26-01-2025
Farmers, homeowners could be charged to pump water from Paso Robles basin. How much?
From farmers irrigating their crops to families washing their dishes — everyone pumping directly from the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin may soon need to pay for their water.
The Paso Basin Cooperative Committee got a first look at potential water rates for groundwater users at its meeting on Wednesday.
If approved, these fees will be the first time ever that farmers are directly charged to pump water from the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin.
The Cuyama Valley Basin is the only other basin in the county where farmers are charged directly for groundwater, according to county groundwater sustainability director Blaine Reely.
The fees applies to those who pump water from their own wells. Residents served by municipal water systems will not be charged the fee.
The Paso Robles Groundwater Basin is considered 'critically overdrafted,' which means that continuing the existing water management practices would have negative environmental, economic or social impacts on the basin and its users, according to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.
On average, people pump 13,700 acre-feet of water more than is returned to the basin — an amount that fluctuates yearly, Reely said. An acre-foot is enough water to cover a football field in a foot of water.
The fees will fund programs designed to balance the basin along with administrative tasks like monitoring wells in the basin and writing annual reports.
While the fees would provide valuable funding to restore water levels in the basin, a handful of people who spoke at public comment warned that excessive fees could put small farms out of business.
'Our industry is under a tremendous amount of pressure, and some of these numbers are a little scary,' Still Waters Vineyards owner Paul Hoover said.
Farmers and residential pumpers would be charged different rates based on their water consumption, SCI Consulting Group project analyst Ryan Aston said at the meeting.
He presented four different rate options corresponding to four operating budgets that ranged from $3.2 million to $12 million.
The $12 million budget would fund administrative tasks and two expensive programs: a connection to the State Water project and a blended water program, which would supply a blend of water from Lake Nacimiento and treated wastewater from Paso Robles to irrigators to offset their groundwater use.
The committee recommended against selecting the $12 million budget option, as the programs are too expensive.
The smaller budgets remove those two programs, and focus the funding on administrative tasks and less expensive water management programs. One such program is the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin Multibenefit Irrigated Land Repurposing Program, or the MILR Program, which will support irrigators who want to pivot to farming practices that use less water.
Domestic users would pay about $34 to $37 per acre-foot of water under all budget options.
A typical residential user consumes about 0.46 acre-feet of water per year, which means they would pay about $16.14 annually in water fees under the proposed rates, Aston said.
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act prohibits agencies from imposing certain regulations on 'de minimis users,' which are people who pump two acre-feet of water or less annually for domestic purposes.
But according to Proposition 218, if an agency charges some customers for a service like water, all customers must pay a fee proportional to the benefit that they receive from the service, Aston said.
Because domestic users would benefit from management of the basin funded by fees, they will likely be required by Proposition 218 to pay fees too, he said.
Meanwhile, agricultural users would pay between $64 and $246 per acre-foot of water depending on the chosen rate structure.
Water systems would pay about $36 to $46 per acre-foot of water consumed.
The basin management agency would need to renew the rate structure every five years.
Aston recommended that the rates increase slightly each year to ensure that the basin has enough revenue to operate even if there is a reduction in water use.
Aston will return to the committee in March with potential changes to the rate options.
If all goes according to plan, the rate structure will be approved by August — just in time for it to appear on 2025-26 property tax bills, Aston said.
Farmers who spoke during public comment weren't satisfied with the presented fees.
Jon Cagliero's family has grown a rotation of grain hay, grapes, alfalfa and pistachios on his farm on North River Road for five generations. He said the fees are too high for small family farms to afford.
'This is going to destroy the next two generations (of farmers),' he said. 'I don't have the answer, but it's certainly not this,' Cagliero said.
Still Waters Vineyards owner Paul Hoover said he would prefer to see a sliding scale of fees — so farmers who use more water are charged higher rates.
'I do believe we have the potential as an industry to be more efficient, but yet, I question where the efficiency comes from unless it's some sort of sliding scale,' he said. 'I have no idea where this 20% reduction (in water use) is going to come from, unless you come up with some sort of incentive to try to be more efficient.'
Farmers would not be charged for the amount of water they pump.
Instead, fees would be levied based on water consumption, which is the amount of water used by crops on the property, Land IQ consultant Joel Kimmelshue told The Tribune in December.
Land IQ staff take a series of steps to evaluate the amount of water consumed by a property.
First, they make a map of every field over the basin, he said.
Next, they measure the amount of water that evaporates from plants, the soil and other surfaces on certain fields based on temperature, humidity, soil moisture and wind speed data collected at climactic stations scattered around the basin.
Finally, they use a government satellite to collect thermal data from other fields, and calibrate that data to the climactic stations to find out the amount of water that evaporates from those properties, too.
Land IQ can then determine a field's water consumption based on the crop type and the amount of water that evaporates from the property. Farmers would then pay a fee based on that water consumption.
The consulting group only studied the water consumption of farms, not residences, Kimmelshue said.
If all goes according to plan, the rates will be selected by a Joint Powers Authority that would replace the Paso Basin Cooperative Committee.
The existing committee is strictly an advisory body to the five Groundwater Sustainability Agencies, so it can't sign contracts or make policy decisions, Reely said. The Joint Powers Authority, however, would have the power to create and collect groundwater use fees.
The five Groundwater Sustainability Agencies will vote on whether or not to establish a Joint Powers Authority at their respective meetings in January and February.
The Shandon-San Juan Water District already voted to create the Joint Powers Authority at its meeting on Wednesday morning.
The Joint Powers Authority must be created by May in order to add the fee to the August tax roll, Reely said.
If the Joint Powers Authority isn't created in time, the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies would either levy their own fees, agree on a rate structure for the entire basin or wait until the JPA Is created to set fees, he said. The Paso Basin Cooperative Committee will dissolve if the Joint Powers Authority is created.
