By Lisa McEwen, SJV Water
A western Fresno County groundwater subbasin is the seventh in the San Joaquin Valley to come under threat of state intervention.
The Department of Water Resources announced in a news release Feb. 27 that it deemed the Pleasant Valley subbasin’s 2024 groundwater sustainability plan ‘inadequate’ and punted oversight of the subbasin to the state Water Resources Control Board.
Per the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, such a decision authorizes state bureaucrats to step in if managers cannot rectify issues in their groundwater plan. SGMA mandates that aquifers be balanced by 2040.
In a letter to Pleasant Valley water managers, DWR cited three deficiencies in Pleasant Valley’s plan. Those include not being protective enough of groundwater levels and water quality. The plan also lacks a reasonable assessment of overdraft conditions and ways to prevent future overdraft.
Pleasant Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) manager Brad Gleason, said managers spoke with Water Board staff during a hand-off meeting facilitated by DWR.
“We are not burying our heads in the sand or kicking the can down the road. We’re desperately trying to solve this,” said Gleason, who has farmed in the area for 40 years.
Pleasant Valley subbasin covers about 48,000 acres west of Interstate 5 and surrounds the City of Coalinga. It includes three GSAs: Pleasant Valley, City of Corcoran and Fresno County Pleasant Valley Area, all of which are part of one groundwater plan.
The area is heavily planted with pistachios. Landowners are dependent on deep wells for irrigation although some within Pleasant Valley Water District have access to surface water, importing supplies to offset pumping.
In 2018, DWR reclassified the subbasin from low to medium priority.
Gleason said two tasks are imminent: Submitting the subbasin’s annual report by April 1, which SGMA requires all GSAs to do, and “figuring out the language being spoken.”
“The biggest problem we’ve got is our communications,” he said. “Water-speak is hard reading. It’s thick.”
Gleason was referring to DWR’s 23-page letter explaining the inadequate determination.
“Part of it, we’ve got a board of nine farmers and we’re trying to understand (the letter) and it’s complex. But we are optimistic that we can figure out how to speak the same language.”
Gleason said he pointed out to Water Board officials that Pleasant Valley GSA does not have any paid staff; it hires various consultants for its administration.
A spokesperson at the Water Board said there is no timeline for Pleasant Valley, but staff will begin by providing technical assistance “designed to support moving the subbasin towards sustainability, as required by SGMA.”
“Every groundwater basin is unique. In recognition of that fact, SGMA staff will carefully review the GSP, DWR’s determination, and draft a Staff Report to be reflective of the specific challenges the basin is facing while also providing potential actions to remedy deficiencies,” the spokesperson stated in an email.
He added that the Water Board would only consider whether to designate the subbasin as probationary after public engagement and a substantial notice period.
Probation requires landowners to meter and register wells at $300 each, pay $20 per acre-foot of water pumped and report all extractions. Those fees and requirements are on top of what landowners already pay to their GSAs and irrigation districts.
If deficiencies are not remedied with a year of probation, the Water Board may impose its own pumping limits.
The Water Board has already placed the Tulare Lake and Tule subbasins on probation, though a lawsuit has paused state sanctions in Tulare Lake.
A probation hearing for the Kaweah subbasin was canceled pending consideration of a new groundwater plan and the Kern subbasin was given until June to fix issues in its plan. The Delta-Mendota and Chowchilla subbasins were also recommended for probation and are awaiting their hearing dates.
