Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Water Board proposes 28% fee increase for cannabis cultivators to sustain program operations
Summary
Staff proposed a flat 28% increase to cannabis cultivator fees to cover program costs and maintain existing staff amid low fee collection rates; stakeholders urged using reserves or gradual changes and staff plans fall workgroups on fee structure.
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board staff proposed a flat 28% fee increase for cannabis cultivators enrolled under the cannabis general order to address an ongoing revenue shortfall and sustain existing program operations. Under the proposal, a tier‑1 lower site (greater than 2,000 square feet and less than one acre) would see an annual fee rise from about $804 to approximately $1,030; municipal sewer waiver enrollees would see an increase from roughly $216 to about $276.
Staff explained that the cannabis program has had lower fee collection rates (around 70%) compared with other water board fee programs (approximately 98%), and that current fee revenue supports about 10 staff positions while a prior BCP authorized up to 31 positions. ‘‘The proposed fee increase is intended to maintain the program’s ability to provide essential regulatory oversight and customer service,’’ staff said, adding that the increase is not intended to fund additional vacant positions at this time.
Staff also emphasized efforts to improve collection rates and enrollment accuracy and said the program will convene stakeholder workgroups in the fall to explore alternative fee structures that better align fees with site complexity and regulatory workload.
Stakeholders representing agriculture and dairy interests, as well as trade associations, urged the board to consider reserve use or modest/no increases for FY 2026–27 because cultivators face economic pressures and the program already has a substantial reserve at the fund level.
No formal action was taken at the meeting; staff encouraged stakeholders to participate in planned workgroups and to submit written feedback.

