Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Extraction Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board amends water‑extraction fee ordinance after public objections; final language approved
Summary
After Brown Act and equity concerns from multiple public commenters, the board revised and then approved amended language for the water‑extraction fee ordinance to limit fees to parcels that receive groundwater extracted from the managed basins; the final amended ordinance language passed unanimously.
The Tehama County Flood Control and Water Conservation District board reviewed redline changes to a previously introduced water‑extraction fee ordinance (2026‑2) and, after public objections and a midday reconsideration motion, adopted amended language clarifying which parcels will be subject to administrative and PMA fees.
Senior deputy county counsel Daniel Klausner explained redline edits that tied definitions to basin boundaries and streamlined administrative appeal language. Public commenters — including Gail Wallace and several agricultural representatives — raised Brown Act concerns, argued that the ordinance should distinguish extractors (municipal or wholesale extractors) from parcel-level water users, and pressed for transparent budgeting and accounting. Ms. Wallace also argued the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) was not properly formed; counsel responded that the district itself serves as the GSA and that the district’s authorities come from the Water Code and SGMA procedural requirements.
Following a 3–2 vote earlier in the meeting to accept language changes, Director Zane moved to reconsider the item after the lunch break. The board approved reconsideration and Director Zane proposed language explicitly stating that no administrative fee shall be imposed on parcels that are outside of a basin and do not receive extracted groundwater from within a basin; counsel agreed to mirror that wording in the PMA section. The board then voted to accept the ordinance as amended (roll call unanimous) and directed staff to incorporate the edits into the final ordinance packet.
The change narrows the fee‑imposition scope so that parcels that neither sit within managed subbasins nor receive groundwater extracted from those basins are excluded from the ordnance’s administrative fee and PMA fee obligations. Several members of the public urged additional transparency on fee calculations and asked that PMA fees collected in one subbasin be spent in that subbasin; staff and counsel said the district will track accounts by cost code and provide subbasin budget breakdowns in future budget presentations.
Next steps: staff will update the ordinance text as amended, publish the corrected packet and continue the fee‑setting work (public hearings previously scheduled for June 18).
