[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6217583,"mediaKeyId","3644074-39b3722308e12f5bd6825df691c4250a","parentId",3644074,"title","State Water Board staff outline proposed changes to once‑through cooling mitigation MOU, increase funding for marine protected area work","audioSeconds",3308,"startMs",2578000,"endMs",5886000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3644074-39b3722308e12f5bd6825df691c4250a&start=2578&end=5886","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3644074-39b3722308e12f5bd6825df691c4250a/thumbnail_2578000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6217583/California/State-Water-Board-staff-outline-proposed-changes-to-oncethrough-cooling-mitigation-MOU-increase-funding-for-marine-protected-area-work","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6217583-0eb7e94441b1960ff58b53d6cc075f2a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771190382&Signature=Xc--s3MT0vPb2S~FsMfVRKFtZCg~xzH85Qx3dKMH8NTlshX3zcshgcCuKVXCNc7ebIzeYZlfxe2kSkGNbxEHzTgprZYMZd4AmW5-KAtz4i2EaJaYa5s8BIMpcK7e9h3a0DVZ5Ij1DZiiDqhCJqgldOsR0Bke8lD4KWOW8no1l2qKk1siKgOSZmMONuZ0e~Sp6JlSDex76XRkexxbUtNQJfwnFj3jlq28gDKLX4sKfdeF21coRaEgwFqzREtcrkGSOjUHAo0-9XVzdpEEMDWNZv9Kixx5WZ~03JF9WRarD1EKzwGgILyxP3S2MDIvhrBX7UoexOgdSzE6Cv1y5pPldQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","State Water Resources Control Board","date","2025-06-04T07:30:35Z","article","State Water Resources Control Board staff presented proposed revisions to the interim mitigation memorandum of understanding for once‑through cooling (OTC) mitigation funds and invited public feedback on the draft changes.

The staff presentation, given at the board’s June 3 meeting, said the revisions would increase the Ocean Protection Council’s annual allocation of interim mitigation funding from $5,400,000 to $6,500,000 and direct the remaining funds to the State Coastal Conservancy. The revisions also propose that the Conservancy seek to spend at least 50% of the cumulative interim mitigation funding it receives through 2030 on projects “within the geographic region of Diablo Canyon,” and expand eligible projects to include watershed restoration if they meet the MOU and OTC policy requirements.

The proposal is described in documents released May 19, 2025, and staff said they will accept written public feedback through noon on June 21, 2025; staff anticipate finalizing the MOU in August 2025.

Why it matters: OTC mitigation funds are a continuing source of state support for coastal and estuarine habitat work while several coastal power plants remain in interim compliance with the OTC policy. The proposed MOU revisions change how those funds are allocated and add transparency, tribal consultation, and community engagement provisions.

Board staff and agency partners summarized the proposed changes and examples of how OTC funds are currently used. Jonathan (first name only in transcript) of the State Water Board’s Division of Water Quality summarized the MOU revisions and said they were responsive to public comments and to updated interim mitigation calculations. Jen Eckerley, executive director of the Ocean Protection Council, described OPC’s four investment priorities for OTC funds: monitoring and research, outreach and education to improve MPA (marine protected area) compliance, support for enforcement and compliance, and habitat restoration. Amy Hutzel (transcript: Amy Hutsell), executive officer of the State Coastal Conservancy, reviewed four Conservancy projects funded to date with OTC funds, including Via Creek (San Luis Obispo County), Ormond Beach planning work, the Los Cerritos Wetlands southern area restoration in Seal Beach, and Newland Marsh in Huntington Beach.

Key details and funding examples:
- OPC annual allocation proposed to rise to $6,500,000 to support MPA network program costs. The remainder of annual interim mitigation funds would go to the Coastal Conservancy.
- The Conservancy will aim to use at least 50% of cumulative interim mitigation funds it receives through 2030 for work in the Diablo Canyon geographic region (to reflect Diablo Canyon’s significant relative contribution to OTC impacts).
- Examples of projects described by the Conservancy and OPC presenters: Via Creek restoration ($2,000,000 in OTC funds for construction), Ormond Beach restoration and public access (Conservancy used $1,500,000 in OTC funds for environmental compliance and related studies; state Coastal Conservancy approved a separate $35,000,000 general‑fund award for construction), Los Cerritos Wetlands southern area (roughly $12 million in OTC and related contributions toward a ~ $26 million construction budget; construction due fall 2025), and Newland Marsh planning and acquisition (conservancy OTC funds of ~$396,000 for acquisition, ~$556,000 for restoration planning).

Transparency, tribal and community engagement: The proposed MOU directs the OPC and Conservancy to maintain a central website listing current projects and prospective project opportunities and to seek early input from tribes within a reasonable vicinity of OTC facilities and from representatives of systemically excluded communities. Staff said OPC and the Conservancy are committed to at least one public webinar annually, public staff reports, and annual reporting to the Water Board.

Public comments: Several community speakers urged faster decommissioning and stronger local engagement for projects near Ormond Beach Generating Station. Elma Del Aguila (South Oxnard resident) and Odette Morgan (community organizer, CAUSE) asked that the board and partner agencies ensure meaningful, accessible community engagement, that meeting times be accessible to working families, and that materials be available in Spanish and Mixteco. Commenters asked the board to “not enable another extension” of the Ormond Beach facility and urged that mitigation funds (and other funding) be prioritized for local restoration and for community access to restored beaches.

Board action and next steps: The presentation was informational; the board did not vote on the MOU. Staff sought written feedback through June 21 and expect to finalize the MOU in August. The OPC and Coastal Conservancy staff said they intend to continue presenting on fund use at public Water Board meetings and to make draft project proposals available for public comment prior to final authorization.

Ending: Staff and agency presenters emphasized leveraging OTC funds with other state and regional funding (including recent climate package appropriations) and pledged to continue tribal consultation and outreach. Board members praised the collaborative updates and asked staff and agency partners to continue work on transparency and community engagement as projects move from planning into construction.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","State Water Resources Control Board Meeting - June 3, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","State Water Resources Control Board staff presented proposed revisions to the interim mitigation memorandum of understanding for once‑through cooling mitigation funds and invited public feedback on the draft changes.","taxTitle","State Water Resources Control Board, Agencies under Office of the Governor, Executive, California","taxId",16198,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6217573,"Small‑lab applicant urges State Water Board to address ELAP delays and nonrefundable fees",260,1469000,1729000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3644074-39b3722308e12f5bd6825df691c4250a&start=1469&end=1729","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3644074-39b3722308e12f5bd6825df691c4250a/thumbnail_1469000.jpg","/articles/6217573/California/Smalllab-applicant-urges-State-Water-Board-to-address-ELAP-delays-and-nonrefundable-fees","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6217573-400d12b6b05c40c2729f91bd63e868af/orig.mp4?Expires=1771190382&Signature=U70BQwnv-IsEw5GcbLVeam86nfUujoq8BnvWG3jWzMevEMIX-dPWrAzDMTVxQ36Hr~uuWgVUnn1WfywQCMPoG8UFbez1dE8DVCARKElG0paaEysKQkPTHihXz3O2eTpYqB2x3OlUvqHaNiLIYqcsjO3s1PO-AFUtkyFhufnlTl2rpS4HAlQxtxSB8wj7ATISsTB1X~g0MFbtmQocFTeG~q-x5acPOtJ7XsAJfK9U3FfnEBraaCXfcyvBk7taenViI9pIAIIcmZiEBHVfjXRiUM~tlzDv3c6-TEVH799-eI9QNrx9wojFFvdFIwrjdca3Dsys2lNfZwpl0xdjCy6swQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","An attorney for Analytical Environmental Labs (AEL) told the State Water Resources Control Board at its June 3 public forum that ELAP has taken no action on AEL’s initial accreditation application more than four months after submission, leaving the laboratory unable to operate after paying an approximately $15,000 nonrefundable application fee.

JC Dean, an attorney with Stoll Reeves speaking for AEL, described the company’s situation and urged the board to investigate ELAP’s timelines and to consider regulatory changes so applicants can challenge inaction and fees. “Our client has now waited more than 4 months without a word from ELAP,” Dean told the board.

What the speaker requested: Dean asked the board to (1) investigate delays and inefficiencies in the ELAP accreditation process; (2) direct a regulatory review that would (a) require ELAP to respond to applications within a reasonable time frame and (b) allow labs to petition the board not only for denials but for “an action or a failure to act” (comparable to existing water code petition rights in other programs); and (3) consider reforming ELAP’s fee rules so that fees are due only after accreditation is granted or made refundable if an application is denied.

Authority cited in public comment: Dean said ELAP is governed by the Health and Safety Code provisions that allow a petition for reconsideration in the event of a denial but, he said, do not create a remedy for a failure to act. He contrasted ELAP’s lack of mandatory response timelines with other state programs governed under certain water code provisions that include deadlines and petition procedures; he called the gap a “legislative gap.”

Board response: Chair Joaquin Esquivel thanked Dean for raising the matter and said staff will follow up with ELAP before the board’s regular annual fee process. Chair Esquivel noted the board has annual fee processes that include ELAP and that the speaker’s recommendations would be “helpful” to the board’s fee discussions.

Action: The item was public comment; no formal board action was taken at the meeting. The chair indicated staff would follow up and shuttle Dean’s recommendations to the program.","An attorney for Analytical Environmental Labs told the State Water Board on June 3 that ELAP has not processed the lab’s accreditation application for more than four months after payment of an approximately $15,000 nonrefundable fee, and asked the board to investigate and consider regulatory fixes.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6217578,"State Water Board returns Chowchilla Subbasin to DWR after revised GSPs address groundwater decline and subsidence",4264,7299000,11563000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3644074-39b3722308e12f5bd6825df691c4250a&start=7299&end=11563","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3644074-39b3722308e12f5bd6825df691c4250a/thumbnail_7299000.jpg","/articles/6217578/California/State-Water-Board-returns-Chowchilla-Subbasin-to-DWR-after-revised-GSPs-address-groundwater-decline-and-subsidence","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6217578-5f9f20deb2778848386056fda4bf3189/orig.mp4?Expires=1771190382&Signature=XRDaR8amqiFOcfpbR0ZVsUsgAKr1T7kKdAtMpVRefzWC7pimcaqBYgnTNJ5trClCo964UEbJTCPT~LOfxrMrwrIoWRiXT2PJUHQNYRK8U0Q4XsDIgLEJkMLwWmQcntRuSVtipXU1Au3GQFE7gpBqp9FzjFquUVUY-fdZc0-6cljsLCT19Pn4y7Zgk2lkXZTDT0mNkkQyuPI5YvLGm8qj8LReet7AjsL0we-B3uir4it22Y1iPqCxhv36DU26nTa59P3W~-2hdSfdsBILhLjEJMrtZUgH~DWSjByBILV9WP9oGjJD-qG4wHmRjMKCp~oO7MqfbT8NDtDkuZcyMeYdoQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The State Water Resources Control Board voted unanimously June 3 to return the Chowchilla Groundwater Subbasin to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) jurisdiction under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) after board staff concluded recent revisions to the basin’s groundwater sustainability plan addressed earlier deficiencies.

Board staff said the Chowchilla GSAs revised their plan to better protect groundwater levels and to strengthen subsidence management, and that those revisions make a probationary designation unnecessary at this stage. The board’s action instructs staff to notify DWR that the basin will be returned to DWR’s SGMA review process.

Why it matters: Chowchilla is a critically overdrafted subbasin in the San Joaquin River hydrologic region. The basin has experienced long‑term groundwater declines and significant land subsidence. The board’s intervention process and the interplay with DWR’s GSP reviews are meant to ensure local groundwater sustainability plans are revised and implemented to avoid “undesirable results” under SGMA.

What staff found: In March 2023 DWR had determined the 2022 Chowchilla GSP was inadequate, citing deficiencies tied to chronic groundwater level declines and land subsidence. Board staff reviewed subsequent GSP revisions (May 2023; August 2024; and a 2025 package) and identified substantial changes the GSAs made to address shortcomings. Revisions highlighted by staff include:
- Raising groundwater level minimum thresholds to fall 2015 levels and setting measurable objectives at fall 2011 levels, narrowing the range for allowable decline and improving protection for shallow wells and subsidence risk.
- Defining subsidence management criteria that no longer rely solely on groundwater levels as a proxy, measuring subsidence directly using GPS benchmarks, capping future cumulative subsidence after 2023 at 2 feet and aiming for zero new subsidence after 2040.
- Expanding domestic well mitigation eligibility to include public water system wells and to cover water‑quality driven impacts; formal funding agreements for the mitigation program were executed.
- Creating a demand‑management program, formalized in an MOU, that includes voluntary and mandatory measures and is expected to start in 2026 if triggers are met.

Board staff concluded: \"Board staff determined that the changes made in the 2025 GSP are sufficient to return the subbasin to DWR's jurisdiction at this time,\" and recommended the board not designate the subbasin probationary.

Public comment and local response: Several local and technical speakers supported the decision. John Davids (Davids Engineering) spoke on behalf of the four GSAs that manage the basin and thanked board staff for collaboration. Stephanie Ann Agnason, director of water and natural resources for Madera County, described the local allocation decisions, outreach, and the county’s domestic well mitigation commitments. The Union of Concerned Scientists urged continued work on gaps identified by staff and recommended a more robust climate‑change stress testing scenario analysis in future GSP updates.

Board vote and next steps: Vice Chair Doreen D'Adamo moved the resolution and the board adopted it by roll call (Vice Chair Doreen D'Adamo: aye; Board member Nicole Morgan: aye; Board member Sean Maguire: aye; Board member Laurel Firestone: aye; Chair Joaquin Esquivel: aye). Chair Joaquin Esquivel and staff said the basin will return to DWR for the department’s SGMA review process; DWR officials said they will verify whether any additional tasks are needed before initiating their review and will issue a new determination per SGMA (possible outcomes: approved, incomplete, or inadequate).

Ending: Board members and state staff emphasized that returning the basin to DWR does not end oversight responsibilities. GSAs must continue to fill data gaps, refine criteria with best available science, coordinate on mitigation funding and implementation, and adaptively manage projects and actions to reach sustainability by statutory timelines.","After reviewing revisions to the Chowchilla Subbasin groundwater sustainability plan (GSP), board staff recommended against a probationary designation and the board voted unanimously to return the subbasin to Department of Water Resources (DWR) jurisdiction under SGMA.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6217568,"San Francisco Baykeeper urges board to reject voluntary agreements in Bay‑Delta plan, cites recent operations harming salmon",171,1246000,1417000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3644074-39b3722308e12f5bd6825df691c4250a&start=1246&end=1417","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3644074-39b3722308e12f5bd6825df691c4250a/thumbnail_1246000.jpg","/articles/6217568/California/San-Francisco-Baykeeper-urges-board-to-reject-voluntary-agreements-in-BayDelta-plan-cites-recent-operations-harming-salmon","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6217568-e660f53f2559d9f9680643560f2de792/orig.mp4?Expires=1771190382&Signature=IydqhM~AWfDyVJyazOf1xrTDNyAf2XilWQux77a07fzVVnTaFFWE-pD70vKlDltiF7qaEdn2yPGmmYiJfZyBiv2oVOi8MJmF6afyJGYxnO1i0e83gve-IfN8Du7tjG~ODSI97iBRSn28MZTgZCYhPilp--OgRytvV0wXLOHh0gOXtFYn1DFrSfkDhonaQXKXJw930FmJ1Pz6FzwYJgiDhTymJPWxzx~ULzh-XrUy4z8bWi8ZGSDjFRaCiDsgcxe7e6H4u5mZDOm4ohPcnL5HNsBl2DXPGV1UrDLS3tzM2mGQYwPD948A48lv2SqFI2cZ8zQPSJUj~R-xxts3CKEg-g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the State Water Resources Control Board public forum on June 3, Christy Ralston, representing San Francisco Baykeeper, urged the board to reject voluntary agreements (VAs) as a regulatory pathway for updating the Bay‑Delta water quality control plan.

Ralston told the board that spring 2025 operations by the Central Valley Project (CVP) and the Bureau of Reclamation “made clear that such a path forward is untenable as it relies on the good faith participation of VA signatories, which is uncertain to occur.” She cited three specific concerns she said illustrated the problem: that the CVP and State Water Project exceeded the annual loss limit for hatchery winter‑run Chinook salmon in March and April 2025; that the projects exceeded the three‑year rolling average loss for Central Valley steelhead in early March; and that Reclamation did not implement early VA actions to reduce exports needed to meet a proposed San Joaquin inflow to export ratio. Ralston said those examples show the risk of relying on voluntary compliance and called for “a regulatory pathway with clear, specific, science based, and enforceable provisions.”

Authorities and evidence cited by speaker: Ralston referenced the 2024 NIPS BiOp and the 2024 CISA ITP (as cited in her remarks) and said Reclamation “flouted” and “ignored” measures required by those documents during its spring operations, resulting in fish losses.

Board response: Chair Joaquin Esquivel thanked Ralston for her testimony. The item was part of the public forum; no board action was taken in response to the public comment.

Ending: Ralston asked the board to adopt an updated Bay‑Delta water quality control plan that rejects voluntary agreements and instead employs enforceable, science‑based regulatory provisions to protect the Delta ecosystem and public trust resources.","Christy Ralston of San Francisco Baykeeper told the State Water Board that incorporating voluntary agreements into the Bay‑Delta water quality control plan is “untenable,” citing spring 2025 Central Valley Project and Bureau of Reclamation operations that she said exceeded limits in 2024 BiOps and ITPs and caused losses of protected fish.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

State Water Board staff outline proposed changes to once‑through cooling mitigation MOU, increase funding for marine protected area work

Small‑lab applicant urges State Water Board to address ELAP delays and nonrefundable fees

State Water Board returns Chowchilla Subbasin to DWR after revised GSPs address groundwater decline and subsidence

San Francisco Baykeeper urges board to reject voluntary agreements in Bay‑Delta plan, cites recent operations harming salmon