By Joel Hastings
Acting as the board of directors of the Madera County GSA, the county board of supervisors at its meeting on November 12, 2024, heard two presentations from Stephanie Anagnoson, county director of water and natural resources. Supervisor Letitia Gonzalez chaired the session in the absence of Supervisor Robert Poythress who was away on county business. The GSA session began at 11:12 a.m.
Staff Report
First, Anagnoson presented informational updates on the Madera Subbasin joint
groundwater sustainability plan (GSP). Plan amendments have been developed in response to DWR questions and recommendations. The amended plan has been completed and is now available for public comment until December 20. Next, she presented details about the revenues and expenses of the GSA, information requested by the Supervisors after hearing from the grower – members of the Madera Ag Water Association (MAWA) in public discussion at the last GSA meeting held October 1.
In a slide set that she said was an update from last month, she explained the amended plan is now publicly available for comment through December 20. She said there will be a public webinar which is set for December 5 for an hour beginning at 12 noon on Zoom. All this detail along with the presentations summarized here are posted on the site http://www.maderacountywater.com
She continued saying that DWR had said that all seven GSAs had to adopt the four GSPs which, as of this month, they have. DWR said that coordination among the GSAs involved
with the subbasin must continue and that as of this month (November), the GSAs are working together through their technical staff, having come to consensus regarding data and methodology. She continued with considerable detail about groundwater levels, subsidence and water quality, necessary to address the DWR specified corrective actions. She concluded with a slide identifying the updates in chapters 2 and 3 and appendices in the joint GSP. She specified, finally, that any and all public comment on the GSP amendments should be directed to her by email at stephanie.anagnoson@maderacounty.com. There were no comments from the board or the public on this presentation.
Finance
In her next presentation, Anagnoson provided details about the financial aspects of the GSA. She observed that at the last meeting, MAWA members had asked for specifics on GSA expenditures. In her opening remarks she said she thought it appropriate to respond to the information request with a public presentation available to any and all interested parties.
Property owners in the GSA have been paying $26 per acre for four years with the funds going towards staff, administrative expenses, professional services and regulatory requirements. None of these funds can be used for actual projects, she explained.
She said the Madera County GSA contains 220,000 acres in three subbasins. There are 120,000 irrigated acres and 100,000 acres of never irrigated rangeland. She said multiple GSPs have been developed along with revisions and amendments, annual reports and periodic evaluations. Monitoring wells have been installed and regularly measured. She said there has been a meter verification project, domestic well mitigation and grower outreach. With support from grants there have also been recharge projects, land repurposing and demand reduction with three measurement options i.e., Irriwatch, Land IQ and approved meters.
She said that the GSA is subject to the same budget process as all county departments, beginning in December (2024) for the next fiscal year (2025-2026). Internal budgets are developed by staff in January and February, then they are submitted to county administration in March. Meetings with administration occur in April and May over these draft budgets with public meetings in June for the fiscal year in July (2025-26). Available for public review are the proposed budget, budget to actuals from the previous year and the prior fiscal year closeout which does not occur until August.
She restated that the fee established after a rate study in 2019 would provide funds for the four areas noted above. She continued, presenting annual summaries over the five years of GSA operations. She showed both income from the GSA fees and grants. She also summarized expenditures by category for staff, administrative, professional services and regulatory, along with what she characterized as a prudent reserve fund allowing for the five-year evaluation and amendment of the GSP. The GSA fees collected over four years have ranged from $2.5 million to $2.9 million per year while state grant funding over five years has averaged about $1.7 million per year. She also presented a five year cashflow report showing the details each year for both revenues and expenditures.
Anagnoson pointed out that the budget process has been and is transparent with public meetings and that audits are a regular part of county activities. She said that staffing has been at a minimal level, with support from consultants. She also noted that litigation costs should be anticipated, making the point that when growers litigate, they have to pay attorneys’ fees and that the county in effect has to use taxpayer funding from those same growers in defense… growers pay twice.
After describing ongoing efforts to effect cost savings, she said the next steps are to refine these financial reports further, to meet with constituents as requested and to distribute financial reports by mail. Once again, her report with complete details, which are only briefly summarized here, can be found at the website.
Supervisor Comments
Supervisor David Rogers led off with comments, thanking staff for the report. He then pointed out that litigation requires funds which can’t be used for programs. He said, “It’s almost like suing yourself and paying for it yourself.” He said not one lawsuit has resulted in a single improvement in the GSA. He said it’s our job to regulate and we’re trying to do
that and still preserve the [agricultural] industry. He asked, “What do you want to accomplish… or are we just feeding lawyers?
Rogers continued saying we’ve developed a pretty good circumstance from where we began to where we are now. He said it was farmers who served on the committees and developed the concepts. “Show us the direction you want,” he said. “It’s our desire to see everybody do well.”
He referred to a county press release dated October 31 entitled “Madera County GSA Litigation Update.” The release concerned the suit brought by a grower group objecting to the 218 vote and the county’s effort to collect a GSA fee of $246 per acre. A temporary injunction had been granted preventing the county from collecting the fee and the county subsequently returned any collected funds. The release said that the county was seeking to have the suit dismissed because of “errors in the [original] complaint and other legal arguments.” The county release said it had pointed out these errors earlier. The release continued saying that if the suit were to be dismissed, “there will be public meetings to discuss how to move ahead.
The release says, “The County GSAs will continue to look for ways to manage the subbasins so as to not cause harm and ongoing disputes… the County GSAs have actively been looking at ways of reducing the fees based on success with grants and new data on potential participation rates.”
The release concludes, “As with the handling of previous actions, the Board of Directors of the Madera County GSAs will continue to seek stakeholder input and discuss a path forward in public meetings with proper notice.”
While Supervisor Rogers termed this release “very open,” the law firm representing the growers, Wild, Carter & Tipton, told WaterWrights, “… their clients are confident the County’s latest motion will be defeated.” They said, “The reason this matter has not been resolved is that the County has not engaged in good faith discussions for a resolution that allows the Growers to continue with their business of farming.”
Supervisor Jordan Wamhoff also thanked Anagnoson and her staff for the financial report. He said certain groups need to have a better understanding of where the expenses went. He emphasized, “I want the notion that the county is hiding things to be squashed… we have no other interests than making farming sustainable and following state law.” He said, “Our motive is to make sure growers are still growing!”
With public comment invited, Noah Lopez of MAWA also said thanks for this information. He said the growers have to understand how the $26 is being spent. He said their request for information does not imply that the county is hiding something, but it is beneficial for the growers to know how the GSA is using these funds.
Christina Beckstead, executive director of Madera County Farm Bureau, said she would like to hear legal counsel’s opinion of the status of the per acre fees.
Anagnoson said that since this report is an information item only, no board action is required. She reminded the board that it sees every contract with an amount of $50,000 or greater and that [GSA funding] is part of the regular budget process. She said the 218 vote in the Chowchilla Subbasin was defeated so no funds were collected. She said for the other two (Madera and Delta-Mendota) an injunction prevented collection, and the board refunded what had been collected.
With no other comment forthcoming, the supervisors returned to other board business just before noon.
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 2024 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
