1. The demand management framework would guide planning, not immediately restrict pumping. Staff compared the proposed framework to a water shortage contingency plan. Its stages and triggers would help identify possible responses if groundwater conditions worsen, but the framework would not itself activate a measure. Staff said recommendations would go to the board for a future decision. Committee members and public commenters questioned how restrictions might affect areas they described as sustainable. One member warned that a framework could lead to further regulation.
2. The framework’s relationship with the SMC TAC remains a central question. Members praised the Sustainable Management Criteria Technical Advisory Committee (SMC TAC), which serves the Forebay and Upper Valley. A public commenter argued that its work is broader and more detailed than the proposed framework and questioned whether the framework would displace its role. Staff described the two efforts as complementary: the TAC evaluates groundwater conditions and recommends when action is needed, while the framework helps the agency prepare possible measures and programs. Staff said valley-wide program design would let affected subbasins participate from the outset.
Already have an account? Sign In
