ITEM: |
ACTION
ITEMS |
||||
|
|||||
18. |
consider CONCEPT ORDINANCE THAT CHANGES district rule 20-C TO exempt
that portion of former |
||||
|
|||||
Meeting Date: |
February 23, 2006 |
|
|||
|
|||||
From: |
David A. Berger, |
|
|||
|
General Manager |
|
|||
|
|||||
Prepared by: |
Henrietta Stern |
|
|||
|
|||||
General Counsel Review: |
Yes |
|
|||
CEQA Review: Ordinance will require CEQA Initial Study |
|||||
Committee
Review: Water Demand Committee
concurred with Concept Ordinance AA on January 23, 2006; and also supported
the concept of an emergency intertie
|
|||||
SUMMARY: Current MPWMD Rules & Regulations require a Water Distribution System (WDS) permit for any new or amended WDS within the District, unless specific criteria for an exemption are met. The Board will consider Concept Ordinance No. AA (Exhibit 18-A), which creates a new exemption for areas of the Former Fort Ord within MPWMD boundaries that are not served by water sources from the Seaside Groundwater Basin or the Carmel River Basin, including the Alluvial Aquifer. The ordinance is proposed to eliminate the apparent regulatory conflict that exists between District Rule 20 and certain provisions of a 1992 Amended Memorandum of Agreement (Amended MOA) signed in May 1993 between MPWMD, Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA), and the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency (PVWMA).
Specifically, the Amended MOA addressed the issue of
overlapping jurisdictional boundaries of MPWMD and MCWRA on former
A second related topic of consideration is whether District staff should initiate discussions to facilitate an emergency intertie between the California American Water (Cal-Am), Seaside Municipal Water Company (SMWC) and MCWD supply systems. It is assumed that such an emergency intertie would be governed by a formal agreement or other instrument that is yet to be determined. The discussion would focus on shared supply to preserve public health and safety during emergencies such as an earthquake, terrorist attack, temporary water system failure, or severe drought. The discussion would not view the shared water supply as available for everyday situations or augmentation purposes. Anticipated participants in the discussion include: MPWMD, MCWRA, MCWD, Cal-Am and SMWC.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board take the following actions:
At its January 23, 206 meeting, the Water Demand Committee unanimously approved the concept Ordinance, as well as the concept of an emergency intertie. The ordinance and intertie concepts were also verbally supported in a subsequent conference call with MCWD and MCWRA. MCWD and SMWC have already initiated informal discussions about an emergency intertie between their respective systems. Cal-Am’s General Manager indicated no objection to the intertie concept in an informal conversation with the MPWMD General Manager.
It is noted that
the Concept Ordinance refers to the
BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION: On
December 16, 1991 the MPWMD Board authorized the execution of a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the MCWRA, PVWMA, and MPWMD. The proposed MOU was negotiated among the
three entities in response to 1990 State legislation (SB 285 Mello), which
eliminated the Monterey County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District and replaced it with a newly created
Monterey County Water Resources Agency
(Stats. 1990, c. 1159). The
provisions of SB 285 that are pertinent to this policy issue are as follows:
Sec. 85. (a) The Pajaro Valley Water
Management Agency and the
Peninsula Water Management District shall
work with the agency and shall use
their best efforts to cooperate with each
other.
(b) The Agency, the Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District, and the
Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency shall,
on or before February 1, 1992,
make a good faith effort to enter into a
memorandum of agreement as to the
manner in which the agency shall exercise
powers in any area of overlapping
jurisdiction among the three local water
entities.
Sec. 86. This act does not alter the
authority of the Monterey Peninsula
Water Management District or the Pajaro
Valley Management Agency.
Prior to its
approval by all three entities, the original MOU was changed to resolve
overlapping jurisdictional authority resulting from the federal government’s
decision to close Fort Ord, and to address the Seawater Intrusion Program being
implemented by the MCWRA using recycled wastewater produced by the Monterey
Regional Pollution Control Agency. For
clarity, the MOU was renamed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and it included an
addendum that gives MCWRA exclusive authority to regulate water delivery
systems serving the Fort Ord area, including within MPWMD boundaries. The Amended MOA also provides that MPWMD is to
exercise exclusive authority to regulate management of the Seaside Groundwater
Basin within the Fort Ord boundary. The
Amended MOA (Exhibit 18-C) was approved
and executed by the three entities in May 1993, though September 28, 1992 is
designated as the date of the MOA for reference purposes.
The pertinent text
of the MOA is Sections 3(a) and 3(b) as follows:
The MCWRA shall have exclusive authority to
regulate water delivery systems that deliver water to the area that is both
within the present Fort Ord boundaries and within the MPWMD boundaries in
existence at the time of the regulation, and the MPWMD will comply with any
such ordinance enacted by MCWRA.
The MPWMD shall have exclusive authority to
regulate the management of the Seaside groundwater basin within the present
Fort Ord boundaries, and the MCWRA will comply with any such ordinance enacted
by the MPWMD.
In relation to
regulation of Water Distribution Systems, MPWMD General Counsel’s
interpretation of the MOA is that WDS facilities operated by the MCWD within
the Fort Ord area would not be regulated within District boundaries as long as
the source of supply is not from the Seaside Basin. If Seaside Basin sources are contemplated by
MCWD or any other user, the current WDS regulations would apply. To date, MPWMD Rules & Regulations
(specifically Rule 20) have not been revised to comport with the Amended
MOA by “carving out” the portion of former Fort Ord within the District
boundary from its permitting requirements, nor making it clear that waters
derived from the Seaside Basin would be regulated by MPWMD.
It is noted that
MPWMD regulation of the Seaside Basin would be consistent with the Superior
Court’s January 2006 Tentative Decision regarding the Seaside Basin
adjudication. Specifically, the
Tentative Decision (page 57) states that it “does not purport to forbid any
regulation of the Basin which may be required by a public agency [such as MPWMD
or MCWRA] possessing the power to impose such regulation.”
The Marina Coast Water District produces and distributes water from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin to serve potable demands within the existing city of Marina, and is the designated water service provider on the Former Fort Ord. MCWD will continue to amend, expand and extend its water distribution system to serve existing and new housing, commercial retail and office buildings, educational facilities and other redeveloping properties within the County unincorporated area and cities that comprise portions of Former Fort Ord. MCWD does not plan to tap Seaside Basin resources, according to Marc Lucca, MCWD Interim General Manager. MCWD and MCWRA management staff have asserted that MPWMD agreed to withdraw from regulating that portion of the former Fort Ord water distribution system lying within the MPWMD territory, under terms of the Amended MOA.
The MPWMD General
Manager initiated a June 30, 2005 discussion with the general managers of MCWD
and MCWRA on the subject of how best to resolve this apparent conflict. Both general managers asserted their belief
that the intent of the Amended MOA was to avoid duplication of regulatory
authority, and that the Amended MOA made it unnecessary for MCWD to obtain
permits under Rule 20 for its planned extension/expansion of the water distribution
system serving former Fort Ord within MPWMD boundary. The managers were advised of MPWMD General
Counsel Laredo’s opinion that the Amended MOA does not supersede MPWMD
Rules and Regulations, and that the only way to eliminate the conflict would be
to amend the applicable rule(s). In
order to resolve this matter, in the June 30, 2005 meeting, the MPWMD General
Manager expressed a willingness to propose the Rule 20-C text change described
in the concept Ordinance (Exhibit 18-A).
In September 2005,
Mr. Laredo met with MCWD’s general counsel, Lloyd Lowery. The two attorneys differed on their
interpretations of the effect of the 1990 State law and the Amended MOA as it
relates to pre-existing MPWMD Rules and Regulations.
The proposed the
emergency inter-tie concept is suggested as being in the public interest of all
effected entities due to the ability to provide assistance in the event of an
emergency. As noted above, subsequent
telephone conferences (most recently on February 8, 2006) confirmed the support
of Cal-Am, MCWD and MRWRA of the intertie concept. The managers agreed that amending the 1993
MOA was not the preferred means to achieve an intertie. Rather a separate agreement or other
instrument is recommended. Also, a
February 8, 2006 telephone call to the California Department of Health Services
confirmed that agency’s support for an emergency intertie to maintain public
health and safety in an emergency.
EXHIBITS
18-A Concept Ordinance No. AA with proposed change to Rule 20-C
18-B Schematic
map of
18-C 1992 Amended MOA
U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2006\2006boardpackets\20060223\ActionItems\18\item18.doc