The Fullerton City Council is poised to make a significant decision at its upcoming meeting on April 7, 2026, regarding easements from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). On the agenda in the consent items ($4) is an approval for an annual administrative fee of $2,500 for each of the five easements, totaling $12,500 annually. The funding for these payments will be drawn from the city’s Sewer Enterprise Funds (Fund 47) for sewer operations and Sanitation/Debris Capital Outlay Funds (Funds 23 and 36) for drainage facilities, with current budget provisions deemed adequate to cover these costs.

The City of Fullerton has previously secured multiple easements from USACE, which grant rights-of-way for a range of essential facilities, including roadway access to Bastanchury Road, recreational sites, and critical sewer and drainage systems. However, five recently expired easements—three related to sewer facilities and two to drainage—require renewal to prevent disruption.

City staff confirmed that all facilities linked to the expired easements are still operational, with no plans to replace or abandon them. The renewed easements would extend for a new 50-year term, set to expire in 2075. Initially, USACE suggested a higher annual fee of $3,500 per easement, but after negotiations, the fee was lowered to the current proposal of $2,500.

Concerns surrounding these fees raise critical questions: Are the annual charges fixed for the entire 50-year term, or could USACE adjust them in the future? If so, how often will reviews be conducted? The easement contracts’ specific language regarding fee increases—whether tied to inflation, federal policy changes, or discretionary assessments—remains a point of inquiry.

The potential financial implications for the city are concerning if fees were to increase over time. Has the city staff conducted modeling of long-term cost scenarios to assess the city’s maximum financial exposure? Additionally, the rationale behind the reduction from $3,500 to $2,500 is unclear—was this a temporary concession or a long-term agreement?

Should the city dispute any future fee increase, what recourse would it have? Local stakeholders are also raising questions about whether alternative alignments or the relocation costs for these facilities were ever fully evaluated and what those expenses would entail today.

Finally, there is a pressing question regarding the allocation of these costs to sewer and sanitation funds, rather than addressing them as part of a broader infrastructure obligation. These pivotal issues could have a lasting impact on Fullerton’s infrastructure and finances.

The uncomfortable reality is that Fullerton doesn’t have many good alternatives—and the ones it does have are far more expensive and disruptive than paying the easement fees to the United States Army Corps of Engineers.