Column 297 - July 2, 2026

Happy Independence Day! It’s the Semiquincentennial (half of 500) celebration of our declared breakup with England, which they refused to accept - just like George Costanza’s girlfriend on Seinfeld. We even tried the “It’s not you, it’s US” routine, but King George III got all stalkerish and started following us home, keying our car, calling us drunk at 2am, etc. We were forced to take desperate measures.

I was a 1976 Bicentennial high school graduate and it seemed like the whole country made a much bigger deal out of 200 years than we are with 250. Congress started preparations for 1976 in 1966 - 10 years ahead of time. The idea was to hold one giant celebration in Boston or Philadelphia, but after years of heated debate it became apparent that the whole country wanted to celebrate bigly. Planning really picked up steam in 1975. After Watergate and Vietnam, Americans wanted to feel good about themselves again.

The Bicentennial was a huge deal everywhere, but are 2026 Americans too cynical and jaded to give #250 its due? Or maybe Taylor and Travis’ wedding at Madison Square Garden is overshadowing it. You got your invite, right? Me, neither.

The big news this week was the Third District Appellate Court’s decision to uphold the trial court’s ruling on the Garst case (29 cents well registry fee). I hate to say “I told you so,” but - hah - not really. Read it here.

The three justice panel wrote a detailed decision, pointing out the flaws in the Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s arguments in a not-at-all snarky way, like I’m about to do. They didn’t scold the District for being told in an opinion letter that charging the way they did would likely face “judicial skepticism”, but then going right ahead and doing it anyway.

They likewise didn’t ask bigtime litigator Michael Colantuono how it felt to be paid $10,000 for writing that opinion letter in the first place, then another $200,000 to defend the District when they didn’t heed his advice. I bet his answer would be “Pretty dang good!”

There will be another $200,000 plus 10% interest per year paid to Mr. Garst, who was awarded attorney fees. He’s been paying those all along, so this will be a relief for him. There was another $34,000 in attorney fees awarded when the District was unresponsive to Public Records Requests.

And where, praytell, is the database that was so important the county broke the law to have it made? Has anyone been updating it since 2022 every time a new well completion report is filed with Environmental Health?

Remember, this is completely separate from the groundwater fee discussion that is on the table now, with Public Hearings to be held July 20. However, this decision may have connected them in ways we hadn’t foreseen.

The panel cited Water Code Section 10730(a), which states that local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies cannot impose extraction fees on de minimis (domestic) users unless the GSA has specifically chosen to fully regulate them. Here in Tehama County, nobody has been regulated in any way, including big Ag extractors. The GSA suggested “voluntary measures” for Ag users, but there are still no regulations, restrictions or requirements. So they may not be able to charge anyone legally, unless they’re allowed to count the law that requires us to register our wells. I predict more judicial skepticism in our future.

The Tehama County GSA’s Ordinance 2026-2 states that domestic groundwater users under a “board established threshold” are exempt from extraction fees. Then they got all cute and didn’t establish that threshold. However, the State of California has already established it at 2 acre feet a year. That supersedes any threshold the board wants to create and I haven’t been able to find a GSA anywhere in CA that doesn’t use 2 acre feet to define de minimis.

There are a few GSAs that do charge their de minimis users extraction fees, but it’s because non-agricultural use is a much higher percentage than here. In Sonoma County, agriculture only uses around half of the extracted groundwater. In Tehama, it’s 94-96%. It makes sense that Sonoma regulates and charges all users. Here, not so much.

There was one silver lining for the District - they do not have to refund all of our 29 cent payments. The Appellate Panel wrote that the lower court erred in the trial phase when the Honorable Judge Boeckman ordered an immediate refund. Everyone who paid the well registry fee would have needed to submit an individual Government Claim Form within a narrow time frame after paying the fee.

So, spending all that time and money on the appeal actually worked out well for the District. They saved hundreds of thousands of dollars. Slow clap. This is akin to somebody robbing a bank, getting caught and going to trial, being found guilty, but getting to keep the money. However, everyone in the State of California benefits from this decision.

Hearty congratulations and thank yous to David Garst and his attorney, Adam Pressman. They went through hell for years and Mr. Garst is still out his $4,000 in registry fees, so if you see him around, buy him a beer. Colantuono said in court that the $4,000 would be credited against Garst’s future domestic well fees, which will total around $6 a year. The Garsts will be paid up for almost 700 years at that rate, if domestic user fees are approved. And what about groundwater users outside the subbasins who paid? I guess I can kiss my $5 goodbye.

One wonders whether our legal eagles actually read the codes or do they just do whatever they want and hope nobody sues? All this time and money spent and not one drop of water saved. New orchards continue to be planted with wild abandon. We need meaningful regulations to stop the biggest extractors from further depleting our aquifers.

Happy 4th to you all. I will be in Mt. Shasta for my annual “workation”. Come on up and visit - they do it right! It may not even hit 90 degrees up there.