Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sgma Implementation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reviews SGMA implementation, pending Tule East GSA boundary and Porterville options
Summary
Staff presented a map and update on local Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) boundaries, including a proposed Tule East boundary (AB 1044) and uncertainty over Porterville's participation; staff also reported progress for Cahuilla subbasin GSPs.
County staff presented a map showing the proposed Tule East GSA boundary and summarized local SGMA (referred to in the meeting as “Sigma”) implementation work, including coordination with state staff and status updates for neighboring subbasins.
A staff presenter described the proposed Tule East boundary and said it would remove multiple small islands and jurisdictions from the existing Eastern Tule GSA footprint, leaving a more fragmented set of local GSAs in that part of the basin. The presenter said that this configuration is not the county’s preferred approach but is the position the county has been left in after several public agencies withdrew their participation.
Rogelio said Porterville Irrigation District and the City of Porterville had discussed coordination, but the city’s earlier attempt to partner with the irrigation district did not materialize. “Right now, I think the city's choices are either to become their own standalone GSA, which they very well may, or we could include them in this effort,” Rogelio said.
Staff reported that the Cahuilla subbasin’s Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) were sent back to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) for further work and that the State Water Resources Control Board had released the subbasin from probationary status, allowing the Cahuilla GSPs to proceed toward approval. Rogelio and other county representatives said they have been meeting productively with state board staff regarding outstanding items and hope to resolve remaining deficiencies.
Commissioners discussed the practical challenge of noncontiguous “islands” that fall under different GSAs. One commissioner described how, in a past case near Pixley, the county entered a memorandum of understanding with Tri‑Counties to manage a noncontiguous island under the county’s GSP as a management area. Another staff member described a parcel‑by‑parcel approach used in the Eastern Tule area to identify parcels eligible to use surface water because they are in a city or district management zone.
No action or vote was taken at the meeting. Staff said they will continue outreach and coordination with state staff and local agencies and will bring updates to future meetings. Commissioners noted a planned presentation on the Tule River settlement at the July meeting.
