By Joel Hastings
In a decision dated June 2, 2026 Judge Eric J. LiCalsi of the Superior Court in Madera issued a finding that Madera County did not violate the California constitution under either Proposition 218 or Proposition 26 when it imposed a groundwater allocation program and initiated a per-acre fee to pay for groundwater management activities in 2022. As a result, the per acre GSA fees are allowable applied to the growers in the Madera Subbasin GSA white areas.
Led by local grower Ralph Pistoresi, a group of farmers calling itself Valley Groundwater Coalition, sued the county to stop its collection of the GSA project fees of $246 per acre on white area acreage in the Madera Subbasin and $138 per enrolled acre in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin. According to GSA leadership, those fees were required to carry out a wide range of activities intended to bring balance to groundwater use by 2040 as required under SGMA.
In December that year, when the county tax department was preparing to add that fee to grower tax bills, an injunction was granted, preventing the county from collecting this money. The suit claimed that growers had been improperly notified as required by Prop 218. The suit also claimed that the amount to be collected was excessive, not commensurate with the activities planned and that others, besides growers, benefitted from the activities being funded, neither allowable under Prop 26.
After additional court filings in the case, the injunction was dissolved on March 7, 2025 under a California law that taxpayers must pay first and sue later. Even as the county was allowed to collect fees, in July 2025, the county board of supervisors reduced the fee to $59 per acre. This new, lower amount was aimed at funding only the costs of the domestic well mitigation program, which provides for the reconstructions of wells that have gone dry due to surrounding agricultural activity. (There was no fee imposed in Delta – Mendota because there are no domestic wells.) The mitigation program had been included in the GSA’s groundwater sustainability plan submitted to the state’s Department of Water Resources.
In his ruling, the judge cited a recent case that said that GSA fees are not a tax on individual property owners that requires a vote under Prop 218. Instead, the funds accrue to programs facilitating the management of overdraft in the subbasin.
The judge also documented in his filing that the “two prongs” of Prop 26 had been satisfied. He said the per acre fee does closely approximate the cost of the activity, one requirement.
And he cited statistics showing that it has been agricultural activity creating the overdraft that requires domestic well mitigation, justifying the fee on white area farmland acres. His opinion states, “As noted in the Annual Report for Water Year 2023-2024, in the Madera County GSA area agricultural users extracted 241,900 acre-feet of groundwater that year for use on approximately 87,100 acres of farmland. All other users combined extracted only 8,100 acre-feet of groundwater.
“In other words, in Water Year 2023-2024, agriculture was responsible for extracting 2.8 acre-feet of groundwater per irrigated acre, or approximately 460% more than the sustainable yield associated with those acres. Thus, payor’s burden on the government activity of providing sustainable access to groundwater and maintaining the basin is particularly high.”
His opinion concludes that Prop 218 doesn’t apply and that Prop 26 has been satisfied – the cost is reasonable and the payors are responsible.
Commenting on the case, Stephanie Anagnoson, director of the Madera County Department of Water and Natural Resources who administers the Madera GSA, issued this statement.
“Madera County Groundwater Sustainability Agency is committed to continued transparency and collaboration with all growers, residents and water agencies. This decision affirms our commitment to pursuing sustainability within the confines of the state mandates while maintaining a robust agricultural economy.”
Speaking for the plaintiffs, attorney Patrick Gorman of the law firm Wild, Carter & Tipton in Fresno, provided this statement.
“We are currently reviewing the decision in detail to determine our next steps. Coalition members are certainly disappointed with the decision, however, they do not forget how far we have come since the lawsuit was filed in October 2022. At that time, the County had imposed GSP fees of $246 per acre to fund four projects including getting water from the Sites Reservoir, should it ever be built. As a result of the lawsuit and the Coalition’s efforts, the County voted last July to reduce the fee to $59 to solely fund Domestic Well Mitigation. The reduction in the fee saves farmers in the white area of the Madera Subbasin more than $15 million per year. The Coalition still believes that the current GSP fee is unconstitutional because it is assessed solely against farmers (who cannot use the service) while sparing all other users of groundwater in the Madera Subbasin.”
Coalition leader Ralph Pistoresi said he would have no comment until he had consulted with attorneys.
DISCLAIMER OF RESPONSIBILITY; Waterwrights.net strives to provide its clients with the most complete, up-to-date, and accurate information available. Nevertheless, Waterwrights.net does not serve as a guarantor of the accuracy or completeness of the information provided, and specifically disclaims any and all responsibility for information that is not accurate, up-to-date, or complete. WaterWrights.net’s clients therefore rely on the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of information from Waterwrights.net entirely at their own risk. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author and do not represent any advertisers or third parties.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2026 by WaterWrights.net
