MPWMD BOARD MEETING--MARCH 21, 2005--FINAL MINUTES

FINAL MINUTES

Regular Meeting

Board of Directors

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

March 21, 2005

The meeting was called to order at 7 PM in the Board Room of the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency.

Directors present:

Larry Foy, Chair – Division 5

Kristi Markey, Vice Chair – Division 3 (Arrived at 7:05 PM)

Alvin Edwards – Division 1

Judi Lehman – Division 2

David Pendergrass – Mayoral Representative

David Potter –Monterey County Board of Supervisors

Directors absent:

Michelle Knight – Division 4

General Manager present: David A. Berger

District Counsel present: David A. Laredo

The assembly recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

No comments.

On a motion by Director Pendergrass and second by Director Lehman, the Consent Calendar was adopted on a unanimous vote of 6 – 0. Director Knight was absent.

Adopted.

Approved.

Mark Del Piero, Legal Counsel for the Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Services District (PSMCSD), provided a status report on the PSMCSD Desalination Project. A copy of the information he provided is on file at the District office. In response to questions from the Directors, Mr. Del Piero made the following statements. (1) PSMCSD has applied for matching funds from the Department of Water Resources for preparation of an EIR and construction of the pilot desalination project. The Department of Water Resources will make a determination by March 28, 2005 regarding what projects will qualify for consideration of grant funding from Proposition 50. (2) The greatest obstacle to the PSMCSD project is the perception that the agency is incapable of developing a project. The PSMCSD has a responsibility to provide water for its constituents, and is capable of developing a project.

Curtis Weeks, General Manager of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA), gave a presentation on planning efforts for development of the Regional Urban Water Supply Project. The regional planning process is focused on management and governance issues. Two management alternatives have been developed He will recommend that each member of the planning group present the management options to their policy boards in April so the group can make a decision and move ahead on development of the water solution. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Weeks stated that part of the regional planning process is to determine the water needs of each participant, and what method of water production could meet those needs. Questions about financing, delivery methods, and who will construct and operate a desalination project at Moss Landing will be decided during the regional planning process. Mr. Weeks stated that representatives from the PSMCSD have attended the management meetings.

Keith Israel, General Manager of the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA), and Bill Mills, Consultant and former manager of the Orange County Water District, gave a presentation on MRWPCAs proposed Groundwater Recharge Project and Orange County’s Groundwater Replenishment System. A copy of the presentation is on file at the District office. The following statements were made in response to questions from the Directors. (1) It could take five years to bring a project from conceptual to design phase. (2) The State Department of Health requires that purified, recycled water be held in the groundwater basin for 9 months before it is extracted. The water must travel at least 500 feet from a surface recharge facility, and 2,000 feet away from an injection facility. (3) There is potential for the Groundwater Recharge Project to be increased from 4,000 AF per year to 10,000 AF per year if the MRWPCA were able to amend contracts it has with other recycled water users and also reduce its discharge rate to Monterey Bay to nearly 0 percent. (4) The rate of percolation in proposed Fort Ord percolation ponds should be fairly rapid, so the project size should not be limited by the acreage available for percolation ponds. From 10 to 20 acres of land could be needed for percolation ponds.

Steven Leonard, General Manager of California American Water, and Larry Gallery, Project Manager for RBF Consulting, provided a progress report on the Coastal Water Project. A copy of the presentation is on file at the District office. In response to questions from the Directors the following statements were made. (1) Cal Am would like to partner with a public entity on development of the Coastal Water Project. Cal Am would also welcome the formation of a joint powers authority to develop the Coastal Water Project as a public project. However, until a public partner is identified, Cal Am must pursue the project with due diligence. Cal Am is obligated by State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order 95-10 to meet the 10,730 acre-feet water production shortfall. If Cal Am were to propose abandonment of the Coastal Water Project, the SWRCB would have to agree. (2) Cal Am is responsible to develop a project that provides 10,730 AF of water. The amount of additional capacity proposed for the project is based on information provided by the jurisdictions who would utilize that water. That additional increment of water is a proposed component of the project, in case the community decides to support a project that would provide additional water beyond the requirements of SWRCB Order 95-10. (3) Cal-Am is not interested in a scenario where two pipelines are constructed for parallel water projects that are in competition with each other.

Henrietta Stern presented the report. An outline of her presentation is on file at the District office. In response to a question from the Board, Ms. Stern stated that the District has applied for a long-term permit from the SWRCB to withdraw a maximum amount of 7,300 AF per year from the Carmel River for injection into the Seaside Basin. Hearings on the District’s application will be conducted prior to the SWRCB rendering a decision. The SWRCB has indicated that it will support the application, if NOAA Fisheries is amenable to the project as it relates to impacts on the Carmel River fishery.

The following comments were received during the public comment period on this item. (1) David Dilworth, representing Helping Our Peninsula’s Environment (HOPE), urged the Board to proceed with caution on development of the suite of projects proposed. He expressed concern about possible health risks associated with the use of purified, recycled drinking water. He was also skeptical about statements made by Cal Am that the public would support a desalination project that provided enough water to meet the future growth needs of jurisdictions in the proposed project area. (2) John Fischer urged decision makers to carefully weigh the pros and cons of each proposed desalination project in order to reach consensus on the best project.

Darby Fuerst, Senior Hydrologist, reported that between October 1, 2004 and March 15, 2005, Cal Am production from the Carmel River was 314 acre-feet (AF) below the year–to-date goal, which is based on the SWRCB annual limit of 11,285 AF. An outline of Mr. Fuerst’s report is on file at the District office.

District Counsel Laredo reported that the Board considered the six items of existing litigation listed on the Closed Session agenda. A status report was given on all matters and no action was taken. A performance evaluation of District Counsel was also conducted. There was no reportable action.

Director Markey reported that she had a disagreement with Chair Foy regarding attendance at committee meetings. Chair Foy stated that he and Director Markey would meet to discuss the issue. Director Edwards volunteered to help mediate the discussion. If necessary, the item would be placed on a future Regular or Special Board meeting agenda.

Director Potter offered a motion that was seconded by Director Edwards to accept the staff recommendation to: (a) adopt the Notice of Exemption and direct staff to file it with the County Clerk; (b) adopt the Findings of Approval of Appeal; (c) adopt the Revised Findings of Approval of Application No. 20040426BAR; and (d) re-issue Permit No. S04-03 with revised Conditions of Approval. The motion was adopted by the Board on a vote of 4 – 2. Directors Edwards, Foy, Potter and Pendergrass voted in favor of the motion. Directors Lehman and Markey were opposed. Director Knight was absent.

The following comments were directed to the Board during the public hearing on this item. (1) Christine Gianascol Kemp, representing Christo Bardis, urged the Board to grant the appeal and issue the conditional water permit. (2) Robert Greenwood, representing the Carmel Valley Association, asked if the residential and agricultural uses would be separately metered. Henrietta Stern, MPWMD Project Manager, confirmed that the uses would be separately metered. (3) David Dilworth expressed his uneasiness about the Board considering an increase in the residential water use allotment when there was no legal requirement to do so.

On a motion by Director Pendergrass and second by Director Edwards, the Board adopted the second reading of Ordinance No. 119 with language presented by staff that evening that would replace Section L.9 of Rule 165 in the ordinance. The motion was adopted on a vote of 4 – 2. Directors Edwards, Foy, Pendergrass and Potter voted in favor of the motion. Directors Lehman and Markey were opposed.

During the public hearing on this item, David Dilworth, representing HOPE, suggested that the following changes be made to the ordinance: (a) add language that distinguishes between residential, business and golf course water users; (b) water waste fees collected by Cal Am should be distributed to the District; (c) water waste fees should be based on the amount of water used; and (d) Cal Am should be assessed a water waste fee on its unaccounted-for water use.

On a motion by Director Lehman and second by Director Potter, the Board adopted the second reading of Ordinance No. 120 on a unanimous vote of 6 – 0. Director Knight was absent.

During the public hearing on this item, David Dilworth, representing HOPE, asked if the new ordinance would affect the appeal fee waiver for the public interest. District Counsel Laredo responded that the appeal fee waiver would not be changed.

On a motion by Director Potter and second by Director Edwards, the Board adopted the April through June 2005 Quarterly Water Supply Strategy and Budget on a unanimous vote of 6 – 0. Director Knight was absent.

No public comment was directed to the Board during the public hearing on this item.

Director Edwards proposed a motion that was seconded by Director Foy, to finalize the text and proceed with production and distribution of the final 2004 MPWMD Annual Report. No action was taken on the motion.

Director Potter offered a motion that was seconded by Director Markey to continue the item to the May 16, 2005 Board meeting when amended text would be presented to the Board for consideration. The motion was unanimously adopted on a vote of 6 – 0. Director Knight was absent.

During the public hearing on this item, David Dilworth, representing HOPE, urged the Board to rewrite the report with a focus on the District’s mission to protect the public resource. The report should highlight conservation, and environmental protection and enhancement activities.

On a motion by Director Markey and second by Director Potter, the Board directed that the EIR on the MPWMD Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project be amended to focus only on Phase 1 ASR and not discuss potential future Phases 2 and 3. The EIR should be completed in accordance with recommendations outlined in the staff report. The motion was adopted unanimously on a vote of 6 – 0. Director Knight was absent.

The following comments were directed to the Board during the public comment period on this item. (1) Robert Greenwood, representing the Carmel Valley Association, expressed support for the staff recommendation. (2) David Dilworth, representing HOPE, stated that he would like to support the staff recommendation, but could not because the differences between Phases 1, 2 and 3 were not clearly identified in the staff presentation.

There was no discussion of these items

The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 PM.

CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Consider Adoption of Minutes of the February 25, 2005 Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors

2. Consider Proposed Response to 2004 Civil Grand Jury Report

3. Receive and File District-Wide Annual Water Distribution System Production Summary for Water Year 2004

4. Receive and File District-Wide Annual Water Production Summary Report for Water Year 2004

5. Review and Accept Independent Auditor’s Report for Fiscal Year 2003-2004

6. Consider Approval of Second Quarter Investment Report

PRESENTATIONS

7. Presentation of Progress Reports on Long-Term Water Supply Proposals

A. Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Services District – Desalination Project

B. Monterey County – Regional Urban Water Supply Project

C. Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency – Groundwater Recharge Project

D. California American Water – Coastal Water Project

E. MPWMD – Seaside Basin Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project

GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT

8. Status Report on California-American Water Compliance with State Water Resources Control Board Order 95-10

ATTORNEY’S REPORT

9. Report on 5:30 PM Closed Session

DIRECTORS’ REPORTS

10. Oral Reports on Activities of County, Cities, Other Agencies/Committees/Associations

PUBLIC HEARINGS

11. Consider Appeal of Hearing Officer’s Determination – Bardis Water Distribution System – APN 169-181-051 (Continued from January 27, 2005 Board Meeting)

12. Consider Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 119 – An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Amending District Rules to Modify the Expanded Water Conservation and Standby Rationing Plan

13. Consider Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 120 – An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Setting and Amending Administrative Fees for Various Services, Including Permit Processing, and Enabling Future Amendment of Fees by Board Resolution

14. Consider Adoption of April through June 2005 Quarterly Water Supply Strategy and Budget

15. Receive Public Comment on Draft 2004 MPWMD Annual Report

ACTION ITEMS

16. Provide Policy Direction for EIR on MPWMD Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project