The Merced County Board of Supervisors on July 22 directed staff to begin broad stakeholder engagement and examine governance options for the county’s statutorily created Flood Control District after a multi‑agency presentation outlined jurisdiction, potential projects and funding mechanisms.

Mark Hendrickson, the county executive officer, and staff briefed supervisors on the Flood Control District (established by state statute in 1982), maps of county streams, and the scale of ongoing maintenance. Water resources staff estimated that vegetation management alone for the Merced Streams Group could cost about $3.5 million per year.

“Flood control districts are created exclusively by the legislature,” Lacey McBride, Merced County water resources manager, told supervisors during the presentation. McBride reviewed county‑wide streams, historic assurances tied to federal flood projects and the role of flood control zones.

Nathan Bray, a public‑works presenter, described typical district activities — vegetation management, sediment removal and larger channel projects — and said an initial estimate for vegetation management on listed streams was roughly $3.5 million annually. Rena Gonzalez from county counsel outlined governance choices: the board may act ex‑officio as the district board, appoint a commission of up to seven members and delegate powers, but cannot delegate zone creation or replace appointed members.

Gonzalez also summarized assessment law under Proposition 218 (California): benefit assessments must be supported by an engineer’s report, public notices and a mailed ballot; weighted ballots determine approval and a majority opposing weighted votes defeats an assessment.

Supervisors raised questions about allocation methodology and equity. “Parcel size, land use and location within a mapped floodplain” would affect assessment calculations, Gonzalez said; staff noted impervious surfaces and land use influence runoff coefficients used to estimate each parcel’s contribution to stormwater.

Supervisor Benjamin Silvera urged an emphasis on stakeholder engagement before spending on engineering: “I really think that stakeholder engagement needs to be, like, a higher priority because I’m not willing to put county taxpayer resources at risk, spending… millions of dollars doing engineering reports to then find out that the public that is gonna benefit has no interest in doing it.”

Several public commenters and partners urged collaboration and pointed to funding opportunities. Olivia Gomez of Planada urged coordination with Merced Irrigation District (MID) and noted a separate state planning grant under the Department of Water Resources for a Planada study. A staff member from Congressman Adam Gray’s office said the congressman’s office secured $93 million for Dos Palos water infrastructure and offered to partner.

Matt Beeman of Merced Irrigation District told the board, “MID supports a public process that allows the public to determine, if they want to and the extent that they want to fund, [a] flood control district.”

After public comment and discussion, CEO Hendrickson summarized board direction: staff should begin county‑wide stakeholder engagement, explore formalizing the Merced Streams Group, and seek potential funding sources; staff will return to the board with findings.

No benefit assessment or bond was proposed at the July 22 meeting; supervisors framed the item as an information and direction item to start a community‑based process that would precede detailed engineering and any Proposition 218 ballot effort.

Provenance: Presentation and discussion of the Flood Control District began with County Executive Officer Mark Hendrickson introducing staff at timecode 00:55:05 (tc_start 3305.3599) and continued through CEO Hendrickson’s summary of board guidance near tc_end 01:48:30 (6510.8647).