Farmers, wineries to vote on water use fees for Paso Robles basin. Here’s how
From farmers to winemakers, commercial irrigators pumping from the Paso Robles Area Groundwater Basin may soon need to pay for their water use.
On Tuesday, the Paso Robles Area Groundwater Authority voted unanimously to send notices of the proposed rates to impacted property owners, giving them the opportunity to protest the fees.
If a majority of recipients submit a written protest, the agency can’t implement the rates.
The California Department of Water Resources considers the basin “critically overdrafted.” Users pumped about 25,500 acre-feet of water more than was returned to the underground reservoir in 2024, according to the most recent annual report on the basin.
An acre-foot of water is roughly enough to cover a football field in a foot of water.
The fees would fund administrative tasks like monitoring wells and writing annual reports along with programs designed to balance the basin.
If passed, the rate structure will last for five years.
Pistachio farmer Steve Carter said he supports the idea of charging irrigators for water to support sustainability programs.
“We need to leave a healthy resource for future generations,” he said.
However, he advised the board to adopt slightly lower fees that farms with water-intensive crops could afford.
“I’m just worried they might’ve set it too high for some of the other crops, and all of a sudden, we’re going to price people out,” Carter said.
Hay farmer and cattle rancher Lauren Carminati-Graham said she’s worried the fees will push small farms out of the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin.
“It’s going to put a lot of small farms and family farms out of business. I think they’re not going to be able to afford it with the cost of living,” she said. “Paso prides itself on the small farmer, the small business, our pioneer town. We’re phasing that out, unfortunately.”
What are the rates?
Irrigators would be charged different rates based on the their use of the water, SCI Consulting Group project analyst Ryan Aston said at the meeting.
The rates will correspond to the Paso Robles Area Groundwater Authority’s annual budget, which the Board of Directors will set each year. The budget would average $3,266,103 each year, with about $1.8 million dedicated to projects and almost $1.5 million for administrative tasks, the rate study said.
SCI Consulting determined the rates by dividing the estimated cost of the programs by the estimated amount of water consumed by irrigators, Aston said.
The proposed rate structure allows the fees to increase slightly each year. This way, if water use decreases as expected, the agency will have the necessary funding to continue operating.
The rate study set a fee limit for each year, but the board could still vote to lower the fees.
Commercial groundwater users including wineries, breweries and groundwater systems like the city of Paso Robles could be charged up to $28.65 per acre-foot of water consumed during fiscal year 2025-26.
From fiscal year 2025-26 to 2029-30, the fee per acre-foot of water would cap at $30.11, $31.73, $33.53 and $35.55 each fiscal year.
Meanwhile, agricultural groundwater users would be charged higher fees because they benefit from a higher number of water management programs, Aston said.
During fiscal year 2025-26, farmers could pay up to $58.71 per acre-foot of water consumed.
From fiscal years 2026-27 to 2029-30, the fee per acre-foot of water consumed would cap at $61.75, $65.13, $68.89 and $73.12 for each respective fiscal year.
Finally, the agency would charge Groundwater Sustainability Agencies for the groundwater consumed by de minimis users in their area.
De minimis users draw up to 2 acre-feet of water annually from a domestic well.
SCI Consulting hadn’t decided what that billing system would look like as of Tuesday, but each Groundwater Sustainability Agency would likely receive an invoice for the cost of each domestic residential well owner in its service area.
That fee was also designed to increase during the next five years. From fiscal year 2025-26 to 2029-30, the fee per acre-foot of water would cap at $26.76, $28.12, $29.63, $31.31 and $33.19 each fiscal year.
De minimis users will not be charged directly for their water use.
If the board adopts a lower-than-expected budget for a particular year, its members can vote to set lower fees, too.
“The budget justifies the rates,” Aston said.
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 pay a fee based on that water consumption.
Farmer suspicious of the fees
For more than 100 years, Carminati-Graham’s family has managed a cattle ranch and 80-acre hay farm off of North River Road, she said.
During wet years, they dry farm, but during dry years, they irrigate the fields with groundwater.
If the rates pass, her family’s property will be charged the agricultural rate in 2025-26: $58.71 per acre-foot of water.
“That adds up real quick,” she said, especially for a small farm like hers.
She can track how much water they pump at the farm, but she doesn’t know how much water they consume — so she’s concerned that she wouldn’t be able to financially prepare for the fee.
“It’s a guessing game, and it’s just going to be a bill that shows up on our property taxes,” she said. “It’s incredibly frustrating.”
Paso Robles Wine Country Alliance’s government affairs coordinator Patricia Wilmore said the notice sent to irrigators should explain not only how much they could be charged, but also what programs the fees will fund.
“These growers, in my experience, are business people,” she said. “They’ve got to calculate their expenses, their budget, and what I’ve seen so far is they’re very interested to know how this money will be spent.”
Meanwhile, she said she’s skeptical about the $1.3 million the 2025-26 budget allocates to demand reduction and water supply programs. At the May 22 meeting, the agency’s staff recommended that the board spend $250,000 on those programs — and she wanted more of an explanation about why the board selected the higher number. At the meeting, the board opted for the larger budget so it could develop new programs and have the flexibility to support the ones that proved successful.
Carter advised the board to spend a bit less money on the demand reduction and water supply programs during the next five years so that they can start with lower fees.
Irrigators will only support the fees if they think the programs will actually benefit the health of the basin and their farms, he said.
“I think most people would say, ‘Yeah, I want to pay my fair share,’” he said. “They just want to make sure that what they do pay goes to productive use.”
When Carter’s pistachio trees are full-grown, he expects to apply about 3 acre-feet of water to each acre of trees annually. With a 46-acre farm, he thinks the cost will be manageable.
“I hope that the margins aren’t so close that that would destroy me,” he said.
But he’s concerned about other irrigators — like alfalfa farmers — who require more water. They could get priced out of the basin if the fees are too high, he said.
“We don’t want to have a mono-culture over the basin,” he said.
He said the agency could charge lower fees for the next five years while irrigators adjust to tracking their water consumption. Meanwhile, the agency could monitor the basin and develop targeted programs to bring it back into balance.
After the next five years, the agency could set higher rates if appropriate, he said.
Carter said he hopes the agency develops a rate structure and programs that irrigators can support.
“I don’t want to leave this earth having squandered everything,” he said. “I want to leave a healthy resource for my kids and grandkids.”
.jpeg "Paso.2020 (1).jpeg")
How to protest the rates
The authority will mail a notice about the rates to all farmers, commercial irrigators and water systems on June 6.
The notice will include the following information:
- The maximum rate the irrigator could be charged — such as $73.12 per acre-foot of water in fiscal year 2029-30 for farmers.
- The reason for the charge.
- An explanation of the protest process.
- The date, time and location of a hearing on the rates.
The notice will not include an estimated fee for the the property based on the amount of water it historically consumed, Aston said.
For the following 60 days, effected property owners can submit a protest to the rates.
If the majority of affected property owners submit a written protest, the board cannot proceed with the rates.
The process allows for one vote per parcel, so property owners with multiple parcels get multiple votes, Aston said.
On Aug. 6, the agency will hold a public hearing to review submitted protests. If the majority of impacted property owners did not submit a protests, the board could vote to implement the fees.
