Strategic Planning Session/Special Board Meeting

Board of Directors

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

March 27, 2003

7:00 PM Session


The meeting was called to order at 7 PM in the District Conference Room.


Board members present:

Zan Henson, Chair – Division 5

Judi Lehman, Vice Chair – Division 2

Alvin Edwards – Division 1

Molly Erickson – Division 3

David Pendergrass – Mayoral Representative

Dave Potter – Monterey County Board of Supervisors


Board members absent:  Kris Lindstrom – Division 4


District Counsel present:  David C. Laredo


Acting General Manager present:  Fran Farina


The assembly recited the Pledge of Allegiance.


The following comments were directed to the Board during Oral Communications.  (1) Tex Irwin observed that the Board appointed an Acting General Manager who lived in Southern California, in order to fill the leadership position with a person that was unbiased with regard to issues facing the District.  (2) Lou Haddad read a statement dated March 27, 2003 that is on file at the District office citing errors in the 2002 Monterey County Grand Jury Report regarding the District.


Chair Henson announced that at 9 PM that evening, the Board would consider item 2, the First Reading of Ordinance No. 108.



Following the presentations and public comment period, Chair Henson closed the public hearing on this item and directed that any decisions not made by the Board that evening on items A through C be deferred to a meeting on April 2, 2003 at 7 PM.


An outline of the presentation given by Henrietta Stern, Project Manager, is on file at the District office.  An outline of the presentation given by Polly Boissevain of CDM is on file at the District office.


A questions and answer period was conducted following the presentations.  A summary of Ms. Boissevain’s responses to the questions asked by the Board is presented here.


The consultant cannot determine the feasibility of alternatives under consideration until the feasibility of horizontal directionally drilled (HDD) wells and a proposed pipeline to the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) outfall have been determined.  Wells proposed for installation in the bluffs area of the former Fort Ord area, or in Sand City will be drilled on land to be transferred to the California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks).   Permission will have to be granted by State Parks to drill wells on those lands.  The cost to install conventional vertical wells is less than HDD wells, but a large number (20) of conventional vertical wells would be needed.  Identifying  suitable locations for the wells will be difficult because the conventional vertical wells have a potential to impact existing wells in the Seaside Basin and the proposed Sand City desalination project.  Plans for the proposed Sand City desalination project include two conventional collector wells located South of Tioga Street, and an HDD well for brine disposal.   Approximately 250 acre-feet of reclaimed wastewater would be available to the Northern Monterey area from the proposed Marina Coast Water District (MCWD)/MRWPCA reclamation project.   The City of Sand City based its desalination project feasibility studies on reports prepared by the District in the early 1990s for a proposed desalination plant in Sand City.


An outline of Ms. Stern’s presentation is on file at the District office


Mike Rushton of JSA and Henrietta Stern gave presentations to the Board.  Outlines of their presentations are on file at the District office.  Following is a summary of the responses Mr. Rushton and District staff gave to questions asked by the Board.


JSA has had no conversations with waste management agencies on the possibility of a cost-sharing project to reduce brine disposal by recycling the discharge water for reuse.   The project- level Sand City desalination option includes a program-level analysis of aquifer storage and recovery.  The feasibility study on HDD wells could take less than a year to complete.  The duration would be based on whether or not preliminary testing shows that a pilot project is necessary.  The District must comply with CEQA on development of a desalination project.  The main permitting issues are related to California Coastal Commission review and a waste discharge permit.  Those do not require federal review.  However, NEPA compliance will be required if a 404 Permit were needed.  In addition, there are potential wetlands issues.  An easement would also be required if access across U.S Army lands is needed.  If construction were planned in sensitive dune areas, compliance with the Endangered Species Act would be an issue.  If the District were to build a desalination project outside of its boundaries, the Board would need to adopt a finding stating that it is infeasible to develop a water supply project within the District boundaries.    A ballot measure on a water supply project cannot offer an “either or” choice of projects.  The measure must ask the electorate to vote yes or no on a project.   A ballot measure could be developed that asks the electorate to vote yes or no on a water supply project production goal.  The District could conduct a mail ballot.   If the ballot measure were only advisory, there would be no requirement to comply with CEQA or NEPA. 


Brad Damitz of the National Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary stated that any sea floor construction would require a permit.  In addition, any brine discharge into the Sanctuary would require a permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.   Discharge outside of the Sanctuary boundaries that will affect the Sanctuary will also require authorization.  The Sanctuary has a Desalination Working Group that is developing an Action Plan for development of desalination projects.  The group is working to develop standards for salinity levels of brine disposal.  The Sanctuary is concerned about the proliferation of small desalination plants along the California coastline.   He stated that desalination projects are prohibited within the Sanctuary, however permits can be issued that allow desalination.  Impacts from desalination projects are often less harmful to the environment than other water production methods.


The following comments were presented to the Board during the public comment period on this item.  (1) Tex Irwin asked for clarification of some points raised in the staff note on item 1.    (2)  Mark Beique, a resident of Monterey, spoke on behalf of Water for Us.  He stated that the water supply options under consideration by the Board do not provide for planned uses such as water for legal lots of record.  He urged the Board to be sensitive to cost issues, because desalination is not the most cost effective solution.  (3) Lou Haddad urged the Board to consider Cal-Am’s application to the SWRCB for 3,000 acre-feet of additional water rights as a potential source of new water.


A motion was offered by Director Potter to adopt the first reading of  Ordinance No. 108.  Director Erickson seconded the motion.


Director Lehman offered a substitute motion that the Board take no action that evening because all seven Directors were not present to participate in the decision


Director Potter withdrew his motion.


Director Erickson offered a motion to approve first reading of Ordinance No. 108 including a finding that the ordinance is exempt from CEQA.   Director Henson seconded the motion.  The motion failed on a vote of 3 to 3.   Directors Erickson, Henson and Lehman voted in favor of the motion.  Directors Edwards, Pendergrass and Potter voted against the motion.  Director Lindstrom was absent.


Director Erickson offered a motion to defer first reading of Ordinance No. 108 to the April 2, 2003 Board meeting.  Director Lehman seconded the motion.  The motion was approved on a vote of 4 – 2.   Directors Erickson, Henson, Lehman, and Potter voted in favor of the motion.  Directors Edwards and Pendergrass voted against the motion.  Director Lindstrom was absent.

No public comment was directed to the Board during the public hearing on this item.


Director Edwards offered a motion to accept the annual report.   Director Pendergrass seconded the motion.  The motion was approved unanimously on a vote of 6 – 0.  Director Lindstrom was absent.


At the Direction of Chair Henson, Consent Item 1from the 5:30 PM session, Consider Adoption of Response to 2002 Monterey County Grand Jury Report, was deferred to the April 2, 2003 Board meeting.


The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 PM.



































1.          Discuss Action to Be Taken on Water Supply Project Initiative



A.      Consider Reception of Phase I Engineering Study Report on Local Water Supply Alternatives





























B.            Discuss Options for Water Supply Project







C.            Consider Scope of Work for Phase II Environmental Impact Report




















































2.       Consider First Reading of Ordinance No. 108 – An Ordinance of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Amending Rule 28.B to Clarify the Discretionary Review of Water Credit Transfer Applications by Board of Directors


















3.       Receive Public Comment on Draft 2002 MPWMD Annual Report















                                                                                                                                Fran Farina, Secretary to the Board


U:\Arlene\word\2003\Board Meetings\Minutes\final03277PM.doc