Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Groundwater Export topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Merced County adopts groundwater mining and export ordinance; one supervisor votes no
Summary
The Merced County Board of Supervisors voted to adopt an ordinance addressing groundwater mining and export. The board rejected last‑minute amendments requested during public comment; Supervisor McDaniel cast the lone no vote.
The Merced County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 14 adopted an ordinance titled “An ordinance relating to groundwater mining and export,” approving the measure as presented and finding it exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. The motion passed with one dissenting vote: Supervisor McDaniel.
The ordinance is intended to codify the county’s role as a local backstop on groundwater export and to align county policy with the groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) within the Merced Basin. Lacey McBride, Merced County Water Resources Manager, told the board that as of January 2025 all three GSAs in the Merced Basin had adopted similar policies prohibiting export from the basin, though the staff presentation noted some variation in wording among those GSA policies.
The measure drew a public comment from a representative of Miagusa (identified in the record as a commenter), who urged that additional language be added to ensure that exports originating outside the Merced sub‑basin would not harm the county’s sustainable yield. McBride said staff had reached out to the basin GSAs late in 2024 and was not aware of the last‑minute comments, and that changes would require bringing the item back to a future meeting.
Supervisors debated whether to accept the late changes. Supervisor Silvera urged the board to adopt the ordinance as proposed, saying stakeholders and GSAs had had time to adopt their own language over the past year. Supervisor McDaniel asked whether language could be added to address a scenario mentioned in public comment — for example, limiting exports when an exporting GSA was on probation — but the county’s legal adviser told the board such an addition would be a substantive change requiring re‑notice and reintroduction.
Supervisor Silvera moved to adopt the ordinance as presented; Chair Pedrozo seconded. The clerk recorded the motion as passing, with a single no vote by Supervisor McDaniel, who said his no vote was because the suggested language could not be added at the meeting.
The board’s action keeps the county’s existing prohibition and affirms the county’s role as a backstop while leaving further substantive edits for a future meeting if the board chooses to reintroduce the ordinance.
