3. Consider Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 96 - An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Revising the Definition and Regulation of Water Distribution Systems

ACTION: The Board will consider adoption of the proposed ordinance that would change existing District rules and regulations that define and govern creation and expansion of water distribution systems, including mobile water distribution systems. The first reading version of the ordinance was adopted on November 20, 2000. A Negative Declaration for the ordinance was adopted on August 21, 2000. Public comment will be received on this item.

SUMMARY: The Board will consider the second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 96, which revises the definition and regulation of water distribution systems within the District. On November 20, 2000, the Board approved the first reading of the ordinance (Draft-4 version) and directed that several changes and clarifications be made, as summarized in Exhibit 1. These changes were incorporated into Draft-5 text shown on the District's website since mid-December 2000.Exhibit 2provides the Draft-6 version of the ordinance. Draft-6 is identical to Draft-5 except for two corrections that were pointed out in late December 2000, as discussed in the "Recommendations" section below. Draft-6 text in bold italics refers to changes to be made to existing MPWMD Rules and Regulations. The red-line text (marked by vertical bars in the right margin) reflects Board direction on November 20, 2000. Staff has identified other refinements that should be part of the Final Version of Ordinance No. 96 in the "Recommendations" section below.

RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board take the following action, with recommended text refinements to be included in the Final Version of Ordinance No. 96 shown in bold italics:

1. Approve Draft-6 of the ordinance, and identify which final refinements should be made to the text (see Recommendations #2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 below). Note that Draft-6 differs from Draft-5 in only two ways. First, the Monterey County Health Department notified the District on December 11, 2000 that the County Code identified in Section Seven, Rule 173-A, line 3, is incorrect. The words "Title 15.04" should be replaced by "Title 15.20."

Second, Draft-5 omitted changes directed to be made by the Board at its November 20, 2000 meeting. Upon careful review of the meeting tape, staff refined Draft-5 to include the following language (new text is underlined) for Section Four, Rule 20-A, paragraph 2, line 5, regarding projects in projects:

Persons who hold a valid permit from the Monterey County Health Department, on or before one day after this ordinance is adopted, for construction of a well serving a single-connection water distribution system (as that term was applied by the District at the time the well construction permit was issued) shall be deemed to have been issued a permit in compliance with these Rules and Regulations provided: (1) the well was made active, metered, inspected and an approved MPWMD Water Meter Installation Inspection form was issued on or before six months from the effective date of this ordinance; and (2) each water gathering facility of the system was registered with the District on or before six months from the effective date of this ordinance.

Further Refinements to Consider

2. Direct staff to clarify the definition of a single-connection system in response to concerns raised by John Bridges at the November 20, 2000 meeting about the situation where a single parcel is subdivided (see letter shown as Exhibit 3). Staff suggests the following change to Draft-6 text (Section Three, Rule 11, Definitions) for a single-connection system, which enables a subdivided parcel to retain its single-connection status if each new parcel is served by a separate well in a timely manner (new text is underlined):

A "single-connection system" refers to one or more buildings or structures on one individual legal parcel. If the single parcel is subdivided into two or more separate parcels, the water distribution system is considered to be a multiple-connection system, regardless of parcel ownership, unless the newly formed legal parcels are each served by a separate well that has received a well construction permit from the Monterey County Health Department, registered, metered, inspected and approved by the District within six months of the date of final approval of the subdivision.

3. Consider additional changes to the text in Recommendation #1 regarding projects in progress in response to concerns raised by members of the public in phone conversations to staff in December 2000 and January 2001 as well as comments by John Bridges at the November 20, 2000 meeting (see letter shown as Exhibit 3). Callers pointed out that the Monterey County Health Department did not issue permits for wells until 1973, and that active wells in existence for many decades would not be recognized as such due to existing language. Concern was also raised about existing backlogs at the Monterey County Health Department preventing applicants from receiving well construction permits in a timely manner as well as possible MPWMD backlogs in inspecting and approving meters on the wells. For these reasons, staff suggests the following two changes to Draft-6 text (new text compared to Recommendation #1 is underlined):

Section Three, Rule 11, Definition of Active Well, first sentence, should be amended to state,

"An active well is a well that has been permitted by the Monterey County Health Department (unless the well was completed prior to year 1973) and constructed, and has produced .....

Persons who hold a valid permit for construction and operation of a water distribution system from the Monterey County Health Department, prior to March 12, 1980, or a water distribution system in existence prior to that date operated by a public utility, shall be deemed to have been issued a permit in compliance with these Rules and regulations. Persons who filed a completed application to the Monterey County Health Department, date-stamped by the Department on or before the date of adoption of this ordinance, for construction of a well serving a single-connection water distribution system (as that term was applied by the District at the time the well construction permit was issued) shall be deemed to have been issued a permit in compliance with these Rules and Regulations provided all of the following actions are taken: (1) the person receives a valid well construction permit from the Monterey County Health Department, makes the well active, meters the well, has the well inspected by MPWMD and receives an approved MPWMD Water Meter Installation Inspection form dated on or before six months from the effective date of this ordinance; and (2) each water gathering facility of the system was registered with the District on or before six months from the effective date of this ordinance.

4. Clarify that Section Four, Rule 20-B, "Permits to Expand/Extend a Water Distribution System," refers to permits to intensify use and connection fees for individual structures within a water distribution system. This is in contrast to Rule 22-E, "Amendments to Permit," which refers to modification of the system as a whole, typically by increasing the total connections allowed, enlarging the annual water production limit, or expanding the service area boundary. The first sentence of Rule 20-B should be changed to add the text in bold italic, as follows:

Before any person expands/extends a water distribution system or any mobile water distribution system, such person shall obtain a written permit from the District or the District's delegated agent, as described in District Rules 23 and 24.

5. Determine whether changes should be made to Section Four, Rule 20-C, Exemptions, first paragraph of Draft-6 describing exemption from regulation of single-connection systems unless the source of supply is within the Carmel Valley alluvial aquifer, "...from wells within 1,000 feet of that aquifer, or within 1,000 feet of any watercourse tributary to the Carmel River..."

One change was recommended by the Carmel Valley Property Owners Association (CVPOA) (Exhibit 4) because the existing language is too broad and imprecise. Exhibit 5 is a map that indicates the area within which single-connection systems would be regulated in Carmel Valley, if CVPOA's recommendation were adopted. If the CVPOA refinement is desired, the final text should specify the tributaries, refer to a map, and read (new text is underlined):

"An MPWMD permit is not required for a single-connection water distribution system unless that system derives its source of supply from the Carmel Valley alluvial aquifer; from wells within 1,000 feet of that aquifer, or within 1,000 feet of Tularcitos, Hitchcock Canyon, Garzas, Robinson Canyon or Potrero Creeks, up to the limits of the Monterey Peninsula Water Resources System, as shown in the map provided in the Implementation Guidelines; and/or the Seaside coastal areas defined in Section Three of this ordinance."

"An MPWMD permit is not required for a single-connection water distribution system unless that system derives its source of supply from the Carmel Valley alluvial aquiferand/or the Seaside coastal subareas, defined in Section Three of this ordinance."

Other Recommendations

7. Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination relating to the Negative Declaration adopted in August 2000. A Notice of Determination is filed when the agency takes formal action to approve a project (in this case, the adoption of the ordinance).

8. Direct staff to amend the MPWMD Rules and Regulations to reflect changes described in the final version of Ordinance No. 96.

9. Direct staff to prepare Draft Implementation Guidelines for Board approval at the February 22, 2001 meeting.
 

BACKGROUND: Various drafts of Ordinance No. 96 have been considered at five noticed public hearings since April 2000. A Negative Declaration was adopted in August 2000. The Board approved the first reading of Ordinance No. 96 (Draft-4) at its November 20, 2000 meeting, and directed that changes be made to the text as described in Exhibit 1.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: Please refer to the recommendations section, where staff describes final refinements it believes should be made to the Ordinance No. 96 text. Please note that the definitions for "Connection" and "Monterey Peninsula Water Resources System" have been deleted from Ordinance No. 96 because they are already defined in greater detail in District Rule 11. Two sets of definitions for the same words would be confusing.

PRIOR BOARD ACTION: The Board approved the first reading of Ordinance No. 96 (Draft-4) at its November 20, 2000 meeting, and directed that various changes be made to the text for the second reading.

IMPACT ON STAFF/RESOURCES: As described in the August 21 and October 26, 2000 information packages, staff has concerns about workload associated with regulation of single-connection systems in the Carmel Valley upland areas. As shown in the map provided asExhibit 5,much of the upland area where wells would logically be drilled is included in the area within 1,000 feet of the Carmel Valley alluvial aquifer or the primary tributaries. Based on trends in previous years, regulation of wells in the Carmel Valley upland area could add another 10 to 50 applications per year, in contrast to the average of three per year that are presently processed. The Board may need to consider additional staff or contract workers if the application volume becomes excessive. Staff will track permit volume and staff effort, and report to the Board as part of the budget process for Fiscal Year 2001-2002.

unreviewed first draft including AB text on 1000-foot boundary, 1/11/00, H Stern, 5 pages