At a meeting of the Mariposa County Water Agency Advisory Board, members pressed county staff about how the consultant’s SB 552 drought‑resiliency work plan will treat private wells, public outreach and several locally at‑risk communities, and scheduled a special meeting so the consultant can present directly.

The board sought clarity after staff summarized material the consultant prepared. Sam Cerini, public works project lead, said the draft approach follows other counties’ templates — for example Santa Cruz County’s SB 552 work plan — and will map developed parcels not served by water systems and “assume that it is a source as a private well.” Cerini said, “That is not in the plan and not a requirement,” in reference to placing meters on private wells.

The distinction matters because several board members said they worry the draft will miss on‑the‑ground conditions. Michael Martin, a member at large, asked whether the consultant intends to rely solely on Department of Water Resources (DWR) datasets or to incorporate county environmental‑health measurements. Cerini said the consultant will use state data, interview small water systems and also reach out to the county’s environmental health office for locally held data.

Board members repeatedly urged the county to ensure the plan explicitly addresses communities they said are at risk of water quality or supply failures — Hornitos (corrected from the transcript’s variant), Wawona, Yosemite West, Fish Camp and Midpines were named in discussion and public comment. Public commenter Mike Healy urged extra attention to Hornitos, saying known local contamination and quality issues should receive “a little extra energy” in the plan.

Members asked whether the Sierra Nevada Conservancy could be engaged to provide inspection, outreach or technical services. Cerini said the consultant’s current grant budget does not include funding for an outside local partner, and that adding a local interface would require finding an extra funding source. Board members asked staff to explore whether subcontracts or other grant programs could pay for local outreach or well inspections.

The draft also includes a county web portal for residents to report dry wells and to request emergency water deliveries; Cerini described that portal as a planned public‑facing tool tied to the work plan. Several members said their definition of “public outreach” is broader than a reporting portal and asked that the consultant consider direct, community‑level outreach and coordination with local groups.

No formal policy was adopted at the meeting because the consultant who was scheduled to present was absent. Sam Cerini said the consultant had a family emergency; the board asked staff to invite the consultant to a special meeting. The board agreed to schedule an August meeting (August 21 at 3:00 p.m., per the board’s direction) for the consultant’s presentation and additional feedback. Cerini noted the task order for the consultant had been approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 17, and members emphasized they expect the consultant to incorporate the committee’s input.

Action vs. discussion: the board’s conversation consisted of discussion and requests for clarification (private well handling, data sources, outreach, local hot spots). The only formal actions recorded were direction to schedule the consultant for the special August meeting and to ask staff to investigate possible funding or subcontracts to engage local partners.

Why it matters: the SB 552‑required plans will shape how small water systems and private‑well communities are assessed and supported during future droughts; gaps in data or outreach could leave vulnerable households without timely assistance.

Looking ahead: the board asked staff to provide the consultant’s full presentation at the August meeting and to return with options for funding local outreach or subcontracting with entities such as the Sierra Nevada Conservancy.