Page 7 - Beaumont Basin Watermaster

G. Discussion Regarding Task Order No. 13 with ALDA Inc. for the Installation,
Maintenance and Data Collection of Water Level Monitoring Equipment in 2017
[Memorandum No. 17-07, Page 53 of 82]

Recommendation: That the Watermaster Committee approves Task Order No.
13 for a sum not to exceed $21,520.

After Engineer Blandon gave an overview of Task Order No. 13, which was
followed by discussion, Member Zoba motioned to approve Task Order No. 13
for a sum not to exceed $21,520. Member Fraser seconded the motion and the
motion passed 5-0.

H. Discussion Regarding Task Order No. 14 with ALDA Inc. for the Analysis of Return
Flows by Appropriators to the Beaumont Groundwater Basin and incorporation of
findings into the 2016 Beaumont Basin Watermaster Annual Report [Memorandum
No. 17-08, Page 57 of 82]

Recommendation: That the Watermaster Committee approves Task Order No.
14 for a sum not to exceed $12,960.

Thomas Harder of Thomas Harder & Co., hydrogeologist for the Watermaster,
presented a proposed scope of work to include return flow records in the 2016
Annual Report by Appropriator. He explained the steps that would be involved
and that the majority of the one-time cost would result from the time spent
working with the City of Banning to reconcile and incorporate its data.

Several Members discussed the allocation of the cost among all five member
agencies in light of the benefits that would be derived by the Watermaster as
an agency versus the individual member agencies, as several of the agencies
may not see a direct individual benefit from the work proposed.

Member Jorritsma made a motion to approve Task Order No. 14, with the City
of Banning to work with the consultant to amend the scope and reduce the
cost of the Task Order, which will be allocated among four member agencies,
excluding South Mesa Water Company. Member Zoba seconded the motion
and the motion passed 5-0.

I. Presentation of Methodology for Estimating Groundwater Storage Losses Associated
with Supplemental Water Recharge [Memorandum No. 17-09, Page 61 of 82]

Recommendation: No recommendation.

Mr. Harder requested the Committee’s input regarding its strategic goals,
direction, and desires in terms of groundwater storage losses associated with
supplemental water recharge. He explained that the methodology to evaluate
Basin losses associated with supplemental water recharge is straightforward,
but that there are currently no storage losses being accounted for.

Several Members discussed the need for accounting for estimated groundwater
storage losses and developing a methodology that applies losses based on the
spatial location of recharge activities for storage account water, with a separate
and from a methodology that would apply to pre-storage account water.