Here’s what you need to know:
- An update on Madera County Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSA) was presented by Stephanie Anagnoson, Director of Water and Natural Resources, who discussed proposals for final water-use rates, to be authorized on April 5. The rate will be based on a combination of fixed-rate and volumetric/project-based use. Public notice will be April 15, followed by a 45-day protest period, after which a public hearing will be held on June 7. Fees for fiscal year 2022-2023 are to be implemented on July 1 2022. Discussion focused on farming; there was no mention of residential use.
- Supervisor Rogers falsely claimed that there is as much water now as there has been for “thousands of years,” and that water was being diverted to “the environment.”
- Board directed staff to draft an ordinance for refuse-collection services pursuant to Senate Bill 1383, which will require separation of compostable refuse from other refuse. They selected from among four options and chose a non-mandatory plan.
Board of Supervisors
Brett Frazier, District 1 (Chairman Pro-tem)
David Rogers, District 2
Robert L. Poythress, District 3
Leticia Gonzalez, District 4
Tom Wheeler, District 5 (Chairman)
Also Present
Karen Scrivner, Chief Clerk
Regina Garza, County Counsel
Jay Varney, Chief Administrative Officer
The Scene
Meeting was opened at 9:04AM by Chairman Wheeler, who wore a mask and was coughing intermittently. “It’s Mardi Gras day,” he said; “I don’t see nobody in costume” [sic]. Counsel Garza read the closed-session items, and the Board went into closed session at 9:06AM, returning at 10:07AM. There were no reportable actions from the closed session. The meeting was then opened in memory of several County residents who had recently died; all were spoken of with fondness. This meeting was long, lasting until after 3:00PM, and covered some complex and stressful issues which have been before the Board in various earlier stages. The voices of Supervisors Rogers, Frazier, Wheeler dominated, and Poythress spoke often as well. As usual, Supervisor Gonzalez was extremely quiet. There was some contention about the GSA rate proposal and another item about organic-trash collection changes. The meetings are accessible via webcast, and in-person attendance is open to the public.
Agenda Item #1 There were no additions to the agenda.
Agenda Item #2 Closed session. Matters included discussion of existing and anticipated litigation, labor negotiations, and employee-performance evaluation. The business was not concluded within an hour; the closed session was resumed about 3:15PM, after the public portion of the meeting concluded.
Agenda Item #3 Invocation and flag salute. An invocation was given by Mike Farmer, pastor of the Fourth Street Church of God. Farmer was dressed in jeans and flannel shirt and prayed that his deity’s “name be honored and glorified” throughout the meeting.
Agenda Item #4 Public comment for items not on the agenda. Unaccountably, during time reserved for public comment, individual supervisors and County staff spoke about a variety of issues. First, Wheeler said he had a “public comment” and thanked CAO Jay Varney for attending a ribbon-cutting ceremony for Madera County’s Oakhurst Midtown Connector Road, also known as River Parkway Road. Next, Wheeler unwrapped a plaque, which was presented to Poythress in acknowledgement of his 2021 chairmanship. A group photo was taken. In the shuffle, Wheeler remarked that his staff had given him Mardi Gras beads, which would make the day “purty” [sic].
The next person to comment was also not a member of the public, but Brian Glover of the County assessor’s office who presented his department’s 2021 annual report. “I’m happy to answer questions,” he concluded, which seemed an inappropriate use of the public-comment time: laws governing public meetings prohibit action being taken on items addressed in public comments. Though no action was taken, discussion ensued. Typically, detailed discussion does not follow public comment. But, as noted, the comment was not made by a member of the public, it was made by staff, which complicated matters. Wheeler told Glover he had done a “heck of a job.” Rogers took the opportunity to complain about Proposition 19, which he falsely asserted “destroyed the ability to transfer property to children without a new assessment,” after which Glover clearly explained how exemptions worked. Glover said that policies regarding “family farms” were “not yet defined well,” and Frazier, in frequent theme of this meeting, expressed hostility toward the State government by quipping, “Don’t talk too loud; the State will listen in and zero in on farms, too.”
Next, also presented as a “public comment,” a staff person from the sheriff’s office appeared to introduce a new employee, an executive assistant with an impressive résumé.
Following that, yet another County staff person, this time from General Services, introduced a new employee.
Supervisor Gonzalez said that she had a “public comment.” She wished the Madera High School basketball team good luck. She also noted that March was women’s history month and said that a proclamation would be made at the next meeting. Rogers then broke in to rhapsodize about a current Eagle Scout, a girl, whom he compared to three people, only one of whom was a woman: Charles Lindbergh, Neil Armstrong, and Amelia Earhart.
There were no actual members of the public present to comment during this time set aside for public comment.
Agenda Item #5 Ceremony in recognition of appointment of David Richstone to the position of auditor/controller. This item was postponed.
Agenda Item #6 Consent calendar. No items pulled for discussion. Passed 5-0.
Agenda Item #7a Proclamation declaring March 2022 as Red Cross Month. A representative of the Red Cross was present to accept.
Agenda Item #8a Presentation by Stephanie Anagnoson, Director of Water and Natural Resources, and Kevin Kostiuk of Raftelis, a consulting agency, on Groundwater Sustainability Act (GSA) proposed rate structures. Anagnoson reviewed progress made since 2014, enumerated workshops and public meetings held, as well as challenges faced throughout the process. She then presented rate options: fixed only, fixed/volumetric (project-based), and fixed/volumetric (policy-based). She explained the benefits of the fixed/volumetric rate; for example, fairness per crop type and flexibility in controlling farm-unit charges. Challenges include administrative costs and possible variation in revenue generation. Anagnoson along with Kostiuk presented rate options, comparisons, and projections for the Madera Sub-basin and the Delta-Mendota Sub-basin. In reviewing the rate-study schedule, Anagnoson reminded the Board that 1 March was the scheduled date for presentation of revised rates; upcoming dates are 5 Apr for final rate authorization; 15 Apr for public notice; protest period lasts 45 days from date of public notice; 7 June for public hearing; 1 July for implementation of fees for fiscal year 2022-23.
Penalties were not a part of the rate study but have been taken into consideration.
Anagnoson’s recommendation to the Board was a rate which entails fixed rate for the first two years and for years three through five, a fixed/volumetric project-based rate. The rate would be effective for five years at which point reevaluation would be necessary, and every five years subsequently.
A long discussion followed Anagnoson’s presentation. Rogers began by congratulating Anagnoson for developing support among farmers, because, as reactionaries who are themselves government employees often assert, “people don’t trust government” but “you presented yourself in an honest way,” an awkwardly phrased compliment. Rogers went on to say that unspecified “water districts” have been using volumetric/fixed rates “for years.” Regarding metering, he said, agricultural water meters need calibration regularly and they can make mistakes. Anagnoson mentioned, in response to Rogers’ comments about monitoring, that her department will make a study of 40 growers’ water-use data, using in part publicly available data from https://openetdata.org/ and https://www.irriwatch.com/en/.
Anagnoson reiterated that there would be a new rate study every five years. Frazier spoke about the cost to farmers and estimated a percentage of water cost which would impinge on profits. Anagnoson stated that “SGMA [the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act] changes everything about groundwater and farming.” Wheeler commented that “if we keep pumping water, all this goes away,” seeming to understand the need for constraining water use.
Poythress asked if the fixed rate was based on 100 acres; it was. Poythress continued, noting that if 33 acres are taken out of production from a total of 100, the assessment is still based on 100 acres. “I’ve got a problem with that,” he said. He questioned the logic of assessment of property tax on fallowed acres and called it “punitive.” Anagnoson explained that water allocation is per “farm unit.” Farmers should anticipate that they will have to take some land out of production and if the water allocation and fees were not based on the entire farm unit (including fallowed land), fees for farmed acres would increase. She acknowledged that the matter is a serious economic challenge.
Wheeler talked about taxes and said that a reassessment of land after acreage is taken out of production would help. Poythress asked about anticipated receipt of a $10,000,000 grant without mentioning its source, and Anagnoson said that it could augment funds for land re-purposing. Rogers again with more frustration and hostility than logic said that what he called “legal forces” have intervened and made land “useless,” causing values to plummet. Frazier was a bit more reasonable and remarked that land value can be reassessed. Rogers could not restrain himself and declared, “It needs to be said—farmers are not the enemy! Farmers are important!” He then made the false statement often made by reactionaries, “The water we’ve had for thousands of years is the same; water has been taken from farming and given to the environment!” Scattered applause followed this outburst. His claim, aside from being false, has never been a part of the discussion of this matter, indicating that if it were true, it could be an element of the discussion and of Anagnoson’s presentations. However, the actual problem is that Madera County has severely overdrafted its groundwater.
There was a public comment via webex from Leticia Casillas Luquin of the Leadership Counsel, who said that she supported mandatory allocation and accurate monitoring. She noted that domestic-well replacement was more costly than the Board had reported. Finally, she said that the issue is not that “farmers are evil” but that growers are over-pumping water, causing a severe shortage.
Public comment from farmer Christine Beckstead (via webex) included questions about penalties for over-use of water and appeal process. She thanked Rogers for “pushing back on the State” because of rising regulatory “burdens” and tried to make the case that as farms fallow, there would be less money to pay for the regulations.
Farmer Bill Dietrich, who has a 155-acre farm, appeared in person to comment. “Dirt is in my veins,” he said, noting his emotional attachment to his almond trees and describing how he nurtured them from “sticks.” He did not want to be penalized for a 2022 allocation because he had already decided not to remove half his trees last year. “Our rural culture in the San Joaquin Valley is in jeopardy,” he concluded.
Julia Berry of the Clayton Water District appeared in person to comment. She asked that funds collected from the Chowchilla sub-basin be applied to the Chowchilla sub-basin area. She wanted to use PG&E for pumping records and noted that Clayton had built a pipeline to help with subsidence.
Frazier mused that it would be “interesting” when San Francisco and Los Angeles “find out that food doesn’t come from farmers’ markets,” again reflecting some hostility. Poythress reiterated that it would be “punitive” to charge fees for fallowed acreage within a single farm, but he seemed to not remember Anagnoson’s response when the issue came up earlier.
Anagnoson said that the Board’s task was to direct staff to develop the type of rate chosen. Counsel Garza clarified that no motion was required, that the Board should ask Anagnoson to summarize and ask her if she had the direction she needed. Anagnoson summarized, confirming the Board has agreed to a fixed rate for the first two years, and years three to five would be fixed/volumetric (project-based), for a total of a five-year term. There was some talk of adding analysis for acres out of production. Poythress said the key was “cutting back on pumping.” He did not want to be “over-punitive” with farmers who have land fallowed, which was not fair, he said. Anagnoson reiterated that if the rate is restructured to eliminate cost for fallowed land, the cost would go up for farmed land. Frazier said that when people look back in 100 years, he wants them to think that Madera County did the right thing, rather than have no farms at all in 100 years when water is even more scarce. Rogers said that the cost of water should not be so onerous for farmers.
Agenda Item #7g Dr Simon Paul, Health Officer, asked the Board to approve ratification of a no-cost data-use agreement with the California Department of Public Health for access to COVID-19 data. Passed 5-0.
Agenda Item #7b Dr Simon Paul, Health Officer, gave a COVID-19 update. Mask mandate for public and schools to be lifted 11 Mar. Case numbers are down. Treatment for COVID symptoms is growing. Preparation for future vaccination needs is necessary, he said.
At this point, 12:00PM, Wheeler broke the meeting for lunch, to resume at 1:15PM.
Agenda Item #7c Tracy Kennedy, County Treasurer-Tax Collector, gave a brief presentation of the Grant Anticipation Note (GAN), a means of allowing short-term debt in anticipation of receipt of a grant. It’s “completely legal,” she repeated several times. Projects can be started before grant money is received. Debt is purchased, money is not loaned, Kennedy clarified. “Public comment” on this item was made by Matt Treber of Public Works, who thanked Kennedy and “her shop.”
Agenda Item #7d Tracy Kennedy, County Treasurer-Tax Collector, gave a brief presentation of the investment policy certification from the California Municipal Treasurer’s Association (CMTA).
Agenda Item #7e Joel Bugay, Deputy CAO, gave a brief presentation on a switch from shared to assigned sheriff’s vehicles, to be paid for with American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds, requiring approval. Passed 5-0.
Agenda Item #7b Discussion and direction regarding implementing refuse-collection services pursuant to SB1383, which will require separation of compostable refuse from other refuse. A green bin will be supplied to store organic waste, so some families and businesses will have three trash bins—already in force in other areas of California. Presentation by Matt Treber of Public Works, et al. Treber wearily described the new regulation as “another unfunded State mandate,” a phrase which was repeated during the discussion. The law will affect refuse collection in SB1383 compliance areas, both residences and businesses. The County now needs to determine the refuse-collection service which will be provided to residents and businesses for organic-waste collection service.
The options presented to the Board by Treber and colleagues were
- Option 1: Non-Mandatory Collection with Full Waivers—trash separated at source, organics collection services would be offered only in the census tracts subject to SB 1383
- Option 2: Mandatory Collection with Residential and Commercial Organics Collection Waivers—residents and businesses would be offered organics collection service waivers for de minimis generation, self-haul, on-site management, and shared service
- Option 3: Mandatory Collection with Only Commercial Organics Collection Waivers—trash separated at source
- Option 4: High-Diversion Organics Processing Facility—single trash bin, separated at high-diversion facility (not feasible for Madera County)
Corresponding “rate impacts” (not fees) were presented with each option.
The purpose of the law, signed by Governor Brown in 2016, is to reduce emissions of powerful short-lived climate pollutants (SLCP), including methane, but this point was never mentioned throughout the long discussion about this item. Discussion centered on inconvenience, anger at the State government, and premature outrage over fees which were never going to be charged.
The Board received a resolution drafted by a group calling itself the Trash Advisory Group (TAG). Their draft resolution proposes that the Board direct staff to file for a 12-month extension with CalRecycle and create a waste-management commission. Several people from the TAG group were present to complain about fees which they feared they would be charged, particularly “opt-out” fees for those granted an organic-trash collection waiver, a fee they found outrageous, akin to, as one person put it, being charged a fine for speeding “when you weren’t even in the car.” However, after about ten people made lengthy and detailed complaints, often going over the time-limit of three minutes each, Treber said that the rates mentioned in his presentation were not under consideration, that they were not there today to determine a fee for anything. The rates cited were potential costs to the County, and ways to fund them would be determined later. One commenter falsely asserted that “the County has a regulatory problem, not a greenhouse gas problem.” Another made an ambiguous plea to the Board: “Protect us from this over-reach.” Another believed that “A lot of this is political.” An Oakhurst resident identifying himself as Randy Thompson, came to the podium and asked the Board “Take a good look; what do you see?” Wheeler replied, “A big fat guy,” to which Thompson replied that the was a master gardener and said that he was involved with the “zero waste” movement. He moved to Oakhurst to teach people how to mitigate waste. He was opposed to an “opt-out fee” because he would be paying for nothing, but this point was moot, because no one will be charged such a fee. A commenter via webex said without basis that the ordinance was “unconstitutional.”
Gonzalez asked staff to work on getting information about the upcoming changes in trash collection to the public. Frazier, still expressing bitterness about the water discussion, quipped cynically that because of SGMA there would be reduced farm products, hence there would be less organic refuse. He said that because of public input, they were able to effect changes in what he complained was the State’s “one-size-fits-all” law: what began as a mandate with no waivers is now non-mandated with waivers, something he repeated twice. Rogers chimed in, complaining that the State was attacking the industry most likely to use compost, which would be created from organic waste.
Frazier reiterated that the Board was not adopting fees but determining costs and that staff was finding funding sources. Nevertheless, he was upset about the use of tax dollars and said “Everybody’s mad about it, but we will all pay regardless.” No one expressed concern about the need to reduce emissions and pollutants from rotting garbage in landfills, or their effects on climate or public health. Wheeler thanked the “TAG” group for the many meetings he held with them. Rogers, defensively blaming the State government, said that this was the second issue “created by the State” which the Board dealt with today. He resentfully asserted that “the State doesn’t solve problems, they create more.” Wheeler added glumly, “Sacramento rules from Los Angeles and San Francisco. We’re the step-children.”
The Board voted 5-0 to accept the staff recommendation for Option 1 (described above).
Agenda Item #9 Approve a letter of support for Assembly Bill 1773 (AB 1773), which would restore funding for the California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act). Sponsored by Assemblyman Jim Patterson. Passed 5-0 with no discussion.
Agenda Item #10 Supervisor and staff reports. No one reported anything further at this point, as they had all used public-comment time earlier to report their own news, and the meeting was now running over six hours. Jay Varney did mention that the appointment ceremony for David Richstone (see Agenda Item #5) could not take place because Richstone was on jury duty.
The Board returned to closed session at 3:14PM
