[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86,98],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6568257,"mediaKeyId","3205949-8d2dd64fa4512dfdc686f979ce9264ef","parentId",3205949,"title","GSA presents 2024 groundwater annual report: pumping rose to ~16,210 acre‑feet; continued monitoring and actions planned","audioSeconds",1140,"startMs",12658000,"endMs",13798000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3205949-8d2dd64fa4512dfdc686f979ce9264ef&start=12658&end=13798","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3205949-8d2dd64fa4512dfdc686f979ce9264ef/thumbnail_12658000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6568257/Napa-County/California/GSA-presents-2024-groundwater-annual-report-pumping-rose-to-16210-acrefeet-continued-monitoring-and-actions-planned","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568257-fea4a73ca5a9b6b7f1f832c2d7a1611d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771095880&Signature=ER2TXec1fKWjE4eIgmmuJLhm28KpdKk5skqgX2tDzRbc9MS7lSaoly2zq5lJZHTG1CbhAL5GHMdPkwzO4daGRHqy0JR9y0xzEYve2KiAUefXR3a8k-SWNf9l6ai1COwhlFTG6uMvPJ8j60VadEFzoaqwqVFRFsYdkuQeLGFQYYOYrDGIhdXY~8r9sq4opESFOVrFKOMB18JZuHa5rZ23cx0ptnJ2kXb05DrKwPu0wD9hI-5Ss9woEP2fC7xZXQoBUw7nP05OpmNfIgNIRx3NzXaSTx7xA49CepUkIi-uiL5B0ijqI6iArZ7k6dl9jLIuBTw6XmJ3tYzwqsui6SMFcQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-07T04:47:56.067Z","article","The Napa Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) presented its Water Year 2024 annual report to the Board of Supervisors on May 6, summarizing monitored conditions, modeled water budgets, sustainability metrics and planned implementation actions. The report said total groundwater extraction in the Napa Valley sub‑basin rose to roughly 16,210 acre‑feet for the year, with about 73% of pumping attributed to agricultural uses and roughly 18% to self‑supplied users (including domestic and on‑site uses).

Key findings:
- Precipitation and context: Precipitation at the Napa State Hospital gauge was approximately 23 inches for water year 2024, a normal‑to‑below average year; staff cautioned that annual totals do not show seasonality and that 2024 featured a cool, wet spring followed by an unusually hot, dry summer that drove irrigation demand.
- Groundwater and storage: Spring groundwater levels were higher than the historical lows recorded in 2020–2021, but modeled groundwater storage and a seven‑year average of pumping show an exceedance of the GSP's sustainable yield metric (reduction in groundwater storage), continuing a multi‑year trend that the plan tracks as an undesirable result.
- Interconnected surface water (ISW): Modeled stream depletion at two USGS gauging stations (Napa River at Oak Knoll and Pope Street) exceeded the GSP minimum thresholds in 2024 by modest amounts (about 20 acre‑feet at Oak Knoll and 100 acre‑feet at Pope Street); because the GSP defines “undesirable result” as three consecutive years of exceedance, these single‑year exceedances trigger the plan's investigation and response requirements but do not in themselves constitute an undesirable result.
- Localized wells: Two monitoring wells in the Northeast Napa Management Area recorded groundwater levels below their minimum thresholds in fall 2024; staff noted the area is geologically distinct (thin alluvium over volcanic rock, fault‑bounded) and responds differently than the rest of the valley floor.
- Water quality and subsidence: Groundwater quality sampling recorded two monitoring wells with arsenic levels above threshold values; the team described these as areas to build a monitoring history rather than clear evidence of anthropogenic contamination. No subsidence concerns or seawater intrusion issues were identified outside the historically tide‑influenced areas.

Planned and ongoing actions: The report emphasized continued work to expand monitoring (DWR grant funding for five new stream gauges, four on tributaries), refine the Napa Valley Integrated Hydrologic Model (NVIHM), improve data collection (soil moisture and instrumentation pilots), implement a water‑certification partnership concept to incentivize voluntary reductions, coordinate with growers and the RCD on on‑farm recharge and conservation practices, and maintain outreach with the GSA Technical Advisory Group (TAG). Staff also noted potential for future targeted projects — including distributed recharge pilots and partnerships to anonymize grower metering data for basin‑scale analysis — and said the GSA would bring more detailed proposals and economic analyses to the board and technical committees later in 2025.

Board reaction and next steps: Supervisors emphasized the urgency of moving from voluntary measures to more robust basin‑wide approaches if metrics do not improve, requested clearer timelines and milestones, and asked staff to use the TAG and outreach channels to present options and economics for expanded recharge and demand‑reduction measures. No formal board action was required; the presentation was informational and the GSA will continue implementation and report progress to the board and TAG.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","County of Napa - Board of Supervisors May 6, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Napa Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency reported on water year 2024 conditions: modeled groundwater pumping rose to about 16,210 acre‑feet, single‑year stream depletion exceeded thresholds at two gauges, and the GSP's seven‑year reduction‑in‑storage metric remains an area of concern prompting further action.","taxTitle","Napa County, California","taxId",5735,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6568272,"Board of Supervisors denies Water Audit appeal, upholds approval for Bonnie’s Vineyard winery with added conditions",6287,6040000,12327000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3205949-8d2dd64fa4512dfdc686f979ce9264ef&start=6040&end=12327","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3205949-8d2dd64fa4512dfdc686f979ce9264ef/thumbnail_6040000.jpg","/articles/6568272/Napa-County/California/Board-of-Supervisors-denies-Water-Audit-appeal-upholds-approval-for-Bonnies-Vineyard-winery-with-added-conditions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568272-f76eefa9959168d6f2899e92e6cb3d57/orig.mp4?Expires=1771095880&Signature=cb5TY4jYzkPM5YKWeKP2aKcwYbZ5LmctR0IoR78jpByOLjwlDS~b9Ls3Fe21KpnG~R2ykjjkMfwRUCGlmOn9EspVSvBgFqoX-qu0FwN7V3mcYWQnWbZCspvAiasjW~kpiRLRmuCIgnAqk4rzTbePIrjsWrTapFIHqhrQ3AuFxMy4ELWxq4eZLBpsU-vy~MoYcDdw9lWFDiy3Bjexg8MxsJ9lrP6RUEb-e-GXfXfyOBay7WMDAusxyniXmQ7bKUNHnlNye3k68fwBWnqUy3m2RQ1~3LqNzUbbGvlyLnULe8bV3ZM0Tc8EXkQVfhNv4PFQOWV-QQAFYG4OkV4hltTqJQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Napa County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on May 6 to deny an appeal by Water Audit California and uphold the Planning Commission’s December 2024 approval of a new winery use permit for the Bonnie’s Vineyard parcel at 155 Schellinger Lane. The board included additional conditions staff proposed during the hearing: a requirement that a fourth, currently unused well on the parcel be destroyed unless it can be shown already destroyed; a condition limiting winery guest access to Schellinger Lane; and enhanced flow‑regulation, metering and monitoring of all three on‑site wells to ensure overall parcel groundwater use remains at or below the approved limit.

The project as approved by the Planning Commission would construct a roughly 10,996-square-foot, 30,000‑gallon winery with seven-day production and visitation, tours and tastings capped at 45 daily visitors, two large events per year (up to 150) and nine smaller events (up to 80). Project materials describe 20 regular parking spaces with on‑site overflow parking outside of stream setbacks and three 10,000‑gallon tanks that will be filled from the winery well. Staff said the parcel’s overall groundwater was limited by condition to 10.16 acre‑feet per year for all uses on the parcel.

Why the board acted: Staff presented a line‑by‑line response to the appellant’s grounds, concluding the project had been reviewed under CEQA with a mitigated negative declaration, that required mitigations and conditions addressed biological and stream setbacks, and that the county’s Water Availability Analysis (WAA) guidance allowed the project’s methods for estimating water use where direct monitoring data were not available. Dana Morrison, supervising planner for the county, told the board \"staff at this time recommends that the Board of Supervisors deny the appeal in its entirety and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the project,\" and summarized the revised groundwater‑management conditions staff recommended.

The appeal by Water Audit California alleged multiple procedural and technical deficiencies including: that the application lacked required water feasibility documentation, that the project improperly relied on a single well without adequate drilling records, that county review had treated the application inconsistently, and that the county had not satisfied its public‑trust duties regarding streamflow. William McKinnon, representing Water Audit, argued the county’s process had been inconsistent and that required water system feasibility reports had not been appropriately included in the administrative record; he asked the board to send the project back for further analysis. The applicants — represented by attorney Trina Falaise and consultant Cameron (Cam) Pridmore — and project representative Matt Meyer responded that project materials, including the wastewater feasibility report and a WAA, were part of the administrative record, that the winery was designed to avoid stream setbacks, and that the proposal would result in lower overall groundwater use on the parcel than historical orchard and vineyard uses.

New or clarified conditions and next steps: The board approved staff’s recommendation and amended conditions: (1) require destruction of the potential fourth well if it exists and is not already destroyed; (2) require installation of flow regulation devices and metering and limit pumping time/rates on all three identified wells to ensure no net increase in parcel extraction above the 10.16 acre‑feet per year cap; (3) add an explicit condition that winery access be from Schellinger Lane (not via an adjoining private easement); and (4) include the parcel in the county’s well‑monitoring program with reporting to county planning/environmental staff. County counsel was directed to prepare findings and a resolution reflecting the decision and return to the board on June 24 with the formal decision document. Staff also noted that the project’s building permit submittals must satisfy state requirements for the transient non‑community water system before any building permits are issued.

What it means: The decision preserves the Planning Commission’s environmental findings and project design while strengthening enforceable groundwater protections tied to monitoring and flow control. Board members and staff emphasized monitoring and enforcement mechanisms — including possible code enforcement or revocation procedures if monitoring shows a project exceeds its conditioned water budget — as the principal means to address future noncompliance. The board also voiced interest in broader basin‑wide monitoring and policy work the county and Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) are pursuing to track and reduce pumping county‑wide.

Speakers quoted in this article appear in the transcript and are identified in the speakers list above. The board’s motion to deny the appeal passed unanimously, and the matter will return to the board on June 24 for adoption of the formal resolution of findings.","The Napa County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on May 6 to deny Water Audit California’s appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Bonnie’s Vineyard new winery use permit, upholding the permit and adding conditions requiring destruction of an unused well if present, tighter well metering and flow limits, and restricted access to Schellinger Lane.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6568262,"Board adopts state fire hazard severity zone maps for Napa County local responsibility areas",917,12704000,13621000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3205949-8d2dd64fa4512dfdc686f979ce9264ef&start=12704&end=13621","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3205949-8d2dd64fa4512dfdc686f979ce9264ef/thumbnail_12704000.jpg","/articles/6568262/Napa-County/California/Board-adopts-state-fire-hazard-severity-zone-maps-for-Napa-County-local-responsibility-areas","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568262-29d17d5d9a7b1e45414751dc6298f3a4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771095880&Signature=X-X2fvcOzrBc9ZABnfi5xrhb5XCf3zCkEHA-G-Kx8RgqyLCePq9QiWMAdQfHO44cQIecvB~py9tOLm-AGaOcWa0GHwOCX2SnqfsFKLhInDFT6t9Qm~aHfEhhs5N6z8WrNbScxBHL53XmHf~2jT5xuF-i~EjRDeTJOjz3uBWfd-0rC9wzOJMjmlNIfmGz6CrA9ER~Rq67uGOvVqZvQlS-sd7IBav1rjTb1LxY8VJgvt1XHgpbrmTPriakaiDya1jW3N1eUWWYqRxKUpf6L0YV1SQdzyMbiIHwcZUU5DM-JrbZfKBjZnCHut0bx4qaAEUZpq2fRRcuXToAnwehoyCuSw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Napa County Board of Supervisors on May 6 voted unanimously to adopt updated fire hazard severity zone maps developed by the California Office of the State Fire Marshal for the county's Local Responsibility Area (LRA). The maps are the first major statewide update since 2007 and require local adoption of three zone classes (moderate, high and very high). The state mandated adoption deadline requires local jurisdictions to adopt the maps within 120 days of release.

What the maps do: The State Fire Marshal's updated maps use recent fire behavior science, vegetation and fuel‑load data, terrain and local weather patterns, and ember‑exposure modeling to identify areas likely to experience extreme fire behavior over a 50‑year horizon. Jason Downs, the county fire marshal, emphasized the maps indicate hazard (where extreme fire behavior is more likely) and do not measure structure‑level risk or present a prediction of building loss; short‑term mitigation such as recent fuel treatments or defensible‑space work are not reflected in the map.

How the maps will be applied locally: Once adopted, the maps bring county properties in newly mapped areas under rules that already apply in State Responsibility Areas (SRAs): Chapter 7A building standards (WUI construction/fire‑resistant construction standards), defensible space requirements (government code 51182), Napa County road and street standards for emergency access and water supply, and real‑estate disclosures such as AB 38 wildfire hazard reports. Downs said the change means jurisdictions and permitting staff will apply those codes in LRA locations newly mapped as high or very high.

Local process and outreach: The county said it has provided public notice and a press release and will continue outreach; the fire marshal's office said defensible‑space inspectors have been increased to six seasonal staff this year to conduct inspections, education and compliance assistance. County counsel confirmed that local jurisdictions may only make maps more stringent than the state map; they may not reduce mapped hazard levels.

Vote and next steps: The board voted to introduce and express intent to adopt the local ordinance that will formally adopt the updated LRA hazard maps and enable enforcement of the applicable building, defensible‑space and access standards. The county reported it will coordinate implementation with municipal jurisdictions and provide public information about how residents can find their parcel on the State Fire Marshal's mapping tool.

Speakers in this item included Fire Marshal Jason Downs and CAL FIRE/Napa County Fire Chief Matt Ryan; the board requested county communications to publish the state map link and instructions so property owners can confirm whether their parcel falls into a newly mapped zone.","Napa County will adopt updated Local Responsibility Area (LRA) fire hazard severity zone maps produced by the California State Fire Marshal and apply existing state and local regulations (chapter 7A building standards, AB 38 disclosures, defensible space and fire‑safe road standards) to newly mapped areas.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6568267,"Supervisors lift sunset for county micro‑winery ordinance; staff will pursue rule updates with stakeholders",806,11255000,12061000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3205949-8d2dd64fa4512dfdc686f979ce9264ef&start=11255&end=12061","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3205949-8d2dd64fa4512dfdc686f979ce9264ef/thumbnail_11255000.jpg","/articles/6568267/Napa-County/California/Supervisors-lift-sunset-for-county-microwinery-ordinance-staff-will-pursue-rule-updates-with-stakeholders","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568267-2d6acc562cf107575fd85e8df393c005/orig.mp4?Expires=1771095880&Signature=OCut5aQa1xAQaXH-SOBeP~aSof4BJ12OmfR36IV0V3114Tx4ZEudIw6ZKhghg6YkCFtk-1SggSHGMBdyNEkZZ3j2YyI45xIX70yyZRHpnxD9V-sj0fCfoi927-TJh4Zgr-WpCO1Pm4EKOoc77vO3PpeDVf3Wrp3Or2QHXTHb8xU-26tLiuw4FuWGqTddZoec0sgHt2oAMu4WrsssjZgfbLxtchnLOY3~FnldCasBJyrllS18TmqaHlHdIXsxaG7aRBEOer87zqtwtqkABTTSZhJyMA5E6gARGk2PTUe65AbERSpXbqxN4Cyv41A6JVZIhwR3zploqwB7nsPaa54A4Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Napa County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on May 6 to lift the May 5, 2025 sunset date from the county's micro‑winery ordinance, effectively extending the ordinance while county staff completes stakeholder outreach and prepares ordinance amendments.

Staff presentation and scope: Michael Parker of Planning, Building & Environmental Services told the board the immediate request was limited to removing the sunset clause so that staff could continue work with stakeholders and the Planning Commission on amendments under county jurisdiction. The board was told staff will pursue outreach with micro‑winery operators (including two micro‑wineries already approved and several applicants in the queue) and with organized industry groups, and will return with recommended ordinance refinements to the Planning Commission (target: August) and to the Board this fall.

Why it matters: The micro‑winery ordinance was originally adopted to create a streamlined pathway for small producers and to test administrative and operational conditions for small on‑site winemaking operations. Staff noted there was a last‑minute surge of four new applications submitted shortly before the sunset; lifting the sunset gives staff time to consult with both established groups (such as Save Family Farms) and operators who are not affiliated with organized groups.

Board remarks and next steps: Supervisor Leon Alessio moved the staff recommendation to lift the sunset; Supervisor Veil Ramos seconded. Supervisors asked staff to ensure outreach reaches operators who are not part of industry groups and to notify applicants already in the queue that they may be able to refine or resubmit applications now that the deadline has been removed. Staff said the Planning Commission would review proposed amendments in August and return to the Board this fall for action.

Administrative vote: Motion to adopt an intent to adopt ordinance amending section 18.10.020 of chapter 18.1 of the Napa County Code to remove the 05/05/2025 sunset passed unanimously.

Speakers quoted in the article are drawn from the meeting transcript and listed in the speaker roster above.","The Board voted unanimously to remove the May 5, 2025 sunset date from Napa County's temporary micro‑winery ordinance, allowing the county time to pursue stakeholder outreach and proposed amendments via the Planning Commission and return with changes this summer and fall.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

GSA presents 2024 groundwater annual report: pumping rose to ~16,210 acre‑feet; continued monitoring and actions planned

Board of Supervisors denies Water Audit appeal, upholds approval for Bonnie’s Vineyard winery with added conditions

Board adopts state fire hazard severity zone maps for Napa County local responsibility areas

Supervisors lift sunset for county micro‑winery ordinance; staff will pursue rule updates with stakeholders