Farmers may be charged for water use in overdrafted Paso Robles basin. ‘We’re using too much’
People pumping from the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin may soon need to pay for their water.
The Paso Basin Cooperative Committee and the five Groundwater Sustainability Agencies held a town hall on Monday to discuss the potential water use rates with the community.
The town hall was well attended — with both farmers and residential well users there to learn about the potential fees and ways to improve the health of the basin.
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, county groundwater sustainability director Blaine Reely said.
The fees would fund programs to bring the basin back into balance, while also encouraging irrigators to use water more efficiently, Reely said.
Shandon grape farmer Willy Cunha said he supports the fees, as long as they fund programs that work. Cunha also serves as the president of the Shandon-San Juan Water District Board of Directors, but he did not speak on behalf of the group.
“We’re using too much water and we know that,” Cunha said. “We want to be good neighbors, we want to be good farmers.”
Fees for groundwater use
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 said.
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.
Would residents have to pay water use fees too?
The consulting group only studied the water consumption of farms, not residences, Kimmelshue said.
Agricultural and residential users would be charged different rates.
In fact, the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies would prefer that residential users aren’t charged for water use at all, Reely said.
“I think there’s a general consensus in the agricultural community that big irrigators have contributed to the problem to the extent that the solution shouldn’t be born on the backs of residential landowners,” Reely 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.
Because domestic users would benefit from management of the basin funded by fees, they would likely be required by Proposition 218 to pay fees, too, Reely said.
The goal is to avoid charging domestic water users any fees, Reely said. But, if fees are required by law, rates for domestic users will be set as low as possible, he said.
The fees will fund administrative tasks, like monitoring wells in the basin and writing annual reports, as well as programs designed to balance the basin.
One such program is the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin Multibenefit Irrigated Land Repurposing Program, also known as the MILR Program.
Through the program, a staff member will support irrigators who want to pivot to farming practices that use less water, Reely said.
This could look like changing the property’s irrigation system so it is more efficient, changing farming practices, or converting irrigated farmland to dry land farming, open space or a project like a solar farm, he said.
The fee would show up on a water user’s property taxes, Reely said.
The rates will be set based on the budget for managing the basin, SCI Consulting Group project analyst Ryan Aston said.
How much money would water use fees collect? How would it be spent?
The budget could vary widely depending on what programs it funds.
Aston presented five budget scenarios that ranged from $1.7 million to $12 million to the Paso Basin Cooperative Committee on Monday afternoon.
The most expensive option would fund 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. That budget option would also fund a connection to the State Water Project.
Those projects, however, are too expensive to pursue during at least the next five years, San Luis Obispo County Supervisor and committee member Bruce Gibson said.
The least expensive budget option would only fund administrative tasks, like overhead staffing and basin monitoring.
The committee voted unanimously on Monday to direct Aston to prepare three different rate options based on a $3.2 million budget, a $3.9 million budget and a roughly $5 million budget that would allow them to pursue some programs that would balance the basin — just not the more expensive ones like the State Water Project.
“We’re hopeful that properly incentivized voluntary programs will be successful,” Gibson told The Tribune after the meeting.
SCI Consulting Group will present potential rates to the committee on Jan. 22. The rates will then be distributed to the five Groundwater Sustainability Agencies for review, Aston said.
The committee also directed staff to send the plan for building a Joint Powers Authority to the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies for review and approval.
The committee is strictly an advisory body to the GSAs, so it can’t sign contracts or make policy decisions. The Joint Powers Authority, however, would have the power to create and collect groundwater use fees.
The Groundwater Sustainability Agencies must vote to create the Joint Powers Authority by May in order to add the fee to the August tax roll.
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, Reely said.
The Paso Basin Cooperative Committee will dissolve if the Joint Powers Authority is created.
What do farmers think?
Most residential groundwater users agreed on one thing at the town hall: We didn’t cause the problem, so don’t make us pay for the solution.
Garrett Hazelton has lived in Ground Squirrel Hollow for 10 years.
His 20-year-old well still supplies the water he needs, but his neighbor’s well went dry — and his could be next.
Hazelton doesn’t think residential users should have to pay the price of bringing the basin back into sustainability.
“I think if you look at users, it doesn’t make sense to go after domestic,” he said. “Am I and my local neighbors the cause of the groundwater basin shrinking? The statistics say that is highly improbable, and that is my issue.”
According to the 2023 Groundwater Sustainability Plan report, agriculture used about 93% of the groundwater pumped from the basin.
Creston resident Sue Harvey also relies on a well. She said she’s okay with paying for water, as long as domestic rates are lower than agricultural rates.
Residential users often have shallower wells that dry up more easily, and they don’t have the money to dig a new one. She advised the county to offer low-interest loans to residential water users to drill new wells like it does for agricultural users.
Pistachio farmer Steve Carter agreed that residential water users need to be protected.
“The rural residentials didn’t cause the problem and shouldn’t have to pay a fee,” he told The Tribune.
Carter grows pistachio trees on his 46-acre farm between Paso Robles and San Miguel.
He started by growing alfalfa 46 years ago, then switched to pistachios in 2020 to reduce his water use.
While growing alfalfa, he used about 200 acre feet of water per year. With pistachios, he pumps about 55 acre feet per year, he said.
He supported charging farmers for water use — as long as the fees are reasonable, he said.
“If you have some form of charge, it will really accelerate the conservation efforts,” Carter said.
He had a word of caution, however: Farmers were hit hard by inflation, facing high costs for everything from labor to taxes. “If the fees are unreasonable,” he said, farmers could go out of business.
“I’m for a fee, but right now there’s a lot of uncertainty in all agriculture, and most agriculture in California is not doing well,” Carter said.
He hoped the MILR Program can be used to stop wasteful water use in the basin, like irrigation done purely to preserve water rights.
A large number of SLO County vineyards were planted during the late 1990s or early 2000’s, so they’re nearing the end of their productive life — but some vinters irrigate anyway to preserve their water rights, Carter said.
The county’s agricultural offset ordinance “has provisions that would restrict someone from installing new irrigated agriculture or resume irrigation on previously irrigated land if the land has not been irrigated within the previous five years,” Reely wrote in an email to The Tribune.
Carter suggested that the MILR Program create a way for farmers to fallow their land without losing their water rights.
Cunha, meanwhile, grows about 400 acres of organic table and wine grapes in Shandon.
He said he’s okay with paying fees for water use, as long as they fund effective programs.
The groundwater basin is like a bowl — it’s shallower on the outside and deeper on the inside, he said. More wells have gone dry on the western portion of the basin, especially in the Jardine, Ground Squirrel Hollow and El Pomar areas.
Cunha would support projects that deliver water to shallower parts of the basin. Additionally, he’d like to see the county pay a farmer to fallow their land if nearby residential wells have gone dry.
At the end of the day, farmers are aware that if they don’t voluntarily reduce their pumping, the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies will place mandatory pumping restrictions on them — so he’s willing to cooperate with the fees.
“We don’t want it, but it’s a reality,” Cunha said.
