TO: Technical Advisory Group for the Napa County Groundwater Sustainability Agency
FROM: Brian Bordona - Director of Planning, Building and Environmental Services
REPORT BY: Jamison Crosby, Natural Resources Conservation Manager
SUBJECT: Report on Communication and Engagement Plan Interviews
RECOMMENDATION
title
Provide an update to the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) on stakeholder interviews conducted in support of updating the Groundwater Sustainability Agency’s Communication and Engagement Plan.
body
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item provides highlights from the Stakeholder Assessment interviews conducted in conjunction with an update of the Napa County Groundwater Sustainability Agency Communication and Engagement Plan.
Procedure
Staff introduces.
Questions and answers with the TAG.
Public comments.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed action is not a project as defined by 14 California Code of Regulations 15378 (State CEQA Guidelines) and therefore CEQA is not applicable.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
A foundational principal of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) is that sustainable planning and implementation is best built on a foundation of mutual understanding. This requires proactive communication and engagement activities. The Napa County Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) seeks to fulfill this principle by engaging interested parties as it works towards sustainably managing groundwater. One step in the engagement effort is to update the Communication and Engagement Plan (CEP) developed as part of the compilation of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP).
The original CEP focused on engaging key parties and the public in the GSP development. The current update reflects the needs for information, communications, and engagement appropriate to GSP implementation. The update also reflects continuing efforts to implement the GSP through the development of four technical workplans.
The update is being prepared by third party facilitators from Stantec, Inc. provided by the California Department of Water Resources through its Facilitation Support Services program.
UPDATE STEPS
During the May 5, 2023, TAG meeting, Lisa Beutler, Senior Facilitator from Stantec, provided an overview of their review of the existing CEP. After highlighting areas of the CEP the facilitators planned to focus on during the update process, she sought input from the TAG on their priorities and suggestions for the update.
During May and June, Stantec worked with the County GSA staff and technical team to identify the key parties and members of the public with an interest (stake) in the GSP and likely interest in the CEP update. Identified parties included representatives of the following sectors:
• Planning Agencies/Districts
• Environmental/Conservation Groups
• Grape and Winegrowers
• Cities, Counties, and Water Agencies
• Community Groups
• Business Interests
• Environmental Justice and Public Health Interests
• Academic Entities
• State/Federal Agencies
• Vineyard and Winery Management Companies
The identified individuals were invited to participate in one of eleven 60-90-minute Stakeholder Assessment interviews focused on updating the CEP. Of the 115 invited, 35 were able to join the sector-based interviews held in July and August.
Stakeholder Assessments are considered a best practice in the development of a CEP. Assessments are designed to identify problems and opportunities, key issues important to the stakeholders, preferred communication approaches, and lessons learned.
The Napa CEP update assessment interview questions focused on:
• Overarching perspectives from stakeholders on general Napa water conditions and their involvement with water issues
• Familiarity with groundwater sustainability requirements and level of engagement with the GSP development and implementation
• Thoughts on past and current communications/engagement
• Insights on the best approached to share information within the Subbasin
• Advice to better inform the CEP update
• Defining success
A copy of the questions (including follow-up questions) as well as an interview primer was provided to interviewees in advance. Participants were also advised that it was common for interviewees to answer more than one question at a time and the interview would focus on topics of the most interest to them. Some groups utilized the full 90 minutes and other interviews with fewer participants occasionally were completed in 30-45 minutes.
INTERVIEW HIGHLIGHTS
Most of the participating individuals were familiar with SGMA and the Napa County GSA. Among that group, many had been engaged in the development of the GSP as a participant in the Groundwater Sustainability Plan Advisory Committee and others had stayed informed through updates provided through their professional, association, employer, and industry affiliations.
The following provides a brief overview of interview highlights:
Perceptions of Napa water conditions and groundwater sustainability were varied among the sectors. Some considered the existing water management practices paired with climate adaption and other on-going modifications (like irrigation improvements and cropping patterns) to be sustainable over the long term. Others reported a sense of urgency regarding the water situation, pointing to the exceedance of GSP minimum thresholds, observed changes in streams and rivers, and ecosystem impairment.
Perceptions of past and current GSA communications varied, primarily by sector, however, nearly all of the sectors reported a need for increased communication and frustration with the current public input mechanisms. Several also described the complexity of accessing meeting information on the web and the difficulty of navigating the county website.
Some interviewees provided specific examples of situations where they believed their input had been dismissed or completely ignored. That said, several interviewees reported an increase in communications over the last six months and what they viewed as a genuine effort by the County GSA staff to improve engagement.
There was also broad agreement that depending on their interests, stakeholders often required differing levels of communication. Many suggested a need to develop more user-friendly content for non-technical audiences, targeted communications relevant to the audience’s interests, physical environment, and geographical location, the frequency and volume of content, and the communication methodologies utilized.
The issue of tourism and managing communications with thousands of individuals that do not live or work in the basin was raised in several interviews. It was noted that while the time spent in the County might be minimal, the cumulative impact of such significant numbers of people should be addressed in the CEP. The potential for these audiences to be advocates for the Subbasin and its water was also considered.
Interestingly, while there was broad agreement there should be more education efforts as a part of communications and engagement, there was a wide range of perspectives on which groups should be the target of those communications, and on which subjects. The most striking examples related to differing perceptions of educational needs of urban/suburban and agricultural audiences.
Participants reported a need for information to be provided through a variety of methods. However, at the individual level there was a general preference for electronic communications, such as emails and texts, over physical mailers. Most of the interviewees also mentioned changes in the effectiveness of communications through the local newspaper. The use of social media was rarely mentioned.
Many interviewees recommended increased use of communication partnerships and utilization of existing organizations and events to reach more audiences. There were also suggestions related to working with the schools and youth organizations. An additional recommendation was to use more innovative and out-of-the-box types of communication methods along with tools like dashboards.
Those familiar with the GSP stressed the importance of the CEP reflecting the uniqueness of the Napa Valley Subbasin and the need for communicating how that impacts sustainability. Many participants also explained that the conversation about groundwater sustainability needed to consider more than groundwater. They felt the conversation needed to be inclusive of climate change, surface water, ecosystems, housing, water quality and more.
With a few exceptions, many of the interviewees expressed appreciation for the opportunity to provide input on GSA communications and asked to be included in future outreach. A number generously provided follow-up emails with additional information and reference materials.
NEXT STEPS
Information gathered during the assessment will be utilized in updating the CEP. A draft update is planned for public review in October-November 2023.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
A. Presentation
B. Sample Interview Agenda and Interview Questions
C. Interview Instructions