GSA defers purchase of groundwater accounting platform as growers push for more outreach; approves engineering contracts
Loading...
Summary
The committee voted to approve a one‑year and a three‑year engineering contract for reporting and allocation support while deferring a decision on a county accounting platform amid mixed grower survey results and concerns from small operators.
Madera County — The GSA committee recommended contracts with engineering consultants to support annual reporting and allocation measurement while pausing on a countywide groundwater accounting platform after mixed grower input.
Lady Tapia presented a one‑year agreement with David’s Engineering to produce the Madera Subbasin annual reports; she said the estimated total to complete the annual reports is about $102,000 and that Madera County’s share would be roughly $20,000. Tupta Pedersen then presented a proposed three‑year contract with Davis/David’s Engineering for allocation support, with a not‑to‑exceed amount of $927,000 for 2026–2028 (approximately $300,000 per year) to maintain measurement methods, manage input data, prepare allocation reports, and provide on‑call grower support.
Directors asked how much the county had saved by moving away from previous vendors; staff said discontinuing Land IQ reduced measurement costs (staff estimated the Land IQ method at about $400,000 and consulting savings of roughly $180,000 over three years). The committee approved both recommendations; roll calls recorded two yes votes and no recorded no votes.
Separately, Alita Allen reviewed the accounting‑platform procurement process: an RFP produced seven proposals, grower outreach showed conflicting preferences (by number and by acreage), and customization raised cost concerns. Allen said staff will delay a purchase until fall and continue outreach. Public commenters, including Devin Aviles (AgriWorld cooperative) and Eric Rodriguez (UC ANR), urged staff to identify how many growers or acres must participate for the platform to be cost‑effective and to develop training and technical assistance for small farmers who may struggle to use satellite‑based ET tools.
Devin Aviles said internalizing some accounting functions could reduce consulting costs, and Mark Peters said the platform only makes financial sense if a substantial share of growers adopt it. “If only 20% are gonna use an accounting platform, then we’re spending a lot of money on 20%,” Peters said.
Staff recommended the contracts as a near‑term step to ensure data and reporting continuity while pursuing a careful approach to platform procurement and additional grower outreach.
