|
EXHIBIT 2-B |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
ITEM: |
ACTION
ITEM |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
12. |
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF POLICY
THAT WILL ADDRESS MONTEREY COUNTY GENERAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR CARMEL VALLEY
ALLUVIAL AQUIFER |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Meeting
Date: |
August 15,
2016 |
Budgeted: |
N/A |
||
|
|
|||||
|
From: |
David J.
Stoldt |
Program/ |
|
||
|
|
General
Manager |
Line Item
No.: |
N/A |
||
|
|
|||||
|
Prepared
By: |
David J.
Stoldt |
Cost
Estimate: |
N/A |
||
|
|
|||||
|
General
Counsel Approval: N/A |
|||||
|
Committee Recommendation: Water Supply Planning approved 3-0 |
|||||
|
CEQA
Compliance: N/A |
|||||
SUMMARY: At its July 12, 2016 meeting, the Water Supply Planning Committee considered the Monterey County General Plan policy for approving discretionary permits to use water produced from the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer (CVAA) for new commercial and residential development projects. The Committee asked staff to develop a recommendation about modifying the District’s current policy for Water Distribution System permits and permit amendments in light of the General Plan Policy. The key question that must be addressed is whether the Carmel River (and associated CVAA) can be described as a long-term sustainable water supply using the factors set out in the General Plan policy. Two of the key factors involved in determining whether the CVAA can be considered a long-term sustainable water supply include the following from Policy PS-3.2:
e. Cumulative impacts of existing and projected future demand for water from the source, and the ability to reverse trends contributing to an overdraft condition or otherwise affecting supply; and
f. Effects of additional extraction or diversion of water on the environment including on instream flows necessary to support riparian vegetation, wetlands, fish or other aquatic life, and the migration potential for steelhead, for the purpose of minimizing impacts on the environment and to those resources and species.
District staff met with County representatives on July 27, 2016 at which time the policy was discussed. County staff stopped short of affirming that the policy is consistent with their General Plan, but encouraged the District to go ahead and adopt the policy.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The District’s Water Supply Planning Committee met July 12, 2016 and recommends a new production limit for a site in the CVAA be established as follows:
· Upon conversion from vacant or agricultural to single connection residential: Determine existing consumptive use on site (evaporation & transpiration) and set as new production limit (adjusted for new project’s consumptive use.)
· Upon conversion from vacant or agricultural, or single connection residential, to 2 or 3 residential connections: Establish new limit at 85% of existing consumptive use and “retire” 15% to the benefit of the river.
· Upon conversion from vacant or agricultural, or from less than 4 residential connections, to 4 or more connections or to non-residential: Establish new limit at 75% of existing consumptive use and “retire” 25% to the benefit of the river.
Staff shall be directed to bring back to the Board an ordinance reflecting changes in the District Rules and Regulations as a result of the adopted policy.
DISCUSSION: Combined production from Cal-Am and non-Cal-Am wells in the CVAA likely peaked in the late 1980s as a result of the 1987-91 drought. Although Cal-Am has been required to report daily production data to MPWMD, accurate methods to determine non-Cal-Am production were not put in place until the early 1990s (e.g., see Ordinances 48 and 56).
The chart below shows CVAA diversions for all diverters for the period from 1995 to 2015. Total production from the aquifer did not drop off significantly until the issuance of Cease-and-Desist Order 2009-0060 by the State Water Resources Control Board and the adoption of a steeply tiered water rate structure for Cal-Am deliveries, also in 2009. Non-Cal-Am producers are not affected by either the CDO or Cal-Am rates and remained at nearly the same level (about 2,000 AFY) for the 1995-2015 period, showing that non-Cal-Am pumpers have not significantly contributed to a reversal of trends contributing to an overdraft condition or otherwise affecting supply, nor toward minimizing impacts on the environment and species.
Currently, most non-Cal-Am pumpers in the CVAA have riparian rights to divert flow. The SWRCB declined to evaluate riparian rights in Order 95-10, stating that there was not enough information provided by non-Cal-Am pumpers; however, MPWMD requires an evaluation and demonstration of riparian rights in order to process a WDS permit or amendment for wells in the CVAA. This is not a determination of a right, but is a basis for MPWMD to confirm that the permittee has a long–term right to divert flow.
Riparian pumpers generally return a variable portion of the applied water and a portion of indoor water use back into the aquifer (the latter amount through septic system return flow in areas not served by the Carmel Area Wastewater District). The amount of applied water returned depends on land use. For example, agricultural production may require a different volume of water per acre than either turf irrigation or domestic landscape irrigation. To reverse the trend in seasonal dewatering, a baseline amount of water use should be established and a reduction factor applied to the baseline. Staff recommends that project proponents be required to provide an analysis of the consumptive use of water on the property under existing conditions for a period of 10 years (note that the consumptive use amount will be less than the historical pumped amount). The consumptive use amount would become the baseline.
Staff recommends that the Committee consider applying a minimum of a 15% reduction to the baseline for any conversion greater than a single residential connection in order to continue reversing the trend of dewatering of the aquifer and reducing flows when steelhead are migrating through the river. This is consistent with District’s 1984 goal of a 15% reduction in demand by the year 2020[1] as shown in its 1984 Water Conservation Plan, as supported by the Board in Resolution 84-4. The 15% goal was also indicated on page VI-9 in the Water Allocation Program Final Environmental Report (SCH87030309) certified by the Board in 1990. The same 15% goal is highlighted in Rule 25.5 B and was applied to the City of Monterey’s public water credit for the El Estero irrigation conversion project and to the City of Pacific Grove’s local water project. A higher permanent retirement was undertaken in the Pebble Beach (52.5%) and Malpaso LLC (35%) water entitlements. The Sand City water entitlement applied approximately 31% to offset Cal-Am Carmel River pumping.
For larger developments, a 25% set-aside would be required, up to a 10% portion of which may be temporarily placed in the District Reserve for re-allocation to Public Benefit Projects until the Cease and Desist Order is lifted, provided continued progress in a reduction below the State’s Effective Diversion Limit has been made. After that time, the District would have no legal right to the water and such Public Benefit Project will be served with the new replacement water supply, thus ensuring the full 25% is rededicated to the river.
Here, District Reserve refers to the reserve referenced by District Rules 30A and 33B and Public Benefit Projects refers to projects determined by a jurisdiction to be in the public interest, and includes publicly-owned facilities, non-profits, and/or projects with benefits to the public as determined by the jurisdiction. Both definitions will likely need to be better described in an enacting ordinance.
EXHIBIT
None
U:\staff\Board_Committees\WSP\2016\20160920\02\Item-2-Exh-B.docx