San Joaquin County adopts regulatory fees for Tracy and Eastern groundwater basins amid public pushback
June 30, 2026 | San Joaquin County, California
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors voted June 30 to adopt separate regulatory fees for the Tracy and Eastern San Joaquin groundwater subbasins intended to fund statemandated work under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.
The fees — proposed by the county Department of Public Works — allocate costs among landowners and special districts based on acreage, estimated pumping and population, with a fixed lower charge for parts of the Tracy subbasin designated as the Delta Management Area. County staff said the funds are limited to regulatory compliance activities such as monitoring, modeling, reporting and administration, and may not be used for capital projects or routine operations.
"The first and most important highlight is that these are state mandates," Deputy Director Alex Cetley told the board, arguing the fees are a common local approach to meeting ongoing state requirements.
The hearings drew extensive public comment. Farmers and local irrigation‑district representatives warned the board to avoid charging riparian or surface‑water users for groundwater fees: "It is a state mandate. The whole aspect of us taking care of it locally is because we don't trust the state," said Ed Luczi, a Woodbridge Irrigation District director. Rural residents sought exemptions for small acreages that rely on single wells; one resident said, "We rely on the rain to green up our hills and fill our groundwater," and urged the board not to saddle subsistence ranches with new levies.
County staff responded by adding flexibility to the appeals process to allow exemptions where parcels receive surface‑water deliveries from other agencies or have riparian rights, and by proposing that certain county districts be billed at the district level rather than per parcel. The board also agreed to a limited repayment schedule to return Zone 2 funds that had covered several years of SGMA costs.
Supervisors split on aspects of the proposals. One supervisor said they would vote no, arguing the fees would place a disproportionate burden on small rural owners who are not the primary cause of overdraft in the critically overdrafted eastern basin. The board nevertheless approved the Tracy and Eastern subbasin fees after amendments to the appeal language; both votes were recorded as passing 3–1 with one member absent.
Board action means the county will begin collecting the fees on the secured tax roll for fiscal year 2026–27, with annual public hearings required to adjust the charge based on the approved budget and to revisit exemptions or methodology.
The county and local water agencies said the alternative — state intervention — would likely be costlier for landowners and more prescriptive. Stockton East Water District counsel Jean Zleszi, addressing the board, warned that state takeover would impose higher costs on non‑diminitive users and urged local cooperation.
The county is to return to the board with annual budgets and to continue outreach explaining the fees and appeal process to affected landowners.
The fees — proposed by the county Department of Public Works — allocate costs among landowners and special districts based on acreage, estimated pumping and population, with a fixed lower charge for parts of the Tracy subbasin designated as the Delta Management Area. County staff said the funds are limited to regulatory compliance activities such as monitoring, modeling, reporting and administration, and may not be used for capital projects or routine operations.
"The first and most important highlight is that these are state mandates," Deputy Director Alex Cetley told the board, arguing the fees are a common local approach to meeting ongoing state requirements.
The hearings drew extensive public comment. Farmers and local irrigation‑district representatives warned the board to avoid charging riparian or surface‑water users for groundwater fees: "It is a state mandate. The whole aspect of us taking care of it locally is because we don't trust the state," said Ed Luczi, a Woodbridge Irrigation District director. Rural residents sought exemptions for small acreages that rely on single wells; one resident said, "We rely on the rain to green up our hills and fill our groundwater," and urged the board not to saddle subsistence ranches with new levies.
County staff responded by adding flexibility to the appeals process to allow exemptions where parcels receive surface‑water deliveries from other agencies or have riparian rights, and by proposing that certain county districts be billed at the district level rather than per parcel. The board also agreed to a limited repayment schedule to return Zone 2 funds that had covered several years of SGMA costs.
Supervisors split on aspects of the proposals. One supervisor said they would vote no, arguing the fees would place a disproportionate burden on small rural owners who are not the primary cause of overdraft in the critically overdrafted eastern basin. The board nevertheless approved the Tracy and Eastern subbasin fees after amendments to the appeal language; both votes were recorded as passing 3–1 with one member absent.
Board action means the county will begin collecting the fees on the secured tax roll for fiscal year 2026–27, with annual public hearings required to adjust the charge based on the approved budget and to revisit exemptions or methodology.
The county and local water agencies said the alternative — state intervention — would likely be costlier for landowners and more prescriptive. Stockton East Water District counsel Jean Zleszi, addressing the board, warned that state takeover would impose higher costs on non‑diminitive users and urged local cooperation.
The county is to return to the board with annual budgets and to continue outreach explaining the fees and appeal process to affected landowners.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
