January 28, 2004

Committee members present:

PAC TAC

Carmel-by-the-Sea Paula Hazdovac Sean Conroy

County of Monterey Dave Potter

Del Rey Oaks Joe Russell Ron Langford

City of Monterey Dan Albert Bill Wojtkowski

Monterey Peninsula

Airport District Tex Irwin

Pacific Grove Don Gasperson Judy McClelland

Sand City Kelly Morgan

Seaside Darryl Choates Diana Ingersoll

District staff present:

Fran Farina, General Manager

Stephanie Pintar, Water Demand Manager

Henrietta Stern, Project Manager

Darby Fuerst, Senior Hydrologist

Arlene Tavani, Executive Assistant

District Counsel present:

David C. Laredo

MPWMD Board Members present:

Alvin Edwards, Chair, Division 1

Larry Foy, Vice Chair, Division 5

1. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 1:00 PM in the District conference room. At the request of Board Chair Edwards, the committee observed a moment of silence in honor of Ruth Vreeland, recently deceased Monterey City Councilperson.

2. Oral Communications

No comments from the public.

3. Comments by Chair

Chair Edwards welcomed the committee members. He explained that although the committee had not met for over two years, the Board was again looking for the committee’s help in making progress towards its goals. Chair Edwards described the meetings as “the beginning of things to come.”

4. Discussion Items

a. Discussion of Current Water Supply Issues, Including Water Credit Transfers and Status of Jurisdiction Allocations

Henrietta Stern and Stephanie Pintar presented an overview of water supply issues including the history and present status (on file at the District office). Following the presentation there was a question and answer period.

The committee members discussed the possibility of developing modifications to the water credit transfer rules, and whether or not that would prompt the preparation of an EIR. District Counsel Laredo stated that if an argument could be made that there would be no environmental impact caused by new water credit transfer rules, an EIR would not be required. District staff explained that presently there is no study that quantifies actual water savings from water credit transfers. District Counsel Laredo noted that previously the District attempted to adopt water credit transfer rules by categorical exemption and also by negative declaration. The District lost court challenges on both of those issues.

Mr. Choates stated that if water credit transfers decrease water use, there should be no need for an EIR. Mr. Wojtkowksi reasoned that funds should not be spent on an EIR when water credit transfer rules require a 15 percent set aside from the amount of water transferred. Mr. Irwin suggested that if a property received a water credit transfer, and water use exceeded the transferred amount, there should be a way to deal with that on an individual basis. Mr. Wojtkowski suggested that different classes of projects could be developed, for instance there must be certain types of projects that do exhibit a reduction in water use following a water credit transfer.

Mr. Choates suggested that the District allow the jurisdictions to work on this issue for 30 to 60 days and then bring a recommendation to the Board. Mr. Potter concurred with the suggestion. Chair Edwards agreed to request to the MPWMD Board that this issue be continued for 30 days to allow the PAC and TAC time to develop a recommendation.

The PAC asked that the TAC meet to develop a recommendation and then present it to the PAC for review. Ms. Stern directed the TAC members’ attention to Ordinance No. 101, which proposed amendments to the water use credit transfer rules and was jointly developed by District staff and the PAC and TAC. The ordinance was revoked by the Board in 2001, but could be a starting point for the TAC’s discussion. District staff was directed to work with TAC members to schedule a meeting date.

The following comments were received during the public comment period on this item. (1) David Dilworth, representing Helping Our Peninsula’s Environment, expressed concern about the risk involved in exceeding the SWRCB Order 95-10 limit that is posed by the near-term water supply concepts. He proposed the installation of greywater systems. He suggested that water savings might occur if the District were to publish a list of the 250 highest water users. (2) Les Turnbeaugh, with the City of Monterey, asked what would happen to water from a city retrofit program, would the credit be allocated to the city or to the 11,285 acre-feet deficit? He asked what portion of production from a desalination plant that would not need to be allocated to the 11,285 acre-feet deficit. District Counsel Laredo replied that the SWRCB has said that it will not micro-manage demand issues such as water use credits. The SWRCB has determined that any new supply such as a desalination project must meet the one-to-one offset. (3) Mark Dias asked if the one-to-one offset would apply to a major water user in Seaside that used reclaimed water. Mr. Laredo stated that the SWRCB has the discretionary authority to determine that the one-to-one requirement would apply.

b. Discussion of Near-Term Water Supply Concepts, Including Reclamation

Henrietta Stern gave a presentation on near-term water supply concepts, including reclamation (on file at the District office). The committee members discussed the possibility of requesting that 140 acre-feet of water from the Carmel Area Wastewater District/Pebble Beach Community Services District Wastewater Reclamation Project be allocated to the jurisdictions. The 140 acre-feet of water could come from the 420 acre-feet of water allocated to the District from the project to be used at its discretion, assuming reliable replacement of 800 acre-feet per year of Cal-Am potable water with reclaimed water. District staff explained that the 140 acre-feet would not be a new water source, but is Cal-Am water derived from the Carmel River and Seaside Basin. There is a risk that under certain conditions, use of that water could cause Cal-Am production to rise above the limit set by SWRCB Order 95-10. Chair Edwards suggested that the jurisdictions might be willing to participate in funding the EIR that would be required in order to allocate the 140 acre-feet of water. There was no direction from the PAC or TAC on this item.

6. Comments by TAC and PAC Members

Mr. Albert stated that it would be worthwhile for these committee meetings to continue.

7. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 3 PM.

U:\staff\word\committees\Tac\2005\20050111\01\item1_exh1a.doc