Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Groundwater Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Merced County shifts groundwater export review role to local GSAs in amended ordinance
Summary
The Board adopted an amendment allowing Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) to determine whether proposed groundwater exports are sustainable, removing the county's prior one‑size‑fits‑all role; the vote passed 4–1 with Supervisor McDaniel dissenting. Several GSAs had already adopted local prohibitions and asked for additional language tying export to GSA probation status.
The Merced County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 28 approved an amendment to the county’s 2015 Groundwater Mining and Export Ordinance that gives ground‑level groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) authority to determine whether proposed exports are sustainable under their plans.
Mark Mims, director of Community and Economic Development, said the ordinance change is intended to reflect the county’s diverse groundwater basins and to align county permitting with GSA determinations. “The proposed amendment...would give GSAs a tool to determine whether proposed export activities are sustainable and consistent with their groundwater sustainability plan,” Mims said.
Public comment included requests from local stakeholders that the county add language to ensure exporting GSAs must not be under state probation in order to export water. Joe Scoto, a member of the Miagusa Stakeholder Guidance Committee, and Matt Beaman, representing the Merced Irrigation Urban GSA, asked the board to consider a proviso that an exporting GSA not be on probation and to align ordinance language with GSA variance and permitting rules.
Lacey McBride, the county’s water resources manager, reported that as of January 2025 the three GSAs in the Merced groundwater sub‑basin had adopted similar policies prohibiting export from the Merced Basin and noted variances and timing differences among GSAs. She told the board that if the board wants to insert new language it would have to re‑notice the ordinance and bring it back for adoption.
Board debate focused on timing and whether late‑breaking amendments should require reintroduction. Supervisor Silvera moved to adopt the ordinance as presented, saying the GSAs had used the time the board provided to adopt local rules. The motion passed with Supervisor McDaniel casting the lone no vote; McDaniel said he was not opposed to the item’s goals but voted no because additional language had not been included.
What’s next: The amended ordinance takes effect per the motion this meeting adopted. Staff said changes beyond the motion would require returning the item for re‑notice and reintroduction.
