Fox Canyon GMA approves three 5-year GSP evaluations, declines immediate amendments after stakeholder objections

The Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency board on Dec. 13 approved and authorized staff to submit the five‑year periodic evaluations of the Groundwater Sustainability Plans for the Oxnard Subbasin, Pleasant Valley Basin and Las Posas Valley Basin to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), while declining to recommend formal amendments to the GSPs at this time.

The board’s actions implement a DWR requirement that periodic evaluations be submitted five years after the originally filed GSP; the agency’s evaluations are due Jan. 13, 2025. Interim Executive Officer Arnie Ansall and the agency consultant Dudek presented the final draft evaluations and answered questions after a 16‑month process that included four workshops and a public comment period that closed in October.

Why it matters: the evaluations assess whether implementation of the GSPs is moving groundwater conditions toward the sustainability goals set in the original plans. DWR requires the five‑year assessment but does not require a plan amendment; the board may choose to amend a GSP later if new information or project results indicate a change in management is warranted.

Board action and votes - Oxnard Subbasin (Item 19, part 1): Board approved submission of the Oxnard periodic evaluation to DWR. Roll call: Chair West — yes; Director Long — yes; Director Tremblay — yes; Director Kaviota — yes. Outcome: approved.

- Pleasant Valley Basin (Item 19, part 2): After extended public comment and a motion by Director Tremblay to attach stakeholder letters and clarify language, the board approved submission of the Pleasant Valley periodic evaluation as amended. The amendments instructed staff to (a) add a statement noting the eastern Pleasant Valley complexities and that the periodic evaluation should not prejudice further analysis, (b) attach two stakeholder letters (Camaro?sa Water District and City of Camarillo) as documents submitted with the evaluation, and (c) correct a specific response in the evaluation appendices. Roll call: Chair West — yes; Director Long — yes; Director Tremblay — yes; Director Kravioto — no. Outcome: approved (3–1).

- Las Posas Valley Basin (Item 20): Board approved staff responses to the Las Posas Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) recommendation reports and authorized submission of the Las Posas periodic evaluation to DWR. Roll call: Chair West — yes; Director Long — yes; Director Tremblay — yes; Director Kavioto — yes. Outcome: approved.

What the evaluations conclude and stakeholders’ concerns Dudek and Fox Canyon staff told the board the evaluations do not show the basins are yet fully sustainable but indicate the basins are on trajectories—under current implementation and given recent wet years—to meet the GSP targets set for 2025 and ultimately the sustainability goals by 2040 if projects and management actions continue. Trevor Jones of Dudek summarized the technical finding: "The 3 basins are achieving the 2025 targets established in the GSP." He and staff noted that groundwater elevations have generally risen since the 2020 baseline, that groundwater extractions continue to exceed sustainable-yield estimates, and that chloride (seawater intrusion) increased along the coastline with the largest increases near Port Hueneme and Port Mugu.

Several public commenters urged the board not to submit amendments now and raised procedural and technical objections. Michael Wolf, Oxnard’s director of public works, praised the process overall but urged careful treatment of projects in any future amendment. Norman Huff, general manager of Camarosa Water District, said his district "cannot support the board's approval and submission of the 5‑year periodic evaluation for the Pleasant Valley Basin" without additional revisions; his letter and others requested more transparent access to modeling inputs, clearer collaboration, and more time to vet scenario results. Camarillo and Camarosa officials submitted additional comment letters during the meeting and asked those letters be attached to the final submission.

Board discussion and technical clarifications Fox Canyon staff and Dudek said they received "hundreds of comments" and revised the drafts accordingly; Robert Hampson, Fox Canyon hydrologist, told the board, "We received a comment letter that was 50 pages long for this," and said responses to comment letters are compiled in the evaluations’ appendices. Dudek reported it revised recommendations after stakeholder feedback and no longer recommends changing minimum thresholds or measurable objectives in the GSPs at this time. Dudek and staff noted that some projects in planning or early operation (for example, projects in Oxnard) could require future reconsideration of measurable objectives once project performance data are available.

Motion to amend the Pleasant Valley submission Director Tremblay offered a formal motion to approve the Pleasant Valley submission subject to three specific changes: (1) add an executive‑summary paragraph acknowledging the Eastern Pleasant Valley complexities and that the evaluation "should not be understood to prejudice further analysis of those issues," (2) attach the City of Camarillo and Camarosa Water District comment letters to the materials submitted to DWR, and (3) direct staff to correct a specific consultant response in appendix A (the response to Comment Letter 6 on page A‑8) that the director said inaccurately cited Resolution 2016‑04. The board adopted the motion 3–1; staff committed to correct the referenced appendix language prior to submittal.

Next steps and implementation Staff will submit the three final periodic evaluations to DWR by Jan. 13, 2025, per DWR’s schedule. The board and consultant emphasized that amendments to a GSP remain a board discretion and are most appropriately considered when project outcomes or new technical information justify changes. Dudek and agency staff also flagged the need to continue coordination among agencies and stakeholders on project implementation, monitoring-network updates, and annual reporting. The board asked staff to build the next workplan and calendar with more frequent committee meetings so project implementation and data gaps can be addressed before the next five‑year cycle.

Ending note: stakeholder requests and transparency Multiple stakeholders told the board they want clearer documentation of model inputs and scenario assumptions and more centralized leadership and coordination across agencies during future evaluations. The board’s December motion for Pleasant Valley directs staff to include the two specific stakeholder letters with the final submission and to correct an identified response in the appendix, addressing one of the meeting’s central transparency concerns.