Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Supply topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors and independent hydrologists challenge Siegler Springs North water analysis; applicant defends monitoring approach
Summary
Neighbors, sanctuary representatives and independent hydrogeologists told the board the applicant's hydrology report uses inappropriate methods for fractured volcanic aquifers and underestimates long-term drawdown; the applicant's consultant defended the study and said conservative assumptions plus monitoring would protect supply.
Multiple public commenters and two independent hydrogeologists told the Board of Supervisors the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration understates hydrological risks for the fractured volcanic aquifer underlying the proposed Siegler Springs North site. Alexander Powell (Adidam Holy Domains) and other neighbors cited Geosyntec reviews that, they said, identify inappropriate formulae for fractured-rock systems, summer vs. winter test timing, mislocated well coordinates in submitted maps and an overly optimistic assumption that groundwater fully recovers each day.
Powell told the board: "These unresolved technical issues warrant a full environmental impact report before the project can be responsibly considered." Opponents also pointed to incidents where nearby wells reportedly went dry during past droughts and argued that cumulative impacts from existing and approved cannabis projects within a three-mile radius had not been adequately quantified.
The applicant's hydrology consultant, Angie Dodd of Northpointe Consulting Group, told supervisors she used conservative, canopy-based water calculations and multiple recharge methods; she reported an annual demand estimate of about 4.9 acre-feet/year and described a six-hour production test that drew down five feet but recovered rapidly on cessation. Dodd said monitoring and reporting are part of the recommended mitigation measures and that the project includes season-specific cultivation reductions tied to state drought indicators (e.g., reduce to 2.5 acres in severe drought and 2 acres in extreme/exceptional drought).
Staff pointed to hydrology attachment A6 (initial study, pdf p.32) as containing tables and cumulative APN analyses, and to page 55 for the cumulative impacts discussion. Opponents say those materials do not sufficiently address multi-year pumping scenarios for fractured volcanic systems. The board required ongoing hydrology monitoring and reporting as part of the permit conditions and directed staff to ensure monitoring provisions are clear and enforceable before the permit is validated.
Key contested facts in the record: the applicant-reported annual usage (4.9 acre-feet/year) and a staff-cited peak monthly usage (411,000 gallons in October) versus opponents' plant-count–based estimates that produced larger annual totals; the precise well location relative to mapped springs; and whether a six-hour pump test is sufficient evidence of sustainable yield for a fractured volcanic aquifer.
