Tehama County Flood Control and

Water Conservation District

Board of Directors
Minutes of 11:00 AM September 19, 2022
Tehama County Board of Supervisors Chambers
727 Oak Street, Red Bluff, CA 96080
https://tehamacountywater.org/

1. Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance/Introductions

Attendee Name Title Status
Bill Moule Director Present
Candy Carlson Director Present
Bob Williams Director Present
John Leach Director Present
Dennis Garton Director Present
Chairwoman Carlson called the meeting to order at 11:01 a.m. and led the pledge of
allegiance.

2. Public Comment
Andrew Grady stated the mandated GSA fees go against the definition of a fee and
Assembly Bill 685 and Water Code 106.3 and discussed the differences between
fees and taxes. Mr. Grady asked whom this fee benefits and stated fees should
benefit all payers equally.

3. Groundwater Sustainability Agency Regulation

a. Deputy Director of Public Works – Water Resources Justin Jenson provided
an overview of the revisions to the GSA Regulation, which include adding a
purpose statement, revisions to the response times, Rule IV. Emergency
Appeals, and definitions for Director of Public Works and Groundwater
Sustainability Executive.

Tehama County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Page 1 of 7

 Minutes Flood Control and Water Conservation District September 19, 2022

Chairwoman Carlson asked if there are costs associated with filing the
appeal. Mr. Jenson stated there are fees associated with CEQA reviews, but
there is no charge to file the appeal.
In response to Director Garton, Senior Deputy County Counsel Daniel
Klausner stated appeals will be sent to the Flood Control District address, not
the County Clerk since the appeal is not being made to the Board of
Supervisors.
Jack Pratt stated the proposed regulation does not include a mechanism for
the County to notify people within the radius of influence of wells to be drilled.
Mr. Pratt emphasized he thinks neighboring residents should have a 30 day
notice of new wells to be able to plan for potential issues.
Mr. Pratt noted two ag wells were permitted within one mile of his well since
SGMA went into effect. Mr. Pratt asked what happens if a bentonite seal
doesn’t work and wells within the radius of influence go dry.
Mr. Grady expressed concern the new and replacement well regulations are
not a good solution and will create more problems than benefits. Mr. Grady
stated the mandated well depths limits a well driller’s ability to find the best
depth and flow rate for their clients.
Mr. Grady stated this regulation does not adhere to the purpose of Assembly
Bill 3030 and the Groundwater Management Plan.
Mr. Grady requested the Board halt the adoption of the resolution and
regulation as it conflicts with the best interest of the community and the
Groundwater Management Plan.
Sue Knox asked if this regulation was a mandate from the state or if it was
already being done. Ms. Knox discussed the efforts of north state counties to
comply with state mandates without additional funding from the state.
Ms. Knox stated everyone needs to band together and develop a solution to
prevent losing water to the state.
In response to Mr. Grady, Mr. Jenson stated the regulation is in line with the
2014 SGMA regulation, as opposed to AB 3030 which was replaced by
SGMA. Mr. Jenson noted the Groundwater Management Plan has been
replaced by the Groundwater Sustainability Plans which have been submitted
to DWR.
In response to Ms. Knox, Mr. Jenson stated this is in response to a state-
required process to increase sustainability over the next 20 years.
Mr. Jenson stated the regulation is intended to be a long-term effect, with
some short-term effects.
Jenny Alexander stated it doesn’t appear there is any sustainability when ag
wells continue to be permitted.

Tehama County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Page 2 of 7

 Minutes Flood Control and Water Conservation District September 19, 2022

Ms. Alexander commented the well depths in the regulation lack data.
Ms. Alexander stated the CEQA language appears to be a mechanism to
deny appeals and CEQA costs should be stated. In response, Mr. Jenson
stated the CEQA costs will vary by situation making it impossible to publish a
value and the language is included to inform applicants of the potential for
CEQA review.
Mr. Grady stated everything he shared was from the current groundwater
management plan, and though AB3030 was rebranded everything he shared
was still pertinent and in the current plan.
Mr. Grady asked if the regulation follows AB 685 and Water Code Section
106.3.
b. Director Williams thanked Mr. Jenson for including all of the items brought up
during the September 12, 2022 meeting.
Director Moule stated the regulation came back as expected following the last
meeting.
Motion by Director Moule, second by Director Williams to adopt Resolution
No. 11-2022 accepting the Groundwater Sustainability Agency regulations
governing new and replacement wells, effective immediately.
Chairwoman Carlson shared she is not in support of the regulation because it
doesn’t seem to have gone far enough in light of the current circumstances
and the number of dry wells in the community.
Director Leach stated he is not totally in favor of the regulation but
appreciates the changes that have been made.
Director Garton stated this is a work in progress and the first of many steps.
Director Garton discussed agencies that have eliminated their GSAs and
allowed the state to take over. Director Garton emphasized the need to
maintain local control and work towards solving the problems over the next 20
years.

RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 1]
MOVER: Bill Moule
SECONDER: Bob Williams
AYES: Moule, Williams, Leach, Garton
NAYS: Carlson

Tehama County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Page 3 of 7

 Minutes Flood Control and Water Conservation District September 19, 2022

4. 2022/2023 Flood Maintenance Assistance Program

a. Mr. Jenson stated the Flood Maintenance Assistance Program (FMAP)
supports the majority of maintenance activities on the Deer and Elder Creek
levee systems, which provide community and property protection.
Mr. Jenson noted the award amount for 2023 is a $50,000 increase from
2022.
Director Moule asked who is responsible for identifying repairs needed to the
levee system. Mr. Jenson stated he conducts levee inspections, along with
DWR and the Army Corps of Engineers, which are used to prioritize
maintenance activities.
Motion by Director Moule, second by Director Williams to adopt Resolution No. 12-
2022 accepting funds in the amount of $190,000 for the 2022/2023 Flood
Maintenance Assistance Program.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Bill Moule
SECONDER: Bob Williams
AYES: Moule, Carlson, Williams, Leach, Garton

b. Motion by Director Moule, second by Director Williams approving and

authorizing the Executive Director to execute the Flood Maintenance
Assistance Agreement # 2023-FMAP-NA19-01 with the State of California
Department of Water Resources (DWR) for operations and maintenance
activities as part of the Flood Maintenance Assistance Program and to submit
the agreement to DWR upon receipt of County Counsel's approval as to form.
(Flood Control Agreement # 2022-1)

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Bill Moule
SECONDER: Bob Williams
AYES: Moule, Carlson, Williams, Leach, Garton

5. Groundwater Sustainability Agency Funding Update

Mr. Jenson stated the GSA well registration fee has been approved and placed on
the tax roll, which is scheduled to be accepted by the Board of Supervisors on
September 20, 2022. Mr. Jenson stated the Auditor’s Office notified staff it is too late
to remove the fee from the tax roll or take action on other funding options.
Mr. Jenson noted District staff will begin developing a well registration flyer and
public information to aid in getting responses. Mr. Jenson stated there will be a long
response time, with an active media campaign, to raise awareness of the reasons
for the program and the necessity to respond.

Tehama County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Page 4 of 7

 Minutes Flood Control and Water Conservation District September 19, 2022

Mr. Jenson emphasized the data will be used at the District level and not shared with
other organizations.
Mr. Jenson read an email, attached to the minutes, from Tehama County
Environmental Health clarifying the time frame for well permits and records.
Mr. Jenson stated DWR estimates their well completion report database to be less
than 50% of all wells in Tehama County and information on older wells is often
incomplete. DWR has noted well destruction is poorly documented and wells that
have been taken out of service remain a data gap.
Director Moule asked what will be done with the data collected. Mr. Jenson
explained the challenges of identifying the most beneficial locations for sustainability
projects without an accurate prediction of the greatest need. Mr. Jenson stated there
isn’t accurate data about how much water is being used and how much needs to be
put back in the ground.
Cedric Twight, Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) Regulatory Affairs Manager, stated SPI
is requesting the $0.29 per acre fee be revised.
Mr. Twight stated the process for noticing affected landowners was inadequate and
publishing the notice in the newspaper versus contacting landowners directly by mail
fails to give the affected public a chance to be heard.
Mr. Twight stated landowners outside of the groundwater basins identified as subject
to SGMA would not expect to be taxed for the management of groundwater.
Mr. Twight presented a map of the groundwater basins and SPI timber lands and
stated SPI does not have wells in the timber area.
Mr. Twight noted SPI’s fees over the three years will total $99,000, for zero acre-feet
of groundwater use while these lands contribute approximately 342,000 acre-feet of
water in years with at least 36 inches of precipitation.
Mr. Twight proposed tieing the $0.29 per acre fee to those with a well.
A caller thanked Director Garton for bringing this item back to the Board for
consideration. The caller further commented the Board of Supervisors has the
authority to rescind the $0.29 per acre fee.
Chairwoman Carlson stated she did not support the resolution adopting the fee
when it was first presented as she believes it is a tax and not a fee.
Justin Hamilton, Tehama County Cattlemen’s Association President, stated Tehama
County is the only GSA imposing fees countywide and not just within the subbasins.
Mr. Hamilton stated as the Flood Control District, its jurisdiction is countywide and
not limited to the subbasins, as other GSAs may be.
Mr. Hamilton compared the fees to the amount of water used for cattle grazing land,
timber lands, and almond orchards, stating the fair and reasonable fee based on
total land is skewed.

Tehama County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Page 5 of 7

 Minutes Flood Control and Water Conservation District September 19, 2022

Mr. Jenson commented equitability for this regulation is not related to the number of
wells on a property but to the investigative process to determine if there are wells on
a piece of land. Mr. Jenson emphasized this fee is not related to the amount of water
being pumped.
Mr. Jenson clarified this process has been reviewed by outside legal counsel and
determined to be in compliance as written.
Mr. Jenson presented GIS data of the northeastern portion of Tehama County,
showing wells in areas outside the groundwater basin, stating there are hundreds of
wells in the eastern high country. Mr. Twight stated he doesn’t understand the
research that there are wells in that area, as it is expensive to drill wells in fractured
rock.
Mr. Twight stated the harvested timber lands are sustainably managed and
discussed the watershed restoration activities following the Ponderosa Fire.
Following discussion, Mr. Jeson noted this is the funding mechanism the Board
agreed upon and emphasized this is the data gathering phase.
Chairwoman Carlson stated the District received grant funding in 2016 and data
gathering should have been done at that time. Mr. Jenson clarified the grant funding
was to develop the GSPs.
Chairwoman Carlson reiterated her view this is a tax and stated she now believes it
is being unfairly distributed.
Director Garton stated at some point the fee needs to come back to the Board for
additional discussion and modification. Chairwoman Carlson stated she agreed.
Director Garton commented on the number of ranches not pumping water but using
springs and natural flow.
Director Leach stated it does not seem fair to charge people who are not pumping
and stated he would like to have more discussion.
Mr. Klausner stated he does not see a way to have the fee removed from the tax roll
without major disruption. Mr. Klausner clarified the Board of Directors is not able to
have an agendized, Brown Act compliant meeting before the September 20, 2022
Board of Supervisors meeting.
In response to Director Moule, Mr. Klausner stated it would be possible to make
modifications for subsequent years.
In response to Ms. Knox, Mr. Jenson stated the fee terminates in three years and
any future funding mechanism will be presented to the Board for approval.
Mr. Klausner stated if a fee were imposed specifically on wells, the fee would be
problematic to the proportionality due to the lack of well data. Mr. Klausner stated
the well registration program will provide sufficient data to evenly distribute future
fees.
Mr. Jenson stated the goal is to gather the data as rapidly as possible and there is
potential for the $0.29 fee to terminate earlier than three years.

Tehama County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Page 6 of 7