The adoption of a Merced County ordinance regulating groundwater transfers was halted today by a handful of last-minute comments and suggestions from stakeholders, including a text message sent by Merced Irrigation District’s general manager to the county CEO.
The groundwater ordinance was set for a first reading at the Board of Supervisors meeting today, but the supervisors unanimously voted to delay the process until early next year, sending it back to a stakeholder committee for further discussion.
County administrators said three comment letters expressing concerns or suggesting changes were received either Monday night or today. The county has been working on the ordinance since May, holding numerous meetings with two stakeholder groups, water experts and the public.
“Some suggested changes were made. We have not had the opportunity to analyze them in detail,” said County Executive Officer Jim Brown following the board meeting. “They were thoughtful and substantive enough that the board decided to send it back to the stakeholder group for review.”
The groundwater ordinance is Merced County’s first attempt at overseeing out-of-county groundwater mining, exports and new well construction through a permitting process.
The letters of concern came from longtime farmer Bob Weimer and Eric Swenson, a project engineer for Shannon Pump, a company that repairs and installs wells. Swenson told the Merced Sun-Star the ordinance is “too restrictive” for farmers who want to drill a replacement well because it doesn’t allow them to drill below the Corcoran clay.
Merced Irrigation District General Manager John Sweigard confirmed sending a text message to Brown today, asking him to hold another stakeholder meeting before the ordinance’s second public hearing, which was tentatively scheduled for the Dec.16 Board of Supervisors meeting.
MID has been included in stakeholder discussions since they began, but Sweigard said his concern is with one of the ordinance’s exemptions. It was removed from the ordinance based on the stakeholders’ recommendation, but then put back in without notification. The exemption allows property owners of two adjoining parcels to transfer water outside the county’s basin.
“It was agreed to be taken out and the county decided to put it back in,” Sweigard said. “If there is an exemption, no one will know how much is leaving the basin. If we don’t know how much water is leaving the basin and where it’s going, we can’t have an accurate model for water management that’s compliant with state law.”