Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Dwr Submission topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Groundwater authority agrees to send technical materials to DWR for review of safe‑yield issues

Groundwater Authority board · March 11, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Board voted to submit the water district’s court materials and the authority’s supporting analyses to the California Department of Water Resources for technical review to aid mediation and any future adjudication, though staff said the submission itself would not change the basin’s safe‑yield number.

Council Keith recommended voluntarily submitting to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) the technical reports and exhibits that the water district submitted to court along with the groundwater authority’s supporting analyses. He said DWR’s review could help clarify whether any safe‑yield determination produced through litigation would meet DWR’s technical standards and could be useful during mediation.

Staff explained the submission would include the water district’s court exhibits and the authority’s full suite of supporting models and analyses so DWR would have a complete record. In phone questions and public comment, callers asked whether such submission presumes a particular safe‑yield number; Council Keith and staff said the act of submitting material does not itself change any baseline number and that any safe‑yield determination arising from adjudication would follow its own legal process.

Public commenters urged caution: one caller raised concerns about who would bear costs if a safe‑yield number were adjusted and criticized previous settlements; another, Judy Decker, expressed concern about whether DWR staff reviewing the materials had the scientific qualifications to resolve technical disputes. Council Keith and staff said they would submit the materials and that DWR had already asked follow‑up questions; staff noted the DWR had requested additional responses and that those responses would be prepared for the agency.

The board moved to submit the technical reports for DWR review. The motion passed by the authority’s vote; transcripts record the water district separately recording a 'no' vote.