Catch up on the latest GSA board meeting recaps anytime—at home, on the road, or on your tractor.
Proud Partners of
A two-tier groundwater fee was adopted (May 18) and Tier 2 pre-billing corrections are underway for misclassified dry/grazing land. YSGA presented a Hungry Hollow White Paper detailing six voluntary projects with scenarios that could offset the area's modeled groundwater deficit; it is under landowner review. The Board approved a letter to the County on Focus Areas/well verification and coordination on the moratorium.
The board approved contracts for independent groundwater model review and to begin a new Prop 218 funding/outreach process. Members warned a cash shortfall could trigger state intervention, citing the Tule example where state staff discussed ~$35/acre-foot pumping fees plus annual well charges. A Prop 26 extraction fee was discussed as a possible option.
Groundwater level targets were updated and approved, setting measurable objectives to historical averages from 2015–2025 and interim milestones equal to those objectives, reflecting a stable basin with no overdraft. An RFP is underway for ongoing SGMA support; interviews are anticipated mid-August and a contract could be considered at an anticipated special August meeting. Five new monitoring wells and five stream gauges are now online to support recharge projects and groundwater reporting.
A ~$100,000 Cortina Creek siphon repair using a spin-cast concrete lining method was approved. Operations are running 2,500 CFS; SCADA shows demand tracking nearly identical to last year. Board gave the GM discretion to select a roofing contractor and proceed, with roof replacement quotes around $163k–$165k plus gutters and roof-extension scope/pricing still being finalized.
The Advisory Committee did not reach consensus on a single IIS portfolio. Debate focused on Portfolio 3A (~$1.07B capital) and Portfolio 4 (~$612M). Members discussed considerations including cost allocation, injection pilots/aquifer testing, financing, and alternative supplies, and indicated both 3A and 4 should be evaluated with those considerations, though no formal vote was recorded. Staff said they will bring their own recommendation addressing seawater intrusion to the Board.
