By Joel Hastings
The Madera County GSA committee met on April 1, 2025 in the board of supervisors chambers in the Madera County office building on West 4th Street. And it was a “for real” meeting, no fooling! This committee had been formed by the supervisors to allow public discussion with recommendations on GSA matters before the full board of supervisors would meet acting as the GSA board. The committee provides a forum for public discussion and acts in an advisory capacity, making recommendations to the full board.
The committee officially includes two supervisors, observing the Brown Act, so it’s not a true supervisors meeting. Acting here for the board are Supervisors Leticia Gonzales, as chair, and Robert Macaulay. Providing staff support is Stephanie Anagnoson, county director of water and natural resources, along with the board clerk and counsel. Agendas are posted beforehand, and the meeting is available via Zoom online in real time with full audio and video and with the recording posted on the Natural Resources Department web pages. This meeting included 21 members of the public in person and 23 online.
The Meeting
Supervisor Gonzalez opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. and invited public comment. While there was none at this moment, it was there would be audience participation during the various agenda items. Minutes of the March 4 meeting, the committee’s first, 
were approved as the first item of business. The way this works is that only the supervisors vote, but as we’ll see later, they take into consideration the discussion in the room and online.
Next was consideration of the draft rules for the committee, as presented in detail in the committee packet. The rules follow the pattern required by the Brown Act for meetings of a public agency. One suggestion immediately from Gonzalez to was to lengthen the time for public comment by individuals from three minutes, the time limit used at supervisors meetings. Macaulay suggested five minutes. From the public, Madera Ag Water Association representative Noah Lopez asked how agenda items could be added. Counsel replied that during the open public comment at the start of each meeting, it would be appropriate to hear requests for additional or adjusted agenda items with a vote taken. After that discussion, the rules were adopted with the five-minute time limit by a unanimous 2 – 0 vote.
Looking Downward
With the housekeeping taken care of, next was a discussion item regarding measurement methods of ETAW (evapotranspiration of applied water) for 2026 and beyond. Anagnoson explained that the county has contracts with two satellite measurement companies, Irriwatch, now named Hydrosat, and Land IQ. Private meters, properly documented, are also allowed as a third measurement option to determine groundwater use. She said the contracts with the satellite firms were due for renewal. She said that in the past year, about 40 percent of growers used each satellite service and 20 percent used flow meters. She proposed that an RFP (Request for Proposal) be posted with public review of all
presentations, and that only one firm be chosen. She said most other GSAs used only one service and she recommended only one should be used here in Madera, making administration easier and more importantly, less expensive.
The supervisors opened discussion with Macaulay asking which service was proving more accurate. Anagnoson replied that no one method is more or less accurate and that some have changed services. She said that “people who like meters, really like meters.” Gonzalez asked about costs and the reply was that there is no particular plan to underwrite landowners’ costs.
Public comment was invited and local grower Mark Peters led off saying that more feedback from growers should be obtained. Lopez suggested a more comprehensive presentation of options and costs be made available. Present it to the public and let the growers weigh in, he urged.
Zach Giffin of Water & Land Solutions said that he has clients using each system. He and other speakers pointed out that Hydrostat provides more immediate results with an online portal than does Land IQ.
Eric Rodriguez, a UC farm advisor charged with working with small farmers, said that in his experience, satellite data overall is not as effective for smaller farms.
Grower Larkin Harman, who farms in the Chowchilla Subbasin and is active with the Triangle T Water District, said she had been involved with a study of satellite services on five major crops and there wasn’t much difference in ETAW measurements. Like other
speakers she pointed out that Hydrosat results are almost immediately accessible, which she definitely prefers. She said that a publicly available process called Open ET doesn’t have a cost and maybe should be considered as well.
Devin Aviles of AgriWorld, a local grower cooperative, said that while every grower grows differently, his farming operations have used Irriwatch since the beginning. He said he is going to go with flow meters in the future since every year he has had an appeal. He says we’re not going to plan our irrigation on a satellite service, but he thinks the whole subbasin benefits from having ET results from a satellite program.
Grower Bill Diedrich said he loves having the option of using flow meters, which they’ve been using since 2010. He said they are certified and trustworthy, and he always wants that option no matter what the county does. A grower whose name we didn’t catch identified himself as an organic farmer using cover crops to rejuvenate the soil, which is why he uses flow meters.
Ralph Pistoresi, active local grower said, “I don’t like any of this stuff. We have enough to do and we’re trying to farm.” He asked what is the most economical and most effective method?
The final comments were from grower Robert Bishel who said he likes flow meters because he has cover crops and he thinks they measure better than a satellite service.
With no other comments, Anagnoson said she appreciated the feedback. Macaulay asked how she anticipated getting feedback from farmers and she replied that through an RFP the public can ask questions of any prospective vendors. She added that the RFP process might produce a new vendor as well but that she has no problem doing surveys of growers.
Rules
The next agenda item was a request for feedback on refinements in the rules for using privately-owned and operated groundwater flow meters as a measurement method for
groundwater allocation in the three county subbasins. In Anagnoson’s four-page memo in the agenda packet and more briefly with her introductory comments here, she pointed out that while overall, growers have done well getting their meters certified and submitting information, she believes six adjustments in the regulations are needed and should be enacted by resolution of the GSA board. They concern the details of calibration of meters, timing and accurate submission of data and when the county can require that Land IQ be used to measure a grower’s ETAW instead of flow meter results to measure against an allocation.
Discussion included the supervisors and several members of the public. Lopez asked if these proposed revisions would be in place for the appeals process… that is, when a grower wants to use flow meter results when he thinks the satellite service has overestimated ETAW. The response was that these new procedures were not directed at appeals.
Rodriguez said it seemed to him these refinements seemed fine for growers who used meters. Aviles asked if a meter that had been “on the shelf for two years” would need to be recalibrated.
At various times during public comment, there seemed to be questions about the ability of satellites to accurately measure ET during wet times of year with lots of greenery in orchards and fields. Gonzalez had responded that satellites measure multiple things on multiple passes, not just if it’s green.
Engineered Results
The meeting moved on to what was termed an “action item,” a proposed contract with Davids Engineering for comparing meter data to satellite data for all growers in order to measure groundwater use in support of the Allocation Program. The amount of the contract is not to exceed $430,000 to do this work for the 2025 water year. Anagnoson explained
that often these vendor contracts don’t require the full amount, based on the actual work to be done. She said this work allows the county to work with growers individually to share all the data available. Macaulay asked if the contract included the proposed pilot project to determine if telemetry could be used to obtain flow meter results automatically rather than requiring reading of induvial meters.
Pistoresi led off public comment expressing his concern that the satellite would say he is irrigating when the grass is growing from wet weather. If so, he was going to start discing. He said this contract was a lot of money and he didn’t think they were “getting bang for the buck.”
Aviles said those are big numbers in the contract. He said that growers need a comfort level that the results they get are accurate and that he has confidence in the Davids organization to do the telemetry study.
Harman said her farm had been part of past verifications studies. She said growers have had three years to verify results and she didn’t see the need to do it again. She said if it were up to her, she’d save that money and maybe return some to the growers to do recharge on their own farms.
Brad Samuelson of Water & Land Solutions said another verification project was not needed. Lopez added that it had been done earlier when growers were concerned with results from earlier satellite measurements, but maybe all that is needed now is a summary of the three years of data.
Macaulay asked how Anagnoson sees the telemetry study fitting in with efforts to find other options. She replied that perhaps what is needed is a smaller contract for a pilot project with telemetry for measuring on-farm meters. So, there was no motion, and a new proposal will be requested from Davids Engineering.
A second contract with Davids was the next agenda item – $92,496 for the development of the Subbasin GSP annual reports for water year 2024, as required by SGMA. Anagnoson said this is a bit of a clean up since the work is underway. Peters said he reads the reports and asked when this one would be available.
Samuelson said he agrees Davids does a good job and supported the contract. The reply… it’s done and will be posted soon. The contract was approved by both supervisors, as were the Memorandums of understanding (MOUs) for sharing those costs with the other GSAs in the Madera Subbasin.
Giving her closing report, Anagnoson said that annual reports from growers are due today (April 1). She said she is drafting notifications of final penalties from last year which are going out. She said issues have come up when people are changing farm units from one year to the next and that a proposed farm unit policy change will be considered next month.
The meeting adjourned at 2:53 p.m.
DISCLAIMER OF RESPONSIBILITY; Waterwrights strives to provide clients with the most complete, up-to-date, and accurate information available. Nevertheless, Waterwrights 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’ clients therefore rely on the accuracy, completeness
and timeliness of information from Waterwrights 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 2025 by WaterWrights.net
Madera County is comprised of three subbasins, designated by the CA Department of Water Resources as critically overdrafted, and “high priority”: (1) the Chowchilla Subbasin; (2) the Madera Subbasin; and (3) a portion of the Delta-Mendota Subbasin. Each of these subbasins submitted a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) by January 31, 2020. These subbasins are required to achieve “sustainability” by the year 2040. The method by which sustainability will be achieved will be illustrated in the GSP, which was be drafted in partnership by the irrigation district, water districts, cities and Madera County. The Madera County Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) is administered by the Madera County Department of Water and Natural Resources: Stephanie Anagnoson, Director, 200 W. Fourth Street, Madera, CA 93637, (559) 675-7703 x. 2265 or (559) 675-6573. The County of Madera Board of Supervisors is the Board of Directors of the GSA for the three subbasins. The current board is composed of five members: Robert Poythress, chair, Letitia Gonzalez, Robert Macaulay, David Rogers and Jordon Wamhoff..
The Madera Subbasin’s DWR # is 5-022.06
