Regular-Community Services # 24.
Board of Supervisors
Environmental Health
- Meeting Date:
- 04/28/2026
- Brief Title
- Update on Agricultural Well Permit Moratorium
From:
Adam Fieseler, Director, Department of Community Services
Staff Contact:
April Meneghetti, Director, Environmental Health Divsion, Department of Community Services, x8597
Supervisorial District Impact:
Countywide
Subject
Receive update on actions taken by staff regarding the moratorium on the approval of new agricultural well permits in the Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency (YSGA) Focus Areas since the last Board update on February 10, 2026; receive 2025 Water Year report and other updates from the YSGA; receive and provide feedback on the topics of well metering, additional hydrogeologic review, crop conversions and the well permitting moratorium. (No general fund impact) (Fieseler/Meneghetti) (Est. Staff Presentation: 20 min)
Recommended Action
- Receive update on actions taken by staff regarding the moratorium on the approval of new agricultural well permits in the Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency (YSGA) Focus Areas since the last update on February 10, 2026;
- Review 2025 Water Year report and other updates from the YSGA; and
- Receive and provide feedback on staff recommendations on the topics of well metering, additional hydrogeologic review, crop conversions and the well permitting moratorium.
Strategic Plan Goal(s)
.png) |
Thriving Residents |
.png) |
Collaborative Community |
.png) |
Sustainable Environment |
.png) |
Flourishing Agriculture |
Reason for Recommended Action/Background
Background
Due to ongoing concerns related to groundwater supply sustainability, the Board of Supervisors adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1576 on August 26, 2025, which imposed a temporary 45-day moratorium on the approval or issuance of well permits for new agricultural, non-exempt wells located within the Yolo Sustainable Groundwater Agency's (YSGA) designated Focus Areas of the Yolo Subbasin.
On October 7, 2025, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 1577, an urgency ordinance extending the temporary moratorium for up to an additional 10 months and 15 days (through August 25, 2026) to, among other things, allow time to better understand the impacts of changing agricultural practices on the sustainability of groundwater supplies, particularly the hardening of groundwater demands with increased conversion of non-irrigated lands in the Focus Areas to irrigated, perennial crops. Urgency Ordinance No. 1577 further narrowed the scope of the moratorium to wells located within the Focus Areas.
Also at the October 7, 2025 meeting, the Board directed staff to provide regular 60-day updates on the actions taken by staff with respect to the temporary moratorium. This first report was provided to the Board on December 9, 2025. The second report was provided on February 10, 2026. The staff reports for each of these updates are attached.
Actions Taken Since February 2026
The Agricultural Well Permitting Working Group met again on March 12, 2026, and April 2, 2026.
The March meeting focused on Water Rights. Eric Garner, an attorney with Best Best & Krieger LLP (BBK), provided a presentation on Water Law, covering various types of water rights including underground water rights, overlying rights, groundwater rights, appropriative rights, and prescriptive rights. Pertinent to groundwater issues, overlying water rights are the right to use percolating groundwater as a result of ownership of property that overlies groundwater basin. Overlying water rights must be used on overlying property and the underlying groundwater must generally be used within the groundwater basin and limited to reasonable use. However, overlying water rights are not lost through nonuse.
The water law presentation also addressed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). As presented by YSGA, the SGMA review noted the expansive authority of groundwater sustainability agencies (GSA), like YSGA. GSAs have authority to:
Due to ongoing concerns related to groundwater supply sustainability, the Board of Supervisors adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1576 on August 26, 2025, which imposed a temporary 45-day moratorium on the approval or issuance of well permits for new agricultural, non-exempt wells located within the Yolo Sustainable Groundwater Agency's (YSGA) designated Focus Areas of the Yolo Subbasin.
On October 7, 2025, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 1577, an urgency ordinance extending the temporary moratorium for up to an additional 10 months and 15 days (through August 25, 2026) to, among other things, allow time to better understand the impacts of changing agricultural practices on the sustainability of groundwater supplies, particularly the hardening of groundwater demands with increased conversion of non-irrigated lands in the Focus Areas to irrigated, perennial crops. Urgency Ordinance No. 1577 further narrowed the scope of the moratorium to wells located within the Focus Areas.
Also at the October 7, 2025 meeting, the Board directed staff to provide regular 60-day updates on the actions taken by staff with respect to the temporary moratorium. This first report was provided to the Board on December 9, 2025. The second report was provided on February 10, 2026. The staff reports for each of these updates are attached.
Actions Taken Since February 2026
The Agricultural Well Permitting Working Group met again on March 12, 2026, and April 2, 2026.
The March meeting focused on Water Rights. Eric Garner, an attorney with Best Best & Krieger LLP (BBK), provided a presentation on Water Law, covering various types of water rights including underground water rights, overlying rights, groundwater rights, appropriative rights, and prescriptive rights. Pertinent to groundwater issues, overlying water rights are the right to use percolating groundwater as a result of ownership of property that overlies groundwater basin. Overlying water rights must be used on overlying property and the underlying groundwater must generally be used within the groundwater basin and limited to reasonable use. However, overlying water rights are not lost through nonuse.
The water law presentation also addressed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). As presented by YSGA, the SGMA review noted the expansive authority of groundwater sustainability agencies (GSA), like YSGA. GSAs have authority to:
- Impose fees to fund groundwater management, plan preparation and facilities
- Adopt rules, regulations, ordinance and resolutions, conduct investigations, require well registration, metering, reporting and monitoring;
- Conduct investigations;
- Require well registration, metering, reporting, and monitoring;
- Implement replenishment, recycled water, and other conjunctive use programs;
- Enforce plan requirements, including civil penalties;
- Establish groundwater production allocations; and
- Regulate, limit or suspend groundwater production and/or new groundwater wells.
The April meeting included a recap of prior discussions, a report from YSGA on Water Year 2025 results (above normal year resulting in stale groundwater levels with no significant change in average groundwater levels from Water Year 2024), and a review of the Plainfield Ridge and Golden Bear focus areas. The primary objective of this meeting was for the working group to advise staff on potential recommendations for the Board's consideration. The group engaged in a robust discussion reflecting a range of perspectives. To ensure staff accurately captured all input, a follow-up survey was distributed to working group members after the meeting.
Survey Results
The Agricultural Well Permitting Working Group survey gathered 28 responses from growers, landowners, water managers, and technical professionals across Yolo County. It is important to note that these results are not necessarily representative of the view of all the members who participated in the meetings. Also, some of the meeting participants were not growers or landowners who would be affected by any decisions made on this topic. The full survey results are attached, and the following summarize each question asked, along with key trends and representative viewpoints from the responses.
Well Meters
Survey Results
The Agricultural Well Permitting Working Group survey gathered 28 responses from growers, landowners, water managers, and technical professionals across Yolo County. It is important to note that these results are not necessarily representative of the view of all the members who participated in the meetings. Also, some of the meeting participants were not growers or landowners who would be affected by any decisions made on this topic. The full survey results are attached, and the following summarize each question asked, along with key trends and representative viewpoints from the responses.
Well Meters
- Should the County require that meters be installed as part of the well permitting process?
Majority Response: Yes
A majority of respondents supported requiring meters on new agricultural wells. Many considered metering an essential foundation for long-term groundwater demand management. Several emphasized that accurate groundwater accounting is impossible without meters. Those who answered “No” generally believed that metering requirements should originate from the Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency (YSGA) rather than the County.
- If the County does not require a meter, should systems be designed to allow future installation?
Large Majority Response: Yes
Even among those opposed to immediate metering, respondents overwhelmingly favored requiring all new systems to be “meter-ready.” Many noted this is a low-cost way to prepare for future demand management and is consistent with likely long-term basin management needs.
- If meters were installed, who should be responsible for collecting and maintaining the metering data?
Responses varied across three main positions:
- YSGA should lead: Many respondents said YSGA is the appropriate agency under SGMA to prescribe metering standards, maintain data, and manage reporting.
- Owners should collect and provide data on request: A nearly equal number felt owners should maintain responsibility but provide data to the County or YSGA for verification as needed.
- Shared responsibility: A smaller group favored a hybrid model, i.e., owners maintain meters, but YSGA or Yolo County Environmental Health (YCEH) conducts audits, validation, or verifies flow capacity.
A few respondents expressed concern that meter data could lead to new fees or restrictions without corresponding incentives for conservation or recharge. A few cited lack of trust in government agencies managing data.
- Any additional comments regarding metering?
Comment themes included:
- The importance of accurate well completion reports, which some stated are currently inconsistent.
- Concerns about meter reliability, calibration requirements, and operational costs.
- Interest in aligning metering with the development of pumping allocations or demand management, noting that metering is essential for any future allocation system.
- Requests for exemptions for small-scale farmers or very low-volume wells.
Additional Hydrogeological Review
- Should the County establish a list of qualified hydrogeologists through an RFQ process?
Strong Majority: Yes
Respondents broadly supported creating a vetted list of qualified hydrogeologists to ensure technical quality and consistency. Several also recommended aligning this list with processes used by YSGA. A minority expressed concern about limiting landowners’ choices or creating bottlenecks.
- If the County developed a list, should it be a recommended list or a required list?
Majority: Recommended
Most respondents preferred a recommended list, emphasizing flexibility and avoidance of delays. Those who supported a required list cited fairness, standardization, and the need to avoid applicant-selected consultants who may be incentivized to produce favorable findings.
- If the list is required, should there be a process to add hydrogeologists to the list upon request?
Large Majority: Yes
Respondents agreed that qualified professionals should have a pathway to be added, although some noted this must not undermine the purpose of vetting or quality control. A few expressed that allowing landowners to add consultants on demand could compromise the goal of neutral evaluations.
Respondents agreed that qualified professionals should have a pathway to be added, although some noted this must not undermine the purpose of vetting or quality control. A few expressed that allowing landowners to add consultants on demand could compromise the goal of neutral evaluations.
- Any additional comments regarding a hydrogeologist list?
Key themes:
- The County should ensure the list is technically rigorous and vetted.
- Some respondents questioned elements of the process, such as how long the list would remain open or how the County would manage consultant workload.
- A few suggested including a skills test or case study (e.g., review of past problematic wells).
Regulating Crop Conversions
- Should the County actively pursue General Plan (GP)/Zoning Code updates to regulate crop conversions?
Majority Response: No
Most respondents opposed regulating crop conversions directly. Many argued that the issue is not crop choice but groundwater use, and that SGMA already provides a framework for regulating extraction. Others expressed legal concerns about land use restrictions tied to crop type.
Most respondents opposed regulating crop conversions directly. Many argued that the issue is not crop choice but groundwater use, and that SGMA already provides a framework for regulating extraction. Others expressed legal concerns about land use restrictions tied to crop type.
- Alternatively, should the County continue monitoring implementation of groundwater regulations and plan to evaluate changes during the next scheduled GP/Zoning update?
Majority Response: Yes
Respondents favored monitoring SGMA/YSGA progress and deferring potential policy changes to the next scheduled General Plan/Zoning Code update. Many noted the need for more data before making land use decisions. Some opposed any county role in groundwater regulation.
Respondents favored monitoring SGMA/YSGA progress and deferring potential policy changes to the next scheduled General Plan/Zoning Code update. Many noted the need for more data before making land use decisions. Some opposed any county role in groundwater regulation.
- Any additional comments regarding crop conversions or alternatives?
Key themes:
- Focus on groundwater allocations, not crop types.
- Concern about continued conversion of historically non-irrigated lands to irrigated orchards in Focus Areas.
- Calls for protections for overlying pocket areas already experiencing groundwater decline.
- Some respondents urged consideration of recharge, sustainable water budgets, and the cumulative impacts of new irrigated acreage.
Agricultural Well Permit Moratorium
- Should the County consider extending the current moratorium on new agricultural wells in the existing Focus Areas?
Majority Response: Yes
A slight majority supported considering an extension, conditionally tied to:
A slight majority supported considering an extension, conditionally tied to:
- YSGA finalizing measurable groundwater targets and allocation frameworks.
- Protection of vulnerable domestic and agricultural wells.
- Improved basin-wide data necessary for well impact assessments.
Those opposing extending the moratorium felt the moratorium had not been effective or should be modified to focus only on the most stressed areas. They also cited economic harm, lack of effectiveness, or distrust of county-level decisions.
- Any additional comments regarding moratoriums on new agricultural wells?
Themes included:
- Some urged extending the moratorium until YSGA establishes allocations and sustainable yield metrics.
- Others recommended refining moratorium boundaries based on actual hydrogeologic stress rather than existing Focus Area lines.
- Some proposed alternatives to a full moratorium, such as limits on the number of wells per acreage or per radius.
- Several emphasized the need for County–YSGA alignment and avoidance of conflicting roles.
Additional Feedback
Are there other items County staff should consider improving the well permitting process?
Are there other items County staff should consider improving the well permitting process?
Respondents suggested:
- Requiring accurate well completion reports and pumping capacity verification.
- Expanding well-spacing analyses to cover realistic drawdown radii and cumulative impacts.
- Developing well mitigation programs, including protections for small farms.
- Restricting new conversions of non-irrigated land in stressed areas unless sustainable water supplies are demonstrated.
- Enhancing County participation in YSGA committees and ensuring coordinated policy implementation.
Staff Recommendations
Well Meters
Staff are supportive of requiring meters on all new agricultural wells. Staff recommend that the Board direct staff to develop a proposed amendment to the well ordinance to incorporate this requirement. Staff propose to work with Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers (LSCE) and the YSGA to develop the detailed provisions and to share the draft requirements with the working group for feedback prior to returning to the Board. Staff anticipate returning to the Board in July with a proposed ordinance amendment.
Additional Hydrogeological Review
Staff recommend that the Board direct staff to develop an RFQ process to develop a list of qualified hydrogeologists with knowledge of or experience working in the Yolo Subbasin. Staff propose to collaborate with LSCE and YSGA to define the necessary qualifications for the list. Staff further recommend deferring the decision on whether the list will be recommended or required until after reviewing the RFQ responses.
Regulating Crop Conversions
Staff recommend deferring consideration of potential changes related to crop conversions to the next targeted amendments to the General Plan.
Agricultural Well Permit Moratorium
Staff acknowledge that there is a continued concern regarding drilling new agricultural wells in the YSGA defined focus areas. Staff recommend that the moratorium remain in place through the current period of August 25, 2026. Staff propose to return to the Board of Supervisors on July 21, 2026, to provide an update on any developments and additional input over the next few months, along with a recommendation as to whether to extend the moratorium beyond that point, and followed by a public hearing on August 25, 2026 if there is interest in extending. To extend the moratorium pursuant to Government Code section 65858, the Board of Supervisors must hold a noticed public hearing and approve the extension by a 4/5 vote.
Well Meters
Staff are supportive of requiring meters on all new agricultural wells. Staff recommend that the Board direct staff to develop a proposed amendment to the well ordinance to incorporate this requirement. Staff propose to work with Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers (LSCE) and the YSGA to develop the detailed provisions and to share the draft requirements with the working group for feedback prior to returning to the Board. Staff anticipate returning to the Board in July with a proposed ordinance amendment.
Additional Hydrogeological Review
Staff recommend that the Board direct staff to develop an RFQ process to develop a list of qualified hydrogeologists with knowledge of or experience working in the Yolo Subbasin. Staff propose to collaborate with LSCE and YSGA to define the necessary qualifications for the list. Staff further recommend deferring the decision on whether the list will be recommended or required until after reviewing the RFQ responses.
Regulating Crop Conversions
Staff recommend deferring consideration of potential changes related to crop conversions to the next targeted amendments to the General Plan.
Agricultural Well Permit Moratorium
Staff acknowledge that there is a continued concern regarding drilling new agricultural wells in the YSGA defined focus areas. Staff recommend that the moratorium remain in place through the current period of August 25, 2026. Staff propose to return to the Board of Supervisors on July 21, 2026, to provide an update on any developments and additional input over the next few months, along with a recommendation as to whether to extend the moratorium beyond that point, and followed by a public hearing on August 25, 2026 if there is interest in extending. To extend the moratorium pursuant to Government Code section 65858, the Board of Supervisors must hold a noticed public hearing and approve the extension by a 4/5 vote.
Collaborations (including Board advisory groups and external partner agencies)
Staff has collaborated with the Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency, the Office of County Counsel, and the County Administrator's Office.
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):
- $
Source of Funds for this Expenditure
- General Fund
- $0
Attachments
- Att. A. Survey Results
- Att B. 12-9-25 BOS Staff Report
- Att C. 2-10-26 BOS Staff Report
- Att. D. Small Farmer Water Justice Clinic Comment
- Att. E. Presentation
Form Review
| Inbox | Reviewed By | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Stephanie Cormier | Stephanie Cormier | 04/20/2026 09:33 AM |
| Adam Fieseler | Adam Fieseler | 04/20/2026 11:27 AM |
| Kimberly Hood | Kimberly Hood | 04/21/2026 05:33 PM |
| Phil Pogledich | Phil Pogledich | 04/22/2026 11:17 AM |
| Berenice Espitia | Berenice Espitia | 04/22/2026 11:27 AM |
| Phil Pogledich | Phil Pogledich | 04/22/2026 12:03 PM |
- Form Started By:
- April Meneghetti
- Started On:
- 01/12/2026 09:23 AM
- Final Approval Date:
- 04/23/2026