- a weekly column published in the Pioneer Press

• In October, Governor Davis signed into law SB 1049, passed by the State legislature. http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1001-1050/sb_1049_bill_20031009_chaptered.html This bill authorized a number of fees to be levied effecting rural folks. The authority to impose new regulatory fees applies to:

(1) Licensing, certification and examinations for pesticide applicators;

(2) Mill assessment for pesticide sales;

(3) A per parcel state responsibility (CDF) fire protection benefit fee to be collected on property tax bills. (Estimated at $70 for the first year and $35 thereafter);

(4) Dam inspection;

(5) Application for or holding of a permit to appropriate water, develop a hydroelectric facility or domestic or livestock pond; proof of claim or notice to extract groundwater. (Collection of these fees are made ultimately enforceable by the County sheriff);

(6) Water quality impact certificates from the Water Quality Control Board.

• Last fall, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) held “workshops” on proposed fees for permitted water use and ponds. At that time, I sent a letter of comment, as did Howard Moody for County. Fees were imposed by the SWRCB at meetings in December. Constituents are already beginning to receive bills from the State Water Resources Control Board for their post 1914 “permitted” water use and permitted ponds.

The SWRCB has a website with a “FAQ” explaining the regulations: http://www.waterrights.ca.gov/fees/FAQRegardingWaterRightFees.pdf

I have had several elderly people call about their inability to afford the fees. Several people have indicated that this is an unfair tax and not a fee. The Board also had presentations from individuals who constructed ponds for the benefit of wildlife and to reduce tailwater impacts on stream water quality who received hefty bills for their good efforts.

Complaints on the fees should be directed to the Governor, your State Legislators, Senator Sam Aanestad and Assemblyman Doug La Malfa as well as the SWRCB. Because of the special provisions regarding collection of the fees, it is important to become informed about them. http://www.waterrights.ca.gov/fees/FAQ%20for%20Water%20Right%20Invoices%20revised.doc is a website answering questions about the bills.

These questions include:

1. What happens if I refuse to pay? The Board of Equalization will first assess penalties and interest to the outstanding fee amount. If payment is not received eventually they will seek collection of the fees with penalties and interest through other means such as attachment of wages, liens etc.
2. If I want to file a petition for reconsideration, do I still have to pay my water right fee bill by the February 7, 2004 deadline specified by the Board of Equalization’s “Notice of Determination” invoice? Should I file the petition with the State Water Resources Control Board? “Interest will continue to accrue on the original date of the water right fee bill even if it is petitioned. Therefore, you should pay the bill along with filing the petition. Penalties will be held in abeyance until 30 days after a letter is sent on the results of SWRCB’s petition review. Petitions must be sent to the State Water Board within 30 days of receiving the BOE’s “Notice of Determination” invoice. The SWRCB will also accept petitions that are sent within 30 days to the BOE.”

• Both the Shasta and Scott Rivers have “adjudicated water use rights.” This means that the Superior Court has decided the amount of water, place, season of use and priority of use for most surface water rights on these systems. The Court has issued a decree setting down its decision in writing.

On the Shasta River and in some tributaries of the Scott River, the Court has required “watermaster” service, which is supplied by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR.) It is the watermaster’s responsibility to physically regulate the diversions to comply with the Court decree. http://wwwdpla.water.ca.gov/nd/WatermasterHydrology/purposeauthority.html Currently, California code requires that 50% of the cost of the service is paid by the water user through a “user’s fee” collected through property tax according to the amount of the right. The remainder is paid by the State. The cost not only covers the expense of the actual on the ground service, but the administrative overhead behind the service.

I understand that a recent change on the State level will now shift the entire cost to the water user.