Board of Directors
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
The meeting was called to order at 7 PM in the Seaside City Council Chambers. At the Direction of Chair Henson, the assembly observed a moment of silence in honor of former Director, Sam Karas who died in February 2003.
Board members present:
Zan Henson, Chair – Division 5
Judi Lehman, Vice Chair – Division 2
Alvin Edwards – Division 1
Molly Erickson – Division 3
Kris Lindstrom – Division 4
David Pendergrass – Mayoral Representative
Board members absent:
Dave Potter – Monterey County Board of Supervisors
District Counsel present: David C. Laredo
The assembly recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
The following comments were directed to the Board during Oral Communications. (1) Ron Chesshire stated that the District is trying to control growth through water management policies. He expressed his hope that the Board would continue to work towards a solution to the water supply problem. (2) Robert Greenwood, representing the Carmel Valley Association, spoke to item 4, Receive District-Wide Annual Water Distribution System Production Summary. He asked for clarification as to why unaccounted for system losses were so high for the Monterra Ranch desalination plant, and the California-American, Ryan Ranch, and Hidden Hills water distribution systems. (3) John Fischer advised the Board that nine seawater desalination plants were being considered for construction along the California coast between Santa Cruz and Cambria. (4) David Dilworth stated that anytime Monterey Peninsula voters have had the opportunity to vote on a growth inducing issue, the measure has failed at the polls. He advised the Board of Directors that the public does favor the policies they have enacted. (5) Lou Haddad, resident of the City of Monterey, requested a written response to his December 13, 2002 letter that was addressed to the Board of Directors. (6) Roy Thomas, Carmel River Steelhead Association, spoke to item 6, Approve Expenditure of Mitigation Funds to Purchase, Transport and Place Gravel below Los Padres and San Clemente Dams. He suggested that gravel which has collected behind the Los Padres and San Clemente dams could be utilized for the project instead of purchasing spawning gravel.
On a motion by Director Erickson and second by Director Edwards, the Consent Calendar was unanimously approved by the Board, except for items 4, 5 and 6 that were pulled for separate consideration. The motion was approved on a vote of 6 – 0. Director Potter was absent.
On a motion by Director Erickson and second by Director Lindstrom, the report was received on a vote of 6 – 0. Director Potter was absent.
On a motion by Director Erickson and second by Director Lindstrom, the report was received by the Board with a request that additional analysis be provided on the following: (a) the increase in groundwater withdrawals and surface water diversions for Cal-Am and non Cal-Am production; (b) the increase in non-Cal-Am production from Carmel Valley; and (c) a discussion of issues that surround the statement that non Cal-Am production within the resource system was 3,216 acre-feet or 6 percent more than the non Cal-Am production limit set by Ordinance No. 87. What is the consequence of going over that limit? What has been the average over the past 8 years? What issues arise with the increase in non Cal-Am production? In addition, she requested a year-to-year comparison for the charts shown on pages 30 and 31 of the Board packet, and that the chart on page 35 include water year 2001. The additional information should be available by March or April 2003. If it cannot be prepared by that date, then a status report should be provided to the Board. The motion was approved on a vote of 6 – 0. Director Potter was absent.
On a motion by Director Edwards and second by Director Erickson, the Board authorized the expenditure of $29,112 to continue maintenance of the spawning habitat restoration project below Los Padres and San Clemente Dams. The motion was approved on a vote of 5 – 1. Directors Edwards, Erickson, Henson, Lehman and Pendergrass voted in favor of the motion. Director Lindstrom voted in opposition to the motion. Director Potter was absent.
The General Manager did not present a report to the Board.
District Counsel Laredo reported that at the January 30, 2003 Closed Session, the Board discussed Case No. M59441 (City of Seaside et al. v MPWMD) and two unspecified matters of anticipated litigation. Direction was provided to District Counsel but no reportable action was taken. Mr. Laredo reported that at the February 27, 2003, 5:30 PM session he briefed the Board on Case No. M59441 (City of Seaside et al. v MPWMD) and two unspecified matters of anticipated litigation. The Board provided direction to District Counsel but no reportable action was taken. In addition, the General Manager’s performance evaluation was discussed, but no action was taken.
Director Edwards inquired as to the status of the Seaside Pilot Injection Recovery Project. Joe Oliver, Water Resources Manager, reported that insufficient river flow has prevented initiation of the project. Future rainstorms may increase river flow to levels that will allow injection testing. Director Erickson requested a copy of the request for proposals related to revisions to the water permit process and a status report on progress to date on the Revise the Water Permit Process and Increase Innovative and Effective Conservation Practices strategic planning initiatives.
Motion No. 1 -- Chair Henson proposed a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 107 and direct staff to return to the Board on March 27, 2003 with the following items. (A) A scope of work for a focused EIR on the environmental impacts of a water credit transfer program, and the environmental impacts of not having a water credit transfer system. The focused EIR shall analyze the program goals to determine whether the program is capable of meeting those goals. Included within the goals should be the provision, pending the completion of a water supply augmentation project, for water for community projects particularly affordable and workforce housing. This will be a program level analysis, except that any applications for water credit transfers received prior to the completion of the draft EIR shall be included in the EIR analysis as to the specific effects of that proposed transfer. Applications received after that date shall tier off the final EIR. (B) All applications for water credit transfers received shall be accepted and processed utilizing this EIR. All applications for water credit transfer approval will be considered by the Board for determination after this EIR is adopted and certified by this Board. (C) A sole source proposed contract, reviewed by the Board’s Administrative Committee, with an EIR preparer with a completion of the final EIR no later than September 30, 2003. Director Lindstrom seconded the motion. Director Henson later withdrew his motion.
Motion No. 2 -- Director Edwards offered a motion to defer Motion No. 1 to the March 17, 2003 Board meeting, following the February 28, 2003 court hearing on Seaside et al. v MPWMD. Director Erickson seconded the motion. The motion failed on a vote of 3 – 3. Directors Edwards, Erickson and Lehman voted in favor of the motion. Directors Henson, Lindstrom and Pendergrass voted against the motion.
Motion No. 3-- Director Erickson proposed an amendment to Motion No. 1 to delete the words “of not having a water credit transfer program” and replace with the words “of eliminating the water credit transfer program. Director Erickson also proposed the addition of Finding No. 5 to Ordinance No. 107: “This ordinance resolves the cities litigation with the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District regarding environmental review of the water credit transfer ban. Reinstatement of the transfer credit rules is a short-term interim measure until an EIR on the transfer program can be certified. Two detailed studies exist that concluded that water credit transfers resulted in system-wide increased water usage following the transfers then prior to the transfers. Further, this Board is very concerned that the transfer credit program harms the environment, has been subject to abuses, and violates State Water Resources Control Board Order 95-10. It is the Board’s intention that the EIR be completed as quickly and accurately as possible, and that the water credit transfer program will be amended promptly thereafter to address concerns about negative environmental impacts and public fairness.” Director Lindstrom seconded the motion. No action was taken on this motion. Director Henson requested that the Board resolve the issue regarding CEQA compliance, prior to voting on a motion regarding Ordinance No. 107.
Motion No. 4 -- Director Erickson proposed a motion that Ordinance No. 107 is a project under CEQA and that an EIR should be prepared prior to adoption of the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Director Lehman. The motion failed on a vote of 4 to 2. Directors Edwards, Henson, Lindstrom and Pendergrass voted against the motion. Directors Erickson and Lehman voted in favor of the motion. Director Potter was absent.
Motion No. 5 -- Chair Henson offered a motion to adopt a Notice of Exemption for Ordinance No. 107, based of an exemption under CEQA related to resolving litigation and according to section 15270 of the California Code of Regulations. Director Lindstrom seconded the motion. The motion failed on a vote of 3 – 3. Directors Edwards, Erickson and Pendergrass voted against the motion. Directors Lehman, Lindstrom and Henson voted in favor of the motion. Director Potter was absent.
Motion No. 6 – Chair Henson made a motion that the Board consider adoption of Ordinance No. 107 at the March 17, 2003 Board meeting. In addition, on March 17, 2003 District staff will bring forward items A, B and C from Motion No. 1 for Board consideration. Chair Henson also incorporated into his motion the amendments offered by Director Erickson in Motion No. 3. The motion was seconded by Director Erickson. The motion was adopted on a vote of 5 – 1. Directors Edwards, Erickson, Henson, Lehman and Lindstrom voted in favor of the motion. Director Pendergrass voted against the motion. Director Potter was absent.
The following comments were directed to the Board during the public hearing on this item. After receiving all public comment, Chair Henson closed the public hearing on the first reading of Ordinance No. 107. (1) Richard Avila, building contractor, stated that when Ordinance No. 102 was adopted, he was left with 14 water credits that could not be utilized. Mr. Avila felt that those water credits were stolen from him. He asked that the water credit transfer program be reinstated. (2) Mark Beique, a resident of Monterey, proposed that if water credit transfers were to be allowed by adoption of Ordinance No. 107, limits should be placed on the price of water to be transferred He asked why the transfer of residential water credits was excluded from the ordinance. (3) Patrick Dwyer, Senior Community Development Director for the County of Monterey, submitted a letter dated February 27, 2003 from James Nakashima, Executive Director of the Housing Authority of Monterey County that is on file at the District office. He requested that the Board consider setting aside a percentage of transferred water credit for use in affordable housing projects. (4) Sidney Woodrow, resident of Carmel, proposed that a new water credit transfer program be developed which would require that when water is transferred to the jurisdiction, it should not be intended for a specific project. Instead, the jurisdiction should decide how to allocate that water after the transfer occurs. (5) Robert Greenwood, Carmel Valley Association, expressed opposition to water credit transfers. He stated that enactment of Ordinance No. 102 did not require CEQA review. He urged the Board to prepare an initial study on the increase in water use that could occur if Ordinance No. 107 is adopted. (6) David Dilworth, representing Helping Our Peninsula’s Environment (HOPE), urged the Board to prepare an EIR on the adoption of Ordinance No. 107. He suggested that the Board rescind Ordinance No.102, instead of adopting Ordinance No. 107. Mr. Dilworth was concerned that Ordinance No. 107 might contain language that was not part of the original Rule 28 that allowed the transfer of water credits.
Director Erickson offered a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 106. Director Lindstrom seconded the motion. The motion was approved on a vote of 5 to 1. Directors Edwards, Erickson, Henson, Lehman and Lindstrom voted in favor of the motion. Director Pendergrass voted against the motion. Director Potter was absent.
During the public comment period on this item, David Dilworth suggested that the cost to the applicant might be reduced if District staff more accurately estimate the number of hours needed to process these permits.
Director Lindstrom offered a motion to adopt the Mid-Year Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Budget adjustment. Director Lehman seconded the motion. The motion was approved on a vote of 6 – 0. Directors Edwards, Erickson, Henson, Lehman, Lindstrom and Pendergrass voted in favor of the motion. Director Potter was absent.
No comment was directed to the Board during the public hearing on this item.
Director Henson offered a motion that was seconded by Director Erickson to defer this item, and resolve it as part of the discussions regarding modifications to the financing and operations agreements for Phase II improvements to the CAWD/PBCSD Wastewater Reclamation Project. The motion was approved on a vote of 5 – 1. Directors Edwards, Erickson, Henson, Lehman and Lindstrom voted in favor of the motion. Director Pendergrass voted against the motion. Director Potter was absent.
The following comments were directed to the Board during the public comment period on this item. (1) Richard Andrews, General Manager of the Pebble Beach Community Services District (PBCSD), noted that the PBCSD provides services to all properties designated as benefited in the reclamation project agreements, including fire protection, emergency medical response, and operation of the reclamation project distribution system. He remarked it would have been best for this lot to be designated as a benefited property at the time the reclamation project agreements were developed. In response to a question from Chair Henson, Mr. Andrews stated that if approval of the request were delayed, it would cause a delay in completion of improvements to the PBCSD facilities. (2) David Dilworth, representing HOPE, submitted a letter dated February 27, 2003 that is on file at the District office. He requested that the Board deny the PBCSD request, and that any request for use of water from the PBCSD/CAWD entitlement be subject to CEQA review. (3) Mark Beique suggested that the PBCSD request be handled in a manner similar to a water credit transfer. The District could set aside 15 percent of the transferred water. He stated that all parties should be treated equally. (4) Mike Niccum reminded the Board that an environmental assessment of the CAWD/PBCSD Wastewater Reclamation Project was completed n 1991. According to Mr. Niccum, this request could be granted under the District’s water credit transfer regulations. (5) Tex Irwin encouraged the Board to approve the request because the proposed project would provide a public benefit, and is not intended to encourage growth.
Director Edwards made a motion that was seconded by Director Lehman to approve items 1 through 6 of the staff recommendation that include proceeding with the Interim Retrofit Project; adoption of a Notice of Exemption; and authorization to execute a contract amendment with John F. Otto, Inc. for an amount not-to-exceed $145,000 for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $243,000. The motion was adopted on a vote of 5 to 1. Directors Edwards, Erickson, Henson, Lehman and Pendergrass voted in favor of the motion. Director Lindstrom voted against the motion. Director Potter was absent.
The following comments were directed to the Board during the public comment period on this item. (1) Charles Kemp, Operations Manager for the California-American Water Company, expressed support for the proposed Interim Retrofit Project because it was cost effective and could be implemented quickly. (2) Roy Thomas, CRSA, encouraged the Board to approve funding for operation of the Sleepy Hollow Steelhead Rearing Facility, and urged the Board to expect satisfactory results from staff charged to implement the project. He noted that if the Board did not approve funding for operation of the facility, the CRSA was committed to ensure that someone would. (3) Joyce Ambrosius, NOAA Fisheries, stated that the agency believes that operation of the Sleepy Hollow Steelhead Rearing Facility is critical to survival of the steelhead. The agency supports a permanent solution to the situation at the facility. But until that occurs, the agency will support the Interim Retrofit Project. (4) Kevin Urquhart, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), expressed support for the Interim Retrofit Project because it would provide mitigations required by SWRCB Order 95-10 and the District’s Allocation Program EIR. He noted that CDFG would assemble a team of experts to review operations at the facility and determine what improvements could be implemented. The CDFG will also review engineering designs for the retrofit project alternatives. Mr. Urquhart later clarified his statements by noting that his comments were directed to Options 1 and 2 outlined in the staff report. (5) Robert Zampatti, CRSA, urged the Board to approve funding for the Interim Retrofit Project. (6) Clive Sanders, CRSA, expressed agreement with comments made by other speakers. He offered the assistance of CRSA members with operation of the Interim Retrofit Project, i.e. when a District staff member is sick and backup is needed. (7) Frank Emerson, representing the Fishing Alliance of California, expressed support for any fish rearing project that could be implemented this year. He was concerned that the District would consider the discontinuance of funding for fish rearing facilities and described that as a dereliction of duty. (8) David Dilworth expressed his concern that the Interim Retrofit Project would require construction of a divider wall in the river. He suggested that as an alternative, a temporary diversion channel could be constructed. (9) Geoff Malloway, Central Coast Fly Fishing, expressed support for the Interim Retrofit Project. (10) Mark Beique asked if John F. Otto, Inc. was determined to be the lowest bidder as a result of the public contract process. General Manager Avila responded that this contract was awarded on a sole-source basis due to the urgency of this matter. (11) John Fischer thanked all persons involved in developing a solution to the sedimentation problem at the Sleepy Hollow Steelhead Rearing Facility.
Director Henson made a motion that the revised draft report be circulated for review and comment for 60 days. At the close of the 60-day period, all comments received will be presented to the Board of Directors. At that time, the Board will determine if further action is required. The motion was approved on a vote of 5 – 1. Directors Edwards, Erickson, Henson, Lehman and Lindstrom voted in favor of the motion. Director Pendergrass voted against the motion. Director Potter was absent.
The following comments were directed to the Board during the public comment period on this item. (1) Robert Greenwood stated that the consultants who prepared the report have established a record for documenting facts that were previously established. (2) David Dilworth stated that the report does not begin to describe the gravity of existing conditions on the Carmel River. According to Mr. Dilworth, the report was prepared in order to minimize river flows, not to establish thresholds. He urged the Board to call a stop to all work on the report, and to retain a different consultant. He asked the Board to refuse to accept the report because it had not received adequate public review. (3) Roy Thomas, CRSA, stated that flow thresholds described in the report are insufficient for attraction and migration of the steelhead. Mr. Thomas noted that he recently observed 85 steelhead that could not migrate due to low river flows. Those flows were higher than the threshold recommended in the report. (4) Joyce Ambrosius, NOAA Fisheries, stated that she had not read the report. She advised the Board that any water supply project would need to meet flow requirements required by the Endangered Species Act. (5) Kevin Urquhart stated that this would be the first time that a report prepared by the District had not received inter-agency review prior to finalization. He noted that there is no legal requirement for the CDFG to review the report. He requested that the CDFG be allowed to review the report. Mr. Urquhart stated that 10,750 acre-feet is an illegal diversion, and therefore could not be used as a baseline. (6) Robert Zampatti, CRSA, requested a description of the term “threshold report.”
There was no discussion of the Informational Items/Staff Reports
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:00 PM.
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. Consider Approval of Minutes from the Regular Board Meeting of January 30 and Special Board Meeting of February 11, 2003
2. Ratify Committee Assignments for Calendar Year 2003
3. Receive Semi-Annual Groundwater Quality Monitoring Report
4. Receive District-Wide Annual Water Distribution System Production Summary
5. Receive District-Wide Annual Water Production Summary Report for Water Year 2002
6. Approve Expenditure of Mitigation Funds to Purchase, Transport and Place Gravel Below Los Padres and San Clemente Dams
7. Consider Adoption of Treasurer’s Report for June and December 2002
GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT
8. Report on Closed Sessions of January 30, 2003 and February 27, 2003, 5:30 PM
9. Board Comments and Referrals
10. Consider First Reading of Ordinance No. 107 – Rescinding Ordinance No. 102 and Reinstating Rule 28, Water use Credit Transfers – and Discussion of Process and Substance Relating to Subsequent Ordinances Concerning Water Use Credit Transfers
11. Consider Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 106 – Revising Fees for Water Distribution System and Other Permit Applications
12. Consider Adoption of Mid-Year Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Budget Adjustment
13. Consider Processing a Request by Pebble Beach Community Services District (PBCSD) to Designate PBCSD Property as a Benefited Property to the CAWD/PBCSD Wastewater Reclamation Project
14. Receive Report on Alternatives for Future Operation of Sleepy Hollow Steelhead Rearing Facility and Consider Approval of a Plan and Contract Amendment for Retrofitting the Water Intake System at the Facility
15. Review Revised Draft Carmel River Flow Threshold Report
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS/STAFF REPORTS
16. Letters Received
17. Committee Reports
18. Strategic Planning Initiatives Progress Report
19. Monthly Water Supply Project Status Report
20. Carmel River Fishery Report
21. Water Conservation Program Report
22. Water Use Credit Transfer Status Report
23. Monthly Allocation Report
24. Monthly Cal-Am Sales Report
25. Monthly Cal-Am Production Report
26. Production Report – CAWD/PBCSD Wastewater Reclamation Project
27. Semi-Annual Financial Report on CAWD/PBCSD Wastewater Reclamation Project
28. Report on Second Quarter Financial Activity for Fiscal Year 2002-2003
29. Monthly Water Supply Status Report
Fran Farina, Secretary to the Board