WATER DEMAND
COMMITTEE
|
ITEM: |
DISCUSSION
ITEM |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
4. |
DISCUSS ACTIONS NEEDED TO
ADDRESS THE SWRCB INTERPRETATION OF THE CEASE AND DESIST ORDER REGARDING
SETTING WATER METERS FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECTS |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Meeting
Date: |
October 9, 2013 |
Budgeted: |
N/A |
||
|
|
|||||
|
From: |
David J.
Stoldt |
Program/ |
|
||
|
|
General
Manager |
Line Item No.: |
|||
|
|
|||||
|
Prepared
By: |
David J.
Stoldt |
Cost Estimate: |
|
||
|
|
|||||
General Counsel Approval: N/A |
|||||
Committee Recommendation: N/A |
|||||
|
CEQA Compliance: N/A |
|||||
SUMMARY: The State Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB”) 2009 Cease and Desist Order (“CDO”) regarding water production on the Monterey Peninsula, WR 2009-0060 set forth a simple tenet regarding diversions from the Carmel River for new water service:
California American Water Company (“Cal-Am”) “shall not divert for new service connections or for any increased use of water at existing service addresses resulting from a change in zoning or use.”
The CDO created confusion through the use of certain terminology, and subsequent communication from the SWRCB has exacerbated the problem, rendering Cal-Am simply unable to act judiciously or sensibly in setting meters. The SWRCB appears to have implemented a regime where it is dictating the type of business or use in which a property owner can engage, preventing owners from seeking the highest and best use of their property, through the prevention of multiple uses on a site, subdividing a site, or reinstallation of a meter that was lost due to vacancy, fire, or renovation – even where water use on the site will not be increased or will be permanently reduced.
The confusion created by the
SWRCB interpretation of the CDO has led Cal-Am to simply not set meters for
many good projects that reflect desirable community values with no anticipated
increase in water use. Because it is
unlikely the CDO can be lifted prior to 2018 or 2019, for the next 5 or 6 years
property owners on the
The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, on behalf of the planning agencies on the Peninsula, began in March 2013 to ask the SWRCB to work cooperatively with us to create a framework where projects that do not intensify water use may go forward and community interests can be served. The process has borne no fruit to date and discussions with staff continue.
The timeline below reflects activities to date:
March 8, 2013: Stoldt and Laredo met with SWRCB enforcement staff in Sacramento
April 1, 2013: Follow-up letter sent from MPWMD (Exhibit 4-A)
April 12, 2013: Stoldt and Laredo met with SWRCB General Counsel
May 31, 2013: SWRCB staff finally sends response asking for more information regarding setting baselines for water used at a site.
June 3, 2013: Stoldt raises issue in presentation to SWRCB board and staff
June 7, 2013: Stoldt meets with SWRCB Chairman Felicia Marcus on issue
July 2, 2013: Stoldt and Pintar meet with SWRCB enforcement staff in Sacramento. Provide proposal and supporting materials (Exhibit 4-B)
August 28, 2013: Stoldt, Burnett, and Arriaga meet with SWRCB enforcement staff to get update on progress. SWRCB appears settled on “Change of Use” but not on baselines. Urges Cal-Am to be included.
September 12, 2013: Follow-Up letter from Stoldt to SWRCB (Exhibit 4-C)
October 2, 2013: Stoldt, City staff. And local architects meet with Cal-Am to brief them on progress to date.
October 16, 2013: Meeting between SWRCB enforcement staff, MPWMD, and Cal-Am.
EXHIBITS
4-A April 1, 2013 Follow-up Letter Sent From MPWMD
4-B July 2, 2013 MPWMD Proposal/Memorandum
4-C September 12, 2013 Follow-up Letter Sent From MPWMD
U:\staff\Board_Committees\WaterDemand\2013\20131009\04\item4.docx