Panel flags data quality and farmer-reporting questions; staff to consolidate comments and set schedule
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Panelists raised auditing and reporting concerns about coalition data and farm-level summary tables, recommended coalition-level calculations to reduce farmer burden, and staff outlined an accelerated timetable that includes a Dec. 17 public listening session and a Jan. 14 draft target.
Panelists on the State Water Resources Control Board working group repeatedly raised concerns about the quality and usability of coalition- and farm-level reporting data and recommended practical steps to reduce implementation burden while improving oversight.
Daniel Geiser, extension specialist at UC Davis, told the panel that the staff needs to improve audits of coalition data before regulators rely on reported values for enforcement or target‑setting. Geiser cautioned that early audits have revealed numerous reporting errors and urged additional auditing steps and clearer guidance on how farmers should produce inputs to compute A–R.
Panelists debated whether summary tables proposed for Question 5 — which ask for irrigation method, primary/secondary irrigation systems, soil texture, management practices and other field‑level inputs — should be made public at the farm scale. Several argued for publishing aggregate, regional summaries while keeping farm‑level data confidential or available only at coalition scale to avoid unfair exposure of individual operations and to reduce farmer reporting burden. The group suggested coalitions calculate coefficients and submit aggregated results where feasible.
On near-term process, staff asked panelists to send written comments to Sam for consolidation. The staff outlined meeting dates for continuing work: Dec. 5 and Dec. 12 working sessions, a public listening session on Dec. 17, a Jan. 7 group meeting and a Jan. 14 full‑day session to finalize a draft for public comment. Staff said it aims to provide a cleaned draft and meeting materials in advance and noted legal-notice constraints under Bagley‑Keene when scheduling public hearings.
Panelists asked staff to clarify auditing processes, data‑quality expectations and the level of aggregation for published summaries; staff committed to returning a consolidated draft that reflects the panel’s comments and to circulate a transcript and cleaned drafts on a timetable intended to meet the January target.