Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adjudication topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge seeks scientific special master after Phase 2 groundwater trial, authority says
Summary
General counsel said the Phase 2 trial on the basin's safe yield prompted the judge to propose appointing a scientific special master; parties are compiling candidate lists and the State Water Resources Control Board will provide nominees if needed, a process Labille said could take months.
General counsel Keith Labille told the Groundwater Authority on Tuesday that after the Phase 2 trial addressing the basin's safe-yield determination the judge signaled he would appoint a scientific expert, called a special master, to help evaluate the technical evidence.
Labille said the trial consisted mainly of expert testimony and that the judge, noting the technical complexity and his limited background in hydrology, "said, essentially, look, guys. This is a very important decision. It's very technically driven. I'm not a water expert." Labille said parties are working to agree on a list of candidates and that "the judge is going to ask the State Water Resources Control Board for a list of names" if the parties cannot reach consensus.
Why it matters: the special master will review voluminous trial evidence, historical reports and modeling inputs that underpin competing safe-yield estimates. Labille emphasized that establishing safe yield requires "sound hydrological science, reliable groundwater modeling, and a full accounting of the data" and said the task will take time because the appointee must become familiar with extensive technical materials.
Labille described how the adjudication has been divided into phases and that Phase 2 focused on safe yield. He explained that the 7,650 figure used in the Groundwater Authority's groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) has been treated as a theoretical input that is repeatedly tested against models; "we checked it again. Still passes the check," he said, noting models have been iterated since 2016 and reviewed again with added data.
On specific technical concerns raised during the trial, Labille told the board that evapotranspiration (ET) from playa areas was discussed by the judge and the Department of Water Resources. "We recognized to the department that that does not include a number for ET," Labille said, and added that accounting for ET would likely reduce the available amount of water in the safe-yield calculation.
Next steps: Labille said the parties are assembling candidate names for the special master and that if the parties cannot agree the court will likely appoint someone from a list provided by the State Water Resources Control Board. He declined to predict a timetable but said the appointee will face a substantial workload reviewing both trial exhibits and historical basin data.
