EXHIBIT 2-A
DRAFT
MINUTES
Record of Action and Discussion
March 31, 2011 Special
Meeting/Goal Setting Workshop
Board of Directors
Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District
CALL
TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
The meeting was
called to order at 7:00 pm in the MPWMD conference room.
Directors present: Chair, Robert S. Brower, Sr., --
Division 5
Vice
Chair, Dave Potter, -- Monterey County Board of Supervisors (arrived following
roll-call)
Vacant –
Division 1
Judi Lehman
– Division 2
Kristi
Markey – Division3
Regina Doyle
– Division 4
David
Pendergrass – Mayoral Representative
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The
assembly recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The following
comments were directed to the Board during the public comment period. (1)
Brent Constantz, representing Deep Water Desal, provided an update on
development of a seawater desalination project at Moss Landing. He invited the District to consider taking
part in formation of a joint powers authority (JPA) to develop a desalination
project in Moss Landing. The intake and
outfall would be near the end of Sandholdt Pier (to be rebuilt). The California State University at Monterey
Bay is lead agency for preparation of an EIR on the project, and will also be a
member of the JPA. Mr. Constantz stated
that this would be a low risk, low cost project. (2)
Todd Norgaard, Carmel Valley Association, urged the Board of Directors to
develop an alternative to the Regional Water Project that could be constructed
as a contingency in case the Regional Water Project is delayed. He volunteered the Association’s participation
on any citizens advisory committee the Board might form related to water
project development. (3) Dale Hekhuis expressed support for
the suggested goals and priorities outlined by Chair Brower. He stated that the Board should be prepared to
respond to two questions: why is a water project needed now that the Regional
Water Project has been approved, and how would a project be financed.
CONSENT
CALENDAR
1.
Approve
MPWMD Response to 2010 Monterey County Grand Jury Report
On a
motion by Director Markey and second of Director Potter, staff was directed to
modify the text stating that the District supports the recommendations outlined
in the report, but the District is not a party to the financing agreement for
the Regional Water Project. The revised
letter should be circulated to the directors for comment, prior to submission
to the Grand Jury. The motion was
approved unanimously on a vote of 6 – 0.
2.
Authorize
Agreement with California American Water for Reimbursement of Carmel River
Mitigation
This item was deferred for
discussion following the Board closed session that evening.
Following the closed session,
David Laredo reported that there was no need to take action on this item, as
the letter dated March 30, 2011 from California American Water Company
expressed Cal-Am’s intent to extend the termination date of the reimbursement
agreement for mitigation and ASR expenses from April 6, 2011 to May 23, 2011.
DISCUSSION
ITEMS
Chair’s
Suggested Goals and Priorities for 2011
Welcome,
Purpose of the Workshop, Introduction of the Facilitator:
Chair Brower reviewed the list of goals.
He emphasized the need for the District to retain a public information
officer, and to develop alternate proposals to the Regional Water Project, as a
contingency in case construction of the Regional Water Project is delayed. He introduced Les White, of Avery &
Associates, facilitator for the meeting.
Role
of the Facilitator and Workshop Process: Les White
greeted the Board and described the format for the meeting.
Review
of Chair’s Suggested Goals and Priorities for 2011
Goal One: Improve visibility of MPWMD and its
accomplishments
Summary: Not unanimous consensus that there is a need
to focus on public outreach. No
agreement on the option to hire a staff person or a consultant. Concerns expressed about the cost to retain a
professional to conduct public outreach, and that the public may be critical of
this as a self-aggrandizing effort by the District.
Record
of Comments
1.
A
full or part-time staff person, or consultant is needed to plan and conduct the
public outreach program. Must decide
which staff person the public outreach professional will report to.
2. There is a need to reduce the
time needed to develop and approve public information materials for
distribution. At this time the District
cannot respond to new issues without Board review. Communication to the public must be quick,
accurate and reflect the consensus of the Board.
3. Prefer option of hiring a staff
person to conduct public outreach program.
Important that the District’s message be distilled down to simple
statements. Committee members and staff
are too close to the issues. Cost is a concern.
4. Public information professional
could help the District overcome stigma
from the past. Important to use the past
achievements of the District (water projects developed but not approved by
voters) to create a foundation for positive forward momentum.
5. Concerned that negative
perception of the District cannot be changed.
Urged caution due to public perception that public outreach is a move to
increase the District’s self-importance.
Do not allow electioneering or election politics to influence a public
outreach program. This may not be the
appropriate time to hire a public outreach professional.
6. There will always be 40% of the
population that support you, 40% that do not and 20% that are undecided. Do not dwell on the past but move forward
with informing the public about what the District does now.
7. Focus on responding to questions
from the public with facts prepared by a professional communicator. The Board could agree on a protocol and
specific scenarios for responding to issues that arise, while maintaining a
separation from the politics.
8. Support the concept, but not
interested in jeopardizing existing employees in order to fund a new
position. Cost is a concern. Proposed job description is a good,
comprehensive.
9. The 2011-2012 budget is not yet
developed, and questions exist about funding for the coming year. However, a plan should be developed and goals
agreed upon so that when funds are available the Board can take action. This is not “puffery,” but a means to advise the public about the
District’s projects including Water Project 1.
10. The District Engineer plans to
retire and the position will not be filled, which would make funds available
for a new staff person.
Goal
Two: Identify and initiate three new
projects that increase water supply in MPWMD service area
A.
Develop local desalination
facilities (Monterey)
Summary: Staff can prepare an analysis of the options,
so that the full Board can schedule a discussion of the potential for
development of local desalination facilities, with the goal to establish a
contingency project, in the event that approvals for and construction of the
Regional Desalination Project are delayed.
The Board should discuss appropriate sites for the plant, including the
Naval Postgraduate School site (priority site), and sources for funding a
project.
1.
Chair
and General Manager have met with City of Monterey representatives regarding
development of the Naval Postgraduate School site. The City of Monterey has no objections and will
work with NPS on this. It will be an
open ocean intake. The project is not
planned to interfere with the regional project.
2.
The
District should pursue and complete this project. Should not conduct studies then abandon the
project due to cost considerations or for other reasons, as has been done in
the past.
3.
In
order to improve the District’s image, this project must be developed with the
understanding that it will not replace the Regional Water Project, rather, it
will be additive to that project.
4.
Disappointed
that the concept of a desalination plant in the City of Sand City was not
pursued. Would like to reactivate
pursuit of Sand City sites.
5.
Is
it true that, as the City of Sand City maintains, if new wells were drilled in
the Sand City area they would negatively affect performance of the existing
extraction wells in Sand City?
6.
Three
sites in Sand City that have been considered for development of a desalination
project are owned by: Oyster Point; City
of Sand City; and Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District.
7.
Can’t
comment on Monterey site. Request the
Board authorize the committee to investigate utilization of existing lakes such
as Laguna Grande, the Navy site and others.
8.
Sand
City will not allow any development to harm the aquifer. Owners of the proposed Sand City sites are
not interested. You should work with
willing parties, such as the City of Monterey.
9.
The
Regional Project will provide water to meet legal requirements. Are you willing to develop another project
that will provide water for growth? Must
decide how much water would be available from the project and how it will be
funded.
10. Concerned about spending limited
resources to pursue this project.
11. The Navy has considered building
other types of projects at the proposed site, but it is difficult because the
site is within the coastal zone.
12. Would be more supportive of
subsurface intake wells, rather than controversial direct intake.
13. The Navy site does have issues
with potential erosion.
14. Not a supporter of the Sand City
options due to concerns expressed by the City of Sand and the District Engineer.
15. Investigations should not stop at
Sand City, but should include Moss Landing such as the Desal America project,
or the Deep Water Desal project which could also provide water for North
Monterey County.
16. Any project we pursue should not
be in conflict with Monterey County’s General Plan, or the Regional Water
Project.
B. Support Groundwater Replenishment
Project (GRP)
All six directors expressed
support for the project. Public
outreach would be an important component of this project to educate the public
about the replenishment process, and to address the social justice aspect that
has been raised. It was suggested that
the MPWMD should cooperate with Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control
Agency (MRWPCA) on a pilot project.
Further exploration of the financial requirements for the GRP is
necessary. It may be appropriate to
form a joint powers authority with MRWPCA.
A question was raised about the possibility of increased stormwater
reclamation from El Estero, Laguna Grande and Roberts lakes as a new source of
water
C. Investigate Los Padres Reservoir
Expansion
Summary: The
Board needs to review a white paper on the proposed reservoir expansion so that
it can discuss and make a determination as to whether or not to move forward. Should define benefit to the environment and
rate payers.
1.
This
is a great opportunity to store up to 1,600 AF.
Cal-Am has no interest in this, so the MPWMD should get this on the
drawing board.
2.
Cal-Am
has been talking about removing the dam, so we should instigate talks with
Cal-Am on increasing storage.
3.
This
idea should be brought before the Board for more discussion and study.
4.
If
this is supported by environmental groups that have an interest in the Carmel
River, it would qualify for grant funding.
5.
Need
consensus of the Board before any action is taken.
6.
Should
consider the liability involved with ownership of the dam.
7.
If
the goal is to invest 80 million dollars into a project that will only benefit
fish, we need to consider how the public would react to this. What benefit would the rate payers receive
from this?
8.
There
is a benefit to the public if you can store additional water.
9.
This
should not be prioritized at this time.
The Board can bring it forward for additional study. Don’t be deterred due to perceived funding
shortfall. If it is a good project, the
Board will find the money.
10. The public is not aware that
funds for San Clemente Dam Removal have been provided through grants. That money could have been spent to buttress
the dam.
11. Concerned that removal of San
Clemente Dam will cause demise of Cal-Am’s 3,400 acre-feet of water rights.
Discuss
Other Possible Goals and Priorities for 2011
Summary:
There is consensus that water conservation should be a priority. There is an interest in discussing wastewater
reuse in new developments, receiving information on Regional Water Project expenditures,
and increased water storage in the Seaside Basin.
1.
Request
updates on Regional Water Project expenditures.
Staff could contact the project partners to obtain the information and
prepare an analysis.
2.
Would
like information on opportunities to increase water storage in the Seaside
Basin.
3.
Should
discuss ways to increase opportunities for water conservation such as
implementing a ban on lawns and more conservation in hospitality industry. Conservation should not be removed from our
list of goals.
4.
Support encouraging conservation, but do not
support asking staff to do more than they are currently charged with.
5.
Have
we asked all jurisdictions to review landscape plans as a conservation measure?
6.
Staff
should develop an estimate of the potential for conservation savings in the
District.
7.
Should
consider water reuse in new developments.
Could require that wastewater in a new development be purified and
applied to landscapes.
Receive
Public Input
The following
comments were directed to the Board during the public comment period. (1)
Tom Mancini expressed support for reuse of recycled water, and urged the
Board to proceed with caution to ensure recycled water can be injected safely
into underground aquifers. (2) George Riley suggested that the
Board should stabilize the District’s funding source, such as through
Proposition 218 bond issues. He stated
that the public might support public ownership of the Los Padres Dam, which could
be purchased through a bond measure. He
also said that storage of recycled water in the Seaside Basin would protect
against seawater intrusion, which outweighs the social justice issues raised
about groundwater replenishment. (3) Tod Norgaard expressed concerns
that raising Cal-Am’s Tier 1 rates, could reduce water demand and funding for
water supply projects.
SUMMARY
AND CLOSING REMARKS
ADJOURN
TO CLOSED SESSION
The Board adjourned to Closed
Session at 8:55 pm.
ADJOURN
TO OPEN SESSION
Report on Closed Session of the
Board
District
Counsel reported that there was a discussion of all items, but no reportable
action was taken. He also noted that no
action was needed on Consent Calendar Item 2 (refer to record of action taken
on Consent Calendar items 1 and 2.)
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:25
pm.
________________________________
Darby
Fuerst, Secretary to the Board
U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2011\20110418\ConsentCal\02\item2_exh2a.docx