By Joel Hastings
Chair Robert Macaulay called the Madera County GSA Committee meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. on November 10, 2026 in the board of supervisors’ chambers of the county government center on 4th St. in Madera. Fellow Supervisor Jordan Wamhoff was present as the second committee member along with a number of county staff. These meetings are carried on Zoom in real time and recordings are available on the county government website. The agenda and full meeting packets are also downloadable before the meeting and available for the public in hard copy at the meeting. Two supervisors make up the committee and their role is to recommend (or not) to the full board of supervisors actions for the GSA. Local growers and interested attendees have said they appreciate this approach which allows more public participation and a preview of what the full board of supervisors (board of directors of the GSA) might be acting on, often the following week.
Macaulay invited attendee Devin Aviles to lead the Pledge and then he invited public comment. Local farmer and regular meeting attendee Mark Peters led off asking about information on subsidence. He said it had seemed an urgent issue months ago but he had not heard much about it lately. Aviles, local grower and co-op manager, came to the podium asking that the issue of carry-over of water allocations be put on a future agenda so that there would be clarity on this issue as it might relate to property values or even water markets.
Moving on with the agenda, the minutes of the September 15 meeting were approved. Then Stephanie Anagnoson, director of water and natural resources for the county, introduced a staff member from the California Department of Fish & Wildlife. Sarah Paulson is the environmental program manager for the Department’s central region. She said her focus is on lake and streambed regulation but she wanted to talk today about what property owners may do in the way of flood prevention and recharge preparation if they have a stream flowing through their property. She said the department realized after the wet year in 2023 that many property owners did not have a good understanding of the regulations and what it is they can do. She said in the event of a flood emergency, owners may take immediate steps without asking for permission… they just have to notify the department using its online portal within 14 days of starting work.
She explained that such emergency work as determined by the property owner would involve immediate action necessary to protect life or property. She explained the notification process which does not require any fees nor is there any approval process. She said unless more information was needed, a property owner likely would not hear from the department after the notification was filed. Her presentation included contact information for EPIMS or the digital portal. There were no questions from the directors (supervisors) or the public.
Another information item was presented by county department staff member Naomi Chavez. She gave an update on the efforts to ensure that the department’s web site was in conformance with the federal requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. All information on the site must be available to anyone with a hearing or vision impairment.
Chavez next presented the recommendation that the county GSA extend its contract with Raftelis Financial Consultants through December 31, 2028 under a contracted amount of $500,000.
There is over $350,000 remaining on the contract currently. The firm assists in developing rate updates as well as helping with public outreach. This is the firm that developed the estimated costs for the items included in the GSP. With public comment invited, Ralph Pistoresi, well known local grower, asked for detail about what they would be doing, what they have done and if what they’re doing is worth the money they’re charging. He asked if they were involved with the well mitigation program, an item further down the agenda. With no other comment, the directors voted to recommend approval of the contract extension.
The next action item was consideration of a contract extension through 2028 with another consulting firm, GEI Consultants, Inc. This firm has provided technical support when property owners appeal the results of water use, as measured by ETAW from the satellite services. It has done this for the GSA since 2022, handling from five to seven appeals each year with a total of 19 since the allocations were put in place. Their work involves verification of calibrated meters, monthly readings with photographic documentation, including mapping and a detailed finding. Macaulay asked if there were some funds remaining on the current contract and then the directors recommended this contract extension be approved.
Domestic Well Mitigation Amendment
Next up was consideration of a staff recommendation to amend the domestic well mitigation program, which provides up to $35,000 if a domestic well goes dry because of dropping water levels caused by agricultural activity. The funding comes from a charge of $59 per irrigated acre in the GSA.
When it was begun, the recommendation from the engineering consultant was that the useful life of a well was 30 years, so the program did not allow wells older than that to receive funding. Staff member Jerrod Weeks explained in his presentation how functioning wells that old would fail as water levels dropped. He cited the example of neighbors, one with a 29-year-old well and one with a 31-year-old well, who would be treated differently. So, the recommendation is to remove the age limit while maintaining all the other criteria to ensure that a well’s problem was only dropping groundwater levels. All existing cost control measures would remain, he said.
With comment invited, Director Macaulay asked when a full report on the program would be available with the reply being December or January. Wamhoff expressed disappointment and posed a host of questions about participation in the program, asking the number of applicants, the number evaluations, the number of permits issued, the wells undergoing rehabilitation and finally wells completed.
Weeks said there are 80 applications in the queue with five or six on his desk that can start drilling today. He said that the contracts are between the applicant and the well driller. He said a total of $4.7 million has been collected from the fee imposed and the next collection would be in the next fiscal year. Wamhoff replied that he doesn’t want to see any more fees collected until “we have a handle on this.” He said, “It’s November and we haven’t drilled a single well.” He concluded asking for an update at every GSA committee meeting.
Anagnoson commented that the staff remains in favor of the proposal and that at the last meeting, staff recommended no further collection of fees. She said there are 80 who have come to us and an additional 75 households with dry wells identified through the Self-Help organization. She said she understood the frustration of the people who paid the $4.7 million.
With public comment invited, Janice Gomes came to the microphone saying as a county resident she understood that to qualify you have to live in the house with the dry well. She explained her situation in which two related family members in neighboring homes share a well which handles both. Asking if she would qualify, she said she’s paying the fee on other property she owns. She was invited to speak with staff about her situation.
Devin Aviles suggested that if the groundwater levels are balanced by 2040 as required by SGMA, we should put a cap on the program.
Mark Peters said DWR requires mitigation to address the dire straits of well owners but the dire straits of the growers should be considered as well. Regarding the age of wells, he suggested a sliding scale of reimbursement, with the amounts provided well owners declining as older wells are impacted.
Michele Lascoigty thanked Wamhoff for his comments and agreed with his desire to find about the details for the program. She pointed out that between the per acre fee and the fact that funds collected from penalties imposed on growers for exceeding their allocations, the total available was $6.7 million, not $4.7 million. She said Madera County has taken that amount away from growers who could have used that to invest in their farm businesses.
Wamhoff asked Anagnoson what the total price of refurbishing wells has turned out to be. She said drillers’ bids are in the range of $40,000 to $60,000.
Ralph Pistoresi complimented Wamhoff for his questions, pointing out that people still would need money to finish a project [beyond the $35,000 funding]. He also asked how much money has been spent on consultants rather than drilling. He said he liked Peters’ idea of a sliding scale since there are lots of reasons why a well could go out. (Weeks had previously noted that about 20 percent of the applicants had dry wells with problems other than dropping ground water levels.)
Commenting on Zoom, a person whose name we heard as Ronnie Balderama said she had been without water for five years and four months. She said she had been an early applicant of the program but her well was too old to qualify and she could not get her $100 application fee returned. She said, “Can you please get something moving? If you were having drinking water trucked in, you might not be taking so long.”
Back to the meeting room and speaking for the Madera County Farm Bureau, Executive Director Christina Beckstead said many of her members have been asking how much in the way of penalties have been assessed, collected or remain outstanding. She said there needs to be some sort of enforcement for those who do not pay.
Stephanie McLaughlin said she and her family have been farming for years and now would like to get out, but they cannot find a buyer for their land because of endless fees and penalties. She said you continue to move the goal posts and collect fees from farmers.
Director Macaulay commented that the caller said her well was over 30 years old. He continued saying the reality is some people can’t afford the 15 or 20 thousand dollars required to do the well work. He said he often doesn’t find himself in agreement with Ralph [Pistoresi] but his questions are valid.
Anagnoson said she had intended to include more details about the domestic well program in the meeting packet and apologized for the oversight on her part. She said liens have been placed on properties that are in arrears paying the allocation penalties. Weeks added that the $4.7 million balance reported does not include amounts from the penalties.
All in, Wamhoff moved to approve the elimination of the 30-year age limit and with the second by Macaulay, the recommendation was adopted.
Financial Update
Staffer Weeks stayed at the podium to present the financial overview of the GSA accompanied by a slide set with much of the detail. Briefly, revenue for the 2025-2026 fiscal year totaled $8.3 million, composed of grant funding (reimbursements) of $3.7 million, GSA fees of $3.1 million and penalties totaling $1.1 million ($502k from Madera and $691k from Chowchilla). An “other” category totaled $422,000 which includes drought & flood labor, annual GSP development and interest on cash.
On the expenditure side, Prop 68 grant funds for recharge projects were $3 million, professional services totaled $1.7 million, staff was $1.5 million, regulatory compliance was $767k and administrative expenses were $70k. Professional services, with detailed amounts by category, included recharge, legal, land repurposing and financial.
Annual expenditures for the previous three years ranged from $4.5-$4.9 million but then last year jumped to $7.1 million with the increase coming principally from costs of Prop 68 recharge projects, to be reimbursed by grant funding.
Financial observations presented included comment that grants are not a reliable long-term funding source, technical expertise is necessary for state compliance and litigation can be expensive. Cost saving measures noted in-house field work, outreach, writing and design for publications and the decrease in measurement methods (e.g. using one satellite service).
Directors Macaulay and Wamhoff had questions about staff and consultants, including the average cost of a consultant involved in approving a domestic well mitigation. Grower Aviles asked about the accounting program that would provide additional farm management opportunities with the satellite ETAW measurements. Beckstead asked for clarification on the line item for collections of penalties. Weeks explained that the domestic well mitigation fee totals and program costs are not included in this report.
With no further comment, Anagnoson presented the final action item for consideration, a proposed contract with Davids Engineering to prepare the required annual reports for the Chowchilla Subbasin for the next three years. The proposed contract costs for three years total $267,500 to be shared by four GSAs based on acreage within each. The Madera GSA cost is about one-third. The other three GSAs involved with the subbasin are Chowchilla Water District GSA, county of Merced GSA and Tri-Angle T Water District GSA. There was no public comment and the directors recommended approval of the contract.
Anagnoson reported on the Natural Resource Fair that had been held the previous week in the lobby of the county office, giving growers an opportunity to learn about programs and services from several local non-profits. Growers were also surveyed about their preferences for a groundwater accounting system, she said. She termed it successful and said it would be held again next year.
Neither director had comments and the meeting was adjourned at 2:49 p.m.
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
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:  Letitia Gonzalez, Robert Macaulay, Robert Poythress David Rogers and Jordon Wamhoff..
The Madera Subbasin’s DWR # is 5-022.06
Â
