Regular Meeting

Board of Directors

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

May 27, 2004



The meeting was called to order at 7:05 PM in the District conference room.


Directors present:

Alvin Edwards, Chair – Division 1

Larry Foy, Vice Chair – Division 5

Judi Lehman – Division 2

Kristi Markey – Division 3

Michelle Knight – Division 4

David Pendergrass – Mayoral Representative


Directors absent:

David Potter – Monterey County Board of Supervisors


General Manager present:  Fran Farina


District Counsel present:  David C. Laredo

Special Counsel present:  Carl Nelson


The assembly recited the Pledge of Allegiance.


The following comments were directed to the Board during Oral Communications.  (1) Darby Fuerst, MPWMD Senior Hydrologist, reported that on May 26, 2004, California American Water production exceeded the month-end production target by 258 acre-feet.  The month-end targets were established in response to issuance of State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order 95-10.  It is projected that by September 30, 2004, production could exceed the 11,285 acre-feet per year limit specified in SWRCB Order 95-10 by approximately 75 acre-feet.  General Manager Farina sent a letter to Steven Leonard advising him that by June 2004, Stage 3 of the Expanded Water Conservation and Standby Rationing Plan could be in place.  Mr. Fuerst noted that sufficient water is available in the water resources system to meet community needs.  He explained that Stages 1 through 3 of the Expanded Water Conservation and Standby Rationing Plan are related to Cal-Am production levels.  Stages 4 through 7 are triggered by a physical water shortage.  (2) Steven Leonard, representing Cal-Am, reported that water production problems have occurred in the Ryan Ranch water distribution system.  Customers in the Ryan Ranch area have been advised to reduce water consumption until the situation is resolved.  In response to Mr. Fuerst’s comments, Mr. Leonard stated that postcards have been mailed to Cal-Am customers encouraging them to conserve water.  In addition, a conservation message was recorded and transmitted by telephone to Cal-Am customers. He stated that no plan has been developed for payment of fines that could be assessed by the SWRCB should water production exceed the 11,285 acre-feet annual limit  (3) David Dilworth, representing Helping Our Peninsula’s Environment (HOPE), requested that the District transmit a letter to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and the SWRCB stating that Cal-Am is not doing everything possible to properly manage the water distribution system and reduce water use.  He noted that if Cal-Am production were to exceed the limit established by SWRCB Order 95-10, Cal-Am shareholders should be responsible to pay any fines that could be assessed.



Approved.  On a motion by Director Pendergrass and second by Director Knight, the Findings were approved on a vote of 5 – 1.  Directors Edwards, Foy, Knight, Lehman, and Pendergrass voted in favor of the motion.  Director Markey was opposed.  Director Potter was absent.





Approved.  On a motion by Director Foy and second by Director Lehman, the resolution was adopted unanimously on a vote of 6 – 0.   Director Potter was absent.





A motion was offered by Director Foy to approve the staff recommendation to: (a) adopt the CEQA Findings in support of Ordinance No. 109; (b) adopt the second reading version of Ordinance No. 109; and (c) adopt the corrections outlined in the Errata Sheet presented at the May 27, 2004 Board meeting (on file at the District office).  In addition, the Board should adopt corrections to the Errata Sheet presented orally by Special Counsel Nelson which are: (a) page 1, item II.E, line 3, delete the word “or” and replace it with the word “of”; and (b) add a new item to the Errata Sheet indicating that on page 20 of Ordinance No. 109, section F.3, line 2, the words “14 days” should be deleted and replaced with the words “15 days.”  The motion was seconded by Director Knight and approved on a vote of 4 – 2.   Directors Edwards, Foy, Knight, and Pendergrass voted in favor of the motion.  Directors Lehman and Markey voted against the motion.  Director Potter was absent.


The following comments were directed to the Board during the public hearing on this item.  (1) Thomas Jamison, representing the Pebble Beach Company, expressed satisfaction with the second reading version of Ordinance No. 109, including items enumerated in the Errata Sheet and mentioned by Special Counsel Nelson.  He urged the Board to adopt Ordinance No. 109 and the CEQA Findings.   Mr. Jamison noted that item H on page 5 of the Errata (showing full text of provisions affected by post-agenda revisions and corrections, on file at the District office) was presented incorrectly.  The instruction to delete the words “30th day” and replace them with the words “15th day” was not transferred to the example of revised text.  (2) Lloyd Lowrey, representing the Independent Reclaimed Water Users Group, expressed appreciation for the time and effort expended to revise the ordinance and develop a document that he described as “acceptable for adoption.”   (3) David Dilworth, representing HOPE, objected to Ordinance No. 109 and the associated Findings.  He requested that the District prepare an Initial Study on adoption of Ordinance No. 109.  He submitted a letter dated May 27, 2004 outlining his comments, and attached a letter dated March 23, 2004 from the Department of Fish and Game (on file at the District office).



Director Potter was not present for the meeting, so Chair Edwards continued this item to the June 21, 2004 Board meeting when all Directors would be present to vote on the issue.   In addition, Chair Edwards determined that public comment would be received on May 27, after which the public comment period would be closed.  The only public comment to be accepted at the June 21, 2004 Board meeting will be received during Oral Communications.


The following comments were directed to the Board during the public comment period on this item.  (1) Robert Greenwood, representing the Carmel Valley Association, expressed opposition to the detachment of Tehama and Monterra subdivisions from the District boundaries.  (2) Patricia Bernardi, a resident of Carmel Valley, expressed opposition to the detachment of Tehama and Monterra subdivisions from the District boundaries.  (3) Alan Williams spoke in support of the detachment of Tehama and Monterra subdivisions from the District boundaries.  According to Mr. Williams, the District over-regulates the water resource.  He noted that it would take less time and money to separate from the District than it would take to comply with the District’s over-regulation of the Tehama/Monterra water supply.  According to Mr. Williams, the amount of water used represents only one percent of the 11,285 acre-feet of water produced by Cal-Am each year. (4) Derinda Messenger, representing the CaZada Woods Water Distribution System, spoke in support of detachment of the Tehama and Monterra subdivisions.  She stated that detachment would not set a precedent for future requests because the CaZada Woods system differs from other water distribution system in that it is regulated by the PUC.  Ms. Messenger noted that production from the water distribution system is limited to 118 acre-feet, whether it is inside or outside of the District boundaries.  (5) Michael Waxer, representing the Carmel Development Company, spoke in support of detachment of the Tehama and Monterra subdivisions from the District.  According to Mr. Waxer, the subdivisions are unique because their water supply is based on a water right listed on Table 13 of SWRCB Order 95-10, which is senior to any other water right.   In addition, distribution of that water has been analyzed in two environmental impact reports.  (6) David Dilworth, representing HOPE, expressed opposition to detachment of the Tehama and Monterra subdivisions. 


The Board discussed the draft budget and suggested changes that could be incorporated into the final budget for consideration at the June 21, 2004 meeting.  No action was taken on this item.


The following comments were directed to the Board during the public comment period on this item.  (1) Steven Leonard, representing Cal Am, responded to a question from the Board as to whether or not Cal-Am would participate in funding another well for the aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) project.  Mr. Leonard stated that Cal-Am is very committed to ASR, and may be able to commit $200,000 towards the project.  A higher level of funding must be calculated into the next PUC rate case which will be developed in 2005.  Presently, Cal-Am engineers are analyzing what improvements need to be made to the water distribution system in order to facilitate an expanded ASR project.  (2) Robert Greenwood noted that funding was cut for preparation of an EIR on a desalination plant in Sand City, and a second ASR well.  He asked what water project the District would be funding from the Capital Projects Fund in FY 2004-2005.  (3) John Fischer, a resident of Pacific Grove, noted that budgetary constraints are forcing the District to defer projects.  He urged the Board to look at how those deferred projects will be funded in future years.  (4) Tex Irwin suggested that the Board borrow money from the Mitigation Fund to balance the budget.  He proposed that the funding shortfall might also be met by combining a User Fee increase with a loan from the Mitigation Fund.  (5) David Dilworth advised the Board to investigate options such as the issuance of bonds and borrowing money.  In addition, a long-term plan should be developed that is based on funding the District’s core functions.  Projects outside of the core functions could be funded if money were available.


The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 PM.































































  1. Consider Adoption of Findings of Approval for Appeal Regarding Rule 24 (Ordinance No. 98), Assessment of Fees for Second Bath – 116 13th Street, Pacific Grove, APN 006-083-007 – Jeffrey Becom and Sally Aberg


  1. Consider Adoption of Resolution Authorizing MPWMD Participation in the Special Districts Association of Monterey County



  1. Consider Adoption of Second Reading of Ordinance No. 109









































  1. Consider Adoption of Resolution Opposing Petition for Tehama/Monterra Detachment from MPWMD








































  1. Provide Direction on Draft FY 2004-2005 MPWMD Budget









































                                                                                                                Fran Farina, Secretary to the Board