Exhibit 2-A
Conceptual
Revisions to WDS Regulations Proposed by MPWMD Staff
Prepared for October 28, 2013 Rules and
Regulations Review Committee Meeting
The
Pre-Application step is deleted
(Rule 21-A) and necessary maps and guidance information shall be posted on the
MPWMD website.
The
Water Distribution System (WDS) Application must attach a MCEHB Well
Construction Permit, DWR Well Completion Report, well testing results, MCEHB water
quality and quantity certification form, and deed to the property at a minimum.
Focus
is on whether the WDS is within or outside of the Monterey Peninsula Water Resources System (MPWRS) which is
comprised of the Carmel Valley Alluvial
Aquifer (CVAA) and the Seaside Groundwater
Basin (SGB). Systems outside of the
MPWRS will have less regulation.
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
Staff
wishes to have physical access to all
Wells to potentially monitor groundwater levels; this requirement is part
of all conditions of approval. Wells
already need to be registered, metered, inspected and report production
annually.
Rules 20, 21 and 22 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, overly 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 (see MPWMD rules, but only includes Carmel
Valley) |
Single Parcel
Connection System (SPCS) |
Type A Basic Exemption |
Type B Enhanced Exemption |
SPCS=
well(s) are located on, overly 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 for 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 |
Any type of stream
direct diversion |
Type D WDS Permit |
|
Desal plant,
reclamation, any major project needing EIR |
Type D WDS Permit |
|
Other ??? |
|
|
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 CEQA Notice of Exemption for ministerial exemptions. A CEQA Notice of Exemption (categorical)
would be filed if there is a discretionary approval. 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, 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. Also applicant
needs Watermaster signoff if 5.0+ AFY in Seaside Basin.
C. Type C, WDS Permit-- This is for non-MPWRS situations
greater than 1,000 feet but for which there are 4 or more Parcels involved (hence
need for WDS Permit per District Law). 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, 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 change to water resource
setting.
U:\staff\Board_Committees\RulesRegs\2013\20131028\02\item2_exh2a.docx