EXHIBIT 1-A |
||||
|
|
|||
ITEM: |
PUBLIC
HEARINGS |
|||
|
||||
25. |
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVE FIRST |
|||
|
||||
Meeting Date: |
June 22, 2006 |
|
||
|
||||
From: |
David A. Berger, General Manager |
|
||
|
|
|
||
Prepared by: |
Henrietta Stern |
|
||
|
||||
General Counsel Review: Yes; reviewed Ordinance |
||||
CEQA Review: Initial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration circulated 20 days |
||||
Committee
Review: Board approved concept ordinance
on February 23, 2006. Refinements were
reviewed by Rules and Regulations Review Committee on June 12, 2006, which
voted to ______ the ordinance.
|
||||
SUMMARY: Current MPWMD Rules & Regulations require a Water Distribution System (WDS) permit for any new or amended WDS within the District, unless specific criteria for an exemption are met. The Board will consider two actions related to proposed Ordinance No. 124 (Exhibit 25-A) that amends MPWMD Rule 20-C, Exemptions, as well as related Definitions found in Rule 11, as follows:
Ordinance No. 124 creates a new exemption for areas of the
Former Fort Ord within MPWMD boundaries that are not served by water sources
from the
The Board approved a conceptual version of this ordinance (Concept Ordinance AA) at its February 23, 2006 meeting. Since then, revisions were made to the concept ordinance prior to circulation of the Initial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration in mid-April 2006. Additional refinements to Rule 11, Definitions, were made in early May 2006 to enhance clarity, and do not affect the conclusions of the Initial Study. Please refer to the “Discussion” section below for a review of the changes from the February 23, 2006 concept ordinance.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board take the following actions:
The Board Rules and Regulations Review Committee considered this item at its June 12, 2006 meeting and voted __ to __ to recommend __________ of this item.
District Counsel has reviewed the changes to Rule 11, Definitions, in Version 5 that were added after Version 4 was circulated along with the Initial Study. Counsel concurs with staff that these changes were made solely for clarity and do not alter the conclusions of the Initial Study. Version 5 does not need to be recirculated for environmental review.
DISCUSSION: Concept Ordinance AA, approved by the Board on February 23, 2006, focused solely on the need to reconcile the MPWMD Rules & Regulations with the MOA and Addendum signed in May 1993 between MPWMD, MCWRA and PVWMA. This change is shown as the bold italic text as the new Exemption #11 (Rule 20-C-11) shown on page 4 of Exhibit 25-A. Specifically, the new exemption reads:
11. For a Water
Distribution System that serves water to Parcels within the Former Fort Ord
Lands within MPWMD, but that does not derive water from the Seaside Groundwater
Basin or the Carmel River Basin, including the
The practical ramification of this
change is that water system expansions for new construction in the Former Fort
Ord area served by the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) from
http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/asd/board/boardpacket/2006/20060223/18/item18.htm
Concept Ordinance AA became Ordinance No. 124 Version 4 (April 14, 2004), which was circulated for CEQA review. The only change from the Board-approved concept ordinance is the deletion of old Exemption #11 shown on page 4 of Exhibit 25-A. Specifically, the old exemption that was deleted reads:
11. To only
construct (but not use) the system components.
The
District permit enables use of a water well or any other water distribution
system component.
This change would close an enforcement loophole that would allow a well to escape MPWMD regulatory review under certain circumstances. This loophole was discovered after the February 2006 Board meeting as Water Resources Division staff began a detailed review of WDS enforcement issues at the direction of the General Manager. Also a new Finding was added (see Finding #5 on page 2 of Exhibit 25-A) to provide the rationale for deleting the exemption.
Ordinance No. 124, Version 5 (dated June 6, 2006) is proposed for first reading approval by the Board. It differs from Version 4 in that (1) new definitions related to WDS exemptions have been added to amend Rule 11; and (2) a new Finding #6 was added to reflect the need for clarified definitions. Prior to the final version for second reading and adoption, staff plans to capitalize words that are defined in Rule 11 to indicate that a definition for the word exists.
Version 5 includes one new definition and two refined definitions as follows:
Ø Monitor Well (new definition)
Ø Replace a Well (revised definition)
Ø Completion of a Well (revised definition)
The new definition of “Monitor Well” is shown below in bold italic. It is needed because the definition of “Replace a Well” refers to a monitor well, which is currently undefined:
MONITOR
WELL – shall mean a water well to monitor groundwater level and/or groundwater
quality. The owners or operators of any
formerly active well that is to be converted to a Monitor Well shall properly
register the well by filing forms provided by the District, including an
amended Water Well Registration form.
Water shall not be produced from a Monitor Well without written
permission from the District. Exceptions
to this restriction may be allowed for testing to determine water quality or
for short-term emergency use, but only with written consent from the District.
For “Replace a Well”, the modification (an added sentence) is shown in bold italic below, and explains what “proper registration” means:
REPLACE A WELL – An active or inactive well is considered to be replaced when a new well is completed in a separate borehole, or when the same borehole is modified, such as by deepening. A replacement well must be located on the same legal parcel as the original well, and may not be located in the riparian zone, as defined by District Rule 11, unless a river work permit has been applied for and issued by the District. The well that is being replaced must be abandoned and destroyed in conformance with local and state well regulations unless it serves as a properly constructed, maintained and registered monitor well. Proper registration means the owner of the well that is being replaced must file an amended Water Well Registration form indicating that the well is a Monitor Well, and must file a completed form provided by the District indicating that no water will be produced from the Monitor Well without written permission from the District.
The definition of “Completion of
a Well” relates to District Rule 20-A that requires either a written permit or
exemption for all new wells. The
definition needed refinement because it conflicted with other MPWMD Rules and
did not make sense upon close reading in the context of other rules. Deleted text is shown as strikeout and
new text is shown in bold italic below:
COMPLETION OF A
WELL – “Completion of a Well” shall
means the completion of all physical tasks necessary, so that the
well is producing or is capable of producing ground water, including an
operable pumping facility. This shall
include acquisition of a Monterey County Health Department Water Well Construction
Permit, installation of any water meter(s) required by MPWMD, and MPWMD
inspection and approval of the meter(s). a water well pursuant to a
Monterey County Health Department Division of Environmental Health Water Well
Construction Permit, and the date of completion shall correspond to the “Date
Work Finished” as shown on the State of California Division of Water Resources
Well Completion Report.
CEQA REVIEW: The Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration (Exhibit 25-B) was mailed on April 14, 2006 to 42 responsible and interested agencies and groups, including local libraries. The comment period was set from April 17 through May 8, 2006 in compliance with CEQA; a 20-day review period is allowed for projects of local interest. A notice was also posted at the District office. The original hearing date was May 15, 2006. A notice was sent to all recipients that the hearing date was changed to June 22, 2006. A notice of this public hearing on June 22, 2006 was also placed in The Monterey County Herald. As of May 8, 2006, no comments were received. One comment letter from AMBAG was received on May 15, 2006 stating that the AMBAG Board had no comment.
EXHIBITS
25-A Ordinance No. 124 (Version 5 dated June 6, 2006)
25-B Initial
Study and Proposed Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 124; package dated
April 14, 2006.
U:\staff\word\committees\RulesRegsReview\2006\20060612\01\item1_exh1a.doc