Column 302 - August 7, 2026

Ants are fascinating. I like to watch them out in the pasture - running in and out of their compounds carrying bits of vegetation, moving their nurseries, working together for the better good. They share information on where good food is available. Everyone pitches in and does their job. They help each other. Communists!

When they are in the house, however, my feelings toward them turn from admiration to horror and revulsion. There are a couple of entrances they have found, but I hit ‘em with cinnamon or put packing tape over the spot. It’s a constant battle at the hummingbird feeders, of which we have 16 or so. The little ant moats work, but they’re as much of a pain to fill as the feeders. Plus the hummers like a little protein snack mixed in with their all-carb diet, so…

I’ve started using the liquid ant killer stuff, which they appear to love and supposedly will take back to the nest with them like little Trojan ants to unknowingly spread death and destruction to their families. We shall see…

This week we have two major topics to discuss - the November ballot measure for County Supervisor raises and another marathon meeting of the Groundwater Sustainability Agency Board of Directors (aka supes).

Let’s do the raises first. Should future supes have a higher salary to entice qualified people to run? Definitely. Does the current board deserve a raise? That’s the question.

Some board members insist that they are doing this for future boards. Really? Then why not write it for future boards? You could have made it effective January 2029, but you chose January 2027. Also, why did you wait until after the June primary (when two of you were voted back into office) to even mention the idea?

Supervisor Rob Burroughs made another eloquent speech on service to community and how he does not want a raise while county employees are struggling to make ends meet. That is servant leadership, my friends.

This requires consideration and I hope you’ll really think about it. On Tuesday, I told the board that I would be voting Yes on the ballot measure, but now I’m vacillating and will probably go back and forth a few more times. Every time there has been talk of a charter amendment to give the supes a raise, it has been for the sitting board. Each attempt has failed miserably. But if we wait around for a board full of Burroughs-like servant leaders who actually want a better future for the county and will ask for a raise for the next board, we may never get them. So I was leaning towards Yes. Who cares if they make extra dough in the meantime? (You? Oh. Duly noted.)

However, the way the measure is written gives the supes an automatic raise every time CA’s minimum wage is increased, which seems to be often. When the current salary was added to the charter almost 40 years ago, the authors made sure to keep the voters involved in any raises.

This measure removes that involvement and ties the salary to minimum wage at an assumed number of 40 hours per week, 52 weeks a year (as if). Supervisors are not hourly workers and do not punch a time clock, so this is inappropriate. And the voters should probably stay involved in deciding their salary. We are their bosses, after all.

Which leads me to a funny side story. During the discussion on this item, Chair Tom Walker blurted out that he thinks people who don’t know how much the minimum wage is should not be voting. Um…excuse me? How many people who voted for him don’t know that? Do you, dear reader? And did you know it’s going up in January - just in time for the Supes’ raise if it passes? Pivoting back towards No now.

We might as well have had a slumber party in the Supes chambers, because we were back the next morning for the GSA meeting, which was 4.5 hours long, informative, shocking, and really demonstrated how screwed up everything related to groundwater is in this county. Failures on every level. Directors, Commission (my homies), Staff, and especially Consultants. So much to dissect - this will be a two column story at the very least.

DWR’s Paul Gosselin, the Big Cheese of SGMA (Sustainable Groundwater Management Act) was on hand to give an overview of the probationary process for subbasins whose plans are not showing how sustainability will be achieved. I had never met Gosselin in person, but have read a million things he has written or said.

He was invited to answer questions about the probationary process, but instead made it clear that we have nothing to worry about. Regular readers of this column know that the county has been using potential state probation and intervention as a scare tactic to try to get the fees passed. Gosselin pretty much validated everything I have written about this, which is that the state is NOT taking us over, that they would give us plenty of notice if we were heading in the wrong direction, and that they want to help us stay on track. Gosselin answered all the questions affably and even got a few laughs. I was Fan Girling hard!

Were the directors upset knowing they (and we) had been lied to all this time? Or were they in on it? We’ll never know, but if any of them had simply looked into the subbasins currently or formerly under probation (or read this column), they would have known we are under no threat and would have to go a fair distance down the wrong path to get there.

The fee structure is a complete mess, with our consultants sending new lists of charges for each parcel the night before the meeting, many of which appear to be wrong. It was interesting to me that NOBODY from Ludhorff and Scalmanini was in the room. LSCE’s Jacques DeBra participated via Zoom with his camera turned off. Interesting.

Director Rob Burroughs motioned to exempt de minimis (domestic) users from fees. A couple of other board members had previously said they thought that was a good idea, yet Burroughs’ motion died for lack of a second. These are the same people who want a raise - except Burroughs. Much much more on this meeting next week, including the formation of two new ad hoc committees and the million dollars that was “borrowed” from the Dry Well Mitigation Fund to pay bills. We haven’t even scratched the surface.

The Groundwater Commission is supposed to meet Wednesday morning at 8:30, but there has been no agenda posted nor cancellation notice. So, maybe we’ll be there? I’ll update this when I find out for sure. Last month’s meeting was cancelled - hope we’re not going for a twofer!