Yolo County board directs staff to study well rules, adopts temporary moratorium plan

Yolo County supervisors on Aug. 26 directed staff to pursue changes to the county’s agricultural well‑permitting process and moved to consider a temporary 45‑day moratorium on new agricultural well permits within areas identified by the Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency (YSGA). The board voted unanimously to advance staff recommendations and set a public hearing for Oct. 7 to consider extending or modifying the moratorium and the county’s urgency ordinance.

The action followed an hourlong presentation from April Meneghetti, director of Yolo County Environmental Health, who reviewed the county’s permitting history and the options staff have identified to address concerns about groundwater impacts, well verification and crop conversions. Meneghetti said the county now has 35 pending agricultural well applications, 20 of which are with the YSGA for review and 11 located inside YSGA focus areas; about half of the applications have been in the queue since 2022.

Meneghetti outlined the legal and regulatory background: until March 2022 environmental health issued permits under the county’s minimum well standards (which are based on California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 74). After state Executive Orders N‑7‑22 and N‑3‑23 required additional GSA review, the governor’s EO well‑permitting requirements ended Sept. 5, 2024. On Oct. 22, 2024 the Board of Supervisors adopted urgency ordinance 1569 to continue local review practices that mirror the prior executive orders; staff told the board they recommend returning Oct. 7 with proposed changes to extend or revise that ordinance.

Staff presented a menu of possible changes the board could direct them to develop further. Options included: (1) changing the appeal pathway so permit appeals are first heard by the Planning Commission or a hearing officer rather than coming directly to the board; (2) improving verification of a well’s pumping capacity through guidance developed with consultant Ludorf & Scalmanini, requiring post‑installation pump tests and reports, or requiring the installation of meters with periodic reporting; (3) requiring additional county‑retained hydrogeologic review for new wells within focus areas; and (4) considering discretionary permits or use permits for crop conversions that significantly change water demand.

As an interim step to give staff and the YSGA time to analyze options, staff presented a proposed temporary 45‑day moratorium that would pause issuance of new agricultural well permits within the YSGA‑defined focus areas (the county would treat parcels partially within a focus area as included). Meneghetti said the YSGA is improving its groundwater model and monitoring but that community concerns about conversion of dry or unirrigated lands to permanent, irrigated perennial crops — which raise long‑term water demand — have driven requests for a pause and further study. “Staff recommend coming back to the board on October 7 with recommended changes to an extension of this urgency ordinance,” Meneghetti said during the presentation.

Kristen Cicky, executive officer of the Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency, described how the YSGA developed the focus‑area boundaries. She said the map was based on declining groundwater levels, concentrations of domestic wells and public water systems, data gaps, and stakeholder input. Cicky explained that the YSGA uses the focus areas in a tiered review for new well applications: when a new agricultural well application arrives, the YSGA performs a drawdown analysis and may request a landowner‑funded hydrogeologic report where the initial analysis indicates potential concern.

Public commenters split between urging a pause and warning against a moratorium. Resident and farmer Annie Main told the board “it would be very prudent to take a pause on drilling new wells in the entire focus area that is filled with data gaps,” noting recent new wells and conversions near Hungry Hollow and local reports of declining water levels. By contrast, farmer Garrett Driver and other agricultural speakers said a moratorium could impede farm lending and operations and urged the board to avoid quick restrictions that could harm working farms; several speakers asked for clear hardship exemptions for replacement wells.

Board members questioned staff and YSGA staff about scope, timing and exemptions. Supervisors pressed staff to clarify whether the moratorium would apply to all YSGA focus areas (staff confirmed it would) and whether replacement wells and hardship cases would be exempt (staff pointed to a hardship‑exemption process in the proposed ordinance and said replacement wells are reviewed the same as other permits but that the hardship path could be used). YSGA staff said the agency has added monitoring wells and geophysical studies in Hungry Hollow and expects a white paper and additional analysis to be completed by March 2026, but that some focused planning and management actions are already being developed with local landowners.

Supervisor Lucas Frerichs moved the staff recommendation package (receive public comment, provide feedback on permit procedure changes including appeals and pumping verification, consider adoption of a temporary 45‑day moratorium on new agricultural well permits in YSGA focus areas, determine the ordinance’s CEQA status, set an Oct. 7 public hearing to consider extending the moratorium and modifying urgency ordinance 1569, and form a stakeholder working group). The motion was seconded and passed unanimously (5‑0). The board directed staff to return Oct. 7 with proposed ordinance language and any resource requests needed to implement changes.

Next steps: staff will draft ordinance text for the temporary moratorium and return Oct. 7 for a public hearing on extension or modification; staff also will report back with options and resource needs for verification of pumping capacity, potential meter programs, additional hydrogeologic review, and a proposed working‑group charter to include the YSGA, Farm Bureau, well drillers and concerned residents.

The board’s action does not itself change permit standards; instead it directs staff to develop proposed regulatory changes and a short pause to allow additional data, technical review, public engagement and coordination with YSGA.