Residents, GPAC urge stronger geothermal protections, buffers and water safeguards in draft plan

The Lake County General Plan Advisory Committee and multiple members of the public pressed county staff on April 3 to tighten the draft Geothermal Resources element, saying the current language leaves too much discretion for industry and risks harm to water, cultural sites and neighborhood safety.

Tanya Sunberg, a principal with PlaceWorks, summarized the draft element as aiming to “support the efficient, sustainable and safe use of the countys geothermal resources” through policies that promote research, predictable permitting, and protections for water and air quality. Committee members and speakers quickly focused on implementation details, urging stronger, mandatory language rather than aspirational text.

“Review current geothermal setback map and requirements in Article 27...for potential updates and amendments to accommodate technological and industrial advances” appears in the draft as GR1.A, but several members said that sentence reads like a relaxation of the 2008 protections. A GPAC member stated the committees view plainly: preserve or strengthen the 2008 setback standards around Clear Lake and other sensitive water bodies so developments do not encroach on shorelines or viewscapes.

Public commenters and several committee members also called for clearer restrictions on what may be injected into the subsurface. One longtime industry worker warned against proprietary "fracking" fluids and urged that any injection policy prohibit undisclosed or Prop 65-listed chemicals. Speakers urged the draft be amended to require full disclosure of injection substances, and to explicitly prioritize water‑quality protections.

Committee members identified additional implementation gaps: inspection capacity and technical expertise within county staff, monitoring requirements for seismicity and subsidence, and stronger financial assurances for decommissioning. On that last point, an advisory member urged requiring reclamation bonds to ensure sites are restored if an operator abandons a plant or files for bankruptcy.

Tribal consultation and cultural resources were a recurrent theme. GPAC members and tribal representatives said mitigation is not an adequate substitute for avoidance at known cultural sites and hot springs that have spiritual significance. Members recommended adding policies requiring early and ongoing tribal collaboration and procedures to avoid disturbance to cultural landscapes.

PlaceWorks and county staff said some protections have been strengthened in the draft (enhanced monitoring language and water‑conservation requirements) and noted existing authorities such as conditional use permits and the countys ability to require third‑party inspectors or consultants. Staff also said a co‑management agreement for Clear Lake is in development but clarified that a watershed co‑management agreement would not necessarily provide the same authorities over geothermal development on private land.

Public speakers sought more transparency about where geothermal development may be proposed, arguing that if the county is aware of areas of interest—especially sites close to Clear Lake or wastewater treatment facilities—that information should be reflected in planning materials so residents can evaluate potential local impacts over the plans 25-year horizon.

The committee asked staff to consider the following specific changes: stronger, unambiguous language to maintain or increase setbacks from the lake; mandatory disclosure and prohibition of undisclosed or harmful injection chemicals; explicit tribal avoidance language for cultural sites; clearer requirements for qualified inspectors and monitoring; and financial assurances such as reclamation bonds. Staff said they will compile GPAC and public comments for internal review and that the near-final draft will go to Planning Commission and the Board this summer for hearings.