The California Sustainable Ground Water Act- expert Interview

David Gutierrez Program Manager for the Groundwater Sustainability Program within the Department of Water Resources discusses the California Sustainable Ground Water Act

I understand you’re wearing two hats at DWR and I’m curious, what was it in your career path that led to you having two key roles at DWR?

I’ve been around the DWR for 35 years now, and I’ve had the great opportunity to spend a lot of time in the Division of Safety of Dams, mainly because I really enjoy that kind of work. I love the engineering, and I love the projects that we complete. Although I’ve worked throughout the department in different functions, I’ve always come back to DSOD. The last several DWR directors have asked me to take on special assignments here and there, and I think the director chose me for the Sustainable Groundwater Management Program because of my familiarity with the DWR and my previous experience managing big programs. This is an important program for the state of California, and he wanted high-level executive oversight directly working on this one. When launching a new program like this, you have to be careful that you don’t grow too quickly. This is completely new, with new responsibilities. It’s unlike anything before. You have to grow at a constant and efficient pace. If you put too many people together too quickly, it’s hard to manage, and that’s why I’m involved instead of hiring somebody who’s unfamiliar with the department.

Now, to be clear, I don’t really wear two hats when I get these kinds of assignments. I’m still Chief of DSOD, but my DSOD workload has to go way down. I’m fortunate to have two great branch chiefs who take the reins for a while. I’ll stay connected with some of the high level projects, but I’m pretty much 100 percent on SMGA and a small amount on DSOD.

What would you like our readers to know about the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act?

There’s no such thing as perfect legislation, but this is a really good piece of legislation. It’s obvious that something was needed. Our groundwater situation has been deteriorating for decades and it’s about time that we deal with it. I think the act is well balanced — there’s enough direction, and there’s enough flexibility for us to implement it. I really like the way they laid out the undesirable results that we’re trying to avoid in the future. Those are some really good specifics and, though the timelines are somewhat aggressive, they’re aggressive because we need to deal with this. By the same token, the authors of the legislation understood that it took us 100 years to get to this situation, and we’re not going to turn it around overnight. We’re going to turn this around over a period of decades, making immediate progress along the way.

How does SGMA compare to the way groundwater is managed in other states?

Groundwater use varies so much across the country, so it’s like comparing apples to oranges. Some states use groundwater as little as 3 percent of their portfolio, and in other states, it’s as high as 96 percent. In California, we have seawater intrusion and subsidence, whereas other states might not have those concerns. On top of that, our geology is complex, and we have a huge population and a diverse economy to deal with. The way we’re implementing this in California is unique. The state is setting up the framework, but it’s going to be up to the local agencies to manage groundwater on a regional basis.

Some would say it’s taken much too long to get this in place and others argue that it’s overreaching and intrusive government. How do you strike the right balance in developing the regulations?

Striking a balance is key. You’ve got to be careful not to damage our economy by swinging too far one way too quickly. We have to balance our water supply and our water demand more effectively, and we have to do that carefully and thoughtfully. We’re able to do that because of the planning horizon we’re given in SGMA. We have to understand the impacts of taking too much groundwater as well as the impacts of changing the supply-demand balance in a timely manner. It is something we’re keenly aware of as we try to work through the issues to solve the problem.

There are sweeping changes anticipated in water law and policy ushered in by SGMA. How will DWR keep all of the parties informed as regulations are developed? What are your key methods for communication and what are the roles of the advisory groups?

Communication and outreach are crucial components to our success.

One good thing is that right now water is always in the news. The media is keeping it front and center, and they’re teaching the public about this. We have to make sure that it’s accurate, and we’re fortunate that we have a very thorough website. In addition, we’re all over the state. We’ve probably done 60 or 70 public meetings as part of our outreach effort. We’re working hard and will continue to do so. A key part of the act is that groundwater should be managed at the local level. The act clearly states that, the governor supports that, and the DWR supports that. Now if you buy into that key principle, which I certainly do, you must have a robust outreach effort. The last thing you’d want is for the DWR to go into the corner and figure out what the rules and the tools should be on their own. Instead, we are trying to interact with all of the stakeholders all the way through.

It should be understood that it’s our agency’s job to make tough decisions, and we’re not asking these groups to do it for us. What’s important is that we have a common understanding of what the issues are. There are some pluses and minuses of only having public meetings, in that if you get too diverse of a group you have different levels of knowledge, and they have different interests. And it’s difficult to get into the particulars of something as complex as this. So we’ve enlisted several advisory groups (close to a dozen statewide), in addition to public meetings, to take advantage of both forums and obtain feedback.

This is a heavy lift, and it is taking a lot of resources, but I feel it’s absolutely critical that we have a common understanding of issues with locals, who are going to run the show in the future.

What are the top success factors for the SGMA program, and how will progress be measured?

One is development of the governance structure. It’s all about that local agency management and local control. Multiple potential groundwater sustainability agencies must coordinate for this to be successful. Groundwater is unique in that you have these jurisdictional lines, but the groundwater doesn’t know it’s supposed to stop at those lines, so folks have to work together. We will be able to measure that pretty easily because there’s a deadline of June 2017 to form Groundwater Sustainability Agencies. Another factor is the Groundwater Sustainability Plan and the implementation of that plan over the years. Each plan will be different, and each plan will have measurable objectives. This is necessary due to the regional differences across California. There is a lot of uncertainty; there are a lot of data gaps we need to recognize, and we have to understand that we’re not necessarily going to hit our goals perfectly every time. We have to be adaptive yet always be making progress.

SGMA touches so many aspects of water in California. How will DWR clarify the numerous linkages between SGMA and urban water management planning efforts, water supply assessments (SB 610/221), and integrated regional water management planning?

This is a tough question. It’s complex because of our complex jurisdictions for water. When you look at SGMA and you look at the basin boundaries, the basin boundaries don’t necessarily line up with the local water agencies or counties, and that doesn’t necessarily line up with the integrated regional water management lines, etc. It is a complex web that we’re going to have to work through. But we recognize this.

The DWR has already put a team together that’s a combination of our SGMA team as well as our California Water Plan team. Our full intention is to clarify that linkage in the plan. The way I look at it, all of our water components and our planning efforts are going to feed into our Water Plan, and the Water Plan should explain how that all fits together. For instance, SGMA is going to develop a Groundwater Sustainability Plan that will identify some of the water reliability issues. Our hope is that the Water Plan will actually start laying that out for the next plan update in 2018.

Switching gears to your day job, what is the responsibility of the DSOD, and how has that changed over the years?

DSOD is a longstanding program. It was established in 1929 after the failure of St. Francis Dam in 1928. When you look at the mission of the program, it’s very simple: prevent dam failures, and prevent the loss of life and damage to property as a result of those failures. Over the years, that hasn’t changed, but what has changed is how we go about it. As you can imagine, what we knew in 1928 and what we know now from a technical standpoint is completely different.

What are some of the biggest challenges DSOD has faced?

There are 1,250 dams across the state; more than half of them are over 50 years old, and there’s a good chunk of them that are over 100 years old. It’s not that I worry too much about the fact that they are getting older; I worry more about the fact that they were built to a much lesser standard than what we have today.

In 1971, a major earthquake caused the Lower San Fernando Dam to slump 40 feet. At the end of the day, you had 5 feet remaining between the reservoir and the top of the dam. Luckily, there was already a water level restriction on it. Back then, they didn’t know a whole lot about earthquake engineering and dams, but they knew a little, and they got lucky. There were 80,000 people that lived just downstream of the dam, and it could have been the worst man-made disaster in United States history. We barely skated by that one, but we learned from it.

In the 1970s, we started learning about earthquake engineering and dam engineering. We’ve come a long way even over the last decade or so. The DSOD took a statewide approach to looking at all the dams again, and we’ve been fixing them up and down the state, including some of the worst dams in California. A perfect example of that is Calaveras Dam, which was built in 1917 and actually failed during construction. It didn’t do any harm, but after it failed, they built a 200-foot dam on top of it. We’ve now taken it out, and we’re building a new one.

The DSOD does really good work, and I think we’re one of the leaders in dam safety — not only across the country but the world. Knock on wood that we don’t have any problems in the future. Of course, when you do a good job and there are no dam failures, you have to worry about folks reducing the program in some way, shape or form. One of our challenges is making sure people understand the importance of safety of dams.

Are you seeing an increase in permitting and requests for new local storage facilities given the drought?

I have to give Southern California a lot of credit. They foresaw this many decades ago, and they knew that they needed emergency storage for a variety of reasons, not just drought. They went on a robust dam-building program over the last several years, they built off-stream reservoirs, and they’re pumping water into those reservoirs for future uses. Good examples are the Olivenhain Dam and the East Side Dam. The San Vicente Dam was raised just a few years ago. These projects have helped Southern California with some of the recent drought issues. We’re going to continue to see that kind of thing.

As you look back at your career, what are you most proud of?

I’ve been very fortunate to have worked on a lot of great projects, but to be honest, when I think about what I am most proud of, it’s not the projects. I started at DSOD when I was 18 years old as a student assistant. I was very fortunate because there were a lot of folks who were helpful to me, and they taught me a lot of things. Any success I’ve had, I owe to them. I’ve tried to do that for others over the years. I’ve been able to build programs, but more importantly, build people. I rely on them heavily; I try my hardest to teach them everything I know and more. Oftentimes, I see them passing me up in terms of their knowledge and that makes me feel really, really good. I learned early in my career that the successes of a program are always about the people. If you get the right people in the right place you’re going to win.

Source: BCWater News

Read More Related Content On This Topic - Click Here

Media

Taxonomy

• Groundwater
• Water Management
• Water Governance