Community Advisory Committee Comments Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Seaside Basin February 26, 2007
Merits	Drawbacks
Peter Dausen Common sense solution. Savings account with water. Keeps Carmel River charged better than ordinarily would be. Cost avoidance so river is not overdrawn in dry months. Roy Thomas – Carmel River Steelhead Association 1. Concept is good. 2. Flexible in that you can use other sources of water, not just the Carmel River. You can use cheaper sources of water. Tom Rowley – Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association 1. Any water stored is a benefit. Manuel Fierro 1. Protects ecosystem of Carmel River. 2. Secondary benefits to Seaside Basin. 3. No water for new construction or remodels. 4. Can be teamed with other projects to comply with Order 95-10. 5. Amortize cost over 20 years. 6. New users would pay connection fees. 7. Grant has been applied for. Janet Brennan – League of Women Voters 1. Captures excess flow without the negative impacts, i.e. environmental impacts of dams which relate to sedimentation. 2. More energy efficient than other alternatives. Better for the environment. Dewey Baird 1. Second most economical project aware of without further study. 2. It is a make-sense project, already in progress. 3. Pipeline may eventually be buried. 4. Makes environmental sense. Paul Bruno – Water for Us 1. Captures excess flows prior to being contaminated by salt. Technically feasible. 2. Cost effective. 3. Utilizes a lot of existing Cal Am infrastructure. 4. Wells can have dual use. 5. Pumping could be modulated to minimize environmental degradation and impact on Carmel River. 6. Above-ground pipe will be buried. Robert Greenwood 1. Support. 2. Could be improved if provide for greatly increased extraction from Carmel River during high flows. Ron Chesshire 1. Good project as a supplement with other projects. 2. Very cost effective. 3. Studied for a long time, much is known about the project. Common sense approach. 4. Could be expanded upon.	1. Make sure there is some type of legal management of the ASR recovery to prevent Cal Am from drawing against Carmel River. 2. As long as water withdrawals and injection are well monitored you have a good system. 3. Need to store water immediately when flows are high. 4. Why does water need to be treated prior to injection? 1. The way it is being done is not good. 2. There are surplus flows in the river, but you need a faster way to extract. The surplus flows are short lived. NOAA Fisheries guidelines are flawed, especially in spring for emerging toads and frogs. 3. Expensive. 4. Should not filter or chlorinate water before it is injected because of cost and lack of storage. 5. Need an unlined pond next to injection well so water can percolate back into ground when not needed. 6. Taking too much water over a long period of time. 7. Not reliable each year due to variation in rainfall and river flow. 1. Where do we store excess flows is the problem. 2. Why was Cañada de la Segunda Dam and Reservoir proposal abandoned? This is a variation of ASR. 1. No water for new construction or remodels. 2. Water rights adjudication is confusing. 3. Above ground pipeline. 4. District and Cal Am signed MOA on near and long term projects. Cal Am selling or being put on the stock exchange. 5. Seaside basin 40 to 45% overdrawn already. 6. In itself, ASR does not comply with Order 95-10. 1. Because window of opportunity for injection/recovery is so small, no assurance project is there every year. 2. Need some sort of increased infrastructure. Possibly new pipeline or surface storage would be solution. 1. There are ways to better pump from river rather than sending it to Seaside and storing it in the ground. 2. Suggest modify Order 95-10. 3. Due to artificial cap of Order 95-10 we are over-pumping. 4. You would not be penalized during high flow periods if better pumping regimen is developed. 5. Maximum in-lieu recharge. 1. This does not meet the water needs of the Peninsula.

U:\staff\word\committees\CAC\2007\20070326\03\item3_exh3a_attach1.doc