EXHIBIT 11-B
DRAFT
MONTEREY
PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (MPWMD)
FINDINGS of APPROVAL
CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION TO AMEND CAL-AM WATER
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (
Adopted by MPWMD Board on October 16,
2006
Unless otherwise noted, all evidence is on file and
available for public review at the District office,
It
is hereby found and determined as follows:
1. FINDING: Applicant California American Water (Cal-Am) is the owner
of the Cal-Am water distribution system (WDS), a regulated public utility. Co-applicant Lombardo & Gilles is
attorney for Lavielle La
EVIDENCE: Application #20060705PAG received July 5, 2006, site map and supporting application materials and correspondence. Database of Monterey County Assessors parcels and ownership. Letter from Fred L. Curry, Water Division (CPUC) to MPWMD dated January 11, 2000.
2.
FINDING: Water availability within the RDMU was the
subject of litigation in Monterey County Superior Court (Currier vs. MPWMD, Case #M59299).
Court documents refer to the system as “Water West.” The Currier
decision set aside 12.76
acre-feet per year (AFY) to be used for new construction and remodels in the
Water West system until that quantity is fully assigned. As of September 30, 2006, 7.267 AFY are
available according to the MPWMD Water Demand Division. There is no evidence that the Currier ruling prohibits annexation of
property into the Water West system.
EVIDENCE: Currier vs.
MPWMD,
3. FINDING: Applicants have applied for a permit
to amend the Cal-Am WDS boundary to annex the remaining estimated 17 acres of parcel
APN 187-021-034 to enable construction of a single-family home within the
boundaries of the 20-acre parcel, rather than being restricted to the three-acre
portion that is presently within the RDMU service area.
EVIDENCE: Application
#20060705PAG and supporting materials.
4. FINDING: No new or expanded wells are associated with this
application.
EVIDENCE: Application
#20060705PAG and supporting materials.
5. FINDING: The application to amend the Cal-Am WDS, along with supporting materials, is in accordance with District Rules 21 and 22.
EVIDENCE: Application #20060705PAG and supporting materials. MPWMD determination of complete application dated September 18, 2006.
Required Findings (MPWMD Rule 22-B)
6. FINDING: The approval of the permit would not result duplication
of water service as a portion of the subject property may already be served by
Cal-Am.
EVIDENCE: Application materials including map of
Cal-Am/RDMU service area with identified parcel location. MPWMD Conditions of Approval for Permit #S06-04-L4,
Condition #9.
7. FINDING: The approval of the permit would not result in water
importation or exportation to or from the District, respectively.
EVIDENCE: The referenced parcel is located wholly
within the MPWMD as shown on District boundary location maps on file at the
District office.
8. FINDING: Approval of the application would not result in
significant adverse impacts to the environment that cannot be mitigated by
conditions attached to the permit. The
EVIDENCE: MPWMD
streamflow records for Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer (CVAA) Subunit 2; Cal-Am
hydraulic map of service area; quarterly Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) governing
water production. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order 95-10
limiting
9. FINDING: The application adequately identifies the claim of right
for the source of water supply and supplies supporting verification. The SWRCB
has identified 3,376 AFY as the recognized Cal-Am right to divert water from
the Carmel River, with in-basin consumers as having a high priority.
EVIDENCE: Cal-Am water rights and state policies
are described in detail in SWRCB Order WR 95-10 and Decision #1632, both issued
in July 1995.
10. FINDING: The
application demonstrates existence of a long-term reliable source of water
supply for the proposed uses. Cal-Am is
certified by the State Department of Health Services to deliver water to more
than 39,000 customers. See Finding 9
above for Cal-Am recognized water rights for in-basin users within
EVIDENCE: Cal-Am water service and water quality
records and evaluations on file at the State Department of Health Services,
11. FINDING: The
source of Cal-Am supply for the RDMU has been primarily wells that extract
water from CVAA Subunit 2, though other sources are possible through integrated
management of the Cal-Am system. Though
other CVAA subunits farther downstream are impacted by Cal-Am and other WDS,
CVAA Subunit 2 is known to have reasonably good fish habitat and year-round
water flow under nearly all conditions.
Thus, the cumulative effects of allowing water service for a home
located anywhere on a 20-acre parcel rather than the home location confined to
roughly a three-acre portion of the same parcel would not be expected to result
in significant adverse impacts to the species and habitat dependent on those
sources of supply. See also Finding 8.
EVIDENCE: MPWMD
streamflow records for CVAA Subunit 2; MPWMD fish habitat quality assessments;
Cal-Am hydraulic map of service area; quarterly Memoranda of Agreement (MOA)
governing water production. SWRCB Order 95-10 limiting
12. FINDING: The
source of Cal-Am supply for the subject parcel is derived from the Monterey
Peninsula Water Resources System. The
subject parcel does not overlie the CVAA, but water delivered by Cal-Am is
derived from the CVAA.
EVIDENCE: MPWMD map showing boundaries of Carmel Valley Alluvial
Aquifer.
13. FINDING: Approval of the application would
bring all of the subject parcel (rather than a portion) into the Cal-Am RDMU service
area, including use of Cal-Am water for emergency fire protection. Temporary
water service could be provided by trucked-in water pursuant to MPWMD Rule 173
if the Cal-Am system experienced a failure or other non-fire emergency
situation. No permanent intertie between
the Cal-Am WDS and any other system is allowed.
EVIDENCE: Map of Cal-Am RDMU service area; MPWMD
Permit #M06-04-L4 Conditions of Approval, Condition #12.
14. FINDING: No back-flow protection device to
prevent contamination of the Cal-Am system is needed as Cal-Am will be the
water purveyor.
EVIDENCE: Permit application #20060705PAG. MPWMD Permit #M06-04-L4 Conditions of
Approval, Condition #13.
Minimum Standards for Granting a Permit
(MPWMD Rule 22-C)
15. FINDING: The application adequately identifies the responsible party (system owner and operator) as California American Water.
EVIDENCE: Permit application #20060705PAG.
16. FINDING: The
application meets the definition of a “multiple-parcel connection system” and
therefore must comply with California Title 22 water quality standards. Cal-Am water meets Title 22 standards.
EVIDENCE: Permit application #20060705PAG; State
Department of Health Services records on file at its
17. FINDING: The
location of the source of supply for the water distribution system is
known. The primary Cal-Am water source
for customers in the area of the subject parcel is wells extracting water the
CVAA Subunit 2, as well as other sources within the integrated Cal-Am system.
EVIDENCE: Description of Cal-Am system available
at Cal-Am office. Quarterly MOA/water
supply strategy and budget describing best management practices for sources of
Cal-Am supply.
18. FINDING: The
Carmel River has been determined to be “fully appropriated” from May 1 through
December 31 from a water rights perspective, and environmental effects to
federally listed species exist. However,
the CVAA is not in a hydrologic state of overdraft, particularly in the area nearest
to the subject parcel (CVAA Subunit 2), where year-round flow of the
EVIDENCE: See citations in Findings 8, 11 and 12. MPWMD Permit #M06-04-L4, Condition #3. SWRCB Order 98-08, November 19, 1998.
19. FINDING: The
approval of the application would not adversely affect the ability of existing
systems to provide water to users due to conditions of approval that do not
allow increased production to serve the subject parcel.
EVIDENCE: MPWMD Permit #M06-04-L4, Condition #3.
Compliance with CEQA
20. FINDING: In
the review of this application, MPWMD has followed those guidelines adopted by
the State of
EVIDENCE: CEQA and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15096
and Section 15303. Negative Declaration
filed on October 4, 1999 and adopted by
U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2006\2006boardpackets\20061016\PubHrngs\11\item11_exh11b.doc
DRAFT prepared October 5,
2006 by H. Stern
Revised October 10, 2006
per DCL review