EXHIBIT 1-B
DRAFT MINUTES
Special Meeting/Board Workshop on
Aquifer Storage and Recovery
Board of Directors
Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District
January
25, 2006
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
The
meeting was called to order at 7 PM in the Boardroom of the Monterey Regional
Water Pollution Control Agency.
Directors
present:
Michelle
Knight, Chair – Division 4
Judi
Lehman, Vice Chair – Division 2
Alvin
Edwards – Division 1
Kristi
Markey – Division 3
Larry
Foy – Division 5
David
Pendergrass – Mayoral Representative
Directors
absent:
David
Potter –
General
Manager present: David A. Berger
District
Counsel present: David Laredo
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The
assembly recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
No
comments were directed to the Board during Oral Communications.
REPORT ON JANUARY 25, 2006, 5:30 PM
CLOSED SESSION
District
Counsel Laredo reported that he provided an update to the Board on the five
items of existing litigation listed on the agenda. No reportable action was taken. The Board directed District Counsel and the
General Manager to contact parties to the litigation and schedule a meeting as
soon as practicable to discuss the proposed Watermaster board. The Directors
also discussed renewal of the General Manager’s employment agreement. That item will be considered by the Board in
open session at an upcoming meeting.
WORKSHOP/DISCUSSION
1.
Seaside Basin Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR): Update on Test Program, Management &
Operations Agreement, Phase 1 Permanent Project, and Review of Potential
Project Expansions and Recycled Water Recharge
Following the presentation and discussion of this
topic, the Board asked staff to develop a timetable and cost estimate for
accelerating development of the Phase 1 ASR Project, and present that
information for the FY 2006-2007 Budget planning effort. The Board also expressed support for District
staff working with the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency on ASR.
The District’s Water Resources Manager, Joe Oliver,
presented the report. An outline of the
report is on file at the District office and can be viewed at the District’s
web site. In response to questions from
the Board, the following additional comments were made by District staff and
Counsel. The ASR component of California
American Water’s (Cal Am) Coastal Water Project is similar to the District’s
Phase 1 Project, so it is considered to be compatible with the Coastal Water
Project. The District plans to work with
the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) on its
Groundwater Recharge Project. The MRWPCA
will benefit from the District’s technical knowledge of the Seaside Groundwater
Basin.
The Notice of Preparation for the ASR Environmental
Impact Report lists the amount of water that could be diverted from the Carmel
River for injection into the Seaside Basin for Phases 1, 2 and 3. The report also lists estimates of the
quantity of water that might be extracted from the Seaside Basin. These numbers are estimates. Additional testing and refinement of data
would need to be completed in order to determine the actual yield of water
extracted from the Basin. Discussions are underway with Cal Am to determine
what infrastructure improvements must be made and funded by Cal Am in order for
the District to move ahead on the Phase 1 Project.
According to District Counsel Laredo, the January 12,
2006 Tentative Decision in the Seaside Basin Adjudication lawsuit stated that
the MPWMD has authority to develop water resources within its boundaries. The District can store water for the benefit
of the District in the Basin, and in “subterranean reservoirs.” The District is not required to get approval
for the proposed ASR projects from the Watermaster. The role of the Watermaster is to manage
existing production from the Seaside Basin and to provide a supplemental supply
to reduce pumping from the Basin.
The Board discussed the issue of granting water rights
to Cal Am in the ASR Management and Operations Agreement. The following comments were made by the
Directors: (1) The MOA should state that
Cal Am cannot sell the water right. (2) The water rights issue should be
removed from the agreement. (4) Cal Am
requires that we give away our water right in order to finalize the
agreement. We are not negotiating
correctly. I don’t think Cal Am will
stall this agreement much longer, especially in light of the tentative decision
in the adjudication lawsuit. (5) This
agreement requires that the water right be shared. It could enable the District to get a
permanent permit to conduct ASR. (6)
Giving away a public asset to Cal Am is absurd.
(7) We should move forward and negotiate with the intention of licensing
the water right.
PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD
The following comments were directed to the Board
during the public comment period on this item.
(1) John Fischer, resident of
Pacific Grove, requested that the EIR address the possibility of a drought and
how that would affect yield from the ASR Project. Plans should be developed in the event of a
drought. General Manager Berger responded
to the concern by noting that the District has advised NOAA Fisheries that even
in dry years, instream fishery flows will be respected. (2)
Patricia Bernardi, resident of Carmel Valley, expressed concern about the
proposal to grant Cal Am the rights to water used or usable from any water
source that will provide potable water for municipal supply. She stated that the Department of Health
Services may require a long-term contract with Cal Am, but they have not
required that Cal Am be granted water rights.
(3) Linda Agerbak,
representing Citizens for Public Water, thanked the Board for moving ahead on
the ASR project and creating new water source for the community. She expressed appreciation to the Board for
conducting public workshops to educate the community on the water situation and
our negotiations with Cal Am. (4) Manuel Fiero, resident of Monterey,
urged the Board to be cautions about granting water rights to Cal Am. (5)
Steve Leonard, General Manager of California American Water, stated that
the company is moving ahead cooperatively with the District on development of
ASR and construction of a pipeline for the Phase 1 project. He noted that major infrastructure
improvements must be made to the Cal Am system in order to progress on proposed
ASR Phases 2 and 3.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 PM.
U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2006\2006boardpackets\20060223\ConsentCal\01\item1_exh1b.doc