Madera County GSA committee recommends domestic-well mitigation fee to board; public raises accuracy, cost and opt-out questions

MADERA COUNTY, Calif. — The Madera County Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) Committee voted July 1 to recommend that the Board of Directors adopt a resolution establishing a domestic well mitigation fee for the Madera Subbasin to fund mitigation for wells that go dry as groundwater levels decline.

The committee voted 2-0 to forward the staff recommendation. The resolution presented to the committee would amend Resolution 2022-086 and repeal and replace Resolution 2022-198 to establish revised fees for the county GSA's domestic well mitigation program.

Why it matters: State funding (including the SAFER program) that previously helped pay for emergency or interim household water needs is being reduced, staff said, and local mitigation funding is expected to be needed as the Subbasin adjusts to SGMA-required reductions in pumping and allocations. A local mitigation fund can provide casing and drilling assistance for qualifying domestic wells that go dry because of groundwater decline.

Key details from staff presentation - Staff recommended a limited fee targeted at domestic well mitigation rather than collecting the full suite of GSP project fees at this time. - Example rates discussed: $67 per enrolled acre (inside a farm unit) in early years, then a reduced rate ($43) in later years; figures are per the rate analysis discussed at the committee meeting and are subject to annual recalculation. - Assumptions used in the rate: an estimated average mitigation cost of $35,000 per well (drilling and casing; generally excludes pump/electrical costs), a 10% administration/management fee and the county GSA's share of costs at 73% based on historical and projected contribution to overdraft. - Staff proposed applying existing penalty revenue to offset fees; staff noted that penalty revenue is variable and that only penalties actually collected (not merely billed) should be used in annual updates.

Public comments and technical concerns Growers, the Madera Ag Water Association and individual residents raised several concerns during public comment, summarized here: - Cost ceiling and fairness: Commenters asked why the program would assume paying the full $35,000 per well and urged the county to evaluate alternative cost-sharing approaches used in other basins (some plans cap mitigation at lower amounts or use phased funding approaches). - Penalty revenue assumptions: Speakers urged caution in relying on future penalty revenue to reduce rates, noting variability in billed vs. collected penalties (county staff presented figures showing 2023 penalty revenue received of $55,000 and 2024 billed $541,000 with $427,000 collected so far). - Eligibility and rule clarity: Residents and growers asked for draft program rules that define qualifying domestic wells (for example, whether older wells or dual-use wells would be covered) and for the county to publish those draft rules for public review. - Opt-out requests: Several farmers asked whether properties that have historically used less than the sustainable yield (a 6-inch benchmark was discussed) could opt out. Staff said their analysis identified fewer than five parcels that might qualify; staff proposed that an opt-out could be offered if owners accept monitoring, a recorded restriction and penalties for subsequent overuse.

Staff process and next steps - Staff reported a SB 552 facilitation grant that supported development of draft rules and said draft rules will be circulated for public feedback over the next several months. Staff said final rules remain under development in part because a funding source must be identified to operationalize the program. - Staff recommended an annual financial review to recalculate fees (including the offset from penalty revenue actually collected) so the GSA does not over-collect; the committee was presented with examples showing the fee would drop modestly if current penalty receipts are applied.

Committee action The committee moved and seconded a recommendation that the full Board of Directors approve the domestic well mitigation fee resolution; the roll call recorded two yes votes and the motion passed 2-0. Staff will forward the resolution and supporting materials to the board for decision. Staff will also continue outreach and release draft rules for public comment.

Ending Committee members and members of the public emphasized the need for clearer rules, an explicit ceiling or cost-sharing approach, and an annual process to adjust fees based on actual revenues and applications. The committee approved forwarding the resolution to the board for action.