|
|
|
|||
|
EXHIBIT 17-E |
|
|||
FINAL MINUTES Legislative Advocacy Committee of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District October 9, 2013 |
|||||
|
|
|
|||
Call to Order |
|
|
|||
The
meeting was called to order at 9:00 am in the MPWMD conference room. |
|||||
|
|
|
|||
Committee
members present: |
David
Potter, Chair |
||||
|
Robert
S. Brower, Sr. |
||||
|
Judi
Lehman |
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
Staff members
present: |
David
J. Stoldt, General Manager |
||||
|
Arlene
Tavani, Executive Assistant |
||||
|
|
|
|||
District
Counsel present: |
David
C. Laredo |
|
|||
|
|
||||
Consultant
present: |
John
Arriaga, JEA and Associates |
||||
|
|
||||
Guest present: |
Mario
Santoyo, Executive Director of the California Latino Water Coalition |
||||
|
|
||||
Comments from the Public: |
No
comments. |
||||
|
|
||||
Presentation |
|
||||
1. |
Mario Santoyo,
Executive Director of the California Latino Water Coalition will speak on the
2014 California Water Bond |
||||
|
Santoyo
introduced himself as Vice President of Clean Water and Jobs for California,
and Assistant General Manager for the Friant Water Authority. He reviewed a document developed by the
Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) titled Three Distinct Proposals
on the Table, that compared three water bond proposals: ACWA, SB 42 and AB 1331. Santoyo stated that SB 42 did not include
funding for the Twin Tunnels/Delta Plan, so there was not much interest in
the proposal and it likely would not be approved by the legislature for
placement on the ballot. The AB 1331
plan was supported by the Latino Water Coalition. The title was Clean Water and Jobs for
California because the focus was construction of water infrastructure which
would create jobs, and also improve the economy. The bill was undergoing review to remove
non water-related earmarks. The water
resources section of the bill would be of most interest to the Water
Management District. The Latino Water
Coalition would like to be advised if the Water Management District
determines more money should be included for local projects. It was important to ensure equity in
distribution of funds throughout the state, since the Water Management
District perceived that the central region of the state historically had not
received funding. Santoyo stated that
the Water Management District should be working with Assemblyperson Alejo on
further development of the bill. The
$6.5 billion funding limit of AB 1331
was too low. A special allocation of
funds for desalination projects should also be added. A fair formula for distribution of funds
must be developed, other than a per-capita methodology. Stoldt asked if the Latino Water Coalition
would join the Water Management District in its efforts to modify the CDO, as
the proposed water production cutbacks would severely stifle the visitor
serving industry. Santoyo agreed to
work with the Water Management District on achieving modifications to the
CDO. |
||||
|
|
||||
Action Items |
|||||
2. |
Adopt Minutes
of March 22, 2012 and July 10, 2013 Committee Meetings |
||||
|
On
a motion by Brower and second of Lehman, the minutes were approved
unanimously on a vote of 3 – 0 by Potter, Brower and Lehman. |
||||
|
|
||||
Discussion
Items |
|||||
3. |
Strategy and
Timeline for Legislation re Public Contribution Towards Financing Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project |
||||
|
Stoldt reviewed the staff note. Senator Bill Monning has agreed to author
the legislation, and has advised that
the bill will be presented to the Senate Utilities and Commerce committee and
the Energy, Utilities and Communications committee. Legislative Counsel has reviewed the draft
legislation. Monning has insisted that
the Water Management District conduct extensive public outreach on the
legislation, so staff has developed a public outreach plan. Cal-Am has agreed to work with the Water
Management District on lobbying efforts to promote the legislation. Arriaga suggested that the Water Management
District obtain letters of support for the legislation from jurisdictions
within the District. Potter suggested
that Stoldt contact the local realtors associations and chambers of commerce
as they have state lobbying organizations that could help with this effort. |
||||
|
|
||||
4. |
Legislative Status
and Tracking from John Arriaga |
||||
|
Arriaga
reported the following. The State’s
budget is in good condition due to passage of Proposition 30. Many spending bills were held up in the
Appropriations Committee and did not move forward for adoption. A $350 million prison reduction plan was
approved. One fracking bill, SB4, was
passed but nine other fracking bills did not move forward. The Affordable Healthcare Act will be
implemented in 2014. Proposed changes
to the California Environmental Quality Act were not approved, but will come
up again in the next legislation session.
Similarly, no action was taken on a threshold bill to reduce to reduce
the percentage of votes needed to approve transportation and education
projects to 55%. A package of bills
related to the Clean Water Act was also approved. Most of the adopted bills have been signed
by the Governor. |
||||
|
|
||||
5. |
Discuss
Strategy for IRWM Grant Funding |
||||
|
Stoldt
outlined a strategy that focused on meeting with decision makers at different
levels within the Department of Water Resources to advocate for the
distribution of grant funds to the Monterey Peninsula. The committee expressed agreement with the
strategy. |
||||
|
|
||||
6. |
Discuss
Actions Needed to Address the SWRCB Interpretation of the Cease and Desist
Order re Setting Water Meters for Commercial Projects |
||||
|
Stoldt
reported that on October 16, 2013, Water Management District representatives
will meet with representatives from the California State Water Resources
Control Board and California American Water to discuss the CDO. The Water Management District would like
the SWRCB to determine water use at an existing site based on the water
factors, not historic water use. The
SWRCB is reluctant to do so, because if water use on the Peninsula exceeds
the CDO limits, Cal-Am could charge that a reinterpretation of the CDO was
the cause. Counsel Laredo stated that
if SWRCB staff will not reinterpret the CDO, the Water Management District
could request that the CDO be reopened. |
||||
|
|
||||
Other Items: There were no other items brought
forward for discussion. |
|||||
|
|
||||
Set Next
Meeting Date |
|||||
No
meeting date was set. |
|||||
|
|
||||
Adjournment |
|||||
The
meeting was adjourned at 10:25 am. |
|||||
U:\staff\Boardpacket\2014\20140915\InfoItems\17\item17_exh17e.docx |
|||||