Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tehama GSA weighs multiple fee options to fund SGMA compliance
Summary
Tehama Groundwater Commission reviewed a consultant fee study offering parcel‑based and volumetric fee methods and two PMA (project) funding levels; staff said finalized data and ordinances will come before the board next month and urged landowners to register wells to refine charges.
The Tehama Groundwater Commission on March 11 reviewed a preliminary fee analysis that lays out parcel‑based and volumetric methods to fund ongoing SGMA compliance and project management actions.
Consultant Jacques DeRay told the commission the fee need is “twofold” — to keep basic GSA operations funded and to finance targeted project management actions to address overdraft. Greg Klumpner, the consultant, presented options ranging from a district‑wide parcel fee (an illustrative $30.46 per parcel, annual) to volumetric approaches that divide budget needs by estimated acre‑feet. He also showed a high/low PMA funding range and a per‑well allocation scenario that produces much higher per‑well bills when denominators are small.
Justin Jensen, deputy director for the GSA, said the fee study reflects current data uncertainty and emphasized the role of reported well registration in refining bills. He said the process will move forward with ordinances submitted to the board next month and a public mailer that will explain the methodology, encourage well registration and describe the appeal process.
"Remember that just because a piece of property is zoned a specific way, doesn't mean it uses that much water," Jensen said, explaining why reported use can materially change a fee calculation.
Public commenters and members of the demand management working group urged volumetric charges tied to metered or remotely estimated pumping. "Volumetric based fees are probably going to be the most fair way to assess people," said Steve Grunewald of the demand management working group, who recommended minimizing fees for de minimis residential users and relying on metering or ET/crop‑type estimates where possible.
Commissioners and staff discussed the mechanics of an appeal process, legal costs and how a well registration database will alter the denominator used in volumetric calculations. Staff said finalized fee inputs and a recommended ordinance will be provided at the next meeting so the board can consider an ordinance to place the fee on tax rolls. The commission asked staff and consultants to prepare detailed budget line items and legal cost assumptions for review before adoption.
The commission did not take a final vote; next procedural steps include incorporating well registration data, finalizing the fee report and presenting ordinances to the board.
