1. Alternative 3 failed, but threshold review continues. Dr. Todd Greene presented Alternative 3, which would set groundwater-level minimum thresholds (MTs) 40 feet below measurable objectives (MOs) outside the Chico Management Area; thresholds there would remain unchanged. It also proposed local management levels (LMLs) 15 feet below MOs at every representative monitoring site outside Chico. He compared it with existing thresholds averaging about 63 feet below MOs and warned of potential subsidence, ecosystem damage and well impacts if groundwater fell that far. A motion to adopt the combined Alternative 3 proposal failed 2–3. The board then supported, without opposition, sending all three threshold alternatives, LML language and the non-dry-year language to the Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SHAC) for concurrent review. For the existing-threshold approach, board members also expressed a preference for considering LMLs 15 feet below MOs rather than the 20 feet in the current draft, with clearer language on what happens when a level is reached. None of these steps amended the plan.
2. Board directed staff to draft removal of the non-dry-year condition. In a separate 4–1 vote, the board directed staff toward removing the condition from sustainable management criteria. Under the existing groundwater-level definition, an undesirable result requires two representative monitoring wells in a management area to reach their MTs for two consecutive non-dry years; dry and critically dry years are excluded from that test. The Department of Water Resources recommended either removing the condition or explaining how dry-year impacts would be offset. Staff’s proposed removal addresses language affecting groundwater levels, storage, water quality and interconnected surface water. Counsel emphasized that the vote was direction for future drafting, not adoption of an amendment. The management committee is expected to contact the Rock Creek Reclamation District GSA, which shares the subbasin plan. If the agencies cannot agree, the chair discussed a possible two-member-per-board ad hoc committee; none was appointed at this meeting.
Already have an account? Sign In
