Fox Canyon agency posts revised allocation ordinance draft, aims to fix court objections while preserving base allocations

Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency staff placed a draft revised allocation ordinance into the public record Thursday and invited stakeholders to submit detailed comments before the board considers adoption.

Executive Officer John told the board the draft rewrites Article 6 — the section governing allocations — to remove program‑specific language the court identified as differential or objectionable and to replace it with “an overall in‑lieu delivery adjustment mechanism” intended to credit substitute (non‑groundwater) supplies equitably across operators. John said the in‑lieu credit would be “a credit, not to exceed the amount that they pumped under their allocation, which is good for 3 years.” He also described a streamlined transfer process to allow water purveyors to transfer allocation to private well owners when purveyor supplies are insufficient, and a force‑majeure provision that would permit limited temporary increases in pumping with executive‑officer approval.

The change is driven in part by litigation. John said the original ordinance, adopted in 2019, was immediately challenged in court and subsequent revisions have tried to balance the court’s concerns with basin management goals.

Stakeholders at the meeting urged clearer drafting, more examples, and a demonstrative exhibit to show how carryover and in‑lieu adjustments will work in practice. Michael Wolf, Oxnard’s director of public works, said Oxnard submitted a technical memo and requested clearer rules about how in‑lieu availability would be demonstrated; he reminded the board Oxnard had offered comments during prior reviews. United Water representatives asked that longstanding programs such as the Pleasant Valley Pipeline and the Pumping Trough Pipeline remain recognized or be explicitly accounted for, citing decades‑long contributions to basin sustainability.

Board members suggested the agency formalize engagement dates and return the item for a first reading and then additional hearings. John said staff would not bring the draft forward for adoption until they were satisfied with stakeholder outreach and revisions; he noted legal timing that makes it important to move the work forward so the agency can present something to the court by summer.

Next steps: the draft is in the public record for comment; staff will review submitted materials, meet with stakeholders, and bring a revised ordinance back to the board for further readings and possible adoption.