Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Well Inventory topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ukiah Valley GSA approves well‑inventory Phase 2, opts for periodic evaluation of groundwater plan
Summary
The Ukiah Valley GSA approved amending its on‑call technical support agreement to proceed with Phase 2 of its well inventory and voted to perform a periodic evaluation of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan rather than a costlier plan amendment. The board cited data gaps and budget concerns.
The Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency on a unanimous roll‑call vote approved an amendment to its on‑call technical support agreement to allow Larry Walker & Associates to undertake Phase 2 of a basin well inventory and separately voted to conduct only a periodic evaluation (PE) of its Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP), not an amendment.
A consultant from Larry Walker & Associates told the board Phase 1 reviewed more than 2,700 well records and improved location and construction details for many entries. Phase 1 added construction or completion information for 63 monitoring wells, 24 current and former public supply wells and roughly 290 agricultural or irrigation wells. The presenter said the team applied a 1977 construction‑date cutoff for Phase 1 and identified more than 1,000 wells with unknown or blank use codes that require further investigation.
General Manager Blake Adams said the Phase 2 work is already budgeted but not yet scoped and that the requested contract amendment would align the on‑call agreement with the intended tasks so staff can proceed. "It is a simple administrative effort to enable that work to proceed," Adams said.
On the periodic‑evaluation question, staff recommended pursuing the PE only, noting that doing both a PE and a plan amendment now would add roughly $200,000 above what has already been budgeted. Director Gasco and other board members supported the PE option on grounds that state guidance for criteria that would justify a plan amendment is not yet available and that the amendment approach would impose greater fiscal cost.
Director Gaska moved to authorize the Phase 2 amendment to the on‑call agreement with Larry Walker & Associates; Director Bailey seconded. The board conducted a roll‑call vote (Ayes recorded) and the motion passed. On the PE motion, Director Gaska moved for the recommended action to proceed with option 1 (periodic evaluation only); Director Bailey seconded and the board again approved the motion by roll call.
The consultant emphasized that Phase 2 will focus on resolving unknown use codes, improving cross‑referencing with monitoring databases, obtaining better elevation and construction information, and representing irrigation/agricultural wells more accurately for modeling. Those gaps, staff said, are important for model calibration and for assessing domestic and public supply well vulnerability.
Next steps: staff will scope Phase 2 work for the contract amendment, return to the board with details and contract language for the on‑call agreement amendment, and proceed with a PE of the GSP. The board indicated it expects further briefings on Phase 2 scope, costs and timing as staff refines the contract amendment.
Votes and procedural notes: the motions to amend the on‑call contract for Phase 2 and to pursue the periodic evaluation were both moved and seconded on the record and approved by roll call.
