Please read the petition in detail, then indicate your support via the form below.

*Nothing below constitutes legal advice, just the collection of information from informed residents, group leaders, and publicly available information.

PETITION

Property Owner – Paso Robles Groundwater Basin
NorthCountyResidents@gmail.com
Monday, June 30, 2025

To: The Paso Robles Area Groundwater Authority (PRAGA)

RE: Formal Protest and Demand for Immediate Suspension of Proposition 218 Protest Vote – PRAGA Rate Study

To Whom It May Concern:

I formally and unequivocally protest the Proposition 218 process currently underway regarding the Paso Robles Area Groundwater Authority (“PRAGA”) rate study and budget approval. This process is fundamentally flawed, misleading in both its intent and implementation, and in direct violation of the equitable and legal standards mandated by Proposition 218–the safeguard intended to prevent exactly this type of behavior.

The published rate study makes clear that “Primary rates apply to rural domestic pumpers – but payment will be sought directly from Member Agency GSAs through contributions or in-kind services – not by rural domestic pumpers themselves.” Despite this clear designation of financial responsibility, rural domestic pumpers – the largest class of basin overliers – have not received direct notice of their inclusion in the PRAGA budget nor any communication informing them of a right to protest. The omission of this critical information constitutes a failure of due process and undermines the integrity of the entire vote. The deliberate omission of this critical information would constitute far worse.

Moreover, repeated public assurances were made by PRAGA and its members that rural domestic, or “de minimis,” users would not be charged fees. Yet, the budget now up for approval assigns primary rates to these very users, without clear distinction as to amount, method(s) of calculation, or other. This constitutes a blatant bait-and-switch and a gross abuse of public trust.

It is inconceivable – and legally indefensible – that a Prop 218 vote which publicly acknowledges an impact on thousands of basin residents (and boldly claims to have a positive one) is being decided by a minority of parcels. Many other affected property owners have been excluded from the process entirely, even while their local GSAs are expected to fund PRAGA through payments that necessarily derive from these excluded constituents – either now or in the near future. This is a textbook violation of Prop 218’s core equity requirement: that similarly situated property owners must be treated alike and afforded the same protest rights.

Further, PRAGA does not encompass nor receive contributions from all GSAs overlying the basin, creating an inequitable burden on a subset of groundwater users while exempting others arbitrarily. There is no factual or legal justification for such inconsistency in participation, benefit, or responsibility.

Finally, this attempted maneuver to sidestep Prop 218’s protections through indirect cost recovery via local agencies is a transparent violation of the letter and spirit of the law.

Under California Constitution Article XIII D, Sections 4 and 6, the rights to protest or vote on property-related fees and assessments are vested exclusively in property owners. These rights are non-delegable, and any attempt by a government agency to act on behalf of property owners without their express, individual consent constitutes a violation of the procedural and substantive protections guaranteed under Proposition 218.

California courts have consistently affirmed that the purpose of Proposition 218 is to empower property owners directly and prevent circumvention by local governments.

“The purpose of Proposition 218 was to give property owners a direct voice in approving fees imposed on their property.”
— Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Salinas, 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1132 (2001)

The courts further recognize that these rights are personal and cannot be usurped or exercised by a public agency unless that agency itself is the owner of the parcel in question:

“The constitutional right to vote on assessments lies with the property owner.”
— Silicon Valley Taxpayers’ Assn., Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority, 44 Cal.4th 431, 443 (2008)

Additionally, where procedural requirements are not strictly followed — including proper notice and the opportunity for property owners to submit protests — courts have invalidated the resulting assessments:

“The assessment ballot proceeding must comply with all constitutional requirements; otherwise, the assessment is invalid.”
— Beutz v. County of Riverside, 184 Cal.App.4th 1516, 1529 (2010)

The intent of Proposition 218 is clear: to limit the ability of government entities to impose financial burdens on private property without the informed consent of property owners themselves. Any scheme, rate structure, or assessment which assumes or substitutes a vote or protest on behalf of a property owner without proper notice and opportunity is a per se violation of constitutional due process.

Accordingly, any action or rate adoption process in which a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) or Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) seeks to “vote on behalf” of rural or de minimis property owners — whether directly or indirectly through budgetary representation — is presumptively unconstitutional and must be rejected or enjoined.

Since you stripped our voice from the Prop 218 process, may this petition signal the commitment of a coalition of “de minimis” homeowners demanding that the current Prop 218 vote be suspended immediately. If PRAGA and its members fail to account for all property owners and their individual rights under Prop 218, we will support and participate in any and all legal action(s) pursued to enjoin this process, pursue remedy, and protect the rights of affected landowners for many years to come.

Respectfully,

Property Owner
Paso Robles Groundwater Basin

Events to Keep Your Eye On