GSA public commenters warn of fee, GM outlines demand-management analysis and timeline

At its February meeting the Groundwater Sustainability Agency heard public concern that voluntary demand-management programs proposed elsewhere in the valley could result in a "tier one" fee being charged to stakeholders in basins that are not in overdraft, and the agency's general manager outlined a technical and scheduling plan to develop triggers and actions for possible demand management.

Tom Versik, a public commenter, said proposals discussed by the Selenus Valley GSA could impose valleywide fees on stakeholders in basins that appear to be sustainable. "They seem make-believe, frankly — they seem pretend," Versik said, warning that imposing charges without supporting analysis could create a Proposition 26 legal issue for affected GSAs and stakeholders.

Nancy Isacson of the Sun Water Coalition asked whether this GSA will have an opportunity to review and weigh in on any fee proposals as part of its budget process. "That process — being able to look at what they're proposing for the fees that would affect your area — would be really important," Isacson said.

Curtis Weeks, the agency's general manager, told the board it will review any fee proposals and is likely to use the existing coordination committee to discuss them. Weeks summarized a recent Selenus Valley Basin advisory committee meeting and said staff plan to present two project ideas at each of the next two advisory-committee meetings to move discussion from positioning to concrete solutions.

Weeks said the agency aims for sustainability by 2040 but that demand management alone likely will not achieve that goal in the time available. "Demand management will be a part of it," Weeks said, but added that other measures — increased surface-water use, expanded capital improvements, or an extraction barrier that draws water back toward the coast — may also be needed and that some options would be costly.

He said the board previously approved scope work from consultant Gus Yates and that Yates and agency staff will work with the SMC technical advisory committee to define the technical data, triggers and candidate actions for a demand-management framework. Weeks proposed advisory meetings in March and April and a board briefing in May.

Board members questioned the use of a 30-year window for modeling and data selection. Weeks said the 30-year period (taken through 2023) produced consistent data across basins but emphasized that the agency will rely on measured groundwater elevations submitted in annual reports rather than model projections: "It's the data that count," he said, noting that threshold violations have not been recorded in five years.

Procedurally, the board approved the consent calendar, adopting the minutes of the Jan. 27, 2026 meeting by voice vote; the transcript records the motion as moved and seconded and reports that the motion "carried," but individual roll-call votes were not recorded.

Next steps identified at the meeting include advisory-committee discussions of proposed projects in March and April, coordination-committee work on fees (targeted for March 4), and a planned board update in May. The general manager said staff will bring technical information and recommended triggers to the advisory committee before returning to the board for direction.