Panel refines reporting and privacy guidance, flags alternate reporting for nurseries and next steps for public comment
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The panel discussed anonymized public reporting tables, adding acreage-bin categories for interpretability, alternate reporting pathways for nurseries and small diversified growers, and set deadlines: cleaned draft by Feb 17 and public-notice timing ahead of a March 11 workshop.
Panelists reviewed data‑reporting language in the draft report and agreed to improve clarity on public‑facing summary tables, anonymization and alternative reporting methods for sectors where calculating removal ('r') is impractical.
What the panel agreed: Thomas Harder and others described how some regions (Region 5, Region 3) already publish anonymized tables that include APN-level or township-level rows and noted these tables currently may lack acreage information. The panel supported adding a binned-acreage column to public-facing summaries so readers can judge whether progress is driven by large or small operations, without exposing individual farm identities. Ruth Alquist Swillard and others reminded the group that regional boards should retain flexibility to set categories appropriate to local conditions.
Nurseries and diversified small farms: Panelists acknowledged that some nurseries sell potted plants with substrate, meaning conventional 'r' calculations (crop removal coefficients) are difficult. The group proposed allowing alternate reporting methods—such as whole‑farm 'a' reporting, discharge monitoring, or best‑practice documentation—where appropriate, and to mark that recommendation as based on the presentations provided to the panel.
Privacy and public availability: The panel discussed clarifying whether summary tables are outward-facing public tables or internal INMP tables and decided the draft should explicitly refer to "public-facing reporting tables" and describe what is included in each (APN/field anonymized rows, township tables with acreage). Panelists also asked Daniel to add language noting that regional boards can determine their category bins.
Timetable and procedural steps: Daniel Geisler said he will prepare a cleaned draft by Tuesday (to be distributed Wednesday). Staff clarified that to meet public-notice requirements for a March 11 working-group meeting the panel should respond by Feb 20–23; the Water Board staff also flagged subsequent review dates (April 20, April 29 and a May 4 plenary check). Panel members were told the panel's response to the cleaned draft should be a thumbs-up or thumbs-down; if thumbs-down, staff will compile comments for the next working-group meeting.
Ending: The meeting moved to public comment after these agreements; the panel did not adopt any formal votes but set concrete editorial and procedural actions that will shape the public draft.