|
The frustration in the hearing room was palpable long before the California State Water Resources Control Board voted to reject Tule Subbasin requests for relief from state groundwater reporting and fees.
Growers and groundwater managers arrived in Sacramento last week insisting they were no longer debating whether to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. They argued they already are complying — by fallowing land, cutting pumping, paying steep penalties and, in some cases, watching neighboring farms collapse under the pressure.
What they wanted from the board was recognition that the basin is changing.
Instead, regulators unanimously denied requests from eight groundwater sustainability agencies seeking exemptions from probationary reporting and fee requirements, leaving another layer of state oversight in place for at least two more years.
A turning point
Rather than relitigating whether the basin should have been placed on probation, representatives from a newly formed technical working group pitched a reset and a single, unified groundwater sustainability plan modeled after neighboring basins that have successfully exited state intervention.
Interested in more news on farm programs, trade and rural issues? Sign up for a four-week free trial to Agri-Pulse. You’ll receive our content - absolutely free - during the trial period.
“We are at one of those turning points where the way that the basin has worked to achieve significant compliance is clearly not working,” said Anona Dutton, CEO of EKI Environment & Water. “It’s not working for the GSAs. It’s not working for the landowners.”
The proposed plan would consolidate fragmented groundwater management efforts and focus heavily on land subsidence and protection of the Friant-Kern Canal.
Board Chair Joaquin Esquivel signaled support for the approach.
“There is a pathway out,” Esquivel told the basin representatives. “It really is about the local conditions.”
Vice Chair Dorene D’Adamo acknowledged the difficult farm economy facing growers as they absorb rising fuel costs, weak commodity prices and groundwater restrictions, adding that “we all recognize that as a board.”
Farmers penalized twice
Again and again, speakers made the case that local agencies already are imposing harsh groundwater restrictions, and farmers are paying the price.
Jennifer Spaletta, a water attorney with Stoel Rives LLP representing several Tule GSAs, argued the state risks undermining local compliance efforts by layering additional fees and reporting requirements onto growers who already follow strict local rules.
“There are really only three purposes for what you are doing today,” Spaletta told the board. “One purpose is to collect money. The second purpose is to collect information … And then there is a third purpose … creating incentives to change behavior.”
She pointed to local groundwater programs that have eliminated transitional pumping, imposed liens on growers and charged penalties exceeding $1,300 per acre-foot for overpumping.
“Compliance is happening very fast,” she said.
Travis Millwee, resources manager for the Lower Tule River Irrigation District and affiliated GSAs, said the Pixley GSA has steadily reduced pumping allocations since 2020 and expects to eliminate transitional pumping entirely by 2027.
“The farmers that are in compliance should not be penalized twice,” said Millwee.
Deanna Jackson, executive director of the Tri-County Water Authority, described the economic fallout already occurring under SGMA implementation.
Jackson said the agency has issued roughly $15 million in penalties and helped drive the retirement of thousands of irrigated acres.
Jennifer Spaletta (Stoel Rives)“These measures have already prompted the voluntary removal of 4,000 irrigated acres and will result in an additional 9,000 acres retired … within five years,” said Jackson. “We've already witnessed multiple bankruptcies and a drastic decline in land values. This is concrete, painful progress.”
Michael Knight, assistant general manager of Porterville Irrigation District and manager of the Porterville GSA, said the basin has already moved beyond planning into active enforcement.
“These are effective management measures, not just future commitments,” said Knight. “These are implementations that we are working with today.”
From conflict toward coordination
While the discussion centered on technical disputes over subsidence modeling and groundwater standards, the sharpest frustration was about communication gaps.
Several basin representatives complained they learned about major disagreements only after board staff released formal reports.
“If there is a finding in a staff report that is so significantly different than a finding in a GSA memo,” Spaletta said, “the parties shouldn’t hear about it for the first time when the report gets published.”
The board ultimately denied all eight exclusion requests, keeping state reporting and fee requirements in place.
