State groundwater official briefs Galt City Council on SGMA; residents press GSA fee and metering questions

Chelsea Spear, a point of contact for the California Department of Water Resources' North Central Region, told the Galt City Council on April 7 that the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) relies on locally developed plans overseen at periodic intervals by two state agencies.

"The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act involves local government and two state agencies," Spear said, adding that DWR reviews local groundwater sustainability plans and the State Water Resources Control Board serves as a backstop if plans are inadequate. She outlined SGMA's focus on monitoring and avoiding six "undesirable results," including groundwater level decline, reduced storage, degraded water quality, and subsidence.

Spear explained the program's multi‑decade timeline: basins generally have until about 2042 to reach sustainability goals, initial plans were due in 2020 or 2022 depending on basin status, and five‑year evaluations and periodic data reporting are required. She emphasized monitoring and real‑time measurements over model predictions as the basis for DWR's evaluations.

The presentation also covered DWR assistance: technical support, monitoring‑well drilling, facilitation services, guidance documents and grant programs. Spear said DWR has administered more than half a billion dollars in SGMA planning and implementation grants in recent years and referenced Proposition 4 (passed in 2024), a bond with statewide climate resilience funding; she said SGMA‑specific grant allocations and scoping meetings are anticipated in the coming years.

Council members asked how many groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) operate in the Cassumnus subbasin; Spear said the subbasin contains seven GSAs and noted some basins choose a single coordinated plan while others contain multiple plans and coordination agreements.

When asked whether DWR mediates small, local disputes such as complaints about a single well replacement, Spear said SGMA work is basin‑scale and DWR generally would not intervene in routine, one‑off well issues unless a single project caused large, demonstrable harm to multiple domestic wells.

During the public comment period, resident Bob Wilson urged continued conservation to avoid costly imports or desalination and described converting his lawn to drought‑tolerant landscaping. Resident Gavin Voin asked whether fee structures will attach to properties with existing private wells and requested information on per‑acre charges, payment frequency and exemptions for low‑income residents or farms.

City staff and council members responded that well fees and metering are controlled by the local groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) or the Consumerous Groundwater Authority (a JPA/CGA in the area), not by the city. Council members noted Prop 218 notice and majority‑protest procedures would apply to any fee proposals and said some exemptions or administrative forms may be available for wells that are dry or not in use.

Council and staff also walked through the local governance arrangement: jurisdictions remain individual GSAs while participating in a joint authority for basin‑scale coordination; private wells not previously identified for fee rolls are being reconciled.

The council did not take formal action on groundwater policy at the meeting. Spear left contact information and materials for further questions and encouraged local stakeholders to use DWR tools such as the "CalGroundwater Live" website to review basin monitoring and data.

The council moved on to other agenda items; DWR's materials and the city's staff follow‑up were left as the next steps for council members and the public.