Wawona residents press board to seek restoration of 20‑year MOU with National Park Service over water, county proposes planning grant approach

The Wawona Town Planning Advisory Committee asked the Mariposa County Board of Supervisors on May 6 to seek negotiations with the National Park Service to restore the original 20‑year memorandum of understanding (MOU) that had long governed the park service’s delivery of water and wastewater services to the Wawona community.

Ed Mee, chairman of the Wawona Town Planning Advisory Committee, told the board the community relied on the park service’s earlier commitments and said a change to short renewal terms or caveats jeopardizes plans and privately held investments. “The MOU to us was very important,” Mee said; he and other speakers said the park’s more recent draft language would add caveats limiting service when river flows are low and would require new connections to drill private wells.

County staff, park representatives and local stakeholders have been discussing the issue since the Coulterville town plan and Wawona MOU began to be revisited. The 2016 MOU had replaced a 1987 agreement; Wawona residents said the older, automatic 20‑year renewal offered long‑term certainty. The National Park Service has expressed concern that, with state limits on surface‑water withdrawals from the South Fork of the Merced River, it cannot confidently expand or guarantee service during low flows.

Joe Lynch, the county administrative officer, told the board the park has not said it will cut current service — the discussion concerns whether the park will commit to future expansions or provide unconditional service commitments. Lynch warned that pressing the federal government into a binding commitment could trigger a protracted dispute; he recommended a collaborative first step: seek grant funding for a joint planning study that would assess groundwater and interconnection options, then use the plan to seek implementation grants or congressional funding if appropriate.

Community members urged a more assertive stance. Barry Perkins of Wawona said the park service had previously pledged investment — citing an earlier $28 million sewer rehabilitation scope — and argued the county should “trust but verify” whether deferred maintenance or system changes explain the park’s more cautious position.

Staff noted Wawona already contains many private wells and several small public systems, and that the U.S. Geological Survey previously studied groundwater in the area. County staff and the Resource Conservation District said a planning study could identify feasible alternatives — private shared wells, interconnections, or new storage — so the community would not be vulnerable if service terms change.

Board members weighed the political and legal risks of “poking the bear” by demanding the park reinstate unconditional long‑term commitments. Several supervisors favored the planning/grant path outlined by staff rather than immediate litigation or a formal demand. Supervisor Kaiser said the county should focus on helping residents become less dependent on a single federal provider; Supervisor Toso cautioned against an adversarial approach while service is still being provided.

The board did not vote to open litigation or direct immediate negotiation; instead members expressed support for staff to pursue cooperative planning and look for grant funding to study groundwater and interconnection options. Several board members asked staff to keep engaging the community and the park service and to update supervisors when grant opportunities or new information arise.

Why it matters: Thousands of dollars in local property values and future development choices in Wawona depend on whether reliable water and sewer service will be available to undeveloped lots. The county’s recommended next step — a joint planning grant and technical study — is intended to give residents and the county a technical basis for funding requests and long‑term decisions.