infrastructure needs and surface water delivery from MID. Demand and Capacity LGAWD facilitates the provision of supplemental water supplies to the District's landowners to alleviate the pressure on the groundwater basin. The only deficiency is an overall lack of surface water deliveries to the San Joaquin Valley which increases demand on the groundwater basins which are currently overdrafted. No growth in water use or demand is anticipated.110 104 LGAWD Survey Response, 2021-10-08 (Q26). 105 LGAWD Survey Response, 2021-10-08 (Q25). 106 LeGrand-Athlone Municipal Service Review Final Report, as approved by LAFCO Sept. 20, 2018, prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. and Berkson Associates, pg. 10. 107 Long crested weirs are used in open-channel irrigation distribution systems to minimize fluctuations in the canal water surface above canal turnouts. 108 LGAWD Survey Response, 2021-10-08 (Q10). 109 LGAWD Survey Response, 2021-10-08 (Q10). 110 LGAWD Survey Response, 2021-10-08 (Q19). Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 9. LeGrand-Athlone Water District (LGAWD) Page 50 The District does not have sufficient groundwater to meet sustainability under the GSP and there are limited opportunities for surface water supplies, particularly in the current drought. However, the District is pursuing a flood water rights application at the SWRCB with MID and other local agencies. The District received a grant for an intertie to further connect the District to MID. Surface water capacity is 6,500 acre feet when available. All surface water is purchased from MID. There is no other water produced by the District. Over the past five years annual flows have ranged from 6,526 acre feet in 2017 to 913 acre feet in 2021. The District is working with MID to develop more reliable long-term supplies rather than intermittent “as available” purchases, but the same water sources are also sought by other districts. A long-term agreement will determine the District’s need for expanded infrastructure. The District also hopes to supplement MID supplies from sources associated with its 2018 annexation (such as the Chowchilla River and the Friant Unit of the Central Valley Project111). Determinations (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. The district is located in a rural area of Merced County designated for “Agricultural” uses in the General Plan. There is no urban development planned and no planned increase in population except for housing for landowners and farmworkers on rural parcels. (2) The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. No disadvantaged unincorporated communities exist within or adjacent to LGAWD boundaries. (3) Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. The only deficiency is an overall lack of surface water deliveries to the San Joaquin Valley which increases demand on the groundwater basins which are currently over-drafted. The District does not have sufficient groundwater to meet sustainability under the GSP and there are limited opportunities for surface water supplies, particularly in the current drought. However, the District is pursuing a flood water rights application at the SWRCB with MID and other local agencies. The District received a grant for an intertie to further connect the District to MID. Longer-term increases in surface water supplies will determine the type and extent of additional infrastructure required. (4) Financial ability of agencies to provide services. Since approval of assessments in 2018, LGAWD has improved its financial position and ability to participate in GSA activities. Ongoing review of fees and charges and continuation of 111 The Friant Unit of the Central Valley Project delivers water to over one million acres of irrigable farm land on the east side of the southern San Joaquin Valley from approximately Chowchilla on the north to the Tehachapi Mountains on the south. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 9. LeGrand-Athlone Water District (LGAWD) Page 51 assessments via an upcoming election will continue to improve the District’s financial ability to provide services. (5) Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. MID and the District have a weir in place via the Fancher canal to canal/pipeline connection. The weir is a long-crested weir with the capability for increased surface water delivery. If the capacity was increased, then the District would be able to buy, and MID would be able to supply more surface water to the District for in-lieu recharge to the Merced Subbasin resulting in greater groundwater supply reliability.112 The District is working with MID on a longer-term agreement for surface water. With a longer-term agreement in place, the District would have a more reliable surface water supply and could explore expanding facilities to increase the amount of surface water deliveries when excess surface water is available from MID.113 (6) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. LGAWD follows all legal requirements for transparency. The District does not have a website but is evaluating the feasibility of maintaining a website or adopting a Resolution of Hardship if a website is infeasible. (7) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. No other matters were identified. Sphere of Influence Review The District’s expansion plans are unknown at this time. If the District intertie project increases the amount of surface water that can be imported into the District, it is anticipated that other outside landowners will seek to annex into the District to obtain access to such supplies.114 112 LeGrand-Athlone Municipal Service Review Final Report, as approved by LAFCO Sept. 20, 2018, prepared by EPS and Berkson Associates, Determinations pg. 16. 113 ibid, LeGrand-Athlone Municipal Service Review Final Report, pg. 16. 114 LGAWD Survey Response, 2021-10-08 (Q29). Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 10. MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT (MID) The Merced Irrigation District (MID) was formed in 1919 and is located on the eastern side of the San Joaquin Valley in eastern Merced. Table 9 summarizes general District information. In addition to agricultural irrigation services, MID provides domestic water to the Don Pedro Community Services District, which is located outside of Merced County, as well as hydroelectric power, recreation, retail electric, and drainage services.115 The MID service area encompasses over 164,000 acres. Within this area, the District provides irrigation services to approximately 2,200 customers. MID provides service to eight urban areas, which includes the three incorporated cities of Merced, Atwater, and Livingston.116 The boundaries of MID are identified in Figure 9. Table 9 Summary of Merced Irrigation District Governance and Operations Year of Formation 1919 Type of Agency Irrigation District Enabling Act or Code California Water Code Section 20500 et. se Area 164,000 Population Unknown Governing Body Board of Directors Number of Directors 5 Board Meeting Dates First Tuesday of the month or as noticed Board Meetings/Location Franklin Yard Facility 3321 N. Franklin Road Merced, CA 95348 Link to Current Agenda https://mercedid.civicweb.net/portal/ # of Staff 181 employees, plus 25 part-time # of Customers 2,200 customers MID is an active member of the Merced Irrigation Urban GSA (MIUGSA).117 115 County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review, Final Report as Approved by LAFCO on October 23, 2008. 116 County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review, Final Report as Approved by LAFCO on October 23, 2008. 117 MID Survey Response, 2022-02-03 (Q17), and MID review of the Public Review Draft MSR dated 2022-06-06. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 10. Merced Irrigation District (MID) Page 53 Figure 9 Merced Irrigation District Boundary and Sphere of Influence Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 10. Merced Irrigation District (MID) Page 54 Governance and Operations118 All five board seats, elected by registered voters, currently are filled. Board members are compensated at a monthly salary not to exceed $600 per month; board member health benefits are offered, and if accepted, are at an amount dependent upon which benefit package a member elects to receive. MID prepares an agenda for each meeting which is posted at least 72 hours before the meeting outside the meeting location and on a website and has adopted procedures to ensure compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act for agenda noticing, public hearings, and decision-making. The District has adopted policies for public records act requests. Extensive public outreach includes Board of Directors and committee meetings; MID Advisory Committee meetings; press releases; handouts, customer newsletters, and mailing; in-person events/community engagement events; online platform and radio announcements.119 MID maintains a website and a link to the most current agenda.120 The District operates six enterprise funds including water resources; parks and recreation; hydroelectric; energy resources; drainage district; and general operations. The Water Resources Fund accounts for revenues and expenditures related to its water rights, storage and distribution facilities that deliver water to customers in its service territory. The Fund’s $25.4 million budget is funded primarily from charges for the sale of water, standby charges, and water transfers; additional revenues include property taxes and other revenues.121 MID’s budget reports that MID’s finances remain strong122 and the District anticipates that its Water Resources Management Plan123 will ensure that its facilities, staff and funding are sufficient for now and the future. Generally, the District establishes water and energy prices that are sufficient to provide for payment of general operations and maintenance expenses, capital improvements, annual debt service, and comply with cash reserve policies. MID policies establish reserve targets; the District’s estimated Water Resources reserves of $23.1 million meet MID’s target and is nearly equal to annual expenditures.124 The MID consolidated financial report indicates a positive net position.125 118 MID Survey Response, 2022-02-03. 119 MID Survey Response, 2022-02-03 (Q1-Q9). 120 https://www.mercedid.com 121 MID Survey Response, 2022-02-03 (Attachment A); MID review of the Public Review Draft MSR dated 2022-06-06; see also MID budget data available on the MID website. 122 Merced Irrigation District of California Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2022, pg. i. 123 http://www.mercedid.com/index.cfm/water/water-resources-management-plan/ 124 Merced Irrigation District of California Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2022, pg. 170. 125 Merced Irrigation District Merced, California Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Years Ended March 31, 2021, and 2020. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 10. Merced Irrigation District (MID) Page 55 Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services MID diverts surface water from the Merced River at two locations, the North Side Canal and the Main Canal located at its Crocker Huffman Diversion Dam, located downstream of Lake McSwain for the benefit of the District’s agricultural customers. MID owns and operates more than 800 miles of water conveyance facilities. Included in those facilities are local creeks and streams, which are utilized by Merced County, the City of Merced, etc. for purposes of storm water conveyance in the irrigation off-season.126 As described in MID’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, the District conjunctively manages both surface and groundwater resources to meet the District’s water demands. As part of its conjunctive management activities, the District owns and operates approximately 215 conjunctive groundwater wells. The District also owns and operates several small water regulating reservoirs that are used for regulating flows and balancing the supplies and demands of the District’s water system. These water supplies are conveyed through approximately 860 miles of conveyance facilities, consisting of canals, pipelines, pump stations, creeks and drains.127 The District also owns, operates and maintains hydroelectric facilities. Recreation facilities and use of its lakes and reservoirs for recreation purposes is managed by MID. In 1994, the District established a storm water drainage district; during the rainy season, the District allows portions of its irrigation distribution system to be used to convey storm drainage to the nearest natural creek or waterway. MID reports that MID's water conveyance facilities and electrical distribution facilities are in sufficient condition to make MID services available to its customers reliably, cost effectively, and at such times as requested by customers.128 MID has developed and is implementing a long-term capital improvement plan to address aging infrastructure and modernization of its facilities. Additionally, the MID Board takes action regarding proposed capital projects every year during the budget processes. MID has developed a Water Resources Management Plan129 which serves as a general business plan and as a capital improvement plan to modernize portions of MID’s water conveyance facilities. The plan includes a general timeline for improvements, which MID has been following and remains on track. 126 MID Survey Response, 2022-02-03 (Q23). 127 Merced Irrigation District Merced, California Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Years Ended March 31, 2021, and 2020, pg. 4; and MID review of the Public Review Draft MSR dated 2022-06-06. 128 MID Survey Response, 2022-02-03 (Q10); and MID review of the Public Review Draft MSR dated 2022-06-06. 129 http://www.mercedid.com/index.cfm/water/water-resources-management-plan/ Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 10. Merced Irrigation District (MID) Page 56 Demand and Capacity Generally, and on average, MID conveys approximately 500,000 acre-feet of water through its conveyance system each year, for a variety of beneficial uses.130 MID owns and operates Lake McClure, an approximately 1,000,000-acre-foot reservoir located in Mariposa County, and the major source of its surface water supply. MID’s water service area is located in eastern Merced County. Water is diverted from the Merced River through the North Side Canal and the Main Canal and conveyed to MID's service area for delivery to its customers.131 Private groundwater wells provide landowners with approximately 203,000 afy;132 MID monitors groundwater levels within the District’s boundaries.133 The District reports that the MID Board of Directors makes an annual determination as to how much water it has to make available to its customers that year depending on a wide range of variables that change from year to year, such as carryover storage that year; hydrology and inflow to Lake McClure; and customer cropping decisions. MID protects and defends its water rights and resources from challenges at both the local and state levels. For example, California State Water Resources Control Board has adopted a Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan and Substitute Environmental Document which, if implemented, could substantially impact MID’s ability to make water available to its customers each year. Development and implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act may also have a significant impact on water supplies locally, and regionally.134 MID anticipates that there is likely to be a generally increased demand for MID water, depending on if, how and when various laws and regulations are implemented, including for example, the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan and Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. To address increasing demand, MID has developed a Water Resources Management Plan to identify a variety of capital improvement projects that will both modernize and make more efficient portions of MID’s water conveyance system. MID is also active in developing groundwater recharge projects and other projects for the purpose of improving water efficiency and overall water supplies.135 The District is experiencing groundwater subsidence generally in the southern portion of MID near El Nido. MID is an active member of the Merced Irrigation Urban Groundwater Sustainability Agency (MIUGSA). Along with the two other GSAs in the Merced Subbasin, MIUGSA developed a groundwater sustainability plan for the Merced Groundwater Basin for the purpose of managing 130 MID Survey Response, 2022-02-03 (Q14). 131 MID Survey Response, 2022-02-03 (Q15). 132 MID Survey Response, 2022-02-03 (Q16). 133 MID Survey Response, 2022-02-03 (Q21). 134 MID Survey Response, 2022-02-03 (Q18). 135 MID Survey Response, 2022-02-03 (Q19). Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 10. Merced Irrigation District (MID) Page 57 local groundwater supplies in a way to reach sustainability on the timeframe indicated in the plan.136 In response to drought conditions, MID utilizes a wide variety of tools to address challenges relating to water supply conditions every year, including drought conditions. Tools include annual water supply determinations made by the Board of Directors; conjunctive groundwater management operations; temporary/annual in-District policy determinations.137 Determinations (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. MID anticipates a likely increase in demand for water, depending on a number of factors and is taking steps to address future needs, but this is due to agricultural demand, not population growth. As noted by the District, urban encroachment increases flood liability, seepage claims and incidents of drowning and near drowning. It also can negatively impact existing MID facilities. Local planning authorities should incorporate MID's proposed conditions (sent via planning responses) into all proposed developments.138 (2) The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. Several disadvantaged communities exist within MID’s SOI including areas near Le Grand, Planada, Merced, Atwater, Livingston, Celeste, and Cressey. While these communities may utilize MID’s recreation and other services and facilities, residents do not depend on MID irrigation services. (3) Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. MID anticipates that there is likely to be a generally increased demand for MID water, depending on if, how and when various laws and regulations are implemented, including for example, the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan and Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. To address increasing demand, MID has developed a Water Resources Management Plan to identify a variety of capital improvement projects that will both modernize and make more efficient portions of MID’s water conveyance system. MID is also active in developing groundwater recharge projects and other projects for the purpose of improving water efficiency and overall water supplies. (4) Financial ability of agencies to provide services. 136 MID Survey Response, 2022-02-03 (Q22); and MID review of the Public Review Draft MSR dated 2022-06-06. 137 MID Survey Response, 2022-02-03 (Q20). 138 MID Survey Response, 2022-02-03 (Q30). Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 10. Merced Irrigation District (MID) Page 58 MID’s budget reports that MID’s finances remain strong and the District anticipates that its Water Resources Management Plan will ensure that its facilities, staff and funding are sufficient for now and the future. Generally, the District establishes water and energy prices that are sufficient to provide for payment of general operations and maintenance expenses, capital improvements, annual debt service, and comply with cash reserve policies. MID policies establish reserve targets; the District’s estimated Water Resources reserves of $23.1 million meet MID’s target and is nearly equal to annual expenditures. The MID consolidated financial report indicates a positive net position. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 10. Merced Irrigation District (MID) Page 59 (5) Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. MID owns and operates more than 800 miles of water conveyance facilities. Included in those facilities are local creeks and streams, which are utilized by Merced County, the City of Merced, etc. for purposes of storm water conveyance in the irrigation off-season. (6) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. MID follows all legal requirements for Brown Act compliance, public records requests, transparency and outreach, and maintenance of a website. (7) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. No other matters were identified. Sphere of Influence Review The District has no plans to modify its boundary and/or Sphere of Influence within the next 5 years. Over the past several years, the Sphere of Influence was actually reduced by several thousand acres as other irrigation districts were formed or expanded involving the AWD, TIWD, and the LGAWD. MID currently provides a range of services in addition to irrigation and has no plans to expand the range and type of service provided.139 139 MID Survey Response, 2022-02-03 (Q31, Q32). Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 11. MERQUIN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (MCWD) Merquin County Water District (MCWD) was formed in 1973 through Merced County Board of Supervisors Resolution 73-245140 to provide irrigation water to landowners of the District under the provisions of Division 12 of the California Water Code known as the “County Water District Law.”141 Table 10 summarizes general District information. The boundaries of MCWD encompass 9,961 acres located at the confluence of the Merced and San Joaquin rivers in Merced County. The boundaries of MCWD are identified in Figure 10. Within its service area, MCWD provides agricultural irrigation to approximately 100 customers annually via 50 miles of pipes and canals, and through connections off Stevinson Water District's Eastside Canal and private irrigator connections off of MCWD's laterals. The District also provides stormwater drainage and dewatering services to help support agricultural activities within the District. Table 10 Summary of Merquin County Water District Governance and Operations Year of Formation 1973 Type of Agency California Water District Enabling Act or Code California Water Code Section 34000 et. seq Area 9,961 acres Population n/a Governing Body Board of Directors Number of Directors 5 Board Meeting Dates 2nd Tuesday and 4th Wednesday of the month Board Meetings/Location 19684 2nd Avenue Stevinson, CA 95374 Link to Current Agenda merquincountywaterdistrict.com # of Staff 3 full-time, 2 part-time # of Customers 100 landowners MCWD holds a joint seat on the Merced Subbasin GSA with Stevinson Water District. The GSA’s plan considers goals for reducing well pumping, and in the future, manage pumping from wells currently the responsibility of MCWD.142 140 County of Merced Water and Sewer Service Providers Municipal Service Review, Prepared by EPS (#17053), as Approved by LAFCO October 23, 2008, pg. 26. 141 MCWD Annual Financial Report, June 30, 2020, Note 1 pg. 10. 142 MCWD, Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors, March 24, 2021, Item 3, Merced Subbasin GSA Update. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 11. Merquin County Water District (MCWD) Page 61 Figure 10 Merquin County Water District Boundary and Sphere of Influence Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 11. Merquin County Water District (MCWD) Page 62 Governance and Operations A five-member Board of Directors, elected by registered voters, holds public meetings on the 2nd Tuesday and 4th Wednesday of the month. MCWD indicated in its response to LAFCO’s data request that it has four board members and no vacancies, which is inconsistent with the State’s Water Code governing County Water Districts that requires five board members. Board members receive $50 per board meeting for time and travel costs. The District indicates that the agenda is posted at least 72 hours before the meeting at the meeting location and on the website and has adopted procedures to ensure compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act for agenda noticing, public hearings, and decision-making. The District has adopted policies for public records act requests.143 MCWD maintains a website and a link to the most current agenda.144 The website includes no other information such as its budget and financial reports, current board members, or links to employee compensation information. MCWD’s operating revenues are primarily from water charges ($479,600) and assessments ($87,750), supplemented by property taxes ($118,500) and other miscellaneous revenues including interest.145 The revenues cover operating expenditures, capital for vehicles, and contingency. The District has cash reserves of approximately $1.1 million and an unrestricted net position of approximately $1 million,146 and has no debt. No reserve policies were identified. The District is discussing potential increases to its current assessments of $9 per acre.147 Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services148 MCWD’s infrastructure includes 50 miles of pipes, canals and open ditches, and 21 wells. The District reports that its current infrastructure “is in adequate condition and MCWD has an ongoing maintenance schedule.” Current capital improvement plans include replacement of worn-out wells, additional well sites, and converting open ditches to piping. Ditches owned by MCWD are used by the Stevinson Water District to transport water to transport irrigation water to lands outside MCWD’s boundary.149 143 MCWD Survey Response, 2021-10-13 (Q1-Q9). 144 https://merquincountywaterdistrict.com/ 145 MCWD Budget FY21-22, Reso. No. 2021-3. 146 MCWD Annual Financial Report, June 30, 2020. Cash reserves from “Cash and Equivalents”. 147 MCWD Survey Response, 2021-10-13 (Q19d, Q24). 148 MCWD Survey Response, 2021-10-13 (Q10-Q12). 149 County of Merced Water and Sewer Service Providers Municipal Service Review, Prepared by EPS (#17053), as Approved by LAFCO October 23, 2008, pg. 27. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 11. Merquin County Water District (MCWD) Page 63 Demand and Capacity The District imports of its surface water, or 14,211 acre-feet during normal and wet hydrologic years, under contract to the Eastside Canal Company.150 The District monitors groundwater levels based on its wells; no groundwater subsidence is experienced.151 Current water sources are adequate to meet current demand; no growth in demand is expected.152 MCWD implements water rationing and caps during drought conditions.153 To supplement the supply of surface water, MCWD uses its 21 well sites to pump water for use by growers within the District. In addition to providing irrigation water, these wells are also used to lower the water table when groundwater rises too close to the ground surface. .154 Determinations (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. The MCWD area is not urbanized and no significant increase in the current household population is anticipated. (2) The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. The unincorporated community of Stevinson, a census-designated place, is a DUC located within MCWD boundaries. (3) Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. Facilities, services and water sources are adequate to meet current demand. The District continues to repair and upgrade its facilities. (4) Financial ability of agencies to provide services. MCWD has the financial ability to provide services. (5) Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. MCWD facilities transport water outside its boundaries for the benefit of the Stevinson Water District. No other sharing opportunities were identified. 150 MCWD Survey Response, 2021-10-13 (Q13-Q15). 151 MCWD Survey Response, 2021-10-13 (Q21-Q22). 152 MCWD Survey Response, 2021-10-13 (Q18-Q19). 153 MCWD Survey Response, 2021-10-13 (Q20). 154 MCWD Response to Draft MSR, 2022-05-18. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 11. Merquin County Water District (MCWD) Page 64 (6) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. MCWD follows all legal requirements for accountability. MCWD’s website includes its current agenda; however, its website should also include past agenda and minutes, related reports, and MCWD financial documents. The District indicated it is currently working to upgrade the website and provide more information. (7) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. No other matters were identified. Sphere of Influence Review The District has no plans to modify its boundary and/or Sphere of Influence within the next five years.155 155 MCWD Survey Response, 2021-10-13 (Q29). Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 12. PACHECO WATER DISTRICT (PWD) The Pacheco Water District (PWD) was formed in 1953 and provides water for farmland irrigation and domestic use. The District is a Federal water contractor that receives allocated surface water supplies through the San Luis Canal (SLC) and Delta-Mendota Canal (DMC) via Central California Irrigation District’s (CCID’s) Outside Canal. The District also has access to other sources of water through exchanges.156 PWD encompasses approximately 5,000 acres as shown in Figure 11, in the northwestern portion of Fresno County between Interstate 5 and the town of Firebaugh, California. Table 11 summarizes general District information. PWD also provides drainage service. The District participates in the San Joaquin River Improvement Project (SJRIP), which is a group of water Districts working together to provide drainage for agricultural land. These Districts include Panoche Water & Drainage District, Firebaugh Canal Water District, Charleston Drainage District, Camp 13 Drainage District.157 Table 11 Summary of Pacheco Water District Governance and Operations PWD is a member and active participant of the Central Delta-Mendota Region Multi-agency GSA. 156 PWD Modernization Study, Summers Engineering, March 2019. 157 County of Merced Water and Sewer Service Providers Municipal Service Review, Prepared by EPS (#17053), as Approved by LAFCO October 23, 2008, pg. 29. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 12. Pacheco Water District (PWD) Page 66 Figure 11 Pacheco Water District Boundary and Sphere of Influence Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 12. Pacheco Water District (PWD) Page 67 Governance and Operations158 All five board seats, elected by landowners, currently are filled. Board members do not receive pay or benefits. PWD prepares an agenda for each meeting which is posted at least 72 hours before the meeting outside the meeting location. The District has adopted procedures to comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act for agenda noticing, public hearings, and decision-making. PWD maintains a website with a link to its most current agenda. The agendas on the website do not include related reports and documentation. The District indicated that it sends out newsletters, as necessary, and has an annual landowner/water user meeting. PWD did not provide a copy of its budget as requested during this MSR update and financial documents are not posted on the website; however, information available from the State Controller reported total revenues of $2.56 million primarily consisting of water sales and charges and the balance in various other non-operating revenues which, in total, approximately equal expenditures. Outstanding debt was $227,170 as of 03/01/21. The District’s reserves were approximately $1.2 million, and its unrestricted net position was $1,270,181.159 The majority of those funds were expended in January of 2021 to pay off Federal debt obligations to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation under the Federal WIIN Act Legislation. The District adopted new rates effective March 1st for FY2021: operations and maintenance rate $120/AF; drainage assessments $94.20/acre; and SGMA assessments of $113.08/Acre. The District reported no financial issues. Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services The District's water delivery system is comprised of lined and earthen ditches, open drains, limited pipeline sections, and a series of lift pump stations. The District also owns production wells. The District is in the process of evaluating the cost and feasibility of options to address the flow capacity of the Main Lift Canal system, the age and physical condition of the water delivery facilities, and water quality. The recommended improvements were estimated to cost $1.3 million.160 The District plans to begin completing the high priority improvements as its budget allows; the District is considering revenue sources to fund the improvements.161 The District indicated that it has a Master Plan but it was not provided with its response to the MSR data request.162 158 PWD Survey Response, 2021-09-29 (Q1-Q09). 159 PWD Independent Auditor's Report and Financial Statements, Feb. 29, 2020, Statement of Net Position. 160 PWD Modernization Study, Summers Engineering, March 2019, Table 9, pg. 45. 161 PWD Survey Response, 2021-09-29 (Q19d). 162 PWD Survey Response, 2021-09-29 (Q10, Q12). Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 12. Pacheco Water District (PWD) Page 68 Demand and Capacity163 The average annual usage for the District is 9,455 acre-feet and the average daily peak summer time flow is 30 cubic feet per second (60 acre-feet/day). The Districts production capacity (historical average deliveries) is 9,455 acre-feet per year. On a normal year 74% comes from contract surface water, 18% comes from groundwater and 8% comes from imported surface water. The imported water could come from a variety of sources. The District is a member of the San Luis & Delta Mendota Water Authority (Authority). Within the Authority, the District participates in their water transfer program through an activity agreement. The "imported" water may come through a variety of sources each and every year depending on hydrology. Landowners within the District have private (non-District) access to outside water transfers. The water transfers are from local water districts (Firebaugh Canal Water District, Panoche Water District, and San Luis Water District). On a normal year, no water transfer water is needed, however, due to the drought in 2021, 814 acre-feet was transferred in. The PWD facilities are adequate but the sources are not. On a normal year, the District needs to have long term agreements in place to purchase 4,000 af of supplemental surface water. The District is currently working with local water districts to establish long term surplus water contracts. The supplemental surface water should suffice for any future growth in demand based on crop conversion.164 Determinations (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. The PWD area is not urbanized and no significant increase in the current household population is anticipated. (2) The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. No disadvantaged unincorporated communities exist within or adjacent to PWD boundaries. (3) Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. The PWD facilities and services are adequate to meet current demand but the sources of water are not. The District is currently working with local water districts to establish long term surplus water contracts. 163 PWD Survey Response, 2021-09-29 (Q13-Q16). 164 PWD Survey Response, 2021-09-29 (Q18-Q19). Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 12. Pacheco Water District (PWD) Page 69 (4) Financial ability of agencies to provide services. PWD has the financial ability to provide services. The District adopted new rates effective March 1st for FY2021 and identified no financial issues. (5) Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. The District does not utilize shared facilities and no sharing opportunities were identified. (6) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. PWD follows all legal requirements for transparency. Its website includes its current agenda; however, its website should also include past agenda and minutes, related reports, and PWD financial documents. (7) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. No other matters were identified. Sphere of Influence Review The District has no plans to modify its boundary and/or Sphere of Influence within the next five years.165 165 PWD Survey Response, 2021-09-29 (Q29). Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 13. PLAINSBURG IRRIGATION DISTRICT (PID) PID was formed in 1919. PID has no infrastructure or source of water. The District is a member of and works with the Merced Subbasin GSA and participates in its planning process. PID encompasses approximately 5,000 acres, as shown in Figure 12. Table 12 summarizes general District information. Table 12 Summary of Plainsburg Irrigation District Governance and Operations Year of Formation 1919 Type of Agency Irrigation District Enabling Act or Code Water Code Sec. 20500 - 29978 Area (Acres) Population Unknown Governing Body Board of Directors Number of Directors 5 Board Meeting Dates 2nd Thursday of Month (Meeting Quarterly January, April, July, October) Board Meeting Location 8736 S. Minturn Road Le Grand, CA 95333 Link to Current Agenda no website # of Staff no staff # of Customers Unknown PID is a member of the Merced Subbasin GSA. The District shares a seat, on a rotating basis, with the neighboring LeGrand-Athlone Water District. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 13. Plainsburg Irrigation District (PID) Page 71 Figure 12 Plainsburg Irrigation District Boundary and Sphere of Influence Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 13. Plainsburg Irrigation District (PID) Page 72 Governance and Operations166 Four of five board seats, elected by landowners, currently are filled. According to the District’s budget, board members are not paid and do not receive benefits. PID prepares an agenda for each meeting which is posted at least 72 hours before the meeting outside the meeting location. The District has not adopted procedures to comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act for agenda noticing, public hearings, and decision-making, and has not adopted policies to deal with Public Records Act requests. PWD does not maintain a website and has not adopted a resolution of hardship in compliance with Government Code Section 53087.8(b) to exempt itself from the website requirement. The District indicates that it has mailed and emailed newsletters and postcards to landowners for public outreach and communication. The District’s budget relies on landowner contributions of $10 per acre. The District’s budget shows total revenues of $30,000 which fund overhead and administrative costs including $3,600 for website fees. The District reports no debt and its budget projected an anticipated ending cash balance of $26,500.167 The District indicates that it has no reserve policies. The District does not have any current or anticipated service or financial issues. Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services PID owns no infrastructure. The District participates in GSA activities; it has no plans to expand its services. Demand and Capacity The District has no water supply and does not distribute water to landowners. Determinations (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. The PID area is not urbanized and no significant increase in the current household population is anticipated. (2) The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. No disadvantaged unincorporated communities exist within or adjacent to PID boundaries. 166 PID Survey Response (Q1-Q9). 167 Adopted Plainsburg Irrigation District Budget, July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 13. Plainsburg Irrigation District (PID) Page 73 (3) Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. PID owns no infrastructure. (4) Financial ability of agencies to provide services. PID has the financial ability to provide the limited services it currently provides involving Groundwater Sustainability Plan participation. (5) Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. The District does not utilize shared facilities and no sharing opportunities were identified. (6) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. PID posts agendas as required by law. The District The has not adopted procedures to comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act for agenda noticing, public hearings, and decision-making, and has not adopted policies to deal with Public Records Act requests. PID does not maintain a website and has not adopted a resolution of hardship in compliance with Government Code Section 53087.8(b) to exempt itself from the website requirement. (7) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. No other matters were identified. Sphere of Influence Review The District has no plans to modify its boundary and/or Sphere of Influence within the next five years.168 168 Plainsburg Water District Survey Response (Q29). Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 14. SAN LUIS WATER DISTRICT (SLWD) The San Luis Water District (SLWD) was formed in 1951. The District supplies water primarily for agricultural purposes, as well as to some municipal and industrial uses. In addition to agricultural irrigation service, The District provides municipal and industrial (M&I) water service as a part of its Central Valley Project (CVP). M&I water users receive an allocation of water which is separate from the allocation received by agricultural users. The District also operates a surface water treatment plant and a wastewater treatment plant for the San Luis Hills community. Services provided to the community include potable water, wastewater, irrigation water (for landscaping), and reclaimed water (for fire protection).169 SLWD covers 55,316 acres170 in Fresno and Merced Counties as shown in Figure 13. The District is located on the western side of the San Joaquin Valley near Los Banos. Table 13 summarizes general District information. The District is a member of the Central Delta-Mendota Groundwater Sustainability Agency (CDMGSA) which is organized as a joint powers authority. The CDMGSA, along with the City of Patterson GSA, DM-II GSA, Northwestern Delta-Mendota GSA, Oro Loma Water District GSA, Patterson Irrigation District GSA, West Stanislaus Irrigation District GSA, and the Widren Water District GSA prepared the North Central Delta-Mendota Groundwater Sustainability Plan. A total of six groundwater sustainability plans along with a coordination agreement were submitted to the California Department of Water Resources to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014.171 Table 13 Summary of San Luis Water District Governance and Operations 169 San Luis Water District Survey Response, 2021-09-30 (Q32). 170 Central Delta-Mendota Region SGMA Services Activity Agreement/MOA Cost Share, Appendix A - Coordination Agreement, pdf pg. 142. 171 San Luis Water District Survey Response, 2021-09-30 (Q17). Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 14. San Luis Water District (SLWD) Page 75 Figure 13 San Luis Water District Boundary and Sphere of Influence Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 14. San Luis Water District (SLWD) Page 76 Governance and Operations172 All five board seats, elected by landowners, currently are filled. Board members do not receive pay or benefits. An agenda is prepared for each meeting. The agenda is posted at least 72 hours before the meeting unless exigent circumstances warrant and legally allowed exceptions apply. The location of the posting is on the window adjacent to the entrance to the district office located at 1015 Sixth Street in Los Banos. The agendas are also posted on the District’s website with a direct link to the agenda.173 The District has adopted procedures to comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act for agenda noticing, public hearings, and decision-making, and has adopted policies to deal with Public Records Act requests. The District’s agendas on the website do not include related reports and documentation, and financial information is not posted to the website. The website does include plan documents. The District communicates with its landowners, growers, interested parties, and the public through mailings, electronic mail, newsletters, public meetings, workshops, and the District website. Approximately 80 percent of District revenues derive from water charges. The District’s last rate or assessment study was conducted in 2020 and was performed as a part of a Proposition 218 Engineers Report supporting a proposed U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Repayment Contract Bond Assessment. The District’s charges include administrative and environmental restoration fees, and additional charges apply within two improvement districts to pay for operations and maintenance fees specific to each area.174 The District also has a per acre standby charge for water service. After expenditures for administrative, operating and debt service costs, including water acquisition costs, the District’s FY21-22 budget shows a $1.45 million surplus.175 The District’s website does not post current or past budgets or financial audits, but these documents were provided upon request for the purpose of this MSR. The SLWD fiscal year runs from March 1 through the end of February. The District has reserve policies which are being met; each year the District’s independent auditor performs a review of the reserve requirements and reserve balances to verify that the amount of funding held in reserves complies with the appropriate policy. The SLWD financial statements reported an unrestricted net position of $21.3 million.176 The District has long-term debt associated with the Delta Habitat Conservation and Conveyance Program (DHCCP), Grasslands Water District, and the CVP Repayment Contract.177 172 San Luis Water District Survey Response, 2021-09-30 (Q1-Q09). 173 www.slwdwater.com 174 San Luis Water District Survey Response, 2021-09-30 (Q24-Q28). 175 San Luis Water District FY21-22 Budget, Executive Summary. 176 SLWD Independent Auditor’s Report and Financial Statements, Feb. 29, 2020. 177 San Luis Water District Survey Response, 2021-09-30 (Q25-26). Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 14. San Luis Water District (SLWD) Page 77 Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services Most of the District’s infrastructure was constructed in the 1960’s and 1970’s and is at least fifty years old. Improvements have been made to increase capacity at certain facilities where needed. The facilities are in fair condition but components (such as pumps and motors) that have not been rebuilt or replaced since initial construction need rebuilding or replacement. The District has a program in place to rebuild and replace these components.178 The District has identified a need to provide for the disposal of drain water internally (i.e., within the District boundaries). The District is currently developing the Long-Term Drainage Implementation Master Plan to identify a cost-effective alternative to disposal of drain water outside of the District’s boundaries.179 The District has an infrastructure master plan. Every five years, the District updates and adopts a water management plan as required by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the State of California. The District’s most recent plan is the 2020 Water Management Plan which was adopted on August 31, 2021, and is available on the District’s website. The 2020 Water Management Plan contains information about the District and its infrastructure, water demands, water supplies, deliveries, water management practices, and planned future water management actions and projects. The adopted 2020 Water Management Plan serves as the District’s infrastructure master plan. The District is on track with the timeline outlined in the adopted 2020 Water Management Plan.180 Demand and Capacity The District relies almost exclusively on imported water to meet the needs of the District. The District has no pre-1914 or post-1914 appropriative water rights and does not produce surface water through local diversion or storage projects. The District does not own any groundwater wells and does not produce groundwater from pumping. Some landowners within the District have groundwater wells and may produce groundwater from their wells to meet some or all of their irrigation needs; however, the majority of the lands underlying the District do not have access to reliable groundwater that is of a quality suitable for irrigation.181 Flow rates delivered to growers vary, for example, ranging from 63,307 acre-feet in water year 2016-17 to 76,100 acre-feet in water year 2019-20. Deliveries to growers are made from multiple diversion points and instantaneous or daily peak flows for the entire District are not measured. The peak month for deliveries is July and the total amount of water that was delivered for July 2020 was 13,745 acre-feet.182 178 SLWD Survey Response, 2021-09-30 (Q10). 179 SLWD Survey Response, 2021-09-30 (Q11). 180 SLWD Survey Response, 2021-09-30 (Q12). 181 SLWD Survey Response, 2021-09-30 (Q13). 182 SLWD Survey Response, 2021-09-30 (Q14). Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 14. San Luis Water District (SLWD) Page 78 The District has no local water source and all water brought into the District is imported water. The District imports most of its water from the U.S Bureau of Reclamation under a Permanent Water Service Contract.183 When the District’s allocation of CVP water under the contract is not sufficient to meet its demands, it generally imports water from other CVP contractors through exchanges or transfers. A copy of the contract is available on the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation website.184 The District relies on water from the CVP to serve its agricultural and municipal and industrial customers. Unfortunately, the CVP water supply is unreliable and contract allocations by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation have decreased significantly over time. Additional actions such as the adoption of the Bay-Delta Plan and associated water quality standards which prescribe outflow requirements on the San Joaquin and Sacramento River tributaries will cause further impacts on CVP reliability. For water year 2021, CVP agricultural customers south of the Delta received no allocation and CVP M&I customers were allocated 25% of their historical usage or minimum amounts required for health and safety, whichever is greater.185 To increase its water supply, the District engages in various water transfers and exchanges on an on-going basis to address shortfalls in the District’s CVP contract water supply. The District is also investigating and pursuing projects that will allow it to develop new water supplies and store wet-year water supplies for use as dry-year supplies in later years.186 As a result of the diminished CVP water supply, the District is unable to serve new M&I customers and new M&I developments within its service area. M&I water provided to existing developments, if served, would decrease M&I supplies available for existing customers.187 Except for drought years, the District’s Facilities, staff, funding and water sources are adequate to meet future demand.188 The District experiences fluctuations in water use and demand from year to year as hydrological and economic conditions fluctuate; however, long-term growth in water use and demand are not anticipated within the District for the foreseeable future. Conversion from row crops to permanent crops is not significant within the District at this time as landowners rely on having row crop land to fallow during dry year.189 183 Contract No. 14-06-200-7773A-IR1-P. 184 https://www.usbr.gov/mp/wiinact/negotiated-conversion-contracts.html 185 SLWD Survey Response, 2021-09-30 (Q28). 186 SLWD Survey Response, 2021-09-30 (Q19e). 187 SLWD Survey Response, 2021-09-30 (Q28). 188 SLWD Survey Response, 2021-09-30 (Q19e). 189 SLWD Survey Response, 2021-09-30 (Q19e). Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 14. San Luis Water District (SLWD) Page 79 Determinations (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. Long-term growth in water use and demand are not anticipated within the District for the foreseeable future. Future water allocation limits will constrain the ability of the District to serve new uses. (2) The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. No disadvantaged unincorporated communities exist within or adjacent to SLWD boundaries. (3) Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. Except for drought years, the District’s Facilities, staff, funding and water sources are adequate to meet future demand. (4) Financial ability of agencies to provide services. SLWD has the financial ability to provide services; however, future water allocation limits will constrain the ability of the District to serve new uses. (5) Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. The District does not utilize shared facilities and no sharing opportunities were identified. (6) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. SLWD posts agendas as required by law. The District has adopted procedures to comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act for agenda noticing, public hearings, and decision-making, and has adopted policies to deal with Public Records Act requests. SLWD maintains a website with a direct link to the agenda; the website does not post agenda-related documents, nor does it include current or past budgets and financial audits. (7) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. No other matters were identified. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 14. San Luis Water District (SLWD) Page 80 Sphere of Influence Review Other than the reorganization described below, the District has no plans within the next five years to modify its boundary or its sphere of influence. The District has applied to LAFCO in 2006 for a reorganization involving the Santa Nella County Water District (LAFCO File No. 0642). The reorganization involves the detachment of 2,969 acres from the District involving the O’Neil Forebay Complex and an adjacent 200-acre parcel that is designated as agricultural. The reorganization has received eleven twelve-month extensions to date and a twelfth extension is expected. The reorganization has been delayed because it involves the partial reassignment of a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation CVP Water Service Contract from the District to Santa Nella County Water District. Various obstacles to the partial reassignment have been resolved and the effort to negotiate the partial reassignment with the Bureau of Reclamation is proceeding.190 190 SLWD Survey Response, 2021-09-30 (Q29). Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 15. STEVINSON WATER DISTRICT (SWD) The Stevinson Water District (SWD) was formed in 1928 to provide agricultural irrigation services to two customers between the months of April and September; one of these customers is the Merquin County Water District (MCWD); the primary water user within SWD is East Side Canal and Irrigation Company (ESC).191 SWD encompasses approximately 3,628 acres,192 as shown in Figure 14. Table 14 summarizes general District information. Acreage within the District consists of farmland that is located in Stevinson, California. The District provides irrigation water to lands lying just south of the confluence of the Merced and San Joaquin Rivers on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley. Table 14 Summary of Stevinson Water District Governance and Operations SWD is a member of the Merced Subbasin GSA and provides funding to support the GSA’s activities.193 191 County of Merced Water and Sewer Service Providers Municipal Service Review, Prepared by EPS (#17053), as Approved by LAFCO October 23, 2008. 192 County of Merced Water and Sewer Service Providers Municipal Service Review, Prepared by EPS (#17053), as Approved by LAFCO October 23, 2008. 193 SWD Independent Accountants’ Report, financial statements as of December 31, 2020, and 2019, Adair and Evans, June 2, 2021. See Note 5 re: GSA JPA. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 15. Stevinson Water District (SWD) Page 82 Figure 14 Stevinson Water District Boundary and Sphere of Influence Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 15. Stevinson Water District (SWD) Page 83 Governance and Operations194 Five board seats, appointed by the County Board of Supervisors, currently are filled. Each board member receives $100 per meeting attended. SWD prepares an agenda for each meeting which is posted at least 72 hours before the meeting outside the meeting location. The District has adopted procedures to comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act for agenda noticing, public hearings, and decision-making, and has adopted policies to deal with Public Records Act requests. The District adopted a resolution of hardship in January 2020 in compliance with Government Code Section 53087.8(b) to exempt itself from the website requirement; since then, it developed and maintains a website with a link to the current agenda but no agenda documents, budgets, financial reports or other documents are posted on the site. The District indicates that its website provides for public outreach and communications. The District submitted its FY21-22 budget to the County Auditor Controller estimating $750,000 in revenue from water sales. This revenue covers administrative and operating costs, leaving a net of $71,500.195 The District’s audited financial statements reported current assets, including cash, of $122,569 and an unrestricted net position, including intangible assets (primarily the cost of its water contract), of $1,888,944; the District has no long-term debts except an “advance payable” of approximately $600,000 to ESC. The District did not indicate whether it has reserve policies. Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services As described in the SWD audited financial statements,196 the District has a long-term delivery contract with ESC, whereby ESC provides supervision and maintenance services to the District and transports, delivers and conveys water owned by the District. ESC is a wholly owned subsidiary of James J. Stevinson Corporation. The District owns the East Side Canal and related laterals that are used in transporting both water delivered by MID pursuant to the 1929 Agreement as well as other water derived from appropriative rights held by the District and ESC. In order for ESC to transport, deliver and convey water owned by the District in fulfillment of the Delivery agreements, as well as water owned by ESC, ESC entered into an agreement in 1944 with the District to lease the East Side Canal. The term of the lease was for a one (1) year period with annual one (1) year extensions, and it has continued since inception until the present date. ESC has used, maintained and operated the Canal for the transportation, delivery and conveyance of the District water to the District's lands in Merced and Stanislaus Counties, as well as to other District customers. ESC has also used the Canal for the conveyance of appropriative water the ESC owns to customers of ESC. Pursuant to a 2010 Agreement for Partition of Water Rights and Exchange of Water between the District and ESC, all water derived from appropriative water rights jointly held by the District an ESC is first to be delivered to the District's lands to meet the irrigation needs of the owners of such lands. Once the needs of the District's lands 194 SWD Survey Response (Q1-Q9). 195 SWD letter transmitting FY21-22 budget to Merced County Auditor-Controller, May 24, 2021. 196 SWD Independent Accountants’ Report, financial statements as of December 31, 2020 and 2019, Adair and Evans, June 2, 2021. See Note 8 re: Related Party Transactions. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 15. Stevinson Water District (SWD) Page 84 have been satisfied, ESC may convey and sell any excess waters for use on other lands within the flow of the Canal for ESC's sole benefit. SWD must also pay ESC for any water used from ESC’s wells. In response to LAFCO’s data request during the preparation of this MSR, the District did not indicate whether there had been any changes to its facilities as reported in the 2008 MSR;197 facilities included 7 pumps and 26 miles of pipes and canals. In addition, facilities owned by MCWD and in some cases improved by SWD are used by SWD to transport irrigation water per agreements between MCWD and SWD. SWD is planning the construction of three new SCADA sites and undertakes conservation projects. The District reports that it has no service needs or deficiencies.198 Demand and Capacity The District utilizes approximately 26,400 acre-feet of surface water annually, and approximately 1-3,000 acre-feet of groundwater. No increase in demand is anticipated and current sources are adequate to meet demand.199 The District monitors groundwater levels and reports no subsidence.200 Determinations (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. The SWD area is not urbanized and no significant increase in the current household population is anticipated. (2) The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. No disadvantaged unincorporated communities exist within or adjacent to SWD boundaries. (3) Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. Current infrastructure and supplies are adequate, and no growth in demand is anticipated. (4) Financial ability of agencies to provide services. SWD has the financial ability to provide services. 197 SWD Survey Response (Q34). 198 SWD Survey Response (Q10-Q11). 199 SWD Survey Response (Q18-Q19). 200 SWD Survey Response (Q21-Q22). Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 15. Stevinson Water District (SWD) Page 85 (5) Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. The District owns the East Side Canal and related laterals that are used in transporting water delivered by MID and conveyed to its customers. The Eastside Canal and Irrigation Company leases the Eastside Canal and provides operation and conveyance services to the District. No other sharing opportunities were identified. (6) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. SWD posts agendas as required by law. The District has adopted procedures to comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act for agenda noticing, public hearings, and decision-making, and has adopted policies to deal with Public Records Act requests. SWD maintains a website. (7) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. No other matters were identified. Sphere of Influence Review The District has no plans to modify its boundary and/or Sphere of Influence within the next five years.201 201 SWD Survey Response (Q29). Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 16. TURNER ISLAND WATER DISTRICT (TIWD) The Turner Island Water District (TIWD) was formed on July 8, 1966, as a California Water District. The District historically covered approximately 7,987 acres in Merced County and provided agricultural irrigation service to five customers. The boundaries of TIWD were expanded in 2017 to include 6,705 acres of adjacent territory for SGMA planning purposes; those annexed areas will not be entitled to receive or supply irrigation water as a part of the District.202 Figure 15 shows the boundary and Sphere of Influence (SOI) which is coterminous with the boundary. Table 15 summarizes general District information. Table 15 Summary of Turner Island Water District Governance and Operations Year of Formation 1966 Type of Agency Water District Enabling Act or Code Water Code 34000 et seq Area 14,692 acres Population n/a Governing Body Board of Directors Number of Directors 5 Board Meeting Dates 2nd Tuesday of the Month Board Meetings/Location 7542 N. Ingram, Suite 102 Fresno, CA 93711 Link to Current Agenda www.turnerislandwaterdistrict.com # of Staff One manager # of Customers 5 landowners [subbasin and GSA membership activity] 202 LAFCo of Merced County, Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers MSR Update Involving the Turner Island Water District (Agenda Item VI.A), March 15, 2017. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 16. Turner Island Water District (TIWD) Page 87 Figure 15 Turner Island Water District Boundary and Sphere of Influence Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 16. Turner Island Water District (TIWD) Page 88 Governance and Operations203 The 2017 annexation proposed to create an additional board dedicated solely to GSA activities and current board members serve on both boards.204 The existing board continues to handle operations to territory excluding the annexed lands. The five board seats are currently filled; vacancies are filled by election or appointment. Board members receive no pay or benefits. TIWD prepares an agenda for each meeting which is posted at least 72 hours before the meeting outside the meeting location. The District follows State law and District bylaws with respect to complying with the Ralph M. Brown Act for agenda noticing, public hearings, and decision- making, and is developing policies to deal with Public Records Act requests. A District website is under development; the District has not adopted a resolution of hardship in January 2020 in compliance with Government Code Section 53087.8(b) to exempt itself from the website requirement. The District provides for public outreach and communications by holding meetings open to the public and maintaining a list of interested parties. TIWD derives its revenues primarily from rates and charges for the sale of irrigation water. The District owes approximately $650,000 of debt and incurs $150,000 in annual debt service payments; the debt will be repaid by July 2025.205 The District’s 2019 budget results indicated shortfalls due to “utility and maintenance costs that were higher than expected”206 and the District is addressing these conditions by more conservative practices. 2020 data reported to the State shows a slight overall improvement in net position.207 The District has no reserve policies.208 In the TIWD 2017 MSR Update the District indicated that it anticipates adopting a fee to be charged to all landowners for the planning and coordination functions related to compliance with SGMA – the fee has not yet been adopted. The District indicates they do not have any current or anticipated service or financial issues not otherwise noted.209 203 TIWD Survey Response (Q1-Q9), 2021-09-28. 204 TIWD Survey Response (Q17), 2021-09-28. 205 TIWD Survey Response (Q26), 2021-09-28. 206 TIWD Survey Response (Q27), 2021-09-28. 207 Cal. State Controller’s Office Local Government Financial Data, 2020. 208 TIWD Survey Response (Q25), 2021-09-28. 209 TIWD Survey Response (Q30), 2021-09-28. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 16. Turner Island Water District (TIWD) Page 89 Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services TWID maintains approximately 7 return pumps, 25 lift pumps, 24 wells, and 20 miles of canals and pipelines.210 The District is working on an improvements plan.211 The District indicated that facilities and sources are adequate to meet current demand, and “the District has maintenance plans to ensure we can continue to meet this demand.”212 Demand and Capacity The District provides agricultural irrigation service to five customers. The District indicated that "[it] can produce about 100 cfs, with 70% coming from surface water/imports. This varies year- to-year and usage depends on planted crops"213 Primary water sources for irrigation include the San Luis Canal Company and MID import.214 Water usage fluctuates slightly, but the surface supplies to the District provided by the adjacent San Luis Canal Company vary tremendously depending on drought conditions. According to the 2017 MSR Update, even though the average supply over the past 15 years was 15,425, in 2016 only 8,744 acre feet was available. The District also previously obtained between 2,247 and 4,655 acre feet of surface water from the Eastside Canal Company in Stevinson, however, no water has been obtained since 2011 due to drought conditions and high water prices. When surface water supplies are limited, more groundwater is pumped, or landowners receive a limit in the amount of water available from TWID. In addition, the District accepts storm water flows out of the Lone Tree Mutual Water Company under an MOU entered into in 1997.215 The District does not anticipate any changes in farming practices, or other growth, that would trigger a significant increase in demand. TWID reports that facilities, staff, funding, and water sources are adequate to meet current and expected future demand. The properties do not presently require a great deal of governmental services and controls. As indicated in the 2017 Municipal Service Review update, the 6,705 acres added through the recent annexation are not intended to change land uses or would receive irrigation services; rather, the District will seek common methods and plans to address the groundwater planning efforts under SGMA for the entire expanded District territory.216 210 TIWD 2017 MSR Update. 211 TIWD Survey Response (Q10), 2021-09-28. 212 TIWD Survey Response (Q18), 2021-09-28. 213 TIWD Survey Response (Q13-14), 2021-09-28. 214 TIWD Survey Response (Q15-16), 2021-09-28. 215 LAFCo of Merced County, Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers MSR Update Involving the Turner Island Water District (Agenda Item VI.A), March 15, 2017. 216 TIWD 2017 MSR Update. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 16. Turner Island Water District (TIWD) Page 90 The District monitors ground water levels and indicated that it encourages grower conservation and planting of crops to reduce peak demand. While there are no district-specific subsidence measurements, according to the District regional data suggests there is subsidence everywhere within the district. No mitigation measures have been adopted.217 Determinations (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. The TIWD area is not urbanized and no significant increase in the current household population is anticipated. (2) The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. No disadvantaged unincorporated communities exist within or adjacent to TIWD boundaries. (3) Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. Current infrastructure and supplies are adequate, and no growth in demand is anticipated. (4) Financial ability of agencies to provide services. No deficiencies have been identified in the District's ability to provide irrigation and drainage water services within the district, and no issues have been identified in annual independent audits performed for the district. In the TIWD 2017 MSR Update, the District indicated that it anticipates adopting a fee to be charged to all landowners for the planning and coordination functions related to compliance with SGMA – the fee has not yet been adopted. (5) Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. The district owns its own wells, canals, pumps, and turnouts, although it cooperated with neighboring districts and water companies to accept surface and drainage water when available. (6) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. The District follows State law and District bylaws with respect to complying with the Ralph M. Brown Act for agenda noticing public hearings, and decision-making, and is developing policies to deal with Public Records Act requests. The District website has been operational for about one year but only contains past meeting agendas and a link to the State Controller’s website for historic budget information. 217 TIWD Survey Response (Q20-22), 2021-09-28. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) County of Merced Agricultural Irrigation Service Providers Municipal Service Review June 2022 16. Turner Island Water District (TIWD) Page 91 The TIWD 2017 MSR Update identified a concern about efficient management if/when it created a second separate board to manage GSA affairs. However, that second board has not been created – the current board members also handle GSA affairs for the historic area served and the area annexed in 2017. In addition, several new landowners have replace the prior board members who served at the time of the 2017 annexation. (7) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. A LAFCO condition of approval on the lands within the 6,705-acre annexation in 2017 reflected the Pre-Annexation Agreement signed by the landowners, which indicated the limitation in service to be provided by the District is limited to SGMA-related activities and that should the District propose to supply or acquire water from the annexed lands, they need to return to LAFCO for approval and performance of any related environmental evaluation that may be necessary.218 Sphere of Influence Review The District has no plans to modify its boundary and/or Sphere of Influence within the next five years.219 218 TIWD 2017 MSR Update, Determinations. 219 TIWD Survey Response (Q29), 2021-09-28. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) APPENDICES: Appendix A: Abbreviations and Acronyms Appendix B: Additional District Maps APPENDIX A: Abbreviations and Acronyms ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS BA ........................................................................................................Berkson Associates CIWQS ...................................................... California Integrated Water Quality System Project County ....................................................................................................... Merced County CSD ......................................................................................... Community Services District CU FT, CF ...........................................................................................................c ubic feet CWD ................................................................................................. County Water District DAC ........................................................................................... Disadvantaged Community DUC ..................................................................... Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community DWR ..................................................................... California Department of Water Resources EPS ............................................................................... Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. GPD ........................................................................................................... gallons per day GPM ...................................................................................................... gallons per minute GSA ................................................................................ Groundwater Sustainability Agency GSP .................................................................................... Groundwater Sustainability Plan HCF ...................................................................................................... hundred cubic feet MGD ................................................................................................ million gallons per day MSR ............................................................................................. Municipal Service Review SGMA .................................................................. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act SOI ..................................................................................................... Sphere of Influence SWRCB ........................................................................ State Water Resources Control Board WIIN .................................................... Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act APPENDIX B: Additional District Maps Clayton Water District Boundary and Sphere of Influence Centinella Water District Boundary and Sphere of Influence