Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Measurement Methods Costs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
GSA staff review measurement‑method distribution and costs; growers debate satellite options and accounting platform
Summary
Staff presented measurement method uptake (HydroSat/EuraWatch, Land IQ, meters) and associated costs; public commenters urged retaining Land IQ and noted nonresponse defaults skew distribution figures; staff flagged consultant QA/QC costs and proposed a future groundwater accounting platform to reduce recurring consultant work
Staff presented data on growers’ chosen measurement methods and a preliminary table of costs for 2023–2025; the committee heard public comment urging careful consideration before eliminating any measurement options and discussed whether measurement costs could be allocated by acreage or user choice.
Why it matters: Measurement method choices and their costs determine how growers are monitored, the accuracy of allocations, and the GSA’s recurring expenses. The choice of measurement tools and any future accounting platform affects growers’ administrative burden and program costs.
What staff said
- Distribution: Across 2023–2025 staff presented the distribution of measurement methods organized by farm unit, APN and acres. The data showed multiple methods in use: HydroSat (formerly EuraWatch), Land IQ, and on‑site meters. Staff noted growers can change methods annually and that, depending on how non‑responses are counted, both HydroSat and Land IQ appear widely used.
- Costs: Staff presented a preliminary cost table showing recurring vendor fees and consultant QA/QC support. Representative figures discussed in the meeting included roughly $164,000 for HydroSat raster data and about $126,000 for Land IQ (2025 figures noted by staff), plus consultant support (examples cited: $100,000 for HydroSat QA/QC and $40,000 for Land IQ QA/QC in the 2025 presentation). Staff noted an earlier transfer error omitted $60,000 from the 2025 total and that the table mixes contracted vendor fees with consultant support to date.
- Quality assurance and work effort: Staff emphasized that consultant support for QA/QC, portal development for meters, data processing and staff time add materially to total costs. The GSA currently runs multiple satellite methods concurrently — a feature staff called unusual among GSAs.
Public feedback and questions
- Several growers and water‑district commenters urged keeping Land IQ because many growers either did not respond to measurement‑method requests (and were defaulted to Land IQ) or explicitly prefer Land IQ; they noted Land IQ is widely used across other San Joaquin Valley GSAs while HydroSat/EuraWatch usage is more limited outside Madera County.
- Commenters suggested assigning costs by acreage or user choice so growers who select a more expensive method bear the cost, and recommended pairing measurement methods with a groundwater accounting platform that could ingest satellite rasters automatically and reduce consultant workloads over time.
Staff follow up and next steps
- Staff acknowledged the need for a clearer cost breakout (vendor fees vs. consultant support) and said they will correct the $60,000 omission and provide a full‑year comparison at the next quarterly update. Staff noted the GSA is the only local agency offering multiple satellite options and will consider grower feedback in future measurement decisions.
Ending: The item was informational; no committee action was taken. Staff and public commenters agreed to revisit costs and accounting platform options at a future meeting.
