Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Groundwater Fee topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Lompoc directs staff to file objection, protest to proposed groundwater extraction fee

3670687 · June 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council voted to have staff and the city attorney prepare an objection and a Prop 218 protest to a proposed groundwater extraction fee from the Western Management Area Groundwater Sustainability Agency, citing fairness and overlap with existing district fees.

The Lompoc City Council on June 3 directed staff to work with the city attorney to submit a formal objection and a Proposition 218 protest to a proposed groundwater extraction fee proposed by the Western Management Area Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA).

Kristen Worthley, senior administrative analyst in the water department, briefed the council on the GSA proposal and said the fee would start at about $15.68 per acre‑foot and rise over time; the city currently pumps roughly 4,000 acre‑feet annually. Worthley estimated the initial cost impact to the city at about $60,000 and noted the fee would be used to fund the new GSA’s staff, audits and insurance.

Council members expressed concern about equity and overlap with existing fees charged by the Vandenberg‑area Reclamation/Conservation district (Inez River Water Conservation District referenced in the report), and whether agricultural users are being treated differently because some do not have metered wells. Several council members said Lompoc has done significant conservation already and deserves credit for it.

Council member Ball moved, and the council voted to give staff leeway to work with counsel to draft and file an objection and a Prop 218 protest; the motion passed on the record. City staff said the protest would put Lompoc’s concerns on the record and could preserve the city’s options if the fee proceeds.

Council discussion also emphasized fairness across user groups, with one council member noting that agricultural exports occur above the valley and may not be contributing to basin costs. The motion included direction to align the objection letter with staff and legal review and to return with any further recommendations.

The council did not decide to block formation of the GSA; the action was limited to preparing and filing an objection/protest to the proposed fee so the city’s concerns are formally recorded.