Tulare County weighs updates to well‑construction rules; staff told to return with interim GSA consultation language

Tulare County public health and environmental health staff presented six options on Jan. 28 for updating the county's well construction permitting ordinance and associated processes in areas that are not under local Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) jurisdiction. The Board of Supervisors directed staff to return with an interim ordinance codifying consultation with GSAs for permits within the state-designated basin (800 feet elevation and below) and to include updated definitions; staff will pursue a larger, final ordinance after state well‑construction standards are issued.

Public Health Director Karen Elliott introduced the topic and said environmental health had reviewed the code because of 2021–22 changes in law and executive guidance and a state Supreme Court decision (Powers v. Stanislaus) that affected ministerial versus discretionary permitting. Dr. Jessica Gokey, the county's public health manager for environmental health, summarized six options that ranged from taking no action (Option 1) to a comprehensive, countywide program modeled after Stanislaus County (Option 6). Options differed by who would pay for required hydrogeologic or CEQA work and whether the county would fund a programmatic environmental impact report (PEIR) to set a scientific baseline for permitting in non‑GSA or "white" basin areas.

Gokey said the options are focused on agricultural, industrial and commercial wells (not domestic or community wells) and that Bulletin 74 (state well standards) may be updated for public comment in 2025 with likely adoption in 2026–27. She outlined estimated costs from the county's consultant, Woodard & Curran: a limited PEIR and program startup for a targeted non‑GSA area could cost about $1.6–$2.0 million initially with roughly $433,000 in annual ongoing costs; a full countywide program was priced higher (roughly $2.8 million initial, higher annual operations cost).

Public commenters included well contractors and GSA representatives. Manny Gonzalez of CTL Consolidated Testing said several applicants sought wells after storm-related water disruptions and urged permitting not be slowed where residents lack water. Deanna Jackson, executive director of Tri‑County Water Authority (a GSA), urged the county to preserve the consultation process with GSAs because of basin management and subsidence concerns. Multiple supervisors emphasized the technical complexity and tradeoffs: District 5 Supervisor Dennis Townsend urged that the county not extend GSA approval authority beyond the state‑designated basin and pressed for a narrow fix for foothill areas; other supervisors said upstream development can affect downstream users and supported codified GSA input.

After questions and debate, the board requested an interim ordinance to codify GSA consultation for permits in the basin (800 feet and below) and to return with draft language and stakeholder input, while deferring decisions on county‑funded PEIR or broader programs until state standards are clear. Staff said they would continue stakeholder engagement with GSAs and return with an interim measure that would sunset once the full state‑aligned ordinance is ready.