Madera County GSA weighs state subsidence guidance and potential impacts on grower allocations
Loading...
Summary
At a Jan. committee meeting, growers and staff debated how new state subsidence guidance could force changes to groundwater allocations and measurement rules; staff said the guidance could require stopping subsidence in hotspots while balancing economic impacts.
Madera County — Growers and Madera County Groundwater Sustainability Agency staff spent a large portion of the committee meeting discussing the state’s recently finalized subsidence guidance and what it could mean for local groundwater allocation rules.
Mark Peters, a Madera Subbasin grower who spoke during public comment, urged caution and asked the GSA to give growers time to respond before implementing strict measures. “We need time,” Peters said, warning that buyers or lessees could be surprised if certain land is later restricted: “Oh, I can’t grow here.”
Stephanie, a Madera County GSA staff member, said the state’s language effectively requires stopping subsidence in identified hotspots and that the final guidance could “really rewrite some of the rules” used when staff and consultants built the basin’s sustainable groundwater plan. She said staff will finish reviewing the guidance, seek a redlined copy showing changes from the draft, meet with state staff, and coordinate with consultants to develop a local plan. “We’re also gonna meet with our consultants and make sure our notes and their notes are the same and come up with a plan,” she said.
Directors pressed staff on whether the guidance would change how ETAW (estimated applied water) and allocations are calculated and how rapidly the GSA must act. Stephanie acknowledged the tension between halting damaging subsidence, which can cause “major infrastructure damage,” and preserving local agricultural economies by allowing time for perennial crops and leased operations to adjust.
Peters urged the GSA to target specific parcels where subsidence is occurring rather than applying broad restrictions, and he said growers should not be forced to make immediate capital decisions on property that may later be constrained by new rules. “Don’t make it quick,” he said. “It doesn’t work that way.”
Staff said the state is scheduling meetings with subbasins that have subsidence issues to direct local plan development and that legal pushback remains a possibility if the guidance proves infeasible in practice.
The committee did not adopt any new local rule at this meeting; instead, staff will report back after a further review of the state guidance and meetings with consultants and state staff. The discussion is likely to factor into rule amendments and the GSA’s outreach to growers during the next reporting cycle.
