Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Madera Council signals support to codify private well rules after workshop on groundwater risks
Summary
City staff outlined gaps between county well permitting and the city’s planning goals and asked for direction; councilors signaled support for formal policies and possible ordinance language to address proximity, annexation, grandfathering and mitigation for private domestic wells.
At a Feb. 18 workshop, Madera community development staff urged the City Council to adopt clearer policies for private domestic water wells, saying current practice relies on county referrals and ad hoc staff responses that can undermine the city’s planning and groundwater-protection goals. "There are no statutory provisions or standards pertaining specifically to private water wells within our municipal code," Community Development Director Will Tackett told the council.
Tackett reviewed the county ordinance that generally prohibits issuance of well permits within 500 feet of a public water system except in limited circumstances and described how some cities adopt stricter local standards, including outright prohibitions, distance thresholds, and limited exceptions tied to annexation or existing uses. He listed city concerns: long-term demand on local aquifers, contamination risks from proximity to septic systems or agricultural pesticides, disclosure to prospective buyers, annexation feasibility and fiscal exposure if private wells later need mitigation or public assistance.
Council members pressed staff on likely implementation details. Council member Rodriguez asked whether the city could deny permits locally; Tackett said authority depends on the county’s referral rules and proximity (500 feet is the county referral band) and recommended formal policies to clarify how staff will respond. City Attorney Shannon said many council members had indicated they wanted staff to return with draft options and that a safety valve for existing agricultural uses or nonintensifying grandfathering is common in other jurisdictions.
Council members discussed potential numerical triggers: staff noted some cities use proximity ranges such as 200 feet (cited by staff as a commonly observed threshold tied to relative cost parity between extending a waterline and drilling a well) or 500 feet (the county’s referral distance). Several council members emphasized exceptions for existing lawful uses and limits on intensification of production.
Staff requested direction on next steps—whether to prepare draft ordinance language, hold additional workshops or prepare a resolution describing the city’s policy for lands outside its municipal code purview—and the council indicated broad support to return with concrete proposals. No ordinance was adopted; staff will bring back proposed text and implementation alternatives for council consideration.
