Board hears hours of public comment on proposed domestic well mitigation fee; staff directed to return revised resolution

Madera County staff presented a proposed domestic well mitigation fee for the Madera Subbasin during the county’s Groundwater Sustainability Agency session on July 8 and received extended public comment and board discussion before directing staff to return a revised resolution for formal action.

Stephanie Nagneson, director of the Department of Water and Natural Resources, summarized staff’s recommendation: a limited rate that the GSAs would apply to enrolled acres in the county GSA, using penalty revenue to discount the fee. Staff presented an illustrative number of roughly $67 per enrolled acre averaged over the first three years; after accounting for billed penalty revenue and an alternate averaging approach presented to the GSA committee, staff recommended a $59 per enrolled acre rate for 2025–26 with an annual financial check‑in to reassess the rate.

Nagneson described the principal assumptions behind the staff calculation: an assumed mitigation cost of $35,000 per well (an estimate based on recent well bills and driller quotes), a 10% program administration allowance, and a county‑GSA proportional share of 73% derived from hydrology and water‑budget modeling through 2040. Staff said the denominator used in the calculation was approximately 88,000 enrolled acres (acres in enrolled farm units). She also noted the program is intended to cover wells that go dry because of dropping groundwater levels and is not intended to fund pump failures or mechanical problems; the program would fund casing and well costs but not pumps or interim hauled‑water solutions.

A large number of public speakers urged caution and additional detail. Key themes from commenters included:

- Penalty revenue is volatile and likely to grow if allocations decline; several speakers urged that penalty receipts be automatically allocated to the domestic well mitigation program rather than left to annual discretion. - Concern that staff and the public do not yet have detailed program rules and clarified eligibility standards (what qualifies as a mitigable well) before a fee is adopted. - Requests for clearer budget line items and the ability to review well cost documentation; some growers said penalty revenue estimates could spike and might reduce the need for a high fee. - Support from some agricultural groups and water stakeholders for a mitigation program and for retaining an annual review so the fee can be adjusted based on actual penalty revenue and program expenditures.

Mark Peters (public commenter) told the board his analysis showed penalty revenues could rise rapidly if grower behavior and hydrology change; he warned the board to consider penalty projections before setting a permanent rate. Noah Lopez of the Madera Ag Water Association said his group supported the mitigation program but urged language that would automatically allocate penalty revenue to the mitigation fund. Devin Aviles of AgroWorld Cooperative said the GSP review depends on having mitigation funding in place and urged the board to proceed with avenues that demonstrate the county’s compliance to state reviewers.

Board discussion focused on timeliness, fairness and implementation details. Supervisors sought clarification about: the definition of “enrolled acres” versus irrigated acres; whether the proposed fee could be reduced if penalty revenue billed (even if not yet collected) were counted; and whether program rules would mirror the Chowchilla Basin program (staff said Chowchilla is a useful model but the county program would be broader and rules will be publicly developed).

A motion was made on the floor to approve the fee with amendments that would 1) memorialize the annual review and board approval of the fee, and 2) add language directing that billed penalty revenue be applied to the domestic well mitigation program (a version of the amendment urged by several public commenters). County counsel advised that the proposed changes are more than minor editorial edits and recommended bringing a revised resolution back to the board for formal action so the language can be drafted and reviewed; the board directed staff to return the edited resolution at the next regular Board of Supervisors meeting (the transcript records the item will be added to the July 15 regular meeting agenda at 10:00 a.m.). No final adoption of a fee occurred on July 8; the board’s action was direction to bring back a revised resolution for formal consideration.

Staff emphasized other program details to come: draft rules, an opt‑out provision for acreage historically using less than a 6‑inch base sustainable yield over a 10‑year period, process steps for applications (desktop review and on‑site inspection), a one‑time recorded program usage on property title, and an annual financial check‑in so the board can reduce the rate if assumptions proved too high.

Ending: The board stopped short of adopting the fee and instead instructed staff to return with revised resolution language that incorporates the annual review and penalty allocation language discussed by members and public commenters.