ITEM:		ACTION ITEMS
21.	CONSIDER REQUEST OF DIRECTOR BOB BROWER TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A REPORT ON THE SCOPE AND COST OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY REGARDING INCREASING THE HEIGHT OF, OR RECONSTRUCTING, THE EXISTING LOS PADRES DAM TO INCREASE ITS WATER STORAGE CAPACITY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT PURPOSES
Meeting Date:			February 28, 2008	Budgeted:	No
From:			David A. Berger,	Program/	N/A
			General Manager	Line Item No.:
Prepared By:			Andrew Bell,	Cost Estimate:	N/A
			District Engineer
General Counsel Approval: N/A
Committee Recommendation: N/A
CEQA Compliance: N/A

SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is for the Board to consider a request by MPWMD Director Bob Brower to direct staff to prepare, for review at a future Board meeting, a report describing the scope and cost of an outside, expert engineering analysis regarding the feasibility of increasing the height of, or reconstructing, the existing Los Padres Dam. The project concept would be to create additional storage capacity in the reservoir, not for the purpose of diversions for community water supply, but rather to enhance availability of stored water that could be released to increase streamflow in the Carmel River to improve habitat conditions and its associated environment. Director Brower submitted a timely written request for this agenda item in accordance with section 7 of the District’s adopted Meeting Rules.

RECOMMENDATION: The Board should consider Director Brower’s request for District staff to prepare a report that contains a description of scope and cost for obtaining an outside expert analysis regarding the feasibility of increasing the height of, or reconstructing, the existing Los Padres Dam, to be presented to the Board of Directors for review on a future Board agenda.

BACKGROUND: The existing Los Padres Dam, constructed in 1948 and 1949 by California Water & Telephone Company, a predecessor of California American Water, is an embankment dam (zoned earthfill) approximately 150 feet high. It is located on the Carmel River at River Mile 24.8, approximately 12 miles southeast of Carmel Valley Village near the settlement of Princes Camp. When built, the reservoir had a capacity of 3,070 acre-feet, but due to accumulation of sediment, the storage capacity has been decreased by at least half.

Increasing the height of the dam would require extensive engineering, geotechnical, and planning efforts. In order to evaluate the technical feasibility of this project, the District would need to retain outside experts in dam construction and rehabilitation. Among the analytical considerations for such a feasibility analysis would be how much additional storage is desired (and therefore how much to increase the height of the dam); the condition of the foundation and abutment formation materials in the area of the damsite; what types of construction (e.g., earthfill, concrete gravity, concrete arch, roller-compacted concrete) would be appropriate; what size, type, and capacity of spillway would be required; seismicity of the site; how to maintain or improve the existing fish passage facilities; and how to maintain access to the Ventana Wilderness. Also, a minor increase in the height of the existing dam would cause the reservoir to extend into the Ventana Wilderness. A location map of the area of the dam and reservoir is provided in Exhibit 21-A. This is a figure from the 1998 Draft Supplemental EIR for California American Water’s proposed Carmel River Dam and Reservoir Project, which was to be a new, higher concrete gravity dam located approximately one-half mile downstream of the existing dam and a reservoir with a capacity of 24,000 acre-feet. Exhibit 21-A shows the “Existing Wilderness Boundary” and the “Proposed Los Padres National Forest Boundary Adjustment,” which would be an addition of approximately 140 acres (Parcel B) to the Ventana Wilderness in exchange for removing approximately 23 acres (Parcel A).

IMPACT TO DISTRICT STAFF/RESOURCES: If the Board approves this request, its initial workload effect on Planning & Engineering staff would involve obtaining a formal scope and cost proposal from qualified consulting firms to produce a feasibility study that addresses the technical issues described above. District engineering staff posses some relevant expertise, having led the significant environmental, planning, permitting and engineering efforts from the late 1980’s through the late-1990’s on proposed Carmel River dam/reservoir projects that were not approved. However, staff does not have the full and current level of technical expertise and experience required to perform this feasibility analysis. Preparing the requested staff report is not a work effort currently anticipated by the Planning & Engineering Division, which would have a modest near-term impact on the Division’s capacity to implement current strategic objectives and other office staff priorities.

There is no anticipated, direct financial impact on the District of approving preparation of the staff report proposed by Director Brower. The cost of obtaining a feasibility study from an outside expert consultant is unknown, and no funds for this effort are budgeted. At its December 10, 2007 meeting, the Board approved a “pay-as-you-go” approach as an alternative to financing the $1.7 million estimated cost to complete the Phase 1 ASR Project, which will reduce the District’s general operating reserve below the Board’s 5% minimum for the next 12 to 24 months. Since the District would have insufficient reserves to pay for the dam raising or reconstruction feasibility study, the Board would need to either 1) return to the financing strategy to fund Phase 1 ASR Project completion, in order to free-up reserves to cover this unbudgeted cost item; or 2) authorize a one-time increase in the District’s user fee to cover the cost of obtaining the feasibility study.

EXHIBITS

21-A Figure 2-2. Location Map - Proposed Carmel River Dam and Reservoir. From Jones & Stokes Associates, November 13, 1998, Draft Supplemental EIR for the Carmel River Dam and Reservoir Project

U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2008\2008boardpackets\20080228\ActionItems\21\item21.doc