WHEN THE WELL RUNS DRY…
Published in the June 6, 2026 edition.
It’s been a few months since consultants presented the results of a draft groundwater modeling project to the Tri-Valley Groundwater Management District, beginning what many hope will be a broader conversation about how the region responds to declining groundwater supplies.
Funded through a state grant secured by Mono County and administered by the Owens Valley Groundwater Authority, the roughly $200,000 model was designed to simulate groundwater conditions across the Tri-Valley basin under a range of management scenarios.
One takeaway from the presentation, voiced primarily by chairperson Carol Ann Mitchell and echoed by several audience members during the board’s meeting Wednesday, was the model’s projection that groundwater could be depleted within roughly 30 years.
“We are now in overdraft,” Mitchell said. “We cannot put our heads in the sand any longer and say that we’re gonna get a wet year and groundwater levels are going to come up.”
The challenge is that identifying the problem is easier than funding solutions. Even in the modeling presentation, consultants said it would take significantly more funding and time to make the alternative solutions clear.
During Wednesday’s meeting, the district heard a presentation from county counsel Chris Beck outlining the funding tools available under California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Groundwater sustainability agencies can impose extraction fees, export fees, assessments, development impact fees and, in some cases, special taxes to support groundwater management activities.
Most of the options, Beck explained, are designed to recover the costs associated with groundwater management rather than generate revenue.
“These aren’t designed to be punitive,” Beck said. “They’re cost recovery.”
Mitchell urged the district to “stop being scared of” and make greater use of the California Department of Water Resources, which offers technical assistance, facilitation services and grant programs for groundwater agencies.
“Two members assigned to our GSA from Southern California came here a few years ago, willing to walk us through the process, help us,” Mitchell said. “But when they came, we kind of told them we don’t need you.”
Many state grant programs are geared toward the development and implementation of Groundwater Sustainability Plans, which are required for medium- and high-priority basins. Although Tri-Valley remains classified as a low-priority basin, many believe that could eventually change if groundwater declines continue.
For some attendees, the appeal of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan is less about regulatory classification and more about having a framework to address what they see as a growing problem.
“If groundwater does continue to drop at the rate they predict over the next 30 years, the aquifer is exhausted economically,” one person said. “What will Mono County do with this area? And what will the people do?”
In the meantime, Beck said the district could potentially seek financial assistance from Mono County for studies or consultant work needed to evaluate future management options. He pointed to the county’s previous support for district operations, including funding a special election.
“If the board finds itself in the position of needing to raise a fee to provide a service,” Beck said, “I’d stand with our board because I think that’s reasonable.”
The discussion briefly turned to taxes, one of the least likely — but technically available – funding mechanisms. Any special tax would require approval from two-thirds of voters and would need to be tied to a specific purpose, such as groundwater monitoring, infrastructure improvements or sustainability planning.
That prompted a question from the audience about whether a countywide tax could be used to help protect Fish Slough, the rare wetland west of Chalfant that has long been at the center of local groundwater concerns.
“If there’s something that could be done to improve the situation of Fish Slough, which is a national resource, could we tax the whole county?” one audience member asked.
“The decision ultimately rests with the voters,” Beck said, noting that residents in places like Coleville and Walker might be reluctant to support a countywide tax for a project centered on a single, far away watershed.
Ultimately, the board took no action on any of the funding options outlined Wednesday and did not schedule future discussion of any specific proposal. The district is not expected to meet again until the fall.
