COLUSA, CA (MPG) – For the second time since the Colusa Groundwater Authority was formed in 2017, property owners will be asked to tax themselves to keep groundwater regulations under local control.
The Authority intends to start another Proposition 218 process in April as part of its long-term funding strategy to implement projects in its Groundwater Sustainability Plan to address groundwater overdraft and land subsidence – critical issues that are putting buildings, road infrastructure, and agriculture at risk in the southwestern part of Colusa County.
“We have been operating off a 218 fee that has run about $1 per acre the last couple of years,” said Darren Williams, CGA Chairman, at the first of three public workshops last week. “But that was for activities prior to GSP implementation. Now we are moving into a period of soon-to-be post GSP implementation, once our GSP is approved by the California Department of Water Resources.”
The Colusa Groundwater Authority is a 12-member Joints Power Authority composed of the County of Colusa, cities of Colusa and Williams, and local water and reclamations districts, whose role is to follow the landmark Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, adopted by the California Legislature in 2014.
In addition to current administrative fees, which property owners approved, the CGA received a $1 million grant to develop the GSP, which the state rejected because the strategy did not consider regulating consumptive use as a possible measure to improve groundwater levels, which are critically low in some areas of Colusa County.
The revised plan, which previously focused on recharge and supply augmentation projects, will be re-submitted in April, Williams said.
Jacques DeBra, of Luhdorff and Scalmanini, walked the few people who attended the first meeting in Colusa on Feb. 28 through the need for long term funding and the process to raise fees for the next four years to as much as $5.19 per acre billed to all landowners in the CGA service area that rely solely on groundwater.
The fee will go to support CGA operations (administration), implementation of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan, and other costs associated with complying with SGMA, which gave control to local agencies to manage the subbasin.
The Colusa subbasin is jointly managed by the Colusa and Glenn Groundwater Authorities.
DeBra said the current fees will not be sufficient to recover the higher implementation costs.
“Between 2019 and 2024, a dollar per acre sustained us,” he said. “But going forward, we have higher budget needs, so we have to figure out how to meet that effectively.”
Groundwater authorities across the state are going through the same process. Some have fees that range from $2.79 per acre to over $20 per acre.
If the fee increase fails, DeBra said it is likely the state would intervene to manage groundwater, and could impose rigorous pumping regulations, along with state-approved fees. Only Federal and Tribal lands are exempt from SGMA fees. State lands can be included but are generally considered uncollectible, which leaves all landowners in the CGA service area, including urban and rural residential areas, having to pay for their share of GSP implementation.
DeBra said a fee report will be drafted and available on the CGA’s website prior to Proposition 218 notices being mailed to assessable parcel owners in April.
The fees currently proposed are 38 cents per acre for non-irrigable parcels; $1.22 per acre for surface water parcels; and $5.19 per acre for groundwater only parcels.
For the tax increase to fail, a majority (50% plus one) would have to protest the increase. Residential water customers do not vote as current fees are paid by their water providers and then passed on as a cost.
At the Colusa meeting, which was held at the VFW Hall on Feb. 28, property owner Ben King, one of only five members of the public to attend, voiced his opposition to the fees, as he did when property owners were asked to tax themselves in 2019.
King said the tax is unfair to exclusive groundwater users, particularly those along the river, who will pay a higher tax to solve subsidence problems created on the westside by converting historically dry areas to almond orchards, than settlement contractors who can divert surface water for a profit while using groundwater to maintain the trees.
“You are going to charge Colusa County Water District $1.08 when you are going to charge people on Dry Slough and the east side $5 to $6?” King said. “What do you expect people to do? You are going to affect property values…You should be charging everyone the same and then working together to finance projects. If you start this divergence, then you are separating people and hurting property values.”
King suggested that there should be only two tiers for fees; one tier for unirrigated hill ground and one tier for everyone else who benefits from groundwater.
King believes the regulatory compliance costs for SGMA should be borne equally by all with the added costs of projects being based on a cause/benefit basis and borne by parcels causing the need for the project.
“If a project benefits all parcels equally it should be assessed equally, but if a parcel is the source of a sustainability concern, the costs to remedy that concern should be borne solely by that parcel and similarly situated parcels,” King noted.
Williams said the CGA has spent a substantial amount of time trying to come up with an equitable approach to fees and felt the three-tier approach was the best for now.
“We looked at using meters,” Williams said. “If you want to get down to equity, put a flow meter on every well and we will charge by volume pumped, but there is a significant cost to flow meters and there is a timeline involved with that. The reality is that it would cost much more than the $1.08 that we are charging today…It would be closer to $20.”
Williams said the CGA also considered charging for water consumption using satellite imagery to measure use, but those costs would also likely be higher.
“It’s great technology but very expensive,” he said. “We are trying to keep this as affordable as possible for everybody. The fact is, we have areas in the subbasin that are facing subsidence issues and declining groundwater levels, and we have to implement projects to address that. And it’s going to cost money. The $5 fee is just the beginning. I’m going to be honest. In the southwestern part of Colusa County, we need somewhere in the neighborhood of 40,000 acres feet of surface water to balance our water budget. Someone has to pay for that.”
Williams said there is still a lot of work to be done to decide how to charge those who are in critical overdraft areas, and where to draw the line.
“You have to justify that with science…” Williams said. “No matter where you draw the line, there is going to be one person on one side and one person on the other.”
Williams said that due to the drought, the Colusa subbasin has 59,000-acre feet in groundwater storage deficit.
DWR is also requiring the groundwater authority to address the subsidence issue at once.
“We don’t have 20 years to become sustainable…” Williams said. “DWR is less interested in recharge than they are in demand management, so there are significant challenges ahead of us.”
While other water basins in the Central and San Joaquin valley are facing more serious groundwater problems than Colusa, there are still significant issues the CGA must address to achieve water sustainability while trying to keep costs to property owners as low as possible, Williams said.
If the new fees are approved in June, the increase will be placed on the tax roll in August and will become effective on the December 2024 tax bill.
In addition to the workshops last week, the Proposition 218 process will require the CGA board to hold a formal public hearing on the fee process.