Mid Kings GSA adopts domestic-well mitigation program, begins funding study including $2 million reserve

On Aug. 12, 2025 the Mid Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) Board of Directors adopted a domestic well mitigation program intended to supply emergency water and longer-term mitigation if groundwater pumping, subsidence or falling water levels cause rural domestic wells to fail. The board voted 6–0 (one member absent) to approve the program after a staff presentation and questions from board members.

The GSA staff presentation, led by Amir (GSA staff), framed the program as a required element for the GSA's Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) and as part of the agency's response to state oversight under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Staff said the program will be appended to the GSP and is designed to give impacted households interim drinking water and then evaluate mitigation options up to and including replacement of an affected domestic well where the impact is caused by lowered groundwater levels or subsidence.

Under the adopted plan, eligibility is limited to impacts that occurred on or after Jan. 1, 2015 (the start of SGMA implementation). Rural domestic wells are the primary focus; community and municipal wells are eligible for a separate, technical‑assistance track. Staff told the board the program distinguishes between (1) emergency/interim water supply, (2) a mitigation track for wells shown to be impacted by groundwater declines (including measures up to replacement drilled to deeper levels), and (3) a technical assistance track for community/municipal wells limited to a capped dollar amount for grant/engineering support rather than drilling new municipal wells.

Staff summarized the numerical assumptions used to size a reserve for the program: the GSA’s best current data suggest up to about 90 rural wells could be affected under the GSP threshold; for budgeting the staff assumed up to 30 wells might require mitigation over a two‑year period. For cost estimating the board was shown an assumed average mitigation cost of about $65,000 per well and a separate $30,000 allowance for community/municipal technical assistance. Using those assumptions, staff proposed a $2,000,000 reserve to cover initial claims and to be replenished as expended.

How the program will be funded was the focus of an extended study‑session discussion that followed the vote. Staff recommended separating fixed administrative costs (to be paid by a land‑based assessment under Proposition 218) from variable mitigation costs (to be funded by a groundwater pumping fee under Proposition 26). Preliminary, non‑binding numbers presented to the board were roughly $19 per acre per year for a land assessment and about $15 per acre‑foot for a pumping fee; staff emphasized those figures are preliminary estimates and would be refined before any election.

Board members pressed staff on several operational points. Supervisor Joe Neves asked whether the program would cover municipal systems such as the City of Hanford's wells; Amir said municipal wells are on a separate technical assistance track and that the mitigation track is focused on rural domestic wells. Several board members raised concerns about legacy cases — wells that went dry and were repaired before 2015 — and staff clarified the program is not intended to retroactively pay for fixes done before Jan. 1, 2015. Staff cited the state SAFER program as having addressed some earlier legacy impacts and said those legacy cases will not be covered by the new GSA mitigation fund.

Other questions concerned baseline water‑quality data (some domestic owners do not have 2015 lab results), renter notification, and whether recharge credits or stored water would be charged when pumped later. Staff said the GSA will develop baseline and eligibility rules (including how to handle renters and properties with prior treatment systems), and that pumping fees are proposed to apply to all acre‑feet pumped in the GSA regardless of prior recharge credits; the final rules would be set as part of a future fee vote and ordinance.

The board approved the mitigation program by motion (mover: Supervisor Rusty Robinson; second: Supervisor Joe Neves). Roll call recorded unanimous approval of present members: Joe Neves (yes), Robert Thayer (yes), Richard Vallee (yes), Doug Verboom (yes), Rusty Robinson (yes), Kimber Regan (yes). The meeting record shows one member absent at roll call earlier in the meeting.

Why it matters: the mitigation program is a concrete step the GSA is taking to meet SGMA requirements to avoid and mitigate undesirable results and to provide an enforcement/response pathway for impacted well owners. Staff said establishing a funded mitigation program and an outreach plan are both key elements the State Water Resources Control Board will evaluate when assessing subbasin plans and when determining probation status. Board members directed staff to return with more detailed budget figures, the timing options and logistics for any Prop 218/26 elections, and a public outreach plan that includes workshops and mailed notices to well owners.

Next steps: staff will refine estimated costs and the draft funding approach, prepare an engineer’s report and materials required for any Prop 218 or Prop 26 vote, update outreach materials, and return to the board for additional study sessions and for the formal fee‑election decisions. The staff presentation and board discussion projected collecting the mitigation reserve within the first two years of a fee program, with a likely schedule targeting late 2025–mid 2026 for fee implementation depending on election timing and tax‑roll deadlines.

Provenance: topic introduction: Amir presentation opening and program overview (transcript excerpt beginning "Good afternoon, sir. Good afternoon, mister chairman..."; transcript time 257.375–288.645). Topic finish: roll call and vote on the mitigation resolution (transcript excerpt where clerk records yes votes and chair announces item passes; transcript time 2588.225–2611.76).