WILLIAMS, CA (MPG) – For people who own property in the Colusa Subbasin, their vote could shape the future of how groundwater is managed in Colusa and the region.
As a deadline looms for landowners to vote on a new groundwater tax, tensions are rising in California’s Colusa Subbasin, where a proposed $1.9 million groundwater management program has drawn sharp criticism from people who said the plan rewards deep-well agribusiness and opens the door to groundwater trading.
The ballots for the tax measure, proposed earlier this summer, would increase the Colusa Groundwater Authority’s annual budget from about $480,000 to $1.9 million to fund an ambitious program that includes groundwater demand management, domestic well mitigation, satellite imagery software, planning, and administration – all to maintain local control of groundwater.
CGA officials remind property owners that postmarks will not count in this critical Proposition 218 process, after ballots are counted at a 1 p.m. public hearing on Aug. 7 in the Colusa Industrial Properties conference room.
CGA’s strategy aims to meet the mandates of California’s 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, which requires local agencies to ensure groundwater reliability across the basin, or risk a state-imposed plan that officials say could come at a much higher cost.
That warning was emphasized at the final public outreach meeting in Williams on July 22.
Ryan Aston, of SCI Consulting, who had presented the proposal multiple times at outreach meetings in Williams and Colusa, said property owners should understand the significance of their vote.
Aston explained a new tiered assessment structure, if approved, will replace the current $1.21 per acre on all parcels with assessments based on four new land use classifications.
For the tax to go into effect, the majority of votes tied to each assessed parcel (1 vote per $1 assessed value) must agree to tax themselves 53 cents per acre for non-irrigable land; $11.19 per acre for groundwater-only parcels; $7.42 per acre for conjunctive use parcels (uses both surface and groundwater); and $2.66 per acre for surface water-only parcels.
If approved, the assessment would be adjusted annually for five years, based on the Consumer Price Index, before becoming fixed, Aston said.
The meetings have drawn mixed reactions over whether property owners should approve higher groundwater fees to support CGA programs, especially as some argued that already emerging technologies AI and satellite imagery will soon surpass local management efforts, rendering them outdated before they begin.
Foothill cattle ranchers and small growers argue the proposed groundwater fees unfairly target them for impacts caused by high-volume agricultural operations, which severely depleted aquifer levels during the drought.
Joe Lauwerijssen, of Arbuckle, pointed to land subsidence within the basin – limited to areas near Arbuckle and Artois in Glenn County – as evidence that groundwater depletion was driven by large farming operations that shifted from low water-use field crops to high-demand permanent orchards, triggering the costly groundwater regulations that now burden all landowners.
“You have a problem caused by a minority of people and are asking the majority of people to pay for it,” Lauwerijssen said.
Ballots will be accepted in person at a formal public hearing held at 1 p.m. on Aug. 7 at Colusa Industrial Properties conference room, when all votes will be tabulated and the outcome announced, Aston said.
As of July 22, just over 1,000 of the 6,700 ballots issued had been returned.
For the assessment to go into effect, a majority of returned ballots (50% plus one) must be marked “Yes.” The assessment will not be implemented if the majority vote “No.”
“Only returned ballots are counted,” Aston said. “It’s not the total of all the ballots out there in the universe.”
In Proposition 218 elections, ballots are weighted to reflect the financial obligation or “benefit” tied to each parcel, which ensures that landowners with more at stake have proportionally more influence.
Property owners living within the cities and managed utility districts have some say, because the groundwater assessments – paid with their tax dollars – could result in higher utility costs. Property owners in the City of Williams are already positioned to consider a Proposition 218 tax increase of their own, after city officials announced on July 16 the struggle to provide residential water services because water rates have not kept up with costs.
Aston said municipal groundwater users only have a small weighted vote – comparted to agriculture users – but they “do have a voice.”
Supporters of the assessment, mainly large operators, and CGA officials, warned that rejecting the assessment could lead to a costly state takeover at a charge of $300 per well and $55 per acre – or more – but even the CGA board was split when it approved putting a significant tax increase out to vote.
“It was not a unanimous decision,” Chair Jim Wallace said.
Steve Marsh, who owns 1,000 acres of grazing land in the Williams foothills with just a shallow well to water livestock, said he bought into the “state boogieman” argument 10 years ago when the intent was to put meters on ag wells to make those who use significant amounts to pay for it.
“Now, we are avoiding that and setting up something else,” Marsh said. “I appreciate my (non-irrigable) costs are going down but I feel that I contributed, so what’s it for me? I was hoping that once this was established, there would be meters.”
Without confidence that CGA’s program will make “deep pumpers” pay for tapping into massive amounts of groundwater to sell when surface water is available for their crops, Lauwerijssen said he would also vote no on the increase, voicing suspicion repeated by multiple opponents at the last four meetings that the assessment may pave the way for groundwater trading driven by profit, rather than sustainability.
“You can’t socialize the downside of it and privatize the upside of it,” Lauwerijssen said.
Proponents of the tax increase rejected that claim, insisting the threat of losing water rights for farming in California is very real if the local groundwater authority fails to adhere to SGMA’s requirements to prevent long-term declines in groundwater levels and the “undesirable results” of over pumping, particularly land subsidence, which can destroy structures, roads, the basin’s entire agriculture economy.
Jeff Sutton, general manager for the Colusa County Irrigation District, said state intervention could bring extreme pumping limits, reallocation of groundwater rights, and higher fees, potentially affecting the reliability and affordability of water for all farmers, rural residents, and municipalities.
“We now have control over our groundwater; we can use a scalpel and make the pain as small as possible,” Sutton said. “But if the state implements an interim plan, they are going to use an axe.”