[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-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",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_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":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6524431,"mediaKeyId","3845770-3dc8a4e792c353614e4647f4d121da0b","parentId",3845770,"title","GMA removes Las Posas Valley small‑ag PAC member for attendance shortfall; constituency to elect replacement","audioSeconds",7173,"startMs",7183000,"endMs",9014,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3845770-3dc8a4e792c353614e4647f4d121da0b&start=7183&end=9","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3845770-3dc8a4e792c353614e4647f4d121da0b/thumbnail_7183000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6524431/Ventura-County/California/GMA-removes-Las-Posas-Valley-smallag-PAC-member-for-attendance-shortfall-constituency-to-elect-replacement","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6524431-4a24ef32d278370724fc6103975a7f94/orig.mp4?Expires=1775746051&Signature=SGaXo~E0JnejoHCGvGC66WvhzhL9-rMMu5b9mFLH~rHmtbfxGJxTPfXJlDXhpg3Ba0VZTINTKgIXgd0YTOpUmJmXqSLYmx~cZjTqo5u91IpNcLa05un9bWh7ZKoCqMczUCsKSIqa4RZQ1uJyCotYmnxiL0JRenymE4IJdgs0psgAXVLjmfSH81L3YOOiZXsUy9KISlYK2H~mhg9PGsL44v0mxZaCgVYQzMK4R7D-MBBra10kxHenxhxKnWiqqf~7NPYiq3fxMUZX95~ScUHfpPgb-x6eoRrDTeA51EM5AzQANLmXw~0rcNk~pKdH4RhI2GwXaREl7bm00ndjO-JJeQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Ventura County (Top 100)","date","2025-06-17T01:11:06Z","article","The Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency on June 13 removed the Las Posas Valley management area small‑agriculture representative from the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) for failing to meet the attendance requirement set by the Las Posas Valley adjudication judgment.

Staff background: the Las Posas Valley judgment establishes both a Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) and a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and sets attendance and participation requirements for members. The judgment requires PAC and TAC members to attend at least 75% of regular committee meetings in a calendar year; failure to meet that threshold may lead to removal by the watermaster.

PAC recommendation and staff view: the PAC had recommended that, when attendance fell short, the constituency group be convened to nominate a representative and that the PAC include attendance records in minutes; the PAC’s recommendation would have allowed a constituency group to re‑nominate the sitting member. Staff advised that the judgment’s language prescribes removal when the 75% threshold is not met and that the final authority to remove rests with the watermaster/board.

Board action: after discussion and a roll‑call vote the board removed the small‑ag representative for the Las Posas Valley management area and directed staff to notify the constituency group to convene a meeting and hold a vote to elect a new representative to fill the vacancy. The PAC vice chair told the board he had discussed attendance shortfalls with the representative, who acknowledged personal issues and pledged better attendance.

Why it matters: the PAC provides stakeholder policy input to the watermaster and the judgment sets strict attendance standards to ensure constituency viewpoints are represented. The board emphasized that holding to judgment requirements reduces the risk of procedural challenges and maintains the credibility of committee recommendations.

Next steps: staff will notify the small‑ag constituency group and arrange the election process per the judgment; the PAC will begin including attendance records in minutes going forward as recommended.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency Board of Directors Special Hybrid Meeting June 13, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Fox Canyon GMA removed the Las Posas Valley small‑ag PAC representative for failing to meet the judgment’s 75% attendance requirement and directed staff to notify the constituency to hold an election for a replacement.","taxTitle","Ventura County, California","taxId",3398,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6524435,"Board deadlocks on Daly Ranch well permit appeal; staff recommends denial, matter to return to full board",4983,2520000,7503000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3845770-3dc8a4e792c353614e4647f4d121da0b&start=2520&end=7503","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3845770-3dc8a4e792c353614e4647f4d121da0b/thumbnail_2520000.jpg","/articles/6524435/Ventura-County/California/Board-deadlocks-on-Daly-Ranch-well-permit-appeal-staff-recommends-denial-matter-to-return-to-full-board","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6524435-a27310b7ba96c007b2d0705cdc360956/orig.mp4?Expires=1775746051&Signature=CLvpV9dAqNUsCnjzHzj7C4WMBnJbnsT9QysobZ1ZVxIkggTSM3TbNZKYCby8Ld6c-OtiUgrDSLI-ezjo7LoICucN336UZ-ykGiEVGqjSfiC9BCM6gU6~j1opdsaUS~sPesSGzo6ByaJU~z3towv0sMQRA1V7hk04nLMP~YvAjyolZBrYT8zcFmofefdcFxDEBNi9MuvMptYCOg6hIPkB8jHm9HiADs~lCR6TQ3aT1LvvSjs7FxqEzBXtJKztWhdcsSUd3~FRaspnnXXK1UZj7MDE2-YeKmLiqtHdtoHHXSfmYm3Hw-Fr2bmj21VxQdOwDMzTTTKsh09j9oNRH85jMg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency held a public hearing on June 13 on an appeal of the interim executive officer’s denial of application O309 (Daly Ranch LLC) to install a replacement well for a failed well in the Oxnard/Pleasant Valley area.

Staff position: agency staff recommended that the board affirm the interim executive officer’s denial. Staff said the core issue is procedural: the extraction allocation that staff’s records show resides with the destroyed well (state well 03H02) had not been validly transferred to the replacement well (03H03) because the transfer paperwork and the joint owner/owner consent required by the OPV allocation ordinance and agency ordinance code were not completed. Staff also referenced Emergency Ordinance E, which limits construction to replacement or standby wells that do not result in initiation of new, increased groundwater use; staff said the proposed permit did not meet transfer requirements in the absence of owner consent.

Applicant argument: counsel for Daly Ranch (Gary Arnold) said the allocation had been effectively transferred when the replacement well (03H03) was permitted in 2018, that extractions had been consistently reported under a merged comm code, and that the current submission sought only to replace the failed 03H03 with a new well (proposed 03H04). Arnold requested that the board allow the replacement drilling subject to conditions, including a well‑sharing or equitable‑sharing condition.

Opposition: Brian Hamilton, representing Nottingham Trust (identified in the record as the owner of the original 03H02 parcel), said the trust did not join the O309 application, that a probate dispute exists between family members over property/control and that the trust’s consent is required before an allocation transfer. He urged the board to uphold the denial to protect his client’s allocation rights.

Board action and outcome: a motion to affirm the interim executive officer’s denial was moved and seconded and proceeded to roll‑call. The roll‑call did not produce a clear majority either to affirm or to overturn the denial. As a result the board did not reach a final written decision on the appeal at the June 13 meeting. Staff recommended continuing the hearing and returning on June 25, 2025 so the board can adopt a final written decision consistent with its direction.

Why it matters: the dispute centers on whether extraction allocations move automatically with replacement wells or require explicit joint owner consent and completed transfer paperwork. That procedural distinction affects the rights of landowners, how much groundwater may be extracted from a particular parcel, and how the agency enforces Emergency Ordinance E and its allocation rules.

Next steps: staff recommended that counsel prepare a written decision consistent with the board’s direction and that the hearing be continued to the June 25, 2025 board meeting for a final written decision.","The Fox Canyon GMA held a contested hearing on a Daly Ranch appeal of a denied well permit (application O309) and did not reach a majority to overturn the interim executive officer’s denial; staff said required allocation transfer paperwork and owner consent were missing under the OPV allocation ordinance.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6524439,"Board authorizes interim variances for OPV basins and forms ad hoc committee to resolve backlog",1275,1001000,2276000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3845770-3dc8a4e792c353614e4647f4d121da0b&start=1001&end=2276","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3845770-3dc8a4e792c353614e4647f4d121da0b/thumbnail_1001000.jpg","/articles/6524439/Ventura-County/California/Board-authorizes-interim-variances-for-OPV-basins-and-forms-ad-hoc-committee-to-resolve-backlog","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6524439-94f5ff1d610b1d0b91790a640d4dc35e/orig.mp4?Expires=1775746051&Signature=NMV-QIbHUR3x2tIBXRKSDwtWx7jWCRolbiH~sx6VLRkXZzHXAiMVwCgxp64sxgEW8PcUDiFDsjFF7-vDKnE9~AdcvJsfXl2-PB7jzHSCyhBmvbCfvUabZneyasFNjfvK1ENhh6ctKpcgHeFc9EP5Wr4BebHtTiEtvS33cmN1db9RAqhy-aR5Wxg4HG9Rnow2P-ViyXa6p0imaoCxbKONuZXMrVDRaSNGbruwaemgRvtyclwn~yp~e4SSq-2PbNJRJqKbto32skWEfKVczOG4Lwkb7YtOhwPdSRBbiwcXKpJjbZvyxykwgyff~UzBiZxdyCymEc0132PppQpaPx16MA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency on June 13 authorized the interim executive officer to continue previously issued temporary variances for operators with pending variance applications in the Oxnard and Pleasant Valley (OPV) basins for water year 2024–25.

Staff background: Agency staff reported that review and analysis of variance applications in the OPV basins have been on hold while the board addressed related concord issues; the board previously authorized temporary variances for prior water years and suspended surcharge payments pending final agency decisions. Staff said about 30 concord accounts in OPV have not yet received semiannual extraction statements and that a backlog of variance requests remains from multiple years.

Board action and committee: The board voted to extend those temporary variances for operators in the identified categories who have pending variance applications and also formed a variance ad hoc committee. The board directed the ad hoc committee to work with staff on a sequential work plan: (1) quantify the scope and number of outstanding requests, (2) categorize the causes (missing records, cropping‑pattern changes, administrative errors), (3) develop options to resolve prior years (unwinding) and to prevent future backlogs, and (4) provide interim milestones so the board can track progress.

Public comments and concerns: Farmers and stakeholders who spoke at the hearing urged careful treatment and noted ongoing litigation that could affect base‑period calculations. Jurgen Gramko (introduced as president of Marathon Land) urged caution because litigation is defining native versus augmented yield and because the base period used in litigation differs from the ordinance’s base period. Greg Lewis of Duda Farms and other growers urged an ad hoc approach to identify how many requests are administrative versus substantive.

Why it matters: the variance backlog covers multiple crop years and affects how surcharges and extraction allocations are applied to growers; the ad hoc committee is intended to produce a practical, phased fix and recommendations to the full board.

Next steps: staff will support the ad hoc committee’s work, gather records and scope the outstanding variance requests, and report back to the board on interim milestones and a timeline for resolution.","The board authorized the interim executive officer to continue temporary variances for operators in the Oxnard and Pleasant Valley basins for water year 2024–25 and created a short‑term ad hoc committee to work with staff to resolve a multi‑year backlog of variance applications and related surcharges.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6524444,"Fox Canyon GMA engages LightGabler for county personnel‑agreement negotiations",217,793000,1010000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3845770-3dc8a4e792c353614e4647f4d121da0b&start=793&end=1010","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3845770-3dc8a4e792c353614e4647f4d121da0b/thumbnail_793000.jpg","/articles/6524444/Ventura-County/California/Fox-Canyon-GMA-engages-LightGabler-for-county-personnelagreement-negotiations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6524444-fb64d921c8122d6760ea6ba01ee6476a/orig.mp4?Expires=1775746051&Signature=RsKz0zMlsntO9AUD7jloPkhemAmh1o4VlZikHkwyhUsyrbWoZgZXeND~cukesg-BVYua1wDunTed11a2FDX~azLrXZpU~hqLbax6sCILg9lFwVjzSeaHkMdy8Lf3vQgknOqr5wOvVwIvCkJ92~-L0GKhP2v37-E2FBsoHF2vV8cJZYZ8FLtIYTZjCNHYmcj7NejlgYaNWFYOo7LE3iHI7MPEXUE5aFif0l4HekQyY-0I1IA-5vGdjdkKcZ3DTRnkJhHZ3034-RGXcu2fPu3S1jQXvE0b~F2~UFpwN0vCGL3fGmjyNH96D8VQZBek2yzfycdkcLhPKrJN~reZrpzqiA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency authorized an engagement letter on June 13 to retain the LightGabler firm (John Light) to represent the agency in negotiations with Ventura County over a longstanding labor or personnel services agreement.

Why it matters: the agency’s current agreement with the county dates to 1983 and staff said changes in the agency’s scope and the county relationship make an updated, modern agreement appropriate. County counsel cannot represent both the county and the agency in those negotiations, so the agency voted to hire outside counsel for the limited purpose of negotiating a new services agreement.

Disclosure and process: Acting Interim Executive Officer Jeff Palmer disclosed that John Light was his former law partner at Norton Cormier in Compton, but Palmer said he had no conflict and would not let that affect the recommendation. The board moved, seconded and voted to authorize the engagement letter; the motion carried.

Next steps: staff will execute the engagement letter for LightGabler for the limited purpose described and return to the board with any proposed agreement or cost implications if negotiations proceed to the point of requiring board approval.","The board authorized an engagement letter with LightGabler (John Light) to represent the agency in negotiations with Ventura County on an updated labor/personnel services agreement; Acting Executive Officer Jeff Palmer disclosed a past law‑firm relationship with the named attorney and said there is no conflict.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6524449,"Fox Canyon GMA directs staff to return with proposal on limited director compensation",496,358000,854000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3845770-3dc8a4e792c353614e4647f4d121da0b&start=358&end=854","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3845770-3dc8a4e792c353614e4647f4d121da0b/thumbnail_358000.jpg","/articles/6524449/Ventura-County/California/Fox-Canyon-GMA-directs-staff-to-return-with-proposal-on-limited-director-compensation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6524449-baca7fe84274dc2147f6892edec7a197/orig.mp4?Expires=1775746051&Signature=ejyJ-8I3GUygrttsbkemnAD61cz26OvPw0qdRhW-xg8qzf5Ia9~N7g3OHLnlg6djlOpSCfY8A~BV879h~2yjXiEe~Fbk0~d8N8YKWvS9wKRBFrTlyJl8LdPUEdc1AvRvBVaZxS2kGKuDjmZUH6nLehMWJCNArrheH300T-UO5VLMk-G2xC-IVJLJKCPDSH0hOSKQKValvdye4RpFp-6Fmd9nybqmBF-Atf~jMnKal5BotHcIKsd9~Yl0OUjBlqNNKkGKYTJaLZSUsEXEFRH2CSJG5-u8PVVV1zEOBdXzAL5f9XrWMWR61yCsWb4LbUKAh1JTtz3ARSqI151ksD16~w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency on June 13 directed staff and agency counsel to prepare a memorandum and presentation on whether the agency may adopt a limited compensation program for directors and, if so, how it should be structured.

Board members said the request is intended as a preliminary step to see whether modest per‑meeting pay or a capped monthly allowance would be legally permissible and administratively workable. Staff and counsel were asked to return with specific legal citations, draft ordinance language or policy options, and possible caps tied to the Water Code.

Why it matters: board members said the workload and time commitment for the agency’s regulatory, quasi‑judicial and administrative business has grown and that compensation could help offset costs for members who must travel or miss work. Staff noted the agency has collected fees from groundwater users and that local practice among comparable regional bodies varies.

Board context and next steps: the board did not set rates, adopt a compensation ordinance or take a final vote. Instead the motion asked staff and counsel to return with a formal memo and presentation that would identify statutory authority, draft language options, and potential fiscal or stakeholder impacts. The staff memo should identify whether the agency is covered by relevant provisions of state water law cited during the discussion.

Public comment: an alternate city council member who identified himself as an alternate for a city (spoke during public comment) supported exploring compensation, saying compensation can broaden who is able to serve. No formal objections were recorded during the board vote to send the issue to staff for study.

What the board did not do: the board expressly did not adopt any compensation level, nor did it direct staff to implement a program. The item was a direction to return with options and legal analysis at a future meeting.

Clarifying details: staff said the agency’s special act does not explicitly authorize or prohibit director compensation and cited state Water Code provisions the board asked counsel to evaluate further.","The Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency asked staff and counsel to prepare a memo and presentation on whether to authorize modest compensation for board directors under Water Code rules; the board did not set rates or adopt a policy and only requested more information.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

GMA removes Las Posas Valley small‑ag PAC member for attendance shortfall; constituency to elect replacement

Board deadlocks on Daly Ranch well permit appeal; staff recommends denial, matter to return to full board

Board authorizes interim variances for OPV basins and forms ad hoc committee to resolve backlog

Fox Canyon GMA engages LightGabler for county personnel‑agreement negotiations

Fox Canyon GMA directs staff to return with proposal on limited director compensation