EXHIBIT 16-H

TIMELINE TABLE FOR BEECH APPEAL

DATE	ACTION
October 2010	Original Flores and Pisenti Well #1 and #2 testing occurs (both wells on Pisenti parcel)
November 2010	Pre-Applications submitted to MPWMD for Well #1 and #2
Early 2011	County begins consideration of lot line adjustment; Beech expresses opposition due to concerns about well impacts (unknown to District at that time as no Application had been submitted)
April 1, 2011	District receives Flores and Pisenti WDS applications, including hydrogeologic reports prepared by Bierman for Well #1 and Well #2.
April 29-May 23, 2011	District consultants and review and concur with Well #1 and #2 hydrogeologic reports, which are signed off by District Water Resources Division Manager. These reviews overlook footnote that indicates that Mr. Beech and other neighbors with wells were not provided notice of an opportunity to have their wells monitored during testing. District is also unaware of a February 2011 letter by Beech to Monterey County Planning Commission expressing concerns about well impact.
June 7, 2011	Beech writes MPWMD requesting action due to lack of noticing and expresses concerns about the hydrogeologic testing; letter attaches a “cursory review” by a hydrogeologist regarding MPWMD procedures. The February 15, 2011 letter to Monterey County is also attached. Many e-mails subsequently exchanged explaining MPWMD protocol, hydrogeology principles.
June 2011	When staff reads Beech’s February 2011 letter to the County, staff first discovers that Beech system is an unpermitted 3-parcel system rather than a single-parcel system as had been reported for 10 years. Separate enforcement action begins pursuant to Rule 20.4. Applicants assert irrigation of three parcels, including heavy irrigation on Beech’s 4-acre parcel, may have been the cause of stress to the Beech well.
June 9, 2011	Bierman acknowledges noticing error from October 2010 and commits to redoing a test as soon as possible, if monitoring is desired by any neighbor, with test date in late June or July 2011, pursuant to MPWMD and County well testing timeframes (June 1 through November 30). Beech prefers October 2011 test date to best recreate October 2010 conditions.
June 16, 2011	“Incomplete” letters written by MPWMD to Flores and Pisenti based on lack of notice of opportunity for neighbors to have their wells monitored in October 2010.
June 24, 2011	MPWMD General Manager Darby Fuerst letter provides direction on notice and testing that is needed or not needed, depending on whether permission to monitor wells is given by neighbors. His letter also summarizes well testing protocol and basic hydrogeology principles.
June 30, 2011	Monterey County approves lot line adjustment for Flores and Pisenti lots.
June 14 – July 6, 2011	Bierman monitors water levels in the inactive Flores and Pisenti wells every 10 minutes for three weeks while Beech well pumps water for irrigation of 3 parcels. Data does not indicate direct connectivity between Beech well and Flores/Pisenti wells.
July 11, 2011	Beech (via Erickson) appeals June 24, 2011 direction letter by Fuerst (received on 7/14/2011); includes five exhibits.
July 20, 2011	“Complete” determination letters issued by General Manager for Flores and Pisenti WDS due to lack of permission by neighboring well owners to have their wells monitored and the fact that the Bierman reports properly followed protocol used when well monitoring data are not available. This determination was posted on District website under “appealable decisions” for 21 day review. Courtesy copy provided to Beech and attorney. No appeals received.
July 26, 2011	General Manager returns appeal check to Erickson with explanation that the July 11, 2011 appeal is not valid because a violation of a specific MPWMD rule is not identified.
August 2, 2011	Letter from Fuerst responding to technical questions posed by Beech in e-mails sent June 27 and 29, 2011, including 3 issues raised in hydrogeologist Derrik Williams cursory review letter. Beech advised that staff and consultants had discussed District procedures with Williams on the phone and a better understanding was obtained by Williams.
August 5, 2011	Markey e-mail requests that Beech’s July 11, 2011 appeal be directly referred to the Board pursuant to Rule 71.
Sept. 1, 2011	David Stold is the new General Manager upon Fuerst’s retirement.
Sept. 19, 2011	Board hears Markey referral and directs that a public hearing be held on Beech appeal issues, especially the completeness of the Flores and Pisenti applications. Applicants indicate willingness to conduct a new test in October to include monitoring of the Beech well. Potential improvements to District procedures are referred to Rules and Regulations Review Committee.
Sept. 20 through mid-October 2011	Parties begin discussions (e-mail, phone and in–person) with goal of conducting a monitored test in early-to-mid-October 2011. Numerous e-mails shared with District staff. District General Manager provides clarification as feasible. Rules and Regulations Review Committee begins addressing the well noticing issue at its October 19 meeting.
Oct. 14, 2011	Agenda deadline. Based on e-mails by Beech and Bierman through 10/11/2011, District General Manager advises Board and parties via e-mail that an October 17 test is scheduled and that a hearing in October 2011 should be postponed pending the test results. The District’s understanding, based on e-mails exchanged by the parties in the previous weeks, and previous correspondence, is that the primary goal of Beech is to have his well monitored in October when the Flores and Pisenti wells are both tested simultaneously at 3 gpm, thus trying to recreate the October 2010 situation with testing rates that would be closer to those that would actually be approved in the District WDS permits.
Oct. 14-17, 2011	Via many e-mails, Beech/Erickson request that Flores and Pisenti sign a written contract governing how the test will be conducted and require additional testing of each well individually to demonstrate reliability as a condition of allowing access to monitor his well. Flores and Pisenti refuse to sign the agreement as they feel the additional request is redundant and would preclude their right of due process because the wells had already been approved by MPWMD and MCHD. Bierman reiterates willingness to conduct a simultaneous test.
Oct. 17, 2011	Beech denies permission to monitor his well if the contract as written is not signed and the test to commence on October 17 is cancelled. The next available date may be early November, but testing opportunities are limited due to other customers booked by well drillers and hydrogeologists. No action taken by any party to conduct November tests.
Oct. 17, 2011	General Manager Stoldt asks Beech/Erickson why conducting only a simultaneous test is unacceptable and asks for clarification of Beech’s actual interests; encourages cooperation to enable a monitored test to occur in November.
Oct. 21, 2011	In response, Erickson confirms desire for simultaneous well test in the short-term and asserts that Beech will be “vulnerable to severe later impact” if the Pisenti Well #2 is approved and a new large house, guest house and pool is built next door, and then will remain standing if the well later fails.
Oct. 25, 2011	Stoldt indicates hearing is set for November 21, 2011 and encourages efforts to set a monitored test in November as feasible. Indicates that land use concerns about home construction are not the purview of MPWMD.
Oct. 27, 2011	Bierman sends copies of letters from Health Department approving source capacity tests for both Well #1 and Well #2.
Late October 2011	As part of resolving the separate enforcement action on the unpermitted Beech WDS, Anastasia discloses existence of an unregistered, unmetered and unreported second well and shared tank system that is part of the 3-parcel Beech-Anastasia WDS. The interplay of multiple wells and shared storage tanks is substantive new information that affects the validity of the original Beech assertions about the October 2010 Flores/Pisenti well testing as the sole cause of his tanks going dry.
November 2011	Beech and Anastasia dismantle their connection and move toward separate compliance with MPWMD Rules governing water wells.

U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2011\20111121\PubHearing\16\item16_exh16h.docx