Madera GSA committee reviews domestic-well mitigation costs as growers, residents press for alternatives

MADERA, Calif. — The Madera County Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) committee on June 3 reviewed a proposed domestic well mitigation program and fee schedule after a presentation from consultant Kevin Kostick of Raftelis that outlined estimated well replacement needs, program costs and possible timelines.

Kostick told the committee the “total gross [of] wells dewatered in the Madera Sub Basin is on the order of 440 wells,” and that about 90 have been mitigated to date, leaving a backlog he estimated at 247 wells currently receiving interim services. He said hydrology modeling projects roughly 20 additional dry wells per year for the next five years, yielding a combined need of about 848 wells across the basin and a county responsibility of roughly 73 percent — or about 621 wells — under the allocation assumptions used in the analysis.

The consultant's cost assumptions include a per-well replacement estimate of $35,000 in today’s dollars, a 10 percent program management add-on and the option to resolve the current backlog over two to five years. Kostick presented a scenario that would resolve the backlog in three years, producing roughly $5.7 million in program costs for the first fiscal year and a countywide fee of about $65 per enrolled acre in the coming fiscal year (using roughly 88,000 enrolled acres), rising modestly through 2028 before stepping down as the backlog is reduced. He said the original rate study adopted in June 2022 averaged certain fees at $246 per enrolled acre across 2023–2027 but that the domestic well mitigation component produces the lower, year-by-year figures shown in his slides.

Public commenters, primarily local growers and residents, urged changes to the program design and questioned assumptions. Craig Roberts, a rancher and farmer, argued growers who limit pumping to sustainable yields should not be penalized and raised concerns that the fee is effectively larger for those already conserving water. Mark Peters, representing growers in the basin, called the proposal “a $22,000,000 burden on the growers,” referring to the 73 percent county share multiplied by the per-well estimate and the estimated number of wells. Igal (Igal) Treibach, a long-time local farmer, urged the committee to make it “easier for anybody that wants to bring in new water into Madera or create another way of capturing water and recharging.”

Several speakers said Self Help Enterprises’ interim mitigation work is costlier than the $35,000 estimate and asked whether those interim costs would be incorporated. Jeannie Haben, deputy director of water and natural resources, said wells that have already been fully mitigated are not included in the backlog total; interim services might be absorbed into a county program but would require reconciliation of differing cost structures.

Committee members and staff asked for feedback on multiple program design choices Kostick presented: whether to resolve the backlog over two, three or five years; whether to pursue debt financing (Raftelis and county municipal advisors modeled debt options but flagged pending litigation and lack of fee-collection history as barriers); and whether to apply penalty revenues from over-allocation toward domestic well mitigation, toward purchase of excess carryover water from willing growers, or some split between the two. Supervisor McCall said the committee should “hash out kind of pros and cons” and noted penalty revenues are a discretionary source that could be directed to different objectives.

Staff and multiple commenters emphasized the broader policy and fairness questions: how costs should be apportioned among districts and land uses inside the subbasin; whether enrolled acreage is the right basis for charges; and whether homebuilding and new developments that required a water balance at approval should bear any financial share. Christina Beckstead, executive director of the Madera County Farm Bureau, said she has repeatedly raised concerns about developer water-balance numbers and asked whether those comments would be considered.

Jeannie Haben and staff said the domestic well mitigation program rules are not finalized, that the committee's role at this stage is to provide feedback, and that the item will return to the committee in July with revisions before a board of directors meeting on July 8. Haben also reported nearly $400,000 in penalty revenue had been collected (for 2024) and that staff would continue to explore how collected penalties might offset program fees or be held in a prudent reserve.

Votes at a glance: during the same meeting the committee approved four procedural items related to agency operations. The committee approved the minutes from May 6, 2025 (motion to approve with one spelling correction; vote recorded as Director McCauley: yes; Director Gonzales: yes; outcome: passed 2–0). The committee recommended that the board enter into LandFlex contract amendments for three land-repurposing participants (vote: passed 2–0). The committee recommended entering a cost-sharing memorandum of understanding among four GSAs for the Madera Subbasin five-year GSP evaluation and amendment, cost $389,262.19 (vote: passed 2–0). The committee recommended approving Transfer of Appropriations 24-148 in the amount of $35,633 to reimburse county GSA staff time from the drought budget (vote: passed 2–0).

The committee collected extensive public comment and asked staff to return with revisions that address allocation fairness, potential ceilings or prudent-reserve approaches for fees, incorporation or accounting of interim Self Help work, and options for using penalty revenues. Staff said they would bring revised materials back to the committee on July 1 and to the board on July 8 for further action.

The committee meeting was conducted in a hybrid format; staff stressed that no domestic well mitigation program is yet final and that the items discussed were for feedback prior to formal rulemaking and board consideration.