The Windrock Creek Groundwater Sustainability Agency on Nov. 20 voted to pursue a regulatory fee and to adopt a two-part fee framework that would separate a parcel-based administrative charge from a usage-based charge tied to cropped acres and managed wetlands.

Consultant Katharine Hansford outlined why a regulatory fee could provide the agency flexibility compared with a property-related schedule and described a two-part model based on the Vina GSA approach. "They did support a 2 part fee structure like Viner has," Hansford said, explaining that part 1 would be a flat parcel fee to cover core administrative costs — insurance, audits, legal and staff — while part 2 would allocate groundwater-related costs to users who pump groundwater.

Hansford presented illustrations showing the current fiscal-year budget at roughly $215,000 and an example higher-budget scenario at about $350,000; in her illustrative example part 1 could be roughly $17 per parcel and part 2 assessed per cropped acre. She also presented a possible imported-water adjustment: parcels that receive Feather River water could pay a reduced part-2 charge based on the share of imported water they receive.

Board members pressed for equity protections for domestic and municipal customers, noting that municipal service areas around Oroville and Thermolito rely primarily on surface water and could be charged disproportionately under some formulations. One board member summarized the tension: domestic users benefit from basin protection but may use only a small share of groundwater and could face a higher proportional fee. Hansford told the board those concerns can be addressed with specific language in the fee-adopting resolution, for example by limiting automatic increases or tying increases to CPI.

Todd Kimmelshu, a Vina GSA board member who spoke during public comment, defended the Vina approach and said it is equitable to large irrigators: "Farmers that are farming ammons or rice, I mean, they could be making gross income of $2,000 an acre or more," Kimmelshu said, characterizing the per-acre assessment as reasonable compared with grazing rents.

Following discussion, a motion to proceed with a regulatory fee and a part-1/part-2 structure carried by voice vote; board members directed staff to continue work with the advisory committee and ad hoc groups to refine the part-1/part-2 splits and equity adjustments and to return with concrete numbers for future board consideration. The board did not set final dollar amounts at the meeting.

Next steps: staff will continue outreach and modeling and present specific fee amounts and guardrails for board action at future meetings.