FINAL MINUTES Board of Directors Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Board Workshop March 31, 2004 7:00 PM Session

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM in the Monterey City Council Chambers. Board members present: Alvin Edwards, Chair – Division 1 Larry Foy, Vice Chair – Division 5 Judi Lehman – Division 2 Kristi Markey – Division 3 Michelle Knight – Division 4 David Pendergrass – Mayoral Representative David Potter – Monterey County Board of Supervisors (Arrived at 7:05 PM) Board members absent: None Acting General Manager present: Rick Dickhaut District Counsel present: David C. Laredo The assembly recited the Pledge of Allegiance. The following comments were directed to the Board during Oral Communications. (1) David Dilworth announced that the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) recently issued a letter stating that in 2003 water production in the California American Water (Cal-Am) system exceeded the limits imposed by Order 95-10, and that Cal-Am has no additional water to serve new development. Mr. Dilworth urged the Board to take note of this announcement. (2) Steven Leonard, Cal-Am, explained that the letter issued by the SWRCB was in error, because Cal-Am had supplied them with incorrect estimates of 2003 water production. The net production was actually more than 100 acre-feet below the Order 95-10 limit. Mr. Leonard stated that a letter correcting the mistake would be issued. (3) Bob McKenzie, a resident of Monterey, brought a message to the Board on behalf of Senator McPherson’s staff. He stated that the March 30, 2004 memo from the Senator that contained the revised text of SB1529 was sent to signal his intent to work with the District on development of legislation that will help the District realize the goal of achieving a water supply solution. According to Mr. McKenzie, Senator McPherson desires to work with the District Board and the public. The Senator submitted draft text of SB1529 in order to solicit comments on the legislation. Presentations were made by MPWMD Project Manager Henrietta Stern, Michael Grey of CDM, and Mike Rushton of Jones and Stokes. Copies of the presentation are on file at the District office. Following discussion by the Board, Chair Edwards directed that District staff develop a proposal for Board consideration at the April or May 2004 Board meeting. During the discussion, the Directors made the following comments. The Board should carefully consider the advantages and drawbacks of a public entity joining with a private firm to develop a project. The Sand City site has some significant constraints, namely that the California State Parks Department may not allow the project to be built on State property. A regional project should be pursued. A preference for Option D, in conjunction with some work on Option B was expressed. Support was also expressed for Options B and D. The following comments were directed to the Board during the public comment period on this item. (1) David Dilworth, representing Helping Our Peninsula’s Environment, requested that the Board discuss each of the eight EIR options separately. He posed the following questions: what is the source of the noise from the desalination project; how will radial spokes be installed in the ground; and how deep will radial wells be placed. He noted that injecting brine back into the sand could cause seawater intrusion, and asked for more information on that procedure. (2) John Fischer, a resident of Pacific Grove, suggested that before the Board moves forward on development of a desalination project, several questions should be answered such as: who would build the project; who would benefit from the project; and would a memorandum of understanding be required between Monterey County and other participants if a regional project were developed. (3) Tex Irwin asked several questions: how will the rate of beach erosion affect a project; will marine sediment slow transfer of water into radial wells; will the project reduce the amount of fresh water inflow into the Seaside Basin; and how much of the $1.5 million was spent to fund work on the proposed options. (4) Lou Haddad, a resident of Monterey, stated that the District’s evaluation does not include the assertion of water rights as an option. According to Mr. Haddad, the Public Utilities Commission issued a letter stating that the assertion of water rights is a water supply solution would be inexpensive compared to construction of a water supply project. Mr. Haddad noted that he had previously provided information on the assertion of water rights to the District’s consultants. He offered to make a presentation to the Board on how assertion of water rights would be advantageous to the District and the community. Refer to Item 4. Public comment was received at the time the Board considered Item 4. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9 PM.

CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 4. Provide Update on Water Supply Project and Discuss Options A. Present Hydrogeologic Reports on Coastal Dune Aquifer, HDD Well Feasibility, and Local Desalination Project Production Capacity B. Discuss Options for EIR on MPWMD Water Supply Project 5. Receive Public Comment ADJOURNMENT

______________________________

Fran Farina, Secretary to the Board

U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2004\2004boardpacket\20040517\ConsentCal\01\item1_exh1a.doc