Catch up on the latest GSA board meeting recaps anytime—at home, on the road, or on your tractor.
Proud Partners of
The board approved FY 2027 groundwater sustainability fees despite a last-minute legal objection over fee authority and cost allocation. Staff presented three remaining project portfolios to address seawater intrusion, with a portfolio decision anticipated in August; Portfolio 1 is the only one shown as meeting seawater intrusion thresholds in the presented effectiveness summary, while staff said Portfolio 3A is close and could work with adjustments.
SGMA regulatory fees for FY 2026-27 were approved: $5.60 per cropped acre, $16.58 base fee per parcel, and $1.26 per developed domestic parcel. The board discussed expanding RMS wells from 17 to 29 and expressed general support, but took no formal action. MT/domestic well risk analysis continues; staff will post/update side-by-side analyses for the Periodic Evaluation.
Land subsidence was found to be minimal based on InSAR data; Todd Groundwater reported DWR said no changes to subsidence criteria are needed until a 2032 reevaluation. Analysis concluded that temporarily lowering groundwater levels to interim milestones is unlikely to significantly affect groundwater dependent ecosystems near the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers. The county reported it is finalizing a third-party contract for the Non-District East action plan, targeting July 14 board approval.
Zanjero presented a groundwater consumption methodology using OpenET minus effective precipitation and surface water deliveries, with methodology lock-in aimed for August. Effective precipitation proposes a single basin-wide average from four CIMIS stations. The Board unanimously approved Woodard & Curran's scope to respond to DWR comments; funding options are expected to return at a future meeting.
Board members discussed frustrations with the GSA interim plan process and expected more clarity at a joint meeting next week. Financials through June 30 were presented and a motion and second to approve were made. An assessment rate of 1.41 was discussed; several budget/revenue figures were garbled. They noted timing limits and a new assessment could take about a year to implement. Board members raised concerns about consultant spending and facilitated meetings yielding little value.
