SLO County supervisors clash over creating agency to charge water fees in Paso Robles basin
The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors took a step toward creating an agency that could charge fees for pumping water from the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin at Tuesday’s board meeting — but few in attendance were supportive of the decision.
If created, the Joint Powers Authority would have the power to levy those fees, which would fund programs designed to balance the basin along with administrative tasks like monitoring wells and writing annual reports.
“We’re all here to do the same thing,” Supervisor Dawn Ortiz-Legg said at Tuesday’s meeting. “We’re here to provide a sustainable groundwater — that’s the goal.”
The controversial issue sparked a heated public discussion and resulted in a divided board.
Right now, the basin is considered “critically overdrafted,” as users pump about 13,700 acre-feet of water more than is returned to the basin each year, according to county reports. To put that into context, an acre-foot is enough water to cover a football field in a foot of water.
Ortiz-Legg argued that the fees are necessary for holding large farms accountable for their water use and bringing water pumping back to sustainable levels.
Supervisor John Peschong, however, thought taxing water use would interfere with a property owner’s constitutional right to use the water under their property.
“I’m not supportive of the Joint Powers Authority at all, because it will take away the rights of the small group of family farms out there — the people that use this water,” Peschong said. “They would be able to raise taxes on these small family farms anytime, which I don’t agree with.”
Peschong’s statement is partly true. The Joint Powers Authority would have power to tax property owners who pump water directly from the basin, but it could only increase the rates every five years — not anytime, as Peschong said.
Ortiz-Legg fired back.
“It’s wonderful to have constitutional rights, but if you don’t have any water, what good is it?” she said. “It’s amazing how many people say they want to have their rights to their groundwater, but yet you’re not willing to do the things that need to be done in order to hold those that are using the most of it responsible.”
“That’s what this is,” Ortiz-Legg added. “There is nothing here that is trying to rip you off.”
Ortiz-Legg expressed her frustration at the spread of what she called “misinformation” stalling a decision on the basin management for years, saying it was “ridiculous.”
She said everyone should rally behind a common goal: bring the basin back to sustainable water levels.
“Every time we try to fix this, you fight it,” she said. “It’s the most fascinating thing.”
New agency could charge fees for groundwater use
The Paso basin is governed by five Groundwater Sustainability Agencies, one of which is the county. The other members include the city of Paso Robles, the San Miguel Community Services District, the Shandon-San Juan Water District and the Estrella-El Pomar-Creston Water District.
Right now, each Groundwater Sustainability Agency can vote to set water-use fees for its own region, but there is no way for the agencies to set a fee that would apply to the entire basin, Reely said.
If created, the Joint Powers Authority could vote to set fees for property owners pumping water directly across the whole basin, including farmers, domestic well users and water systems. The fees would not directly apply to people who get their water from municipal providers. The organization would include a seat for each of the sustainability agencies that wish to join.
Through March, each agency will vote on whether or not to create the Joint Powers Authority.
As of Tuesday, the Shandon-San Juan Water District and the Estrella-El Pomar-Creston Water District had voted to support a slightly different version of the agreement to create a Joint Powers Authority, Reely said.
Their version gave more weight to votes cast by the county, Shandon-San Juan Water District and the Estrella-El Pomar-Creston Water District. The county’s new version gave equal voting power to all member agencies.
The county sent its version of the JPA agreement to the two water districts for approval.
The San Miguel Community Services District and the city of Paso Robles must still vote on the Joint Powers Authority.
The Joint Powers Authority must be created by May in order to add the fee to the August tax roll, Reely said.
Revenue from the fees will replace grant funding from the California Department of Water Resources that must be spent by April 20, Reely said. The county is negotiating to extend the deadline to spend the remaining $1.5 million to January 2026, but no new grant funding will be available after that, he said.
What could the fees look like?
The county got a first look at potential water use rates at the Paso Basin Cooperative Committee meeting on Jan. 22.
The Joint Powers Authority would vote to select the rates once it’s created.
Farmers, residential pumpers and water systems would be charged different rates based on their water consumption.
Agricultural users could pay between $64 and $246 per acre-foot of water depending on the chosen rate structure, while water systems would pay about $36 to $46 per acre-foot of water consumed, according to county consultant Ryan Aston.
Meanwhile, domestic users would pay about $34 to $37 per acre-foot of water under all budget options, he 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.
The Joint Powers Authority would need to vote to renew or change the fees every five years.
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.
SLO County residents speak out against water-use fees
The board meeting room was packed wall to wall on Tuesday with displeased community members, many of whom spoke during the first round of public comment early in the morning.
Public comment on the consent agenda ran unusually long at around 40 minutes as speaker after speaker approached the dais to passionately oppose forward action by the board, many citing their disapproval of additional fees on small farms. Even others had written in ahead of the meeting.
“We should not have to pay for water that we use from our own property,” SLO County residents Ned and Connie Thompson wrote in an email to the board ahead of Tuesday’s meeting. “The costs for drilling the wells, as well as the costs for pumping equipment and maintenance of that equipment is enough of a burden to the small landowner.”
Others were concerned with how a combined governing body could reduce local autonomy and decision-making power.
“What will happen when the individual GSAs have areas of … conflicting priorities?” Atascadero resident Sara Semmes wrote in an email. “For example, an agricultural area might prioritize water availability for irrigation, while an urban area might be more concerned with water quality and conservation. Merging agencies could result in these interests being poorly balanced or sidelined in favor of more dominant groups.”
No public speaker or posted correspondence advocated in favor of the Joint Powers Authority.
Regardless of their alignment on the issue, board members seemed to agree that further outreach to the community was necessary.
“The engagement process, I want it to be more than a public hearing,” Supervisor Heather Moreno said without elaborating on specifics, just that the county needed a “back and forth” conversation with the people.
Whatever that outreach will be, it was decided it would take place after Tuesday’s vote.
After an extensive discussion that ate up the majority of the morning, the board ultimately approved the Joint Powers Authority in a split 3-2 vote, with Peschong and Moreno dissenting and Ortiz-Legg, Supervisors Bruce Gibson and Jimmy Paulding in support.
When called upon, Peschong voted with a resounding “hell no,” to which Ortiz-Legg responded with a quippy “hell yes.”
This story was originally published February 5, 2025 at 11:27 AM.
