CA Water Resources Comntrol Board emergency fees for water use rights

State Water Resources Control Board ^

[marsh2]

November 4, 2003 – 10:00 a.m. meeting of the California State Water Resources Control Board Coastal Hearing Room – Second Floor The Joe Serna Jr./ Cal/EPA Building 1001 I Street, Sacramento

AGENDA Excerpts

3. Consideration Of Proposed Resolution Authorizing Approval Of An Interagency Agreement Between the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the State Board Of Equalization (BOE) To Bill And Collect Water Right Fees And Expenses. (The Board will consider, at a Board Meeting, whether to adopt the proposed resolution.)

***************** Among proposals is an annual charge of $.03 per acre foot of right or $100, (which ever is greater.)

[marsh2]

This will not go down easy. There is no valuable service provided for this "fee." It is a charge on the right to own property.

It appears this may only be applied to permitted or licensed rights - which are usually post-1914 water use rights, but it is vague as to whether adjudicated water use rights will be included.

There are also proposed fees on water leases, watewater petitions, 401 certification and groundwater recordation.

We are begining to see a rush of new fees - CDF (Fire,) hunting and fishing, etc. Most seem to apply to rural uses and lifestyles.

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

For real time political chat - Radio Free Republic chat room

[hedgetrimmer]

Bump

[E.G.C.]

Oklahoma Agriculture Bump.

[SierraWasp]

Here comes more "Rural Cleansing" due to the infamous "One Man, One Vote" calamity produced by the LIBERAL Earl Warren Court, just a mere 50 years ago!!!

Taxation without proper representation! Spread the word! (well... That's how America got started, right?) Rural Counties are mere State & Federal Colonies!!!

Oh, nevermind. It's too radical of an idea to take this back to the Supremes, right? (and people wonder why everything's out of whack)

[AuntB]

So, 'splain this to me in English...are they going to tax my well??

[marsh2]

More likely to tax diversions. It is proposed rulemaking, so anything could happen. You have an opportunity to send your opinions/comments on the proposed fees to the SWRCB. The e-mail addy is on the website.

[AuntB]

Thanks, marsh. It was good to see the recognition you were given in the local paper for standing up for the right thing and speaking your mind. We appreciate it.

[passionfruit]

I wish I was on your ping list back in October! The first I heard of this "proposed fee" was just two days ago when we received a bill for our water rights! They have always been free. You are right. There is no valuable service provided for this fee. The water is still in need of purification when we get it, and if we have an extremely dry season ands the creek dries up, we won't have any water, for which I presume we will still be charged.

[marsh2]

The fee hit permitted water use rights, wells and ponds. I received a flury of calls as folks got their biils. Folks need to complain to their State senators and assemblymen. The law they passed to authorize that was SB 1049, signed back in October by Davis. It is the same bill that will authorize charging a parcel fee for services (coverage) by the CDF.

An interesting sidebar, several ranchers/farmers came into a Board meeting Tuesday. One had been given an award by the USFWS for building his pond to hold tailwater for natural filtration of nutrients and other water quality components before it gets into a salmon-bearing river. He received a gigantic bill for the pond from SWRCB.

Others who had built ponds for waterfowl along the Pacific Flyway were also billed. No good deed goes unpunished.


http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1001-1050/sb_1049_bill_20031009_chaptered.html
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/ (scroll down to fee schedules)
http://www.waterrights.ca.gov/fees.