Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Groundwater Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mid Kings River GSA presses state for fee exclusions and plans single coordinated GSP
Summary
Officials said the GSA has submitted a letter asking the State Water Resources Control Board to waive fees for June 2024–September 2025 and is pursuing coordinated technical work — an updated groundwater model and a single GSP — to address state concerns about inconsistent methodologies across neighboring GSAs.
The Mid Kings River Groundwater Sustainability Agency told directors on Tuesday it has submitted a formal letter requesting the State Water Resources Control Board exclude the GSA from certain fee calculations covering June 2024 through September 2025.
Diana Jackson, executive director of Tri County Water Authority, urged the board to speak with a "unified voice" to avoid fragmented communications with state staff and the potential of a prolonged probationary status. "I'm very concerned that if we show a fragmented face to the state that we're going to end up in a prolonged probationary situation and possibly with an interim plan which would be very detrimental to this region," Jackson said during public comment.
Consultant Amir Hussein briefed the board on next steps. He said the GSA filed a fee‑exclusion request tied to the period when state coordination was limited and explained that other GSAs may separately request a "good‑actor" designation that could remove them from the probationary process. "We're crafting or Mid Kings has already crafted a letter and submitted that requesting that the fees be waived for that time period," he said.
Amir also described plans to update the groundwater‑flow model to include data from water years 2023–25 to derive a consistent 'native yield' per GSA. The consultant said prior methodology differences among neighboring GSAs led to inconsistent sustainable‑yield allocations and that a coordinated model will help standardize values used across the subbasin.
Board members and stakeholder speakers stressed coordination and noted outreach to state officials, including trips to Sacramento and letters from local legislators, to press the case for fee relief. Garrett, a stakeholder advisory committee member, told the board that "the state board has just consistently moved the goalpost, made adjustments without a lot of input," and urged elected directors to use their influence in Sacramento.
Amir said the board will decide whether to submit a single coordinated GSP or multiple GSPs at an upcoming meeting, and staff will incorporate the state's land‑subsidence best management practices before resubmission.
