5d) Discussion and Possible Action Including Direction to Staff to Conduct Legal Analysis Regarding Regulation of Water Extraction/Mining from Private Wells for Commercial Purposes and Water Hauling
(Sponsors: Supervisor Haschak and Supervisor McGourty)
I think this is just another way for the county to try and put meters on our residential wells, I say f*** the county, they are scandalous and mischievous.
I'm writing in support of the development of a permitting process for water extraction and mining for commercial sales and water hauling, in order to protect neighboring wells from adverse impacts of over-pumping. General Plan policy RM-17 states "No development shall be allowed by the County beyond proof of the capability of the available water supply." The development of this ordinance is long overdue in order to ensure that the communities of Mendocino County have continued access to the groundwater resources needed to protect the health and safety of our residents.
Thank you for your work on this import process,
Jessica Stull-Otto
Groundwater Sustainability Project Manager
Round Valley County Water District
Subject: Agenda Item 5d) Discussion and Possible Action Including Direction to Staff to Conduct Legal Analysis Regarding Regulation of Water Extraction/Mining from Private Wells for Commercial Purposes and Water Hauling.
Since the Fall of 2021, I have served on a committee working under the auspices of the BOS Ad Hoc Committee on Drought comprised of Supervisors John Haschak and Glenn McGourty.
The charge given our committee was to prepare a draft Ordinance regarding regulations, guidelines, and procedures for private groundwater wells whose owners sell, or plan to sell water commercially, as well as individuals or entities that transport water from private groundwater wells to customers.
It should be noted that the impetus for developing this Ordinance occurred last year during extreme drought conditions when the local cannabis industry was in a record state of over-production coupled with seemingly record usage of both legal and illegal sources of water, some of which was transported by water trucks.
Under this proposed Ordinance, individuals desiring to sell water will be required, among other things, to:
• Apply for a Minor Use permit;
• Obtain a Mendocino County Business License, which must be renewed annually;
• Obtain a well permit for each proposed source well;
• Perform a hydrologic well test on the source well;
• Install a water meter on the well;
• Keep various records regarding water production and sales; and
• File various reports with the County regarding well operation and sales.
Individuals or entities engaged in transporting water for sale to customers will be required, among other things, to:
• Not transport water to a commercial cannabis operation that does not have a state license or a state provisional license and either a county permit or an application in active review by the county cannabis department.
• Not transport water from a water supplier to a separate parcel without first obtaining a Mendocino County Business License, to be renewed annually.
• Keep a tracking log of all purchases and deliveries that shall include:
Date, location, volume, of the water purchase.
Date, location, volume, of each water delivery.
The name and contact information of the person to whom the water will be delivered and the date of delivery.
The intended use of the water.
• Not transport water after 10 p.m. or before 5 a.m. unless such transport is for road work or logging operations.
These are just highlights of the two main provisions found in the draft Ordinance.
At this time, it remains unknown how many well owners are currently engaged in the commercial sales of water.
Likewise, estimates of how many well owners will exercise the opportunity to engage in water sales is difficult to determine. My best guess is that I doubt it would exceed 100 individuals making application for a permit.
Of course, all regulatory frameworks have two primary components consisting of the rules and the means of enforcement.
Enforcement of well regulations should be relatively straight-forward since the subject wells are fixed in place and most likely few in number given that only commercial “water sale” wells will be regulated.
The situation with water hauling enforcement will prove most likely problematical given that it is a mobile operation not fixed in place, the County’s shortage of Code Enforcement personnel, the County’s lack of funding, and certain constitutional issues restricting law enforcement’s ability to perform vehicle stops without probable cause.
In any event, I recommend that you approve giving direction to staff to conduct legal analysis regarding regulation of water extraction/mining from private wells for commercial purposes and water hauling.
I would also like to thank Supervisors Haschak and McGourty, and fellow committee members Ellen Drell, Sherrie Ebyam, Rich Estabrook, Jim Sullivan, Patricia Ris-Yarbrough, Jessica Stull-Otto and Robbie Wyre, as it was a real pleasure working with them on this assignment.
Sincerely,
Jim Shields
Member
Well Extraction/Water Hauling Ordinance Committee
Planning & Building Services recommends that the Board retain the current requirement for a Major Use Permit as opposed to a Minor Use Permit for Water Extraction from a well, spring, watercourse or any other source that is not a water district. This recommendation is due to the fact that the use type most closely resembles "Mining and Processing" which is only permissible with a Major Use Permit. Please find attached the current use classification of water extraction as "Mining and Processing".
In support of this water hauling ordinance in that it creates a measured approach to our precious natural resources during fire, drought & other existential crises our communities face in this time of shifting climate. Our well ran dry for the first time in 2020 as we spent months only 2 acres from the August Complex Fire. We were forced to purchase water from legal sources to complete the season. We've had to cut back our farming operations, fallowing part of our farm this year to continue production that is feasible with limited water. We have added water storage & are deep into permits & waiting for approvals on a pond. We ALL must do our part to conserve water!
I support sustainable water production.
----
Re: "The measured static water level may be used by the County hydrologist to determine if an adverse impact has occurred."
This appears to give the County hydrologist unchecked power. Why not codify the rules that one should follow to determine if an adverse impact has occurred? Producers need to know what measurements indicate an adverse impact so that they can evaluate the cost/benefit of drilling new wells. This legislation doesn't spell out what an adverse impact is in terms that an engineer can follow when, say, designing a well pumping schedule. If the County wants to encourage sustainable water production, potential producers need a way to estimate their potential yield without relying on the hydrologist's discretionary power.
----
Re: "If requested by the owner of a well on a neighboring property, the water seller shall measure the static water level of the neighboring well and submit the measurement to the well owner and the County. The measured static water level may be used by the County hydrologist to determine if an adverse impact has occurred."
This appears to allow an unmitigated impact to producers if they have unfriendly neighbors. How close does a neighboring property have to be to allege that it is in the radius of influence? How often may the neighbor make this request? Why does the word "MAY" appear in this sentence? What rules will the hydrologist follow when making this determination? If the producer has already satisfied other nearby neighbors, may the request be denied based on past results?
----
Legislation does not take into account water sales from private systems that also deliver water in pipes. I believe the spirit of this legislation is that total pumping should be limited when any hauling is taking place, but it doesn't say that. The total production of the well includes all uses except fire-emergency service, right?
----
Some wells are old enough to have been drilled before the County required permits and drill logs. Are there alternatives when no drill log is available? Not having a drill log could force the hydrologist into a conservative estimate for transmissivity, perhaps, but doesn't seem like a reason to prevent water hauling per se. Does this legislation allow use of a separate monitor wells?
----
This requires a mechanical, non-resettable meter, which is technically more difficult to monitor and less accurate than an ultrasonic meter. Maybe just require a non-resettable meter?
----
Re: "d. Static water level measurements shall have an uncertainty of not more than ±0.1 feet." This is a bit too precise. A commercially-available 70meter (230ft) probe with 0.05% full-scale accuracy has worst-case error of 0.115 feet. Suggest 0.15 feet.
----
Joshua MacDonald -- Caspar Water Company
I'm in support of the proposed Water Hauling and Extraction Ordinance and request that our Board Of Supervisors use it as a foundation and a point of departure for a legal document that will create active county oversight of water extraction and hauling. It is unavoidable for all of us to take a closer look at how we manage this limited and rapidly dwindling natural resource. The proposal is written, reviewed, and discussed at length by an expert and determined group of citizens who want fair and equitable availability and distribution of groundwater (and surface water) to benefit the people and the natural environment of Mendocino County. This draft ordinance is a step in the right direction.
I think this is just another way for the county to try and put meters on our residential wells, I say f*** the county, they are scandalous and mischievous.
I'm writing in support of the development of a permitting process for water extraction and mining for commercial sales and water hauling, in order to protect neighboring wells from adverse impacts of over-pumping. General Plan policy RM-17 states "No development shall be allowed by the County beyond proof of the capability of the available water supply." The development of this ordinance is long overdue in order to ensure that the communities of Mendocino County have continued access to the groundwater resources needed to protect the health and safety of our residents.
Thank you for your work on this import process,
Jessica Stull-Otto
Groundwater Sustainability Project Manager
Round Valley County Water District
July 12, 2022
To: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
Subject: Agenda Item 5d) Discussion and Possible Action Including Direction to Staff to Conduct Legal Analysis Regarding Regulation of Water Extraction/Mining from Private Wells for Commercial Purposes and Water Hauling.
Since the Fall of 2021, I have served on a committee working under the auspices of the BOS Ad Hoc Committee on Drought comprised of Supervisors John Haschak and Glenn McGourty.
The charge given our committee was to prepare a draft Ordinance regarding regulations, guidelines, and procedures for private groundwater wells whose owners sell, or plan to sell water commercially, as well as individuals or entities that transport water from private groundwater wells to customers.
It should be noted that the impetus for developing this Ordinance occurred last year during extreme drought conditions when the local cannabis industry was in a record state of over-production coupled with seemingly record usage of both legal and illegal sources of water, some of which was transported by water trucks.
Under this proposed Ordinance, individuals desiring to sell water will be required, among other things, to:
• Apply for a Minor Use permit;
• Obtain a Mendocino County Business License, which must be renewed annually;
• Obtain a well permit for each proposed source well;
• Perform a hydrologic well test on the source well;
• Install a water meter on the well;
• Keep various records regarding water production and sales; and
• File various reports with the County regarding well operation and sales.
Individuals or entities engaged in transporting water for sale to customers will be required, among other things, to:
• Not transport water to a commercial cannabis operation that does not have a state license or a state provisional license and either a county permit or an application in active review by the county cannabis department.
• Not transport water from a water supplier to a separate parcel without first obtaining a Mendocino County Business License, to be renewed annually.
• Keep a tracking log of all purchases and deliveries that shall include:
Date, location, volume, of the water purchase.
Date, location, volume, of each water delivery.
The name and contact information of the person to whom the water will be delivered and the date of delivery.
The intended use of the water.
• Not transport water after 10 p.m. or before 5 a.m. unless such transport is for road work or logging operations.
These are just highlights of the two main provisions found in the draft Ordinance.
At this time, it remains unknown how many well owners are currently engaged in the commercial sales of water.
Likewise, estimates of how many well owners will exercise the opportunity to engage in water sales is difficult to determine. My best guess is that I doubt it would exceed 100 individuals making application for a permit.
Of course, all regulatory frameworks have two primary components consisting of the rules and the means of enforcement.
Enforcement of well regulations should be relatively straight-forward since the subject wells are fixed in place and most likely few in number given that only commercial “water sale” wells will be regulated.
The situation with water hauling enforcement will prove most likely problematical given that it is a mobile operation not fixed in place, the County’s shortage of Code Enforcement personnel, the County’s lack of funding, and certain constitutional issues restricting law enforcement’s ability to perform vehicle stops without probable cause.
In any event, I recommend that you approve giving direction to staff to conduct legal analysis regarding regulation of water extraction/mining from private wells for commercial purposes and water hauling.
I would also like to thank Supervisors Haschak and McGourty, and fellow committee members Ellen Drell, Sherrie Ebyam, Rich Estabrook, Jim Sullivan, Patricia Ris-Yarbrough, Jessica Stull-Otto and Robbie Wyre, as it was a real pleasure working with them on this assignment.
Sincerely,
Jim Shields
Member
Well Extraction/Water Hauling Ordinance Committee
Planning & Building Services recommends that the Board retain the current requirement for a Major Use Permit as opposed to a Minor Use Permit for Water Extraction from a well, spring, watercourse or any other source that is not a water district. This recommendation is due to the fact that the use type most closely resembles "Mining and Processing" which is only permissible with a Major Use Permit. Please find attached the current use classification of water extraction as "Mining and Processing".
In support of this water hauling ordinance in that it creates a measured approach to our precious natural resources during fire, drought & other existential crises our communities face in this time of shifting climate. Our well ran dry for the first time in 2020 as we spent months only 2 acres from the August Complex Fire. We were forced to purchase water from legal sources to complete the season. We've had to cut back our farming operations, fallowing part of our farm this year to continue production that is feasible with limited water. We have added water storage & are deep into permits & waiting for approvals on a pond. We ALL must do our part to conserve water!
I support sustainable water production.
----
Re: "The measured static water level may be used by the County hydrologist to determine if an adverse impact has occurred."
This appears to give the County hydrologist unchecked power. Why not codify the rules that one should follow to determine if an adverse impact has occurred? Producers need to know what measurements indicate an adverse impact so that they can evaluate the cost/benefit of drilling new wells. This legislation doesn't spell out what an adverse impact is in terms that an engineer can follow when, say, designing a well pumping schedule. If the County wants to encourage sustainable water production, potential producers need a way to estimate their potential yield without relying on the hydrologist's discretionary power.
----
Re: "If requested by the owner of a well on a neighboring property, the water seller shall measure the static water level of the neighboring well and submit the measurement to the well owner and the County. The measured static water level may be used by the County hydrologist to determine if an adverse impact has occurred."
This appears to allow an unmitigated impact to producers if they have unfriendly neighbors. How close does a neighboring property have to be to allege that it is in the radius of influence? How often may the neighbor make this request? Why does the word "MAY" appear in this sentence? What rules will the hydrologist follow when making this determination? If the producer has already satisfied other nearby neighbors, may the request be denied based on past results?
----
Legislation does not take into account water sales from private systems that also deliver water in pipes. I believe the spirit of this legislation is that total pumping should be limited when any hauling is taking place, but it doesn't say that. The total production of the well includes all uses except fire-emergency service, right?
----
Some wells are old enough to have been drilled before the County required permits and drill logs. Are there alternatives when no drill log is available? Not having a drill log could force the hydrologist into a conservative estimate for transmissivity, perhaps, but doesn't seem like a reason to prevent water hauling per se. Does this legislation allow use of a separate monitor wells?
----
This requires a mechanical, non-resettable meter, which is technically more difficult to monitor and less accurate than an ultrasonic meter. Maybe just require a non-resettable meter?
----
Re: "d. Static water level measurements shall have an uncertainty of not more than ±0.1 feet." This is a bit too precise. A commercially-available 70meter (230ft) probe with 0.05% full-scale accuracy has worst-case error of 0.115 feet. Suggest 0.15 feet.
----
Joshua MacDonald -- Caspar Water Company
I'm in support of the proposed Water Hauling and Extraction Ordinance.
I'm in support of the proposed Water Hauling and Extraction Ordinance and request that our Board Of Supervisors use it as a foundation and a point of departure for a legal document that will create active county oversight of water extraction and hauling. It is unavoidable for all of us to take a closer look at how we manage this limited and rapidly dwindling natural resource. The proposal is written, reviewed, and discussed at length by an expert and determined group of citizens who want fair and equitable availability and distribution of groundwater (and surface water) to benefit the people and the natural environment of Mendocino County. This draft ordinance is a step in the right direction.