EXHIBIT 13-C
Conceptual
Revisions to WDS Regulations Proposed by MPWMD Staff
Prepared for December 9, 2013 Board Meeting
PROPOSAL OVERVIEW
·
Simplify
the decision matrix on how to process an application.
·
Delete
the Pre-Application step (Rule 21); add info on website.
·
Expand
the non-MPWRS situations that qualify for an exemption.
·
Cease
setting baseline limits for existing non-MPWRS systems that qualify for an
exemption.
·
Scrutinize
non-MPWRS wells that exist within a defined buffer zone adjacent to the CVAA or
SGB (presently 1,000 feet) to ensure there is no adverse effect.
·
Reserve
the setting of System Limits (annual
production and connection limits) and more detailed testing for a WDS Permit to
wells within the MPWRS.
·
Include
non-well situations (e.g., desalination plants, springs, or trucked-in water).
·
Designate
staff to administratively handle all applications except more complex, unique or large projects; all staff decisions can
be appealed to the Board.
Four types of regulatory
action would occur, depending on the situation (see pg. 3 for
description):
Type A= basic exemption
(standard verbiage including conditions of approval)
Type B= enhanced exemption
(possible additional work due to location or other issues)
Type C= basic WDS Permit
without System Limits (certain Seaside Basin or non-MPWRS wells)
Type D= full WDS Permit
with System Limits.
Rules 20, 21 and 22 (and associated
others) would be amended to reflect these changes.
Table 1— Basic
Questions
|
SETTING QUESTIONS |
YES |
NO |
NOTES |
|
Q1= Is this a
Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer (CVAA) Well? |
Go
to Table 2 |
Go
to Q2 |
CVAA
defined in MPWMD Rule 11 |
|
Q2= Is this a
Seaside Groundwater Basin (SGB) Well? |
Go
to Table 3 |
Go
to Q3 |
SGB
defined in MPWMD Rule 11 |
|
Q3= Is this a Non-MPWRS
Well (aka Fractured Rock Well) |
Go
to Table 4 |
Go
to Q4 |
MPWRS
and FRW defined in MPWMD Rule 11 |
|
Q4= Is this a
Non-Well Situation? |
Go
to Table 5 |
n/a |
Includes
onsite and offsite rainwater collection; non-potable natural springs;
non-potable mobile WDS; reclamation, desal plants; dams etc |
Table 2-- Matrix for
CARMEL VALLEY ALLUVIAL AQUIFER WELLS
|
SYSTEM TYPE |
|
|
All Single and
Multiple-Parcel Connection Systems |
Type D, Full WDS
Permit |
|
|
|
Table 3—Matrix for
SEASIDE GROUNDWATER BASIN WELLS
|
SYSTEM TYPE |
PRODUCTION |
NOTES |
|
|
|
< 5.0 AFY |
5.0+ AFY |
5
AFY based on Adjudication trigger |
|
Single-Parcel
Connection System (SPCS) with overlying right = “alternative producer” |
Type A Basic Exemption |
Type B Enhanced Exemption |
SPCS=
well(s) are located on, overlie and serve one Legal Parcel. If
5.0+ AFY, need Watermaster OK if not on list in
Court Decision |
|
Multiple-Parcel Connection System serving 2
or 3 Parcels with appropriative rights= “standard producer” |
Type C Basic WDS Permit |
Type D Full WDS Permit |
All
standard producers need Watermaster OK if not
already on list in Court Decision |
|
Multiple-Parcel
Connection System serving 4 or more Parcels with appropriative rights=
“standard producer” |
Type C Basic WDS Permit |
Type D Full WDS Permit |
All
standard producers need Watermaster OK if not
already on list in Court Decision |
|
Other considerations |
|
|
Staff
may consider a buffer area (distance yet to be determined) for wells near
SGB. |
Table 4—Matrix for NON-MPWRS
WELLS (aka “Fractured Rock” or Other Geology)
|
SYSTEM TYPE |
LOCATION |
NOTES |
|
|
|
>1,000 feet * from SER |
<1,000
feet * from SER |
SER=
Sensitive Environmental Receptors defined in Rule 11; focus on Carmel Valley |
|
Single Parcel
Connection System (SPCS) |
Type A Basic Exemption |
Type B Enhanced Exemption |
SPCS=
well(s) are located on, overlie and serve one Legal Parcel |
|
Multiple-Parcel Connection System serving 2
or 3 Parcels |
Type A Basic Exemption |
Type B Enhanced Exemption |
District
law does not require WDS Permit if less than 4 connections |
|
Multiple-Parcel
Connection System serving 4 or more Parcels |
Type C Basic WDS Permit |
Type D Full WDS Permit |
District
law requires WDS permit if 4 or more connections |
|
Other
Considerations |
*
A value other than 1,000 ft. is possible |
*
A value other than 1,000 ft. is possible |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 5—Matrix for
“NON-WELL” SITUATIONS
|
SYSTEM TYPE |
PROCESS |
NOTES |
|
Onsite rainwater
collection |
Type A Exemption |
Standard
verbiage would be different from that for wells |
|
Offsite rainwater
collection and delivery |
Type B Exemption |
Entails
2 or more Parcels |
|
Non-potable
Fractured Rock Spring |
Type A Exemption |
Inspect
to confirm it is a naturally occurring seep |
|
Non-potable Mobile
WDS |
Type B Exemption |
Confirm
lawful supply source; MCEHB does not allow permanent potable Mobile WDS |
|
Any type of stream
direct diversion |
Type D WDS Permit |
|
|
Desal plant,
reclamation, any major project needing Neg Dec or EIR |
Type D WDS Permit |
|
|
|
|
|
PERMIT PROCESSING
TYPES (referred to in tables above)
A. Type A, Basic Exemption--
MPWMD
staff would prepare a Confirmation
of Exemption report for the WDS including (as applicable) the MCEHB Well
Construction Permit number, DWR Well Completion Report number, certification of
adequate water quality or quantity form or other MCEHB documentation. (Note that MCEHB Permit entailed initial
screening for impact to other wells or a stream). No System Limits are imposed by MPWMD. Standard exemption language would include Findings
statements with evidence. Conditions of
Approval would include no unauthorized changes, no water waste as defined, enable
access for MPWMD to occasionally monitor the well etc. For non-MPWRS wells, text would states that Fractured
Rock Wells are inherently unreliable as compared to other sources, and water supply
is not guaranteed. Text would also state
that future regulation by MPWMD is possible if monitoring or other evidence
shows substantive changes to setting, water resource conditions, overdraft
etc. Applicant would sign and notarize a
deed restriction that would attach the Confirmation of Exemption package along
with a form for acceptance of exemption conditions of approval. Staff does not
believe an Indemnification Agreement is needed for exemptions.
Regarding CEQA, the County
or other jurisdiction is the lead agency for any project on the parcel (use permit
or building permits). MPWMD typically
does not file a CEQA Notice of Exemption for Confirmation of Exemptions
(ministerial). A CEQA Notice of
Exemption (categorical) would be filed if needed. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration may
apply to certain multi-parcel situations, but it is expected that the jurisdiction
would be the CEQA lead in such situations. Coordination with County agencies is
needed to ensure consistent direction to applicants.
B.
Type B, Enhanced Exemption--
This
is similar to Type A, except MPWMD staff would assess (based on well logs and
other submitted information) if there is potential for adverse impact to CVAA
or Seaside Basin or potential to induce seawater intrusion. If not, then the Exemption language would be
the same as Type A. If there would be a
potential (calculated) adverse effect, then staff would have the authority to require
additional testing and possibly set a production limit. Applicant needs Watermaster
signoff if 5.0+ AFY in Seaside Basin.
C. Type C, Basic WDS Permit-- This is for: (a) non-MPWRS
situations greater than 1,000 feet but for which there are 4 or more parcels
involved (need for WDS Permit per District Law), or (b) Seaside Basin wells
serving multiple parcels but with less than 5.0 AFY production (adjudication
cutoff). Testing above and beyond MCEHB testing
and signoff is not needed as MCEHB has more rigorous standards for a 4+ parcel
system, and includes review for impacts to other wells. CEQA exemption is unlikely; assume
jurisdiction is lead agency for any development project. MPWMD can rely on jurisdiction CEQA document
or perform Initial Study in certain situations.
No production limit imposed by MPWMD (except for reiterating <5.0 AFY
imposed by Watermaster/Court for Seaside Basin wells)
and refer to any limits imposed by MCEHB in Conditions. Permit package would be similar to today’s
version, but without System Limits imposed by MPWMD.
D. Type D, WDS-- This entails the maximum testing that we
would require, similar to current procedures.
The Water Resources Manager is responsible for amending the testing
procedures based on the experience of the past several years. Testing may or may not be the same as what MCEHB
requires, depending on the situation.
For example, for CVAA wells, impact to the CVAA rather than the ability
to produce adequate supply is the issue. Production limitations would be CEQA-based
(impacts). The WDS Permit would have System Limits imposed by MPWMD.
OTHER ISSUES
Monitor
Wells: In Rules 11 and 20
(or associated Implementation Guidelines), staff would codify the current MPWMD
procedure to determine whether a well slated for destruction could be kept as
an MPWMD Monitor Well.
Well Testing
Expiration: Rule 20-C refers to three-years from date of
Pre-Application. This should change to
match MCEHB standard (no expiration so long as previous test meets current
standards, well is physically viable and no substantive changes have occurred
in the water resource setting.
Board Review: Designate staff to administratively handle
all applications except more complex or large projects. Staff decisions are posted on the website
under “Appealable Decisions” and all staff decisions can be appealed to the
Board pursuant to Rule 70.
U:\staff\Boardpacket\2013\20131209\ActionItems\13\item13_exh13c.docx