By Lisa McEwen, SJV Water
He’s either simply telling it like it is, or, he’s a sanctimonious know-it-all stirring the pot.
Either way, Eric R. Quinley has emerged as, quite possibly, the most hated man in the Tule subbasin despite the fact his message has been the same for the better part of a decade: If left unchecked, subsidence will be the region’s downfall.
His name and comments have elicited groans, eye rolls and angry letters from colleagues throughout the region. Even support comes in grudging tones.
“He’s a bulldog,” said one grower who asked to not be identified. “His job is to represent and protect his district. He’s got his marching orders and he follows them.”
Others aren’t so magnanimous:
- “I know he’s not a team player. He’s only nice to us when he wants to sell water. But when our backs are turned, he’s sticking the knife in.” – Frank Fernandes, dairyman and grower in Pixley Irrigation District.
- “The Eric Quinleys of the world don’t know what they’re talking about.” – Sean Geivet, manager of the Porterville, Saucelito and Terra Bella irrigation districts.
- “It went from, ‘Let’s all figure this out’ to ‘Hey, I’m good. You guys figure it out.’” – Tom Barcellos, dairyman, grower and president of Lower Tule River Irrigation District and Groundwater Sustainability Agency.
- “He’s a self-righteous man who thinks his way is the only way.” – Grower at a recent Porterville ID meeting.
Ouch. Why the hard feelings?
Quinley manages the Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District (DEID) and Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) at the southern end of the subbasin, which covers the lower half of Tulare County’s flat lands.
In the world of groundwater management he’s in the ultimate catbird seat as DEID has been found to be “in balance,” meaning its growers aren’t pumping out more water than is going back into the aquifer.
And Quinley aims to keep it that way, even if that means pointing out flaws in surrounding districts.
“We’ve got DEID taking the hard line on subsidence with the subbasin,” acknowledged Mike George, president of the new Tule East GSA and a member of Saucelito GSA’s stakeholder committee. “But I think we’ve got to head in the right direction, as painful as it is.”
Painful, indeed. An estimated 70,000 acres of productive land will need to be retired in the Tule subbasin to bring it to sustainability.
That means less farming, fewer jobs and a potentially huge economic hit to families and the region in general.
Emotions are, understandably, high.
A recent photo op based on U.S. Geological Survey data illustrating how land has sunk in the subbasin, orchestrated by DEID, didn’t do much to smooth the waters.
“I think the timing is ironic,” Fernandes said. “This was just ammunition to shut us down for our exemption request. It will only be a matter of time and the state will collect subsidence data on Delano and that will be a shock, too.”
Quinley said DEID is simply pointing out facts in order to protect its investments.
“DEID has a very long history of stakeholders and the board being willing to make hard, expensive decisions to make sure their future is going to look different than those who choose to not make that same level of investment,” he said.
Doing the math
Quinley’s position is based on numbers. And the numbers aren’t good, he has noted.
“He is a polarizing figure but it’s because he’s doing what needs to be done,” said one grower who didn’t want to be identified because of the heated environment. “He is not shy in assigning blame for subsidence. And if you doubt him, he’ll show you the data.”
About five years ago, DEID hired engineering consultant firm Intera rather than companies used by other area groundwater agencies. Quinley wanted hard data free of any potential feeling of obligation to other clients.
That data shows farmers are significantly over pumping the region, resulting in damage to domestic wells, roads, bridges and even the vital Friant-Kern Canal as land has collapsed over withered aquifers.
DEID, meanwhile, invested heavily in groundwater recharge, buying more surface supplies, delivering water via 172 miles of pipelines instead of open ditches and calibrating allowable pumping so it didn’t tip the district into overdraft.
“DEID already expended the effort and spent the resources to become sustainable,” Quinley said in a recent interview. “And now it’s DEID’s job to maintain that sustainability.”
Temps rising
When the Tule subbasin was put on probation by the Water Resources Control Board last September – largely because of rampant subsidence – DEID and the Kern-Tulare Water District received highly coveted “exemptions.” Farmers in those districts won’t have to meter and register their wells at $300 each and report extractions to the state.
Farmers in other groundwater agencies in the Tule subbasin will be subject to all those sanctions and potentially more as the state scrutinizes the effects of their pumping.
At some point, if locals can’t agree on a subbasin-wide plan, the Water Board will impose its own “interim plan,” meaning the state will dictate how much farmers can pump.
Some say the exemptions granted to DEID and Kern-Tulare exacerbated an already charged environment.
Eight other GSAs in the Tule subbasin have applied for similar exemptions, which Water Board staff said are still being evaluated.
Thirteen months after their probationary designation, Tule subbasin agencies are mired in distrust and differing opinions on how to bring the region into compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).
Hang together – or separately
To emerge from probation, the agencies must coordinate.
And, right now, the Tule subbasin is far from coordinated. After the probationary designation, agencies splintered from the original six into 12.
The sticking point? Quinley’s arch nemesis – subsidence.
“Without the Tule subbasin complying with SGMA’s call related to subsidence and appropriate levels of mitigation, we had to take the position that we could not tolerate any more subsidence on the Friant-Kern Canal or on our pipeline distribution system due to pumping outside of DEID,” Quinley said.
“At the end of the day, having unsustainable pumpers destroying infrastructure runs counter to the law and the guidelines.”
Cherry picking?
But Deanna Jackson, executive director of Tri-County Water Authority, took Quinley to task in a letter sent to the Department of Water Resources in July. She questions DEID’s decision to submit separate data in the subbasin’s required annual report.
She accuses DEID of ignoring information from 87% of the monitoring wells in the subbasin’s lower aquifer network. Without that information, DEID produced groundwater maps that are dramatically different from the rest of the subbasin and put DEID in a much more favorable light.
She adds that DEID discounts its own contributions to subsidence within its boundaries, alleging its landowners pumped 44,000 acre-feet in 2024. With no metering or well registry required in the district, Jackson questions the accuracy of those numbers.
“DEID’s data set cherry picks monitoring wells, obfuscates water levels and subsidence impacts, and inflates recharge activities, and should be rejected,” her letter states.
Quinley refuted Jackson’s assumptions, saying DEID’s data used actual water consumption numbers as opposed to calculated numbers based on a 2019 crop map, which is where he said the 44,000 acre feet came from.
“The data we submitted separately to DWR as part of the 2024 annual report showed a much more complete and accurate picture of DEID’s efforts in the Tule subbasin, and a much clearer picture as it relates to groundwater contouring in the Tule subbasin.”
“We have to do something”
The dysfunction in the Tule subbasin has gotten to the point that Department of Water Resources mediators have been holding private monthly meetings with managers to help move conversations forward.
While an agreement is within reach on groundwater quality, subsidence remains a deterrent, with each groundwater agency stuck in its own silo.
Delano’s hard line on subsidence has irritated other managers who have enacted policies to radically reduce pumping allocations, especially for so-called “white land” parcels. Those lands are outside of water district boundaries and are totally dependent on groundwater.
“All of us managers are representing our guys, right?” said Eric Limas, general manager at Pixley and Lower Tule Irrigation District GSAs during Pixley’s Oct. 9 board meeting. “We’re putting our flags in the ground and none of us are moving from those flags and we’re not gonna take our flag out and move it.”
Lines between groundwater agencies are dug so deeply at this point, that there is an effort by growers to circumvent the agencies and meet directly with each other to hash through difficult issues.
Growers are hoping to follow in the Kern subbasin’s footsteps. Kern had also expanded to 21 groundwater agencies, but found a way to reach a coordinated agreement and was recently moved off the Water Board’s enforcement track.
“We have to do something in the Tule subbasin on the subsidence issue,” Limas said.
Facing a cliff
Michael Claiborne, Directing Attorney at Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, a community advocate, said the fragmentation in the Tule subbasin is a “major hurdle.”
He was limited in his comments about specific managers but offered that Quinley “says the right things.”
“We want to bring this back to the intent of SGMA,” Claiborne said. “It’s really about sustainability and access to groundwater for all users. It’s really up to the GSAs in the Tule subbasin on how quickly that will happen.”
Quinley predicted the basin will end up under a state pumping plan, especially if egos can’t deflate to make room for one another.
“The time to make course corrections was many, many years ago,” Quinley said. “If those course corrections were taken, many growers would not be facing as much of a cliff right now.
“DEID had the same exact opportunity as others did to review SGMA and design what they wanted their future to look like.”
He understands it may be difficult for groundwater agencies to admit if they haven’t been on the right path, but if they don’t change course, he said, it will be the farmers who pay.
“Who is damaged? At the end of the day, it’s the stakeholders. That entrenchment is not in the interest of all the stakeholders.”
