Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sigma Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board staff proposes tiered SGMA exclusion application fees, stakeholders warn of cash‑flow harm
Summary
State Water Resources Control Board staff proposed changing automatic late‑fee timing and creating tiered application fees for GSAs seeking exclusions under SGMA; stakeholders from agriculture and industry urged caution, citing cash‑flow impacts and competitive imbalance.
Board staff proposed two changes to fees tied to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) during the stakeholder meeting: (1) change the automatic late‑fee trigger from a fixed February 1 deadline to 30 days after whatever the reporting deadline is; and (2) introduce a tiered application fee for a GSA to request an exclusion from probationary reporting and fees.
Brianna St. Pierre, assistant director for the board’s Office of Sustainable Groundwater Management, said the late‑fee timing change would align automatic penalties with whatever reporting deadline is set in a given year. “Our proposal…is to shift the language from that automatic late fees being after the February 1 reporting deadline to 30 days after whatever the reporting deadline is,” she said, explaining the Feb. 1 date did not match years when the deadline was extended to May 1.
On exclusions, staff proposed application fees scaled by a GSA’s share of groundwater usage in the basin: under 5% = $50,000; 5–10% = $125,000; 10–20% = $200,000; and greater than 20% = $250,000. If an exclusion were granted, the annual review to maintain that exclusion would cost 25% of the applicable tiered fee.
Stakeholders raised operational concerns. Tom Barcelus, president of the Lower Tulie Irrigation District, said the proposed fees could be “a cash‑flow killer” for agricultural operations that receive seasonal income. He added that if some neighboring operators are excluded while others are not, the remaining growers face competitive disadvantage because costs—and not all parties—would bear them.
Brianna St. Pierre clarified that the fee would apply only if a GSA chose to apply for an exclusion and that two GSAs currently excluded would not be required to pay their original application fee retroactively; however, if the proposal is adopted they would pay the 25% annual review fee going forward. Staff said Sigma fees fund staff time to manage the SGMA program and that invoicing is expected later in the summer but a firm date had not been set.
Stakeholders asked staff to consider payment timing and alternatives such as spreading payments across 90 days or allowing equal installments to reduce immediate cash‑flow pressure. Staff took comments and invited further written input to the Sigma inbox by July 13; they said discussions will continue at the next stakeholder meeting.
Next steps: staff will collect stakeholder feedback, refine the proposals and return to the stakeholder process before taking any recommendation to the board.
