Napa Valley GSA presents hybrid fee proposal for groundwater sustainability; public and ag stakeholders press for data and protections

The Napa Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) on April 22 received staff recommendations to pursue a hybrid fee structure to fund implementation of the basin’s Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). Staff presented three draft rate scenarios and asked the GSA for direction on next steps, outreach and whether to seek placement of fees on the 2025 tax roll.

Natural Resources Conservation Manager Jamieson Crosby and consultant Ryan Aston (SCI) described a revised approach that would charge different user classes by different measures: domestic and commercial parcels could be charged per parcel (with a surcharge for parcels larger than one acre), municipal and small public water systems would be charged on reported extraction (acre-feet), and agricultural irrigators could be charged per planted acre and a higher rate for groundwater-irrigated acres. The hybrid approach aims to address concerns about data consistency and year‑to‑year variability in applied water estimates.

Aston showed three scenarios based on a roughly $3 million annual budget: (1) irrigated-acre charges for agriculture with parcel charges for domestic/commercial and extraction-based charges for public systems; (2) a two‑bucket approach splitting “common costs” from applied groundwater‑use costs with the latter applied only to groundwater‑irrigated acreage; and (3) scenario 2 with a hypothetical $800,000 annual county contribution that would substantially lower per‑acre and per‑parcel rates.

Stakeholder reaction and data concerns: Agricultural stakeholders, the Farm Bureau and Napa Valley Vintners told the GSA they are willing to continue collaborating but emphasized the need for better data, appeals and adjustment processes, and incentives for conservation. Several speakers urged the GSA to prioritize metering and measured extraction—“meter what you can measure, and the rest is guesswork,” said one supervisor during board discussion—and to avoid penalizing dry‑farmers or small food producers. The consultants acknowledged uncertainty in estimating applied water on a parcel scale and proposed using irrigated acreage as a pragmatic interim denominator while collecting better extraction data.

Timing and funding choices: Staff recommended the board consider whether to implement charges in time for the 2025/26 tax roll or defer to a later year to allow further refinement and outreach. Several supervisors and stakeholders urged delaying implementation (staff indicated a likely adoption schedule that would meet a July public meeting requirement under Water Code section 10730 and an auditor deadline of August 8 for tax-roll placement) to allow more time for data collection and to consider a county contribution to stabilize rates. Staff said the fee study justifies a maximum rate but that the board can choose to set lower budgets or contributions in any given year.

Next steps: Staff will refine irrigated‑acre and extraction estimates, analyze dry‑farmed and alternative‑source acreage, define a final budget, and prepare a draft fee study and further outreach. The board requested additional detail on implementation timing, options for disadvantaged communities, and whether a county contribution could be defined as revenue for targeted mitigation rather than a fee reduction mechanism.

Ending note: The GSA did not adopt a fee at the meeting; staff will return with further analysis, a draft fee study and additional outreach material for the GSA to consider before a possible fee adoption hearing.