HomeMy Public PortalAbout7.1 Public Comment - Richard AndersonPublic Comment Form
Upon clicking submit, your comment will be emailed to the relevant Council, Commission, or Committee Members
and Town Department Heads and uploaded to the Town website for public view. Please note, it does take time to get
your comment uploaded to public view.
First Name
Richard
Last Name
Anderson
E-mail
Agency *
Town Council
Planning Commission
Other
Date of Meeting *
2023-03-21
To find the date for an upcoming meeting or to view the agenda, click
here. Agendas are posted at least 72 hours before the meeting time.
Agenda Item Number (?)
7.1
Public Comment *(?)
I’ve had a chance to review Ascent’s responses to my comments on the GPU’s DEIR. They are astonishingly inadequate, riddled with
errors in fact and logic, and wholly dismissive of the potential impact of GPU-related water demand on groundwater-dependent
ecosystems and surface waters. I’ll be compiling and providing a more complete list of the inadequacies of Ascent’s environmental
review to the Town Council in April. For your meeting tonight and tomorrow, though, here are some of the concerns that Ascent needs
to remedy.
1. Ascent asserts that “implementation of the GPU would not substantially decrease groundwater supply which minimizes impact of
groundwater/surface water interactions and protects beneficial uses of groundwater dependent ecosystems.” The problem with this
bizarre and oddly-worded assertion is that it ignores seasonal declines in the water table that are caused by groundwater pumping,
and thus ignores the primary issue raised by the comment letter from California Fly Fisher, which is this: The Martis Valley
Groundwater Basin contains plenty of water, but pumping during the peak-demand periods of summer and autumn can lead -- and
has indeed led -- to the lowering of water tables in some areas of Martis Valley. Will GPU-related growth in water demand lower water
tables to such an extent that groundwater-dependent ecosystems and species that rely on surface waters are harmed?
2. Ascent asserts, with regard to GPU-related impacts to groundwater-dependent ecosystems and surface waters, that “compliance
with State law, Federal law, and GPU policies and actions would reduce potential impacts of future development under the GPU.”
This assertion is not supported in the FEIR. Please have Ascent describe how each of these obliquely-referred-to laws and GPU
policies and actions will in fact reduce the impact of development-related groundwater demand on groundwater-dependent
ecosystems and surface waters.
3. Ascent asserts that “compliance with the 2013 [Martis Valley Groundwater Basin] Groundwater Plan would result in management
of the groundwater basin in a manner that considers the effects of groundwater withdraw[al] on groundwater-dependent ecosystems
and surface waters.” Please have Ascent explain how this “consideration,” which implements nothing and, worse, is not under Town
management, achieves protection of groundwater-dependent ecosystems and surface waters.
4. Please have Ascent expand its Response 10-4 to directly address, rather than skirt, the issue raised by California Fly Fisher, which
is that development in the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin will accentuate
summer/autumn fluctuations in groundwater levels and harm groundwater-dependent ecosystems and surface waters. Please also
have Ascent explain how the TDPUD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan directly protects groundwater-dependent ecosystems
and surface waters.
Commissioners, please ask the Town Council not to certify the GPU FEIR until the groundwater issues raised in the DEIR comments
are adequately addressed and mitigations identified.
Upon clicking submit, your comment will be emailed to the relevant Council, Commission, or Committee Members and Town Department Heads
and uploaded to the Town website for public view.