EXHIBIT 26-A

DraftFinal

MINUTES

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

REGULAR MEETING OF THE CARMEL RIVER ADVISORY COMMITTEE

February 5December 18, 20043, 10:00 A.M. Mid-Carmel Valley Fire StationGarland Ranch Regional Park Museum Community Room

1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Rogers, Chuck McKay, Tom House, Rod MillsJohn Dalessio, Richard Rosenthal, Davidand David Dilworth

MEMBERS ABSENT: John DalessioRod Mills

PUBLIC PRESENT: No members of the public were present.Bob Costa (representing Rancho Cañada), Sidney Reade (representing the Carmel Valley Fire Department), Bob Zampatti (representing the Carmel River Steelhead CommitteeAssociation)

STAFF PRESENT: Fran Farina, Andy Bell, Thomas Christensen, Larryand Larry Hampson, Jeff Summers

2. PUBLIC COMMENT –

David Dilworth directed attention to water use categories listed on page II-29, of the “Response to Comments, “Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume II, Water Allocation Program” by MPWMD [Volume II contains responses to comments on the EIR contained in Volume I]. Mr. Dilworth stated that the water demand report provided by Cal-Am gives the community a reference forreference for water use in the Cal-Am system. [A copy of this table page II-29 of the Final EIR for the Water Allocation Program is reproducedprovided as Exhibit B in this packet.]

3. CONSENT CALENDAR –

Mr. Dilworth requested the following changes to the October 30, 2003 minutes (additions in italics, deletions in strikeout):

Item 4. Update on San Clemente Dam and Reservoir, p.6 (in the packet), 2^nd paragraph

“Mr. Dilworth stated that one potential the ultimate solution to the dam problem, which was suggested by John Brennan Williams, is to sluice sediment out at high flows. Mr. Kemp said this sounded like a short-term solution and that Cal-Am is looking for a long-term solution.”

Item 6. Review List of the Top 250 Pumpers in Carmel Valley, p. 8 (in the packet), 4^th paragraph

“Mr. Dilworth noted that the top users included Cal-Am, golf courses, developments, and vintners. He expressed an interest in the largest water users within the MPWMD boundary and suggested that there are users that are not conserving very well. He stated that it is appropriate for the Committee and the public to know where additional conservation can be achieved.”

Also under Item 6., Mr. Dilworth asked that the disposition of the motion that the Committee adopted be shown. The disposition was as follows:

Committee Action Taken: To request that the MPWMD Board consider obtaining a legal opinion on how to acquire information on the top 200 water users in the Cal-Am system.

Item 9. Items to be Placed on Future Agendas, p. 9 (in the packet)

“- review request consider recommending that MPWMD seek a legal opinion concerning requesting information from Cal-Am about the top 200 water users within the MPWMD boundaries;”

Mr. House Dalessio made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 5, October 30, 20043December 18, 2003 regular meeting. Seconded by Mr. Dilworth.

, as amended, and the November 13, 2003 Special Meeting. Seconded by Mr. House. Approval was unanimous. Mr. Dilworth thanked staff for preparing the minutes and abstained from voting on the minutes of the November 13, 2003 meeting, as he was not in attendance at that mee

ting.

4. UPDATE ON CARMEL RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL ACTIVITIES

Mr. Sanders was unable to attend the meeting, and theis item was continued to the next regular Committee meeting. Mr. Hampson reported on MPWMD work in the field to assess the Carmel River watershed as part of a contract with the Carmel River Watershed CouncilConservancy. In response to questions from Mr. Dilworth about the methods used and data being gathered for the assessment, Mr, Mr. Christensen offered to give a presentation on the “Proper Functioning Condition” method for assessing riparian areas. Thehis method was developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service for use by landowners, managers, and others involved in managing riparian resources.

[Note: PrPrior to discussion of Item 5, Mr. Rosenthal requested a change to the agenda to hear the report on Item 6E of “Staff Reports,” which concernedconcerning the Committee’s request for information about the Cal-Am water system. Ms. Rogers moved the iItem 6E up on the agenda as requested. See Item 6, “Staff Reports” below.]

5. 5. REVIEW THE MISSION STATEMENT OF THE CARMEL RIVER ADVISORY COMMITTEEE

-

REVIEW FLOOD PREPARATION ALONG THE CARMEL RIVER

Staff called attention to the Mission Statement set by the Board of Directors (Board) in 1995, which describes five basic areas of responsibilities. Mr. Rosenthal questioned why the Committee should be limited to the five basic areas of responsibilities outlined in the CRAC Mission Statement set by the MPWMD Board of Directors (Board) in 1995. Mr. Rosenthal these five areas and stated that managing the resources of the Carmel River should include scrutiny of water extraction practicesextrac tion of water that affects riparian vegetation and that information about the Cal-Am system is critical to the public. . Mr. Rosenthal said that the Committee has an obligation to discuss major issues and advise the Board and recommended that the Committee have a broad authority to consider such issues.

s. Sidney Reade gave a comprehensive overview on flood preparation and response in Carmel Valley. Ms. Reade stated that the Carmel Valley Fire Department is part of a [Monterey] County-wide approach to the problem of flooding. Preparations include monitoring of local weather forecasts, monitoring several rain and stage gages throughout the Carmel River watershed, communicating with the County’s 911 response unit, and coordinating with the Monterey County Office of Emergency Services and the Monterey County Sheriff.

When the Carmel River begins to rise significantly, the fire department uses flood stage information, maps showing the 5, 10, 20, and 100-year floodplains, and a list of addresses to determine which areas should be evacuated. Law enforcement personnel are responsible for evacuation, but the fire department is often called upon to provide personnel for evacuation if enforcement personnel are in short supply.

A total of 15,000 sandbags are available at fire stations in Carmel Valley. Sand is available at Garland Park and at the fire stations. Fire fighters will assist with filling bags if they are not called out ofaway from the station. As of the beginning of December 2003, people had filled and taken approximately 2,000 sandbags. Robles del Rio Lodge maintains first aid supplies in case access across Rosie’s Bridge is cut off by flooding or landslides.

Of particular concern to the Fire Department is responding to a potential dam break and/or failure at San Clemente Dam. Ms. Reade stated that in the event of a failure, portions of Camp Steffani, de los Helechos and Lower Circle would be inundated in 14 to 20 minutes. If the dam should break, a warning siren will blow three times in Carmel Valley Village. The flood wave would move downstream to the Schulte Bridge area within 45 minutes after a dam break. The fire department is working with Cal-Am to obtain equipment that will feed information from the dam directly to the fire department. Cal-Am will install video cameras at the dam, equipment to measure seismic activity, and sensors for determining a sudden drop in water level. Monterey County has a mutual aid program, which when activated by a call to 911 will send 10 fire engines to Carmel Valley within 30 minutes.

Annually, the fire department inspects storm drains to the Carmel River between the lagoon and the mid-Carmel Valley area and goes door-to-door in flood prone areas with information about flood preparation and emergency response.

Ms. Rogers acknowledged that the impact of Carmel Valley pumpers is significant, but questioned whether CRACthe Committee should have oversight, saying that the Committee should not spread itself too thinly. She asked whether a review of the top 200 water users within the District is an appropriate task for CRACthe Committee. She recommended developing a prioritized list of issues for the Committee to consider.

Mr. Dilworth stated that the Committee has the ability to delve into Carmel River issues to a greater degree than the Board and can provide and in-depth understanding of each issue. Mr. Dilworth said that the Committee should not be limited to a few issues and that he would like to expand the educational efforts of the Committee.

Mr. House agreed that the Committee should investigate issues affecting the Carmel River.

Mr. Mills stated that San Clemente Dam is a lethal hazard, that this issue is important to the public, and that the Committee should suggest to the Board that an action plan is needed. Mr. Rosenthal stated that Cal-Am is not complying with State mandates concerning the dam. Ms. Rogers agreed that dam safety is an important issue and that Cal-Am needs to meet its obligation to make the dam safe. [Note: The California Department of Water Resources has ordered Cal-Am to bring the dam into conformance with current seismic safety standards.]

Mr. Rosenthal made a motion to eliminate the Mission Statement and continue operating under the definition of the Committee’s role as outlined in MPWMD Rule 120A. [Note: Rule 120A states the Committee’s purpose as follows: “The Carmel River Advisory Committee is a standing committee of theof the District. The committee shall advise the Board of Directors with regard to management of the Carmel River, and its riparian corridor and to any matter referred to this committee.] Mr. Mills , seconded the motionby Mr. Mills.

Subsequently, The motion was subsequently withdrawn.

Mr. Dilworth made a substitute motion, seconded by Mr. Mills, to adviserecommend to the Board that the Committee recommends modifying the existing Mission Statement for the Committee be modified by adding the following sentence to be placed before the sentence immediately above the itemized listing of Committee responsibilities:

:

“Some of the activities include, but are not limited to the following:”

Mr. Rosenthal then withdrew his initial motion. The Committee unanimously approved Mr. Dilworth’s motion to make an addition to the Committee’s Mission Statement.

Approval was unanimous.

Mr. Dilworth saidtated that there are 31 distinct watersheds in the District that are outside of the Carmel River watershed and that he iwas concerned that groundwater management within the Carmel River watershed could affect these separate watersheds. He said that the Committee should consider expanding its purview and gather information about other watersheds within the District.

Ms. Rogers stated that theis concept issue wais too broad for the Committee to consider. No action was taken on the conceptMr. Dilworth’s proposal.

[After completion of this item, Mr. Rosenthal and Ms. Farina left for otherthe meetings.]

6. STAFF REPORTS

[Note: Prior to discussion of Item 5, Mr. Rosenthal requested a change to the agenda to hear the report on Item 6E of “Staff Reports,” which concerned the Committee’s request for information about the Cal-Am water system. Ms. Rogers moved the item up on the agenda as requested.]

Under Item 6E, Mr. Bell reported that Cal-Am would not authorize the release of information that the Committee had requested concerning water quality, quantity and the dependability of the Cal-Am system. Mr. Bell stated that a written response to that effect had been provided by Cal-Am. Committee members requested that a copy of Cal-Am’s response be provided to them, and Mr. Bell agreed to do so. (see Exhibit C in this packet is Cal-Am’s response, an e-mail, E-mail dated November 12, 2003 from Charley Kemp of Cal-Am Kemp to Mr. Bell).

Under Item 6A, Mr. Christensen reported on planting activities at Rancho Cañada and at Richard H. Rosenthal’s property. In response to a question from Mr. Dilworth, Mr. Christensen explained the District’s planting techniques. Mr. Dilworth asked what is the most effective practice, given limited resources (staff and funding). Mr. Hampson responded saying that the District normally carries out comprehensive projects and avoids piecemeal or limited works that have a higher potential for failure during high flows.

Under Item 6B, clean-up of the river, pumping at Cal-Am wells in the lower river, irrigation of the north riverbank adjacent to Hacienda Carmel, operation of nine District-sponsored irrigation systems, and modifications of downed cottonwoods in the channel. Mr. Hampson reported that Federal agencies hadve were close to completeding biological opinions on threatened species in the Carmel River in connection with MPWMD’s application for a Regional General Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for maintenance and restoration of the Carmel River from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Hampson also described two potential sites for streambank restoration in the Carmel River. One site is at the Valley Hills Restoration Project, where a number of car bodies placed on the streambank after the 1969 flood have rusted and fallen apart. The other site is along the north streambank between Via Mallorca Bbridge and Rancho San Carlos Bbridge, where active bank erosion occurs at low to moderate flowsreported that CSUMB had begun a complete inventory of large wood in the bottom of the Carmel River between the lagoon and San Clemente Dam..

Mr. Hampson also reported on a proposed change to the District’s indemnification policy to allow riverfront property owners to be covered for general liability under the District’s insurance policy.

Under Item 6C, Mr. Hampson reported on the 2003 Large Wood Study completed by the Watershed Institute at California State University, Monterey Bay, under contract with the District.

Under Item 6D, Mr. Bell explained that in the District’s FY 2003-2004 budget, line item 2-6-1.C, “Review water development proposals,” is for when District staff members review EIRs for various projects that are sent to the District for review and comment.

Under Item 6E, Mr. Bell reported that pursuant to the Committee’s request, the District’s legal counsel had been requested to provide a legal opinion on obtaining information on the top 200 water users in the Cal-Am system, but that the legal opinion had not yet been prepared.

7. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS

The following items were requested:

a.) Provide a.) Pa presentation on assessing riparian areas using the Proper Functioning Condition method (Mr. Dilworth);

b.) Invite a representative from Cal-Am to update the Committee on the San Clemente Dam seismic retrofit project (Mr. Mills);

c.) Invite c.) Invite Ken Gray from of California State parksDepartment of Parks and Recreation to give a presentation on proposed work around the Carmel River Lagoon (Mr. Mills); and

d.) RInvite a representative of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to speak to the eports on previous Committee (Mr. Dilworth) actions.

CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO MPWMD BOARD OF DIRECTORS CONCERNING CONTINUATION OF THE MPWMD MITIGATION PROGRAM

Mr. Dalessio stated that he (representing CRAC), Clive Sanders (representing the Carmel River Watershed Council), and Bob Zampatti (representing the Carmel River Steelhead Association) had met with several members of the MPWMD Board of Directors to inform them of community wide support for the District’s ongoing Mitigation Program for impacts due to the extraction of water from the Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System. Mr. Dalessio stated that discussion had centered on a resolution to be forwarded to the MPWMD Board of Directors for their consideration. The concepts to be expressed in the resolution included continuation of the Mitigation Program at its current funding level and that the Mitigation Program be carried out by a public agency. Mr. Dalessio recommended that the resolution be introduced by a current Director.

Ms. Farina suggested that the resolution refer to previous actions taken by the MPWMD Board of Directors to adopt, carry out, and review the Mitigation Program. She also stated that impacts from water extraction are still occurring.

Mr. Bell noted that there are environmental impacts from water extraction in both the Carmel Valley and Seaside basins and that the Mitigation Program includes monitoring of water use and resource management in the Seaside Basin.

Mr. Zampatti stated that as long as water is being extracted and allocated for use on the Monterey Peninsula, the Mitigation Program should continue.

Mr. Dilworth made a motion that the Committee adopt language to support the Mitigation Program being carried out at no less than the current funding levelby a public agency, that findings concerning the history of the program be included, and that a letter be sent from the Committee, signed by the Chair, to the Board of Directors. Seconded by Richard Mr. Rosenthal. The motion passed by a five to one vote, with Mr. Dalessio dissentingtheanMonterey Penisula Water Mangement DistrictMPWMD.

10. 8. ADJOURNMENT

Due to time constraints, Items 7, 8, and 9 were continued to the next CRAC Regular meeting, which was scheduled for February 5, 2004. Mr. House made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Mr. MillsDilworth. The motion was unanimously approved, and the meeting was adjourned at 12:180 p.m.

U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2004\2004boardpacket\20040621\InfoItems_Reports\26\item26_exh26a.docU:\Larry\wp\crac\2004\0506\mins02052004final.docU:\Larry\wp\crac\2004\0506\mins02062004draft.docD:\larry\wp\crac\2004\0205\mins12182003draft.doc

D:\larry\wp\crac\2004\0205\mins12182003draft.doc