Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demand Management Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff outlines demand‑management policy options: penalty timing, carryover limits and repeat‑offender approaches under discussion
Summary
Staff presented water‑use trends and options for demand‑management policy changes, including earlier penalty increases, five‑year carryover limits, targeted measures for repeat overdrafts, and comparison with other GSAs; public commenters urged certainty and cautioned against retroactive changes
Staff summarized allocation outcomes and water‑use trends in the Madera and Chowchilla subbasins and presented a menu of policy options for demand management and penalties ahead of the next implementation steps.
Why it matters: Choices about penalty levels, carryover expirations and targeted enforcement determine incentives for growers to reduce groundwater use and affect long‑term water‑use planning.
What staff presented
- Historical trends: Staff showed pre‑allocation and post‑allocation water‑use volumes by year (with water‑year types indicated). In Madera Subbasin water use dropped after allocations and penalties were implemented; Chowchilla showed a steeper response earlier.
- Options for committee feedback included: (a) moving the next penalty increase forward (increase to $500 per acre‑foot earlier than planned), (b) introducing carryover expiration or decay (several GSAs use a five‑year expiry), (c) targeted reductions for repeat overdraft offenders (for example, removing overused volume from next year’s allocation for repeat offenders), and (d) models used by other GSAs (Merced, Eastern Tule and others) including zone approaches and different penalty constructs (daily charges or one‑time fees). Staff noted statutory constraints: the Water Code caps per‑acre‑foot penalties at $500, but other mechanisms (one‑time fees or per‑day charges) may be allowed.
- Data and scale: Staff reported there were roughly 16 farm units over the dry run(s) and that 40–50 farm units exceeded allocations in 2 of the last 3 years (figures presented as staff analysis), suggesting repeat overuse is concentrated in a smaller group rather than basin‑wide.
Public comment and board remarks
- Grower and water district speakers emphasized the need for certainty and warned about retroactive rule changes; several recommended maintaining the previously scheduled penalty escalation and supported a five‑year carryover expiry to provide predictability.
- Commenters recommended paired tools such as water markets, transfer mechanisms, and order‑of‑use rules to provide flexibility and to allow growers to move or sell carryover credits rather than lose them under expiration rules.
Staff follow up and potential next steps
- Staff said feedback will inform future proposals; specific options can be tailored (e.g., targeting repeat offenders over a defined set of years) and would return for further committee discussion prior to Board action.
Ending: The item was informational and did not prompt immediate policy action; staff requested feedback on which options the committee preferred for future proposals.
