There are 75 duplicate APNs. They appear to all be along the SRP/PET shared boundary. Maybe also the PET/SON shared boundary.

The ratio of (area within SRP)/(area within Pet) could be used to remove duplicates and assign to the field GSA_Jurisdiction_Prelim.

I analyzed the Sebastopol data, and added parcels to the "Connection Status Modified. XLSX" that should connection status set to "Yes" and other parcels where connection status should be set to "No".

I've uploaded to the sharedrive on 5_31_2022 with name "Connection Status Modified"

Note, I deleted a file named "Modified APNs 2022_02_22" from the share drive . Name that the R code searches for may need to be updated.

Develop strategy to add or remove urban wells.

Option: From the current database, export a list of all urban wells and save as "Urban Wells List". Update the code to read in "Urban Wells List", and assign APNs on this list a "Yes" and all others APNs a "No" for Urban Wells. When an APN needs to be added or removed, just add or remove from the input file.

• remove all groundwater turf irrigation within the City of RP.

It seems we should remove all groundwater turf irrigation within the City of RP.

From: Pawson, Mary Grace <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 9:28 AM
To: Marcus Trotta <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Non-City Groundwater Use within City of RP?

The school district does not have any wells….they were exploring the option a couple of years ago and we had to nix it.

The golf courses use recycled water…we have a contractual allocation from subregional so there should not ever be a year where we don’t have recycled water available. If something really weird happens, we would need to supplement from the City system which, as you know, is a mix of Agency water and ground water.

SSU also is a big user of recycled water for irrigation…they are included in our allocation from Subregional. If something really weird happens, they would be supplementing from their groundwater wells.

From: Marcus Trotta [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 9:25 AM
To: Pawson, Mary Grace <[email protected]>
Subject: Non-City Groundwater Use within City of RP?

EXTERNAL EMAIL
Hi Mary Grace – I’m wondering if you could confirm some assumptions for the rate and fee study for us regarding non-City GW pumping for turf irrigation within the City, as I know the City does not allow private wells within the City limits.

• For all golf courses within the City, recycled water is used for turf irrigation, correct?
o If there are situations where sufficient recycled water is not available in a given year, do the courses use groundwater from their own irrigation wells to supplement? Or do they supplement with the City’s potable supply (mix of aqueduct/groundwater)?
• Do you know if any of the schools or other users use private groundwater wells for turf irrigation?

If possible to get back to me with any answers you have readily available sometime this morning, that would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you,

-Marcus

Latest and greatest was uploaded at 3:30 on 5_9_2022

import updated recycled water data

"boundary parcels" should include parcels that intersect the boundary of any GSA regulated basin, including parcels that are partially within a GSA basin and the remainder is outside of all other GSA basins. Code identifies "boundary parcels" as only those that overlap two GSA regulated basins (which is a small subset of boundary parcels)

This is important because the location of the well (not the parcel intersect) determines the if a parcel pays a fee. There are thousands of parcels along the boundaries that may or not need to pay a fee depending on the location of their well. The code assumes the well is within the basin, but it very well may not be.

The GUIDE survey is setup to take "Basin_Boundary_Parcel" = YES, and ask for more info including a map with the well marked.

Adjust code so that connection status can be switched from "Yes" to "No" or "No" to "Yes"

re-import updated city of sonoma connections. use the map package from oriana hart on 10/20/2022

Create code to change whether a parcel does or does not have an Urban Well with SRP. Use similar code to the modified connection status. Discuss with GUIDE group about verification for urban wells before investing time on this.

• Recycled_Water_Use_Modified_Ac_Ft
• Recycled_Water_Connection_Modified
• Surface_Water_Use_Modified_Ac_Ft
• Surface_Water_Connection_Modified
• UseCode_Modified
• Urban_Well_Modified

From GUIDE surveys we get information that parcels use water from a shared well. I created layer called "Shared_Well_Modified" that is uploaded to the share drive.
First column is the parcel that receives water from a shared well.
Second is APN of the well.
Third column is comment

Code should be written to update values of fields for APN listed in the first column:

1. Shared_Well = YES
2. Shared_Well_APN = APN listed in second column
3. Wtr_Source_Comment = append the text in third column

It appears that City of Sebastopol Connection data was not done correctly. There are many parcels on Hutchins Lane and elsewhere that are outside of city limits but identified by the City as having a connection.

I'm not sure what the issue is, the R code appears to use data that Shelly had "cleaned".

Exploring the data, I suggest using a method similar to VOMWD, where we DO NOT assume that every parcel within the City of Sebastopol is connected.

Be careful not to override the connection status for other PWS in SRP

Shelly requested we add the field "UseCode_Digit" to the output csv for PRMD.

This field can be at the very end (last column). This is the "Land Use Code" from the Assessor, also the first four disgits of the "UseCode_Description". The field should be a "text" field with four digits, not a numric field. That way code 52 would be "0052".

An updated schema dated 2022_07_07 with this field has been added.

Update water rights database using the recently pulled database

water_rights_ewrims_export_all_sonoma_20220505.csv

as noted by peter kiel, the database used by LWA is missing a number of water rights. The new database has these water rights.

Originally posted by @andyrich in #24 (comment)

add formatting to csv and shapefile exports that have order and field names established by PRMD. Updated schema needs fixing as field names in table do not match those in current outputs.

Develop strategy for HOAs

When adding the 2012 land use data, it became clear that there are a number of land use types not covered by the schools and golf courses. There are cemeteries, parks, and various types of landscaping.
See the following map:
https://andyrich.github.io/water_use/

Develop alternative method for school water, and possibly golf course, groundwater use. Zooming around to the various school properties, many are largely undeveloped and likely have very little water use. Method using 2012 DWR should be discussed.

Looks like "GSA_Jurisdiction" is NAN. Add code following standard method for modified value fields used elsewhere to write:

GSA_Jurisdiction_Modified, GSA_Jurisdiction_Mod_Value, GSA_Jurisdiction

Water rights currently do not capture points of diversion locations.

Currently only one location is associated with each Water Right - in somewhat rare instances, these locations may not coincide with any of the actual parcels associated with a water right.

There are 265 water rights
There are 36 water rights with multiple points of diversions
There are 220 water rights with one points of diversions

For example, here is the ewrims for the 7550 Lakeville area:

But here is how the current approach maps the same area (the black dots are the Water rights locations and the blue polygons are parcels with surface water rights as defined by the GSA database). It appears that the central location of the water right is actually located on top of a different parcel associated with an some kind of infrastructure, possibly an electric line:

Here are all of the water rights that are associated with multiple points of diversion:

['A030558', 'A029426', 'A029637', 'A031022', 'A029666', 'A031745', 'A029166', 'A032169', 'A031818', 'A028438', 'A030635', 'A031500', 'A030437', 'A028437', 'A030711', 'A021548', 'A031187', 'A030800', 'A027697', 'A026241', 'A031307', 'A013376', 'A013330', 'A030592', 'A029453', 'A026240', 'A031813', 'A022667', 'A020491', 'A029523', 'A020078', 'A024238', 'A028820', 'A013256', 'A012510', 'A009378']

Need to know actual surface and recycled water uses. Code only shows amount available. Necessary for various post-processing operations.

LandSizeAcres in the Schema is intended to represent the total area of the parcel. The code makes this the area of the parcel that overlaps the basin.

Propose:

1. Pull area from the parcel database and write to LandSizeAcres.
2. Make the area of the parcel that intersects the basin an intermediate variable that is not written to the output files.

Potentially big issue for SRP

Consider here how Sonoma calculates the total pumping:

Here is how it is done for SRP:

In order to no mess up Shelly's code, please tack LandSizeParcelAcres onto the end of the csv for PRMD.

Also, looks like there are lots of zeros in the current output for LandSizeParcels.

Update the School Golf modified values to allow us to import a list of parcels with modified values (based off the info that Ann is getting)

#After this section of code
ppet <- ppet %>%
mutate(School_Golf_Modified = "No",
School_Golf_Modified_Ac_Ft = NA,
School_Golf_GW_Use_Comment = NA,
School_Golf_GW_Use_Ac_Ft = NA)

#Import the table (Does not exist yet, I will create this) with modified values and write to School_Golf_Modified, School_Golf_GW_Use_Modified_Ac_Ft and School_Golf_GW_Use_Comment

#Then run something like below to update the School_Golf_GW_Use_Ac_Ft , which stores the final value
School_Golf_GW_Use_Ac_Ft = ifelse(School_Golf_Modified == "Yes",
School_Golf_GW_Use_Modified_Ac_Ft,
School_Golf_GW_Use_Prelim_Ac_Ft))

create R code to perform ewrims analysis used for sw diversions

add srp recycled water input using combination of the SRP existing parcel datbase and the missing raftelis database

Use the City of Petaluma 2016-2021 Recycled Water Use_APN.xlsx spreadsheet to find average parcel delivery value. Separate APN's.

I’m responding to a fee call received by the SVGSA from the property owner of parcel 128-620-025. The parcel is located in the city of Sonoma, on Pearce Street. Other streets in the same subdivision are Ingram Street and 5th Street East. The area is north of Saunders Drive. The GUIDE database shows that these parcels are not connected to city water, but the property owner says that he is definitely connected to city water and receives a bill; he also believes that his neighbors receive city water.

It appears there is a big inconsistency between the public water system boundary and the city limits, and this is causing a problem in our database. See the clip below (pink is water service area, darker gray is the city limits. Areas highlighted in yellow mark areas within city limits, but outside the PWS boundary hosted by the State, and appear to have many parcels misclassified as “not connected”.

Add union of PWS boundary for sonoma with the City bounday

Add code:
POCity == Sonoma AND CityType == Incorporated

There is a residential area northwest of Casa Grande Rd and southwest of Hidden Valley Dr. within the City of Petaluma, where many parcels are identified as NOT connected. Oddly, they have a residential groundwater use of 0.0. I don't know what is going on, but these parcels should be identified as having a public water connection.

Note, similar to Rohnert Park and City of Sonoma, all parcels within Petaluma are assumed to be connected.

Hi Andy, I uploaded a new Schema dated 2022_07_21 that has two new fields:
Fee Rate
Parcel_Fee_Subsidized

"boundary parcels" should include parcels that intersect the boundary of any GSA regulated basin, including parcels that are partially within a GSA basin and the remainder is outside of all other GSA basins. Code identifies "boundary parcels" as only those that overlap two GSA regulated basins (which is a small subset of boundary parcels)

Code also does not write:
GSA_Jurisdiction_Modified = NA,
GSA_Jurisdiction_Mod_Value = NA,
GSA_Jurisdiction = NA

These should be coded similar to below.

ppet <- ppet %>%
mutate(Ag_GW_Use_Modified = "No",
Ag_GW_Use_Modified_Ac_Ft = NA,
Ag_GW_Use_Comment = NA,
Ag_GW_Use_Ac_Ft = ifelse(Ag_GW_Use_Modified == "Yes",
Ag_GW_Use_Modified_Ac_Ft,
Ag_GW_Use_GIS_Ac_Ft))

It appears that Penngrove Town District data was not done correctly. There are many parcels outside of the Penngrove downtown area that are identified as connected that are actually not connected.

I'm not sure what the issue is, the R code appears to use data that Shelly had "cleaned".

Exploring the data, I suggest using a method similar to VOMWD, where we DO NOT assume that every parcel within the Penngrove Town District service area is connected.

Be careful not to override the connection status for other PWS in SRP

There appears to be an issue with the large groundwater users identified by Petaluma. Rich’s code applies the site specific groundwater use value to the “Commercial_W_Use_Assessor_Ac_Ft” field, but because the connection status is set to “yes” for these parcels, the “Commercial_GW_Use_Prelim_Ac_Ft” is 0.0.

I’m sure there are various ways to fix this issue, and the simplest in terms of coding could be to just change the connection status for those parcels. However, these parcels may have both public water and a groundwater well, so I would recommend updating the “Commercial_GW_Use_Modified” field to “Yes”, and updating “Commercial_GW_Use_Modified_Ac_Ft” field to the site specific groundwater use rate provided by Petaluma.

fix issue #33 and #36

Potentially big issue for SRP

Consider here how Sonoma calculates the total pumping:

Here is how it is done for SRP:

I'm concerned about making changes for the County wide analysis that could impact the GSAs. Does a separate project need to be created? I expect only to change the orchard irrigation, but maybe there will be others?

Remove No Connection requirement for Petaluma commercial users

MT: Since these are directly metered and reported, it seems like there should not be a condition associated with it.

commerical pumping is currently dependent on there NOT being a connection to the city. Looks like rich originally did not have this condition, but later added it.

Rob Pennington received updated connections from Oriana Hart around 5/12/2023.

Rob, should the following code be commented out now?