Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sgma Sigma Gsa Legislation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission hears SGMA implementation updates, recommends positions on several groundwater bills
Summary
Tulare County Water Commission members reviewed SGMA (Sigma) implementation items including a proposed boundary for a new Tule East GSA, updates from the Tule subbasin and Cahuilla subbasin, and a legislative subcommittee summary recommending watch or support positions on multiple bills including AB 10 44 for the Tule East GSA.
Rogelio (Tulare County staff) briefed the Tulare County Water Commission on Sigma (SGMA) implementation, a proposed Tule East Groundwater Sustainability Agency boundary, and the legislative subcommittee's recommended stances on pending bills. The subcommittee recommended a "watch" position on AB 293, which would require publication of Form 700 filings for GSA board members; the presenter described that requirement as more expansive than current filing practices for county officials.
Rogelio described the proposed Tule East GSA boundary shown on a map at the meeting and said the configuration leaves many small "islands" — areas not covered by other jurisdictions — inside the proposed boundary. "The light green is the existing Eastern Tule GSA. So the new boundary would be the light green minus all the colors except for the Ducor Water District here in the South Basin and the [others]," Rogelio said, describing the mapping challenge and noting the county's preference was not to fragment management but that the county was left with limited options.
On other bills, the subcommittee recommended watch positions on AB 362 (which would explicitly add tribal beneficial uses to the definition of beneficial use and require incorporation of tribal water quality standards) and on AB 1413/AB 1466 (groundwater adjudication-related changes). The county staff recommended a support position on AB 1044 (referred to in the meeting as AB 10 44) because it affects the Tule East GSA and was drafted with county input. For SB 454 (PFAS mitigation), staff noted the bill establishes a mitigation fund but does not identify money to fund it and described a recommended opposed position unless funding sources are identified.
Rogelio and other staff reported that Porterville Irrigation District had completed its process and that the city of Porterville was weighing options, including forming its own standalone GSA or joining the proposed effort. The commission also heard that the Cahuilla Subbasin had recently been removed from probationary status by the State Water Resources Control Board and returned to Department of Water Resources review, and that Tule subbasin GSAs have been meeting with state board staff to address items found inadequate earlier in the process.
Commissioners asked clarifying questions about the noncontiguous "islands" inside the Eastern Tule GSA boundary, how parcels within city management zones would be handled, and whether a more cohesive management approach could emerge if subbasins reach sustainability. Rogelio and other staff described parcel-by-parcel management approaches for noncontiguous areas and said some longer-term scale solutions are 10–20 years out.
No formal votes were taken on legislation or GSA formation at the meeting; the legislative subcommittee's recommendations were presented for the commission's consideration and will inform future county positions. The commission scheduled a July presentation on the Tule River settlement and confirmed the next commission meeting for July 14.
