Supervisor Rosemary Smallcomb asked Wawona’s advisory committee to advise whether the County should seek authorization from the Board of Supervisors to negotiate a new memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Yosemite National Park over water and wastewater service language.

The request centered on draft MOU text that Smallcomb described as reflecting the park’s 2022 proposed changes. “My very strong belief is that [the proposed language] is not going to be as it was outlined for 2022,” Smallcomb said, urging the committee to give feedback before she asks the board for staff resources to pursue negotiations.

Why it matters: Wawona property owners have relied for decades on an expectation that the National Park Service would provide wastewater service to private parcels. Committee members said recent park proposals and solicitor reviews have introduced uncertainty about both wastewater and potable water commitments, and that uncertainty affects property owners’ ability to plan, build or sell.

Technical testimony and options

Jim Stahl, who submitted written testimony and said he had reviewed earlier engineering work, told the committee the National Park Service has previously committed to wastewater collection and treatment for the community and that the rehabilitated plant has capacity to serve properties in the community. “Not only would the NPS be able to serve and should serve for wastewater collection and treatment for the entire community,” Stahl said, “we’ve got to really have a program to get people off septic tanks with the goal of protecting groundwater quality.”

Stahl and several committee members pressed that what remains unresolved is potable water. Stahl and other commenters recommended a funded, modern engineering feasibility study that would update the National Park Service’s 1985 environmental assessment and analyze groundwater supplementation, storage options and how those could reduce river withdrawals during low flow months.

Committee members and public commenters repeatedly recommended that any county action emphasize a planning study rather than prematurely accepting MOU text that they said leaves key details “subject to funding.” Resident Rick Jacobson said the community should use an ad hoc study committee to gather facts before directing the Board of Supervisors. “We need study committees to bring recommendations to this committee,” Jacobson said.

Alternatives discussed included supplemental groundwater wells, seasonal storage tanks, and a phased engineering study to define likely costs and funding sources. Multiple speakers noted the park’s 2017 FONSI letter was previously read as committing wastewater service; several asked county counsel to clarify the legal effect of that and of the park’s more recent proposed language.

County role and next steps

Smallcomb said she can request Board authorization to use county resources to pursue an MOU, but that authorization must be granted at a public board meeting. She offered to ask staff to look for funding sources and to identify the consulting firm that previously conducted the park’s sewer rehabilitation work so the committee could engage that firm for an initial scoping discussion.

The committee voted by consensus to form an ad hoc committee (members described elsewhere) to define the scope of a technical feasibility study and to work with county staff to identify the consultant who performed the park’s recent sewer work. The ad hoc group was asked to report back with a recommended study scope and an estimate of costs so the Board of Supervisors could consider a funding request.

What was not decided: the committee did not instruct the supervisor to present final MOU language to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Members repeatedly said they wanted the technical study and clearer legal review before deciding whether to seek reinstatement of prior MOU language or to accept revised text.

Ending: Smallcomb said she will pursue the administrative steps necessary to obtain board authorization to proceed with staff assistance if the committee delivers a defined project scope and proposed funding path. Committee members asked for formal legal clarifications about prior park commitments and the precise effect of the 2016 / 2022 MOU language changes.