Time Set # 21.
Board of Supervisors
- Meeting Date:
- 04/08/2025
- Brief Title
- Agricultural Well Permit # 23-022W Appeal
From:
Leslie Lindbo, Director, Department of Community Services
Staff Contact:
April Meneghetti, Director, Environmental Health Divsion, Department of Community Services, x8597
Supervisorial District Impact:
Countywide
Subject
Hold a public hearing to consider an appeal of the Yolo County Environmental Health Division's (YCEH) issuance of agricultural well permit #23-022W to Boundary Bend Olives; consider taking action consistent with Staff's recommendation to adopt proposed findings affirming YCEH's approval of the well permit and deny the appeal. (No general fund impact) (Lindbo/Meneghetti) (Est. time: 5 min)
Recommended Action
- Receive a staff presentation and conduct a public hearing to consider the appeal of well permit #23-022W (Att. A and B);
- Adopt the proposed Findings affirming the Environmental Health Division's issuance and approval of Well Permit #23-022W (Att. G); and
- Deny the appeal filed by Annie Main (Att. D).
Strategic Plan Goal(s)
.png) |
Collaborative Community |
.png) |
Sustainable Environment |
.png) |
Flourishing Agriculture |
Reason for Recommended Action/Background
Executive Summary:
The Board will be hearing the appeal of Well Permit #23-022W (the “Well Permit”) issued to Boundary Bend Olives, which Yolo County Environmental Health (YCEH) approved on December 14, 2024. The Well Permit is for a new agricultural well on APN 061-130-003 in the Capay Valley (Hungry Hollow) that will replace an existing well on the property. All permits for new agricultural wells, whether the proposed well is a replacement or an entirely new well, must satisfy three general criteria for approval:
The Board will be hearing the appeal of Well Permit #23-022W (the “Well Permit”) issued to Boundary Bend Olives, which Yolo County Environmental Health (YCEH) approved on December 14, 2024. The Well Permit is for a new agricultural well on APN 061-130-003 in the Capay Valley (Hungry Hollow) that will replace an existing well on the property. All permits for new agricultural wells, whether the proposed well is a replacement or an entirely new well, must satisfy three general criteria for approval:
- Compliance with County construction requirements in YCC, Title 6, Chapter 8, Article 10; and as required by Urgency Ordinance No. 1569 adopted by the Board of Supervisors on October 22, 2024;
- Minimum separation distances from other wells; and
- Verification as required by the applicable groundwater sustainability agency (here, the Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency (YSGA)) to determine consistency with the applicable groundwater sustainability plan (GSP). A well permit application that meets these objective requirements is a ministerial permit and must be issued. (See YCC, Sec. 6-8.802(a); YCC, Sec. 6-8.809.)
The appeal challenges approval of the Well Permit on several grounds, including that the proposed well does not satisfy the former Executive Order (EO) requirements terminated by Governor Newsom on September 5, 2024 and the permit does not qualify as a replacement well under the County’s former Executive Order procedures. However, neither of these issues are relevant to the County’s current permitting process. The EO, as indicated, has been terminated and no longer has any bearing on local well permitting. Further, the designation of proposed wells as “new” or “replacement” wells is not relevant to the required separation (setback) distance because Urgency Ordinance No. 1569, adopted by the Board of Supervisors on October 22, 2024, requires all new agricultural well permits to comply with minimum setback requirements recommended by Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers (LSCE), a consulting firm engaged by the County, to protect against interference with nearby wells. The new well covered by the Well Permit is more than 750’ from nearby wells, which exceeds the 250’ minimum setback required by the second general criterion in the Urgency Ordinance.
The appellant also takes issue with a verification provided by YSGA for the Well Permit in connection with the third general criterion cited above. Urgency Ordinance No. 1569 requires YCEH to submit all permit applications (unless exempted) to the YSGA for wells proposed within the Yolo Subbasin “for review and verification in accordance with the review procedures of the pertinent GSA to determine whether the proposed well is consistent with the GSP.” YCEH followed this process and YSGA responded by providing a verification letter concluding that the Well Permit “is consistent with the adopted Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan and will not decrease the likelihood of achieving the sustainability goals for the [Yolo] Subbasin.”
YSGA reaffirmed its verification on November 19, 2024, after adoption of the Urgency Ordinance and the applicant’s submission of a revised well permit application. At that time, YSGA determined the pending application was consistent with the original March 2023 application initially verified by the YSGA. This determination relied on YCEH’s field inspection finding that the casing size of the existing well was the same (12 inches) as the proposed well. With this information, YSGA was able to verify that the proposed well is consistent with the GSP and, in turn, the third general criterion in Urgency Ordinance No. 1569 was satisfied.
As described below and in the attached draft Findings (Attachment G), the Well Permit met all three County well permit requirements, requiring approval of the permit.
A. Agricultural Well Permitting Background
This Section reviews the County’s approach to well permitting and how it has evolved over time. Please be aware that many of the requirements described below are outdated and are mentioned for background and context only. The following section (Section B) describes current well permitting requirements.
YCEH is responsible for issuing well permits in the County. Prior to March 2022, YCEH decided applications by applying the minimum well standards established in Title 6, Chapter 8 of the YCC, which are based upon the well construction standards required by the California Department of Water Resources’s (DWR) Bulletin 74. Following a third consecutive dry winter, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order (EO) N-7-22 on March 28, 2022, which required additional review and analysis of applications for groundwater well permits. On February 13, 2023, EO N-7-22 was replaced by EO N-3-23, although key elements of the original EO in regard to well permits were unchanged and remained in effect. The EO required that, prior to issuing a new water well permit, all well permit applications must be evaluated, and a determination must be made that:
The appellant also takes issue with a verification provided by YSGA for the Well Permit in connection with the third general criterion cited above. Urgency Ordinance No. 1569 requires YCEH to submit all permit applications (unless exempted) to the YSGA for wells proposed within the Yolo Subbasin “for review and verification in accordance with the review procedures of the pertinent GSA to determine whether the proposed well is consistent with the GSP.” YCEH followed this process and YSGA responded by providing a verification letter concluding that the Well Permit “is consistent with the adopted Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan and will not decrease the likelihood of achieving the sustainability goals for the [Yolo] Subbasin.”
YSGA reaffirmed its verification on November 19, 2024, after adoption of the Urgency Ordinance and the applicant’s submission of a revised well permit application. At that time, YSGA determined the pending application was consistent with the original March 2023 application initially verified by the YSGA. This determination relied on YCEH’s field inspection finding that the casing size of the existing well was the same (12 inches) as the proposed well. With this information, YSGA was able to verify that the proposed well is consistent with the GSP and, in turn, the third general criterion in Urgency Ordinance No. 1569 was satisfied.
As described below and in the attached draft Findings (Attachment G), the Well Permit met all three County well permit requirements, requiring approval of the permit.
A. Agricultural Well Permitting Background
This Section reviews the County’s approach to well permitting and how it has evolved over time. Please be aware that many of the requirements described below are outdated and are mentioned for background and context only. The following section (Section B) describes current well permitting requirements.
YCEH is responsible for issuing well permits in the County. Prior to March 2022, YCEH decided applications by applying the minimum well standards established in Title 6, Chapter 8 of the YCC, which are based upon the well construction standards required by the California Department of Water Resources’s (DWR) Bulletin 74. Following a third consecutive dry winter, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order (EO) N-7-22 on March 28, 2022, which required additional review and analysis of applications for groundwater well permits. On February 13, 2023, EO N-7-22 was replaced by EO N-3-23, although key elements of the original EO in regard to well permits were unchanged and remained in effect. The EO required that, prior to issuing a new water well permit, all well permit applications must be evaluated, and a determination must be made that:
- The proposed well is consistent with any applicable Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) and will not decrease the likelihood of achieving a groundwater basin sustainability goal, and
- The well will not likely interfere with the operation and function of existing nearby wells and is not likely to cause land subsidence that impacts nearby infrastructure.
Wells producing less than two acre-feet per year for individual domestic water use and public supply system wells were exempt from the EO. Monitoring wells or other wells not intended for extraction of groundwater, were also exempt from the EO well permitting procedures. The primary impact of the EO was on agricultural, non-domestic well applications.
The well permitting procedures from EO N-3-23 (and prior to that EO N-7-22) prompted Yolo County Environmental Health (YCEH) to work with a hydrogeologist from LSCE to develop a Technical Memo (TM) that contained temporary well permitting procedures for agricultural wells. The last version was updated on March 28, 2024 and approved by the Board on April 9, 2024. These temporary well permitting procedures included minimum separation distances to minimize impact to nearby wells and written verification from the applicable GSA that the proposed well is consistent with their adopted GSP. Most of the County is within the Yolo Subbasin and well permits in the Yolo Subbasin are referred to the YSGA for evaluation.
To address concerns from Yolo County farmers about potential crop impacts due to the additional time required for agricultural well permit reviews, YCEH previously developed a streamlined process specifically for replacement wells given that such wells would be unlikely to have any additional new impacts on nearby wells, which had already been in use with impact to neighboring wells. This streamlined process was set forth in the original TM dated December 20, 2022 and amended on June 30, 2023 and March 28, 2024. The streamlined process for replacement wells in place while the EO was in effect meant that such wells were not required to meet the minimum separation distances for the YCEH review and the YSGA did not require additional review for the purposes of issuing a verification letter. In contrast, a replacement well not meeting these narrow criteria would have to meet YCEH's minimum well separation distances based on the pumping capacity of the replacement well.
On September 5, 2024, Governor Newsom issued a new EO N-3-24 terminating the well permit requirements of EO N-3-23. Additional public input revealed the need to preserve some of the temporary well permitting procedures implemented under the EO while the County developed longer-term well permit ordinance updates. The Board thereafter adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1569 on October 22, 2024, temporarily extending certain requirements of the TM's temporary well permitting procedures.
B. Current Agricultural Well Permitting Requirements
As noted above, all water wells within Yolo County must meet the construction requirements in Title 6, Chapter 8, Article 10 of the YCC as well as the California Well Standards, which can be found in California Department of Water Resources' Bulletin 74.
Under Urgency Ordinance No. 1569, similar to the prior EO requirements, an agricultural well permit application must also demonstrate that a proposed new well is unlikely to interfere with the function and operation of nearby wells. This can be demonstrated in either of two ways:
The well permitting procedures from EO N-3-23 (and prior to that EO N-7-22) prompted Yolo County Environmental Health (YCEH) to work with a hydrogeologist from LSCE to develop a Technical Memo (TM) that contained temporary well permitting procedures for agricultural wells. The last version was updated on March 28, 2024 and approved by the Board on April 9, 2024. These temporary well permitting procedures included minimum separation distances to minimize impact to nearby wells and written verification from the applicable GSA that the proposed well is consistent with their adopted GSP. Most of the County is within the Yolo Subbasin and well permits in the Yolo Subbasin are referred to the YSGA for evaluation.
To address concerns from Yolo County farmers about potential crop impacts due to the additional time required for agricultural well permit reviews, YCEH previously developed a streamlined process specifically for replacement wells given that such wells would be unlikely to have any additional new impacts on nearby wells, which had already been in use with impact to neighboring wells. This streamlined process was set forth in the original TM dated December 20, 2022 and amended on June 30, 2023 and March 28, 2024. The streamlined process for replacement wells in place while the EO was in effect meant that such wells were not required to meet the minimum separation distances for the YCEH review and the YSGA did not require additional review for the purposes of issuing a verification letter. In contrast, a replacement well not meeting these narrow criteria would have to meet YCEH's minimum well separation distances based on the pumping capacity of the replacement well.
On September 5, 2024, Governor Newsom issued a new EO N-3-24 terminating the well permit requirements of EO N-3-23. Additional public input revealed the need to preserve some of the temporary well permitting procedures implemented under the EO while the County developed longer-term well permit ordinance updates. The Board thereafter adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1569 on October 22, 2024, temporarily extending certain requirements of the TM's temporary well permitting procedures.
B. Current Agricultural Well Permitting Requirements
As noted above, all water wells within Yolo County must meet the construction requirements in Title 6, Chapter 8, Article 10 of the YCC as well as the California Well Standards, which can be found in California Department of Water Resources' Bulletin 74.
Under Urgency Ordinance No. 1569, similar to the prior EO requirements, an agricultural well permit application must also demonstrate that a proposed new well is unlikely to interfere with the function and operation of nearby wells. This can be demonstrated in either of two ways:
- The new well must meet the required distances from nearby active wells shown in Table 1 of the Urgency Ordinance. These distances are based on the pumping capacity of the new well. This table was developed by LCSE as part of the TM process.
- Applicants can submit a report by a licensed professional geologist or hydrogeologist that includes technical analysis and justification for why the proposed separation distance is unlikely to impact the function and operation of nearby wells.
Wells not meeting either of these ministerial requirements may apply for a discretionary hardship exemption.
One of the significant differences between the TM's temporary well permitting procedures and the Urgency Ordinance is that the Urgency Ordinance does not distinguish between new and replacement wells in applying the minimum well separation distances established to protect nearby wells. All agricultural well permit applications must now go through the same YCEH review process, requiring compliance with the minimum well separation distances or provision of a hydrogeologist report pursuant to Urgency Ordinance No. 1569. The October 22, 2024 minute order packet reflecting the approval of Urgency Ordinance No. 1569 is included as Attachment A.
In addition, the Urgency Ordinance maintains the practice of routing of well permit applications to YSGA for verification of consistency with its adopted GSP.
C. History of Well Permit #23-022W
The review process for the Well Permit was unusual for various reasons. First, the permit was mistakenly issued on March 29, 2023, but was later placed on hold after staff realized it did not meet the then-required setback for the County's streamlined replacement well review. Second, during the lengthy permitting process, the application changed the well’s classification from replacement to new and then back to replacement. Additionally, the applicant changed well drilling firms during the review process. These complexities contributed to confusion at times but do not compromise the integrity of YCEH's decision to approve the Well Permit on December 13, 2024. Attachment F outlines the history in greater detail, including the County’s well permitting process changes, but the pertinent highlights are as follows:
One of the significant differences between the TM's temporary well permitting procedures and the Urgency Ordinance is that the Urgency Ordinance does not distinguish between new and replacement wells in applying the minimum well separation distances established to protect nearby wells. All agricultural well permit applications must now go through the same YCEH review process, requiring compliance with the minimum well separation distances or provision of a hydrogeologist report pursuant to Urgency Ordinance No. 1569. The October 22, 2024 minute order packet reflecting the approval of Urgency Ordinance No. 1569 is included as Attachment A.
In addition, the Urgency Ordinance maintains the practice of routing of well permit applications to YSGA for verification of consistency with its adopted GSP.
C. History of Well Permit #23-022W
The review process for the Well Permit was unusual for various reasons. First, the permit was mistakenly issued on March 29, 2023, but was later placed on hold after staff realized it did not meet the then-required setback for the County's streamlined replacement well review. Second, during the lengthy permitting process, the application changed the well’s classification from replacement to new and then back to replacement. Additionally, the applicant changed well drilling firms during the review process. These complexities contributed to confusion at times but do not compromise the integrity of YCEH's decision to approve the Well Permit on December 13, 2024. Attachment F outlines the history in greater detail, including the County’s well permitting process changes, but the pertinent highlights are as follows:
- December 20, 2022: YCEH implements temporary well permitting procedures to address the requirements under EO N-7-22.
- March 14, 2023: Eaton Drilling Co submitted well application 23-022W for a replacement agricultural well on behalf of Boundary Bend Olives.
- March 21, 2023: YSGA provided YCEH with written verification for the well application pursuant to the supplemental verification for replacement wells in place at that time. (Attachment C)
- March 29, 2023: YCEH issued the Well Permit.
- May 18, 2023: YSGA received a complaint regarding the characterization of the Well Permit as a replacement well under the then-applicable permitting requirements.
- May 31, 2023: YCEH notified YSGA by email that a temporary hold had been placed on the permit due to the distance of the new well from the well being replaced.
- July 17, 2023: Eaton notified YCEH that the property owner wanted to change the well permit category from replacement well to a new, additional well.
- August 9, 2023: Eaton submitted a revised application for the Well Permit for a new well at the same location as the replacement well application. YCEH informed Eaton that the permit will now be reviewed as a new well and routed to YSGA for their review.
- April 24, 2024: YCEH received a call from Parks Water Resources (PWR) notifying YCEH that they are the new well driller and were replacing Eaton. PWR submitted a revised application showing they were the driller. The revised application form stated the well was an additional well.
- July 2024: A complaint was received about drilling on the property. YCEH issued a Stop Work Notice. Boundary Bend and PWR complied with the Stop Notice.
- September 5, 2024: Governor Newsom issued EO N-3-24 terminating certain provisions of prior EOs related to drought, including the well permitting procedures required by EO N-3-23.
- October 22, 2024: Yolo County Board of Supervisors approved Urgency Ordinance No. 1569 extending certain well permitting procedures enacted in response to EO N-7-22 and EO N-3-23. The replacement well streamlined review process was not included in the Urgency Ordinance. Under the Urgency Ordinance, all new proposed agricultural well permits, even if they are replacement wells involving the abandonment of an existing well, are now subject to the same well separation distances. (Attachment A)
- November 15, 2024: YCEH received a revised well permit application for the Well Permit. A YCEH inspector conducted a site visit to confirm the proposed well location and verified the existing well casing to be 12", which is the same size as the replacement well (application mistakenly identified the old well’s casing size as 10”). Although the well permit was classified as a “replacement” well because the existing well will be abandoned, YCEH confirmed the proposed well is at least 750’ from neighboring wells satisfies the well separation distances in Urgency Ordinance No. 1569. YCEH emailed YSGA this information. (See Attachment C, pg. 4.)
- November 19, 2024: YSGA informed YCEH that no additional verification review is required and that YSGA's prior written verification was still valid.
- December 13, 2024: YCEH issued the Well Permit (Attachment B).
- January 13, 2025: Annie Main filed an appeal to the issuance of the Well Permit (Attachment D).
D. The Instant Appeal
The appeal procedures for well permits are set forth in Title 6, Chapter 8, Article 8 of the Yolo County Code (see, Sections 6-8.806-6-8.810). According to the Yolo County Code,"[a]ll decisions, determinations, and actions of the Enforcement Officer as to applications for permits may be appealed to the Board by any aggrieved person," but such an appeal must be filed within 30 days after the Enforcement Officer renders a decision, which in this case was the issuance of the Well Permit (Attachment B) on December 13, 2024. (YCC, Secs. 6.8-806 and 6.8-807.)
Annie Main filed an appeal challenging the issuance of the Well Permit on January 13, 2025 (Attachment D). The appeal was filed 31 days after the permit was approved. Although Boundary Bend has questioned the timeliness of the appeal, it is County Counsel's opinion that the appeal was timely filed because the 30th day fell on Sunday, January 12th, though the final determination of timeliness rests with the Board. County Counsel's conclusion is based on the rules that typically apply in calculating deadlines for court filings and other legal matters, which typically provide that if the last day to act falls on a weekend or holiday, then that day is excluded, meaning the deadline is extended until the next business day. To conclude otherwise would have effectively shortened the30-day period for an appeal to be filed by two-days or required submission on a date when County offices were closed, neither of which are consistent with County practice in counting appeal time periods under the County Code or State law. (See, e.g., Code of Civ. Proc. sections 10 and 12-12b [defining "holidays" as Saturdays, Sundays, legally recognized holidays, and days when county or other public offices are closed]); Rominger v. County of Colusa (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 690, 694-695 [CEQA 30-day review period ending on Labor Day holiday improperly truncated review and should have been extended to the next business day that county offices were open].)
Submission of the appeal effectively places the well permit on hold pending the Board's decision, thus the appeal should be set for hearing before the Board within 30 days. Here, however, the well permit applicant (Boundary Bend) agreed to an April 8, 2025 hearing date beyond the typical 30-day time period to accommodate various leave schedules, including the availability of Boundary Bend's legal counsel. Boundary Bend further confirmed that no work on the replacement well will commence until the appeal process is resolved. (See Attachment. D)
Turning to the substance of the appeal (Attachment D), staff have reviewed the grounds asserted in the appeal (Attachment D) and determined that none provide a proper basis for granting the appeal and denying the Well Permit, which is a ministerial approval and can therefore be decided only by reference to the criteria in the County Code and Urgency Ordinance. The draft Findings (Attachment G, pgs. 3-5) address the specific points raised in the appeal in more detail, but to briefly summarize:
The appeal asserts the Well Permit was issued without site verification and was issued in violation of the Governor’s former Executive Orders (EO) regarding well permits and undermines Subbasin sustainability goals. The site verification point is incorrect as YCEH staff inspected the site on November 15, 2024 and confirmed the location and casing size of the well to be destroyed, which was 12,” the same diameter as the new proposed well. (See Attachment C, pg. 4: [Email from Greg Walker, YCEH: "[W]e measured the casing of the old well that will be destroyed and concluded that it is in fact a 12" casing instead of 10".].) As to the process, the Governor terminated the well permitting requirements imposed by EOs N-7-22 and N-3-23, and thus the EO requirements are not pertinent to the appeal.
The pertinent requirements in reviewing the Well Permit are those the County approved with Urgency Ordinance No. 1569, which added two additional requirements for new agricultural wells to the existing YCC well construction standards: (1) minimum well separation distances; and (2) submission to the applicable GSA for review and verification as determined by the GSA. These criteria were satisfied here and the YSGA’s verification concluded the proposed well “is consistent with the adopted Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan and will not decrease the likelihood of achieving the sustainability goals for the Subbasin." (Attachment C, pg. 1.)
E. Final Approval of Well Permit #23-022W
While the history of the Well Permit is complex due to changes to the interim well permitting procedures, as well as the well driller and application, the final application considered for approval met all applicable requirements of the County Code and Urgency Ordinance No. 1569:
The appeal procedures for well permits are set forth in Title 6, Chapter 8, Article 8 of the Yolo County Code (see, Sections 6-8.806-6-8.810). According to the Yolo County Code,"[a]ll decisions, determinations, and actions of the Enforcement Officer as to applications for permits may be appealed to the Board by any aggrieved person," but such an appeal must be filed within 30 days after the Enforcement Officer renders a decision, which in this case was the issuance of the Well Permit (Attachment B) on December 13, 2024. (YCC, Secs. 6.8-806 and 6.8-807.)
Annie Main filed an appeal challenging the issuance of the Well Permit on January 13, 2025 (Attachment D). The appeal was filed 31 days after the permit was approved. Although Boundary Bend has questioned the timeliness of the appeal, it is County Counsel's opinion that the appeal was timely filed because the 30th day fell on Sunday, January 12th, though the final determination of timeliness rests with the Board. County Counsel's conclusion is based on the rules that typically apply in calculating deadlines for court filings and other legal matters, which typically provide that if the last day to act falls on a weekend or holiday, then that day is excluded, meaning the deadline is extended until the next business day. To conclude otherwise would have effectively shortened the30-day period for an appeal to be filed by two-days or required submission on a date when County offices were closed, neither of which are consistent with County practice in counting appeal time periods under the County Code or State law. (See, e.g., Code of Civ. Proc. sections 10 and 12-12b [defining "holidays" as Saturdays, Sundays, legally recognized holidays, and days when county or other public offices are closed]); Rominger v. County of Colusa (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 690, 694-695 [CEQA 30-day review period ending on Labor Day holiday improperly truncated review and should have been extended to the next business day that county offices were open].)
Submission of the appeal effectively places the well permit on hold pending the Board's decision, thus the appeal should be set for hearing before the Board within 30 days. Here, however, the well permit applicant (Boundary Bend) agreed to an April 8, 2025 hearing date beyond the typical 30-day time period to accommodate various leave schedules, including the availability of Boundary Bend's legal counsel. Boundary Bend further confirmed that no work on the replacement well will commence until the appeal process is resolved. (See Attachment. D)
Turning to the substance of the appeal (Attachment D), staff have reviewed the grounds asserted in the appeal (Attachment D) and determined that none provide a proper basis for granting the appeal and denying the Well Permit, which is a ministerial approval and can therefore be decided only by reference to the criteria in the County Code and Urgency Ordinance. The draft Findings (Attachment G, pgs. 3-5) address the specific points raised in the appeal in more detail, but to briefly summarize:
The appeal asserts the Well Permit was issued without site verification and was issued in violation of the Governor’s former Executive Orders (EO) regarding well permits and undermines Subbasin sustainability goals. The site verification point is incorrect as YCEH staff inspected the site on November 15, 2024 and confirmed the location and casing size of the well to be destroyed, which was 12,” the same diameter as the new proposed well. (See Attachment C, pg. 4: [Email from Greg Walker, YCEH: "[W]e measured the casing of the old well that will be destroyed and concluded that it is in fact a 12" casing instead of 10".].) As to the process, the Governor terminated the well permitting requirements imposed by EOs N-7-22 and N-3-23, and thus the EO requirements are not pertinent to the appeal.
The pertinent requirements in reviewing the Well Permit are those the County approved with Urgency Ordinance No. 1569, which added two additional requirements for new agricultural wells to the existing YCC well construction standards: (1) minimum well separation distances; and (2) submission to the applicable GSA for review and verification as determined by the GSA. These criteria were satisfied here and the YSGA’s verification concluded the proposed well “is consistent with the adopted Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan and will not decrease the likelihood of achieving the sustainability goals for the Subbasin." (Attachment C, pg. 1.)
E. Final Approval of Well Permit #23-022W
The Yolo County Code authorizes the Board to make the following determinations upon hearing the appeal:
- Grant the permit, or grant the permit upon conditions, if it is found that the well permit meets the applicable standards contained in or determined as set forth and described in the Yolo County Code and Urgency Ordinance No. 1569. For good cause shown, the Board may also impose other conditions or requirements for such permit; or
- Deny the permit application if the well permit applied for fails to meet and comply with the applicable well permit standards.
(YCC, Sec. 6-8.8-809.)
While the history of the Well Permit is complex due to changes to the interim well permitting procedures, as well as the well driller and application, the final application considered for approval met all applicable requirements of the County Code and Urgency Ordinance No. 1569:
- Construction- The application demonstrated compliance with all construction requirements under Yolo County Code and the California Well Standards.
- Minimum Separation Distances - All new proposed agricultural well permits, even if they are replacement wells involving the abandonment of an existing well, are now subject to the same well separation distances to minimize impact to nearby wells, which would have applied under the prior EO process if a replacement well was determined not to meet the specific replacement well criteria. The proposed well will have a 12" casing with a pumping capacity that is estimated at 350 gallons per minute (gpm), resulting in a minimum separation of at least 250' from other wells. The map provided with the application shows that the proposed well has a separation distance of at least 750' from other wells. (See Attachment B, pgs. 3-5.) Accordingly, the proposed well meets the required minimum separation distances from nearby wells.
- GSA Verification – YSGA issued a verification letter for the proposed well and confirmed no additional verification review was required. (Attachment C.)
In this case, because the Well Permit was approved based on satisfying the objective well permit standards and does not require a hardship exemption, it is a ministerial (nondiscretionary) permit. Accordingly, the Board may not deny the application unless it finds that the proposed well violates the County's applicable well permit standards. In this case, the staff determined that the well permit application satisfied all County and State requirements, leading to the permit’s approval. Included as Attachment G are draft findings affirming YCEH's issuance of the Well Permit (Attachment D).
However, staff want to emphasize that the recommended denial of the appeal concerning the Well Permit does not diminish the importance of the concerns raised by the appellant as the County works to develop a long-term well permitting ordinance. Such considerations will continue over the next few months as the County and YSGA work together to review and update the process as additional information and studies are completed.
Documents Incorporated into this Report (in addition to the Attachments hereto):
December 2022 Temporary Well Permitting Procedures
Complete YCEH File for Well Permit #23-022W
April 9, 2024 BOS Minute Order Packet 24-36 (Item #25)
However, staff want to emphasize that the recommended denial of the appeal concerning the Well Permit does not diminish the importance of the concerns raised by the appellant as the County works to develop a long-term well permitting ordinance. Such considerations will continue over the next few months as the County and YSGA work together to review and update the process as additional information and studies are completed.
Documents Incorporated into this Report (in addition to the Attachments hereto):
December 2022 Temporary Well Permitting Procedures
Complete YCEH File for Well Permit #23-022W
April 9, 2024 BOS Minute Order Packet 24-36 (Item #25)
Collaborations (including Board advisory groups and external partner agencies)
Environmental Health consulted with County Counsel and the Yolo Subbasis Groundwater Agency (YSGA).
Fiscal Impact
No Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Impact (Expenditure)
- Total cost of recommended action:
- $ 0
- Amount budgeted for expenditure:
- $ 0
- Additional expenditure authority needed:
- $ 0
- On-going commitment (annual cost):
- $ 0
Source of Funds for this Expenditure
- General Fund
- $0
Attachments
- Att. A. Minute Order with Urgency Ordinance
- Att. B. Approved Well Permit
- Att. C. YSGA Verification Letter
- Att. D. Appeal
- Att. E. Letter from Boundary Bend
- Att. F. Timeline
- Att. G. Proposed Findings
- Att. H. Well Permit Appeal Presentation
- Att. I. Applicant's Presentation
- Att. J. Appellant's Presentation
- Att. K. Petition in Support of Annie Main's Appeal of Well Permit Application 23-022W
- Att. L. Boundary Bend Brief in Opposition to Appeal
- Att. M. Written comments from community members regarding ag well permit 23-022W
- Att. N. Correspondence from Judith Redmond
- Att. O. Correspondence from UC Davis Small Farmer Water Justice Clinic
- Att. P. Correspondence from Barbara Clutter
- Att. Q. Correspondence from David Abramson
- Att. R. Correspondence from Linda Bell
- Att. S. Correspondence from Robin Datel
- Att. T. Correspondence from David Cohen
Form Review
| Inbox | Reviewed By | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Kimberly Hood | Kimberly Hood | 03/25/2025 11:27 AM |
| County Counsel | Hope Welton | 03/27/2025 02:29 PM |
| Kimberly Hood | Kimberly Hood | 03/28/2025 03:04 PM |
| Berenice Espitia | Paula Hugi | 04/01/2025 10:02 AM |
| Kimberly Hood | Kimberly Hood | 04/01/2025 01:00 PM |
| Berenice Espitia | Berenice Espitia | 04/01/2025 03:27 PM |
| Kimberly Hood | Kimberly Hood | 04/03/2025 01:14 PM |
- Form Started By:
- April Meneghetti
- Started On:
- 01/14/2025 08:13 AM
- Final Approval Date:
- 04/03/2025