To the Editor: Concerned about GA progress

I attended a meeting the other night and present were members of the GSA, and a quorum of TAC and PAC members. The meeting lasted 4 hrs. and part of the discussion was whether the PAC and TAC meetings could consider things not dictated by the GSA. I was very disappointed to see that the two possible solutions to the Critical Overdraft of the IWV aquifer were again not even a minor part of the discussion.

The longest winded discussion centered around the restrictions embodied in the Brown Act which effectively muzzles the committee members from discussing anything outside the meetings and even then the subjects must be on the official Agenda. I queried them about the apparent almost Religious fervor in avoiding mentioning the only way to get sustainable water system: Mitigating the Overdraft. They claimed to talk about it a lot. It doesn’t show in any meeting agenda that I’ve seen or any of the minutes that I’ve read.

The new Water Manager said that they weren’t ready to pursue those things. It has been more than 3 years since I presented some calculations that attempt to show the scope of the overdraft vs the best guess as to the recharge. My numbers did not receive any critical argument.

I forecast that as long as they use the State deadlines in achieving a Sustainable water system we will be risking the loss of our potable water and potentially the total loss of the Valley. Their present trajectory focusses on mainly administrivia and almost Religiously avoids the use of the words Mitigate the Overdraft.

It appears that the GSA either chooses, for some unknown reason to not take direct action, or does not know how to implement a Sustainable Aquifer for IWV. It appears that the only Sustainability being considered is the Sustainabililty of their committees.

Stuart Fields

Story First Published: 2017-10-27