Wyandotte Creek GSA consultant outlines proposed parcel- and acreage-based fee structure; no vote taken

Catherine Hansford, consultant with Hansford Economic Consulting, presented a proposed fee structure to the Wyandotte Creek Groundwater Sustainability Agency at the board meeting, recommending a two-part model that would charge all parcels a parcel-level administrative fee and assess groundwater users an additional use-based fee.

Hansford told the board the model was adapted from a fee the consultant prepared for the Vina GSA and would allocate next fiscal year’s roughly $214,000 budget between an administrative “part 1” fee and a user-driven “part 2” fee. Using the consultant’s illustrative calculations, the budget was split about 61% to part 1 and 39% to part 2. Hansford said that corresponds to an illustrative part 1 charge of $10.68 per parcel per year, an agricultural part 2 charge of $5.80 per cropped acre per year, and a domestic (developed-parcel) part 2 charge of $0.44 per developed parcel per year. Hansford described those figures as representative “ballpark” numbers that would be refined before any formal adoption.

Why it matters: The fee structure determines who pays for ongoing GSA tasks under California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) and whether costs fall more on agricultural pumpers, domestic users or all landowners. Hansford said the regulatory fee approach (commonly referred to in the presentation as a Proposition 26-style regulatory fee) is intended to pay for reporting, monitoring and other activities the state requires of GSAs; management activities such as projects or land acquisition would fall under a different legal process (Proposition 218) if pursued.

Key details and examples - Budget and split: Hansford used a five-year view and the agency’s adopted budget to estimate a next-year budget of about $214,000 and allocated 61% to part 1 (administration) and 39% to part 2 (user-driven activities). She emphasized these are preliminary figures for discussion and would be refined. - Pumping split: Using historic pumping data, Hansford estimated about 95% of groundwater pumping in the Wyandotte Creek subbasin is agricultural and about 5% domestic; she described that as the basis for allocating part 2 costs between those user groups. - Fee units and data sources: Part 1 would be divided by the number of assessor parcels within the GSA. Part 2 for agriculture would be divided by cropped acres using Department of Water Resources cropping data (the consultant noted a two-year lag in that dataset). Developed parcels would be identified using assessor and FEMA building/structure data; Hansford said combining those sources improves coverage. - Non-taxable parcels and invoicing: Hansford explained that some nontaxable parcels (for example certain tribal, state or federal parcels, and institutions such as Butte College) are often not on the county tax roll. A GSA can invoice those “hand-billed” parcels directly if it chooses to include them in the fee program. Under the illustrative model, adding hand-billed parcels increased the acreage subject to fees beyond the current tax-roll counts. - Counts and margins: Hansford reported that the consultant’s analysis produced a tax-roll acreage count of about 40,200 acres versus roughly 42,298 acres used for fee calculations; she estimated about 12,000 additional acres could be charged if hand-billed parcels are included. She also said she applied modest margins for data refinement (2.5% margin for the part 1 parcel count and 5% margin for part 2 acreage) to allow for changes between analysis and final tax-roll preparation. - Illustrative outcomes for representative properties: Using the Vina methodology adapted for Wyandotte Creek, Hansford gave examples showing changes in annual bills under the proposed model compared with the current structure as she modeled it: a 100-acre irrigated agricultural parcel that currently pays about $1,230 would pay about $590.68 under the illustrative Vina-based methodology; a quarter-acre household lot in Oroville that currently pays about $1.96 would be estimated at $11.12 per year under the proposed structure. Hansford cautioned these were examples for comparison, not final rates.

Surface-water complexity and parcel categories Hansford told the board Wyandotte Creek differs from Vina because several parcels receive surface-water supplies (for example from South Feather) for agricultural or domestic uses; that requires additional parcel categories. She said most parcels using surface water still have to be accounted for in the analysis and that only a subset receiving surface water exclusively would avoid part 2 groundwater charges if they can demonstrate no groundwater use.

Questions and next steps Board members asked clarifying questions during the presentation about which parcels were billable, how non-taxable parcels were handled, and the choice between using a simple fixed percentage split versus a rolling five-year pumping average to allocate part 2 costs between agriculture and domestic use. Hansford recommended stakeholder outreach and a fuller fee study if the board decided to proceed, noting the board could refine methodology choices (for example whether to include unclassified or idle crop acreage).

Outcome The presentation was for discussion only; the board did not vote on adopting fees at the meeting. Earlier in the meeting the board approved the consent agenda, which included approval of the June 26 meeting minutes and consideration of Amendment No. 1 to the contract with Hansford Economic Consulting; the consent agenda motion passed by voice vote (tally not specified in the record).

What remains open Hansford said the analysis would be refined if the board chooses to pursue a fee, including stakeholder engagement, finalizing parcel/acreage datasets, and legal review to confirm whether the GSA pursues a Proposition 26 regulatory fee path or a Proposition 218 management-fee path for any project funding. The board did not direct or adopt a fee at the meeting.