|
ITEM: |
ACTION ITEMS |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
10. |
RECEIVE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ON COMMON METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING LONG-TERM WATER NEEDS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Meeting
Date: |
September 20, 2004 |
Budgeted: |
N/A |
||
|
|
|||||
|
From: |
David A.
Berger, |
Program/ |
N/A |
||
|
|
General
Manager |
Line Item No.: |
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Prepared
By: |
|
Cost Estimate: |
N/A |
||
General Counsel Approval: N/A |
|||||
Committee Recommendation: The Water Demand Committee reviewed this item on August 10, 2004 and recommended approval by a 2-1 vote. |
|||||
|
CEQA Compliance:
N/A |
|||||
SUMMARY: On August 16, 2004,
the Board deferred consideration of the Technical Advisory Committee’s
recommendation on a common methodology for projecting long-term water
needs. The item was continued to the
September meeting to allow staff time to provide more information about
staffing impacts and to prepare a timeline for Board consideration, as well as
to allow input on this subject from the Board and public.
The Technical Advisory Committee’s recommendation on the methodology to determine long-term water needs is to use the jurisdiction’s current General Plan build-out numbers and apply the District’s factors to determine the maximum future water needs. There was discussion by the TAC about including a trend analysis in the calculation to more accurately account for permit activity, but the TAC (with direction from the PAC) did not choose to include that methodology. A joint TAC/PAC meeting was held on June 1, 2004 to share the proposed recommendation with the PAC, and the governing bodies of the jurisdictions then reviewed the issue. On August 3, 2004, the TAC met for a final time, after having received feedback from their respective governing bodies. The final recommendation is the result of that meeting. Detailed information about the TAC and PAC discussions is provided in the background information.
The District’s Water Demand Committee (WDC) reviewed the TAC’s recommendation at its August 10, 2004 meeting and supported the recommendation 2-1 (Minutes attached as Exhibit 10-A). The committee asked District staff to try to prepare the water needs analysis for submission at the September 29, 2004 strategic planning session. In addition, the committee recommended that the jurisdictions should organize their general plan projections into three or five-year increments. Director Markey suggested that a trend analysis be prepared that would depict historic and future water needs. She was concerned that by adopting the TAC recommended methodology, the District could be committed to fulfilling the water needs of the jurisdictions’ general plans, which may be more water than can realistically be provided to them.
RECOMMENDATION: The Board should consider the TAC recommendation and provide direction to staff. If the TAC recommendation is accepted as the standard for estimating future water needs, staff should be directed to contact the jurisdictions to provide the necessary figures.
It is also recommended that the WDC be charged with recommending appropriate factors to calculate the long-term water needs. The District currently uses fixture units converted to acre-feet for residential uses (District Rule 24, Table 1), and non-residential uses are estimated by applying grouped water use factors (District Rule 24, Table 2). Once the committee has determined a recommendation on the factors, the TAC and PAC should be consulted. Both their consensus and the Board’s consensus should be sought before proceeding with the calculations. It is anticipated that this process will take no less than six months.
In preparing this staff report, staff polled the TAC members as to their timing for submitting the build-out numbers. According to the jurisdictions that responded, usable figures should be available within 60 days from the date the District makes the request. Faster response times may be possible.
BACKGROUND: On February 2, 2004, the Board held a workshop to consider long-term water needs. As a result of the February 2, 2004 Board workshop (minutes attached as Exhibit 10-B), staff was directed to place a Consent Calendar item on the February 19, 2004 Board meeting agenda to request that the Technical Advisory Committee provide a recommendation on a methodology for projecting future water needs. At the February 19, 2004 Board meeting (minutes attached as Exhibit 10-C), the recommendation was approved, and the TAC was given 90 days (until the May 27, 2004 Board meeting) to submit its recommendation. As part of the background provided to the TAC, the following alternatives were suggested for consideration:
On March 15, 2004 as part of its discussion on near-term water supply projects, the Board again requested the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) to make recommendations to the Board on the formula to use to determine each jurisdiction’s share of any new allocation (Minutes attached at Exhibit 10-D). The Board also asked if there should be an MPWMD Community Reserve, and if the Federal Government should be added as a new jurisdiction. The latter questions remain unanswered.
The TAC began reviewing alternatives
for projecting long-term water needs at its April 6, 2004 meeting. The consensus was to use each jurisdiction’s
general plan as the basis for establishing water needs, with the District
applying its factors to the general plan totals to calculate the water
requirements. Contemplation of actual
needs versus build-out needs was also discussed, including an oral presentation
by the City of
On May 4, 2004, the TAC continued its discussion on a common methodology. At this meeting, the TAC heard a proposal from Michael Waxer, a member of the public who had contacted several TAC members. Mr. Waxer’s proposal suggested viewing long-term water needs from the “bottom up” versus the normal “top down.” Using the proposed Moss Landing desalination plant as the example, Mr. Waxer’s process would move away from “allocation” thinking and would develop a methodology that would be looked at like a utility, with CEQA impacts being reviewed in the General Plans of the Jurisdictions. Mr. Waxer proposed that a Project EIR and a Program EIR could be completed with this concept in mind. Jurisdictions would determine land use needs and the District would provide the water needed to reasonably accommodate the land uses. The Project EIR would reference the total water needed for the long term, based on build-out, and the Program EIR would address an incremental process that would eventually get to build out. Two-year planning windows were suggested, with the actual production being adjusted to correspond to actual need.
The TAC members agreed that any project should be submitted for environmental review only once. Members questioned the ability to determine what the long-term demand would be and how to present it to policy makers. The TAC agreed that the PAC should be consulted to provide policy direction on establishing the method for determining potential long-term needs.
A joint TAC/PAC meeting was held on June 1, 2004 to discuss the development of a common methodology to estimate future water needs. The PAC was asked to respond to the following questions:
1. Does the PAC agree that the General Plan Build-Out should be the basis for long-term water needs projections?
2. Should this number be adjusted with a trend analysis of past permits issued?
3. Do the PAC and TAC want to establish a set of assumptions that will be applied to every jurisdiction’s water needs estimates (i.e. should we use only 30 percent of underdeveloped lots versus 100 percent at build-out)?
4. Should the TAC provide intervals (of 2-3 years) of water toward the projected build-out?
Consensus among the PAC members was that the methodology should be based on general plan build-out projections and the District’s water use factors. The PAC members agreed to submit this recommendation to their governing bodies for consideration and then to provide direction to the TAC members.
The following summarized remarks were made by respective jurisdictions representatives in response to the questions shown above:
On August 3, 2004, the TAC
reconvened with the recommendations from the PAC and their City Councils.
The motion was adopted on a vote of 4 – 0.
Past Methodologies to Project Long-Term Water Needs
Different methodologies have been
used by the eight jurisdictions in the District to estimate future water needs
in the past. Most recently (between 1999
and 2003), the District undertook two studies to identify water needs on (1)
vacant legal buildable lots of record and (2) vacant buildable lots of record
on improved parcels. The legal lot
studies used standard factors to estimate water needs for each of the
jurisdictions based on vacant lots identified using aerial photos. The planning departments of each of the
jurisdictions participated in both of the studies, but the second study was not
concluded due to lack of adequate orthophotography for the unincorporated areas
of
Prior to the legal lot study, there were at least three occasions where the District attempted to secure long-term water needs estimates from the jurisdictions. The first occurred in February 1994, when District General Manager Jim Cofer asked the jurisdictions to provide the District with their “best estimate” of water needs (Exhibit 10-E). The second effort, in 1992, involved EIP Associates preparation of population and housing projects for the New Los Padres Project EIR/EIS. EIP’s estimated long-term water needs were derived from Master Plan build-out numbers and AMBAG population projections. Finally, in January 1999, District General Manager Darby Fuerst requested current and long-term water needs from the jurisdictions (Exhibit 10-F). No specific guidelines were provided with these requests for water estimates.
Water Allocation Program
Put simply, the MPWMD
Water Allocation Program sets the maximum Cal-Am annual production limit (size
of the “water pie”). From 1980 to early
1993, the program set jurisdiction water allocations from the Cal-Am total
(“slices of the pie” shared by member jurisdictions). Since 1993, specific allocations are issued
to each jurisdiction when a new source of supply is developed. Approval of new construction and remodels by
jurisdictions entails approval of an associated MPWMD water connection permit
that estimates potential future water use.
The estimated water use is deducted from the jurisdiction’s water
allocation by MPWMD, similar to a bank checking account. Water connection permits are issued until
there is no water left in the account. A
connection fee based on the projected water use is assessed; the majority of
the fee goes to development of water supply projects to ensure a reliable
supply as the community grows. Once a
permit is issued, there is usually no monitoring of actual use for individual
properties. However, the District works
with Cal-Am to track residential, commercial and other water uses by jurisdiction
or by area; in some cases, the District tracks individual water use.
The Water Allocation Program is
focused on the Cal-Am water system that derives its supply from the
Water Allocation Program History
MPWMD Ordinance No. 1 was adopted in September 1980 to establish interim municipal water allocations based on existing water use by the jurisdictions. Resolution 81-7 was adopted in April 1981 to modify the interim allocations and incorporate projected water demands through the year 2000. Under the 1981 allocation, Cal-Am’s annual production limit was set at 20,000 acre-feet (AF), based on average hydrologic conditions; no evaluation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was performed at that time.
In 1987, the city of
Ordinance No. 52 was adopted in December 1990 to implement the District’s Water Allocation Program, modify the resource system supply limit, and to temporarily limit new uses of water until a new water supply source was developed. The ordinance stemmed directly from the certification of the EIR the previous month. As a result of Ordinance No. 52, a moratorium on the issuance of most water connection permits within the District was established for a 28-month period. Adoption of Ordinance No. 52 formally reduced Cal-Am’s annual production limit to 16,744 AF.
Ordinance No. 70 was
adopted in June 1993 to modify the resource system supply limit, establish a
water allocation for each of the jurisdictions within the District, and end the
moratorium on the issuance of water connection permits. Adoption of Ordinance No. 70 was based
primarily on development of the Paralta well in the
Ordinance No. 73 was adopted in February 1995 to eliminate the District Reserve and allocate the remaining water equally among the eight jurisdictions. Of the original 50 AF that was allocated to the District Reserve, 34.72 AF remained and were distributed equally (4.34 AF each) among the jurisdictions.
Ordinance No. 74 was adopted in March 1995 to allow the reinvestment of toilet retrofit water savings on single-family residential properties. The reinvested retrofit credits must be repaid by the jurisdiction from the next available water allocation and were limited to a maximum of 10 AF. This ordinance sunset in July 1998, but was immediately reinstated via Ordinance No. 90 (see below). The following jurisdictions borrowed 12.43 AF through this program:
Jurisdiction AF Used
Ordinance No. 75 was adopted in March 1995 to allow the reinvestment of water saved through toilet retrofits and other permanent water savings methods at publicly owned and operated facilities. Fifteen percent of the savings were set aside to meet the District’s long-term water conservation goal and the remainder of the savings was credited to the jurisdictions allocations. This ordinance sunset in July 1998, but was immediately reinstated via Ordinance No. 91 (see below).
Ordinance No. 83 was adopted in April 1996 and conditionally set Cal-Am’s annual production limit at 17,621 AF and the non-Cal-Am annual production limit at 3,046 AF. The modification to the production limit was made based on an agreement by a non-Cal-Am water user to permanently reduce annual water production from the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer in exchange for water service from Cal-Am. As part of the agreement, 15% of the historical non-Cal-Am production was set aside to meet the District’s long-term water conservation goal.
Ordinance No. 87 was
adopted in February 1997 as an urgency ordinance establishing a community
benefit allocation for the planned expansion of the
Ordinance No. 90 was adopted in June 1998 to continue the program allowing the reinvestment of toilet retrofit water savings on single-family residential properties for 90 days following the expiration of Ordinance No. 74. This ordinance sunset in September 1998.
Ordinance No. 91 was adopted in June 1998 to continue the program allowing the reinvestment of water saved through toilet retrofits and other permanent water savings methods at publicly owned and operated facilities.
Ordinances No. 90 and No. 91 were challenged for non-compliance with CEQA and nullified by the Monterey County Superior Court in December 1998.
As explained below, it is notable
that limits on
Each month, the MPWMD Board packet contains an information report of the amount of water available to member jurisdictions and other specific recipients. The most recent report through August 2004 (Exhibit 10-G) indicates that there are over 150 AF available to jurisdictions. The “Paralta Allocation” refers to Ordinance No. 70 described above. The “Pre-Paralta” figures refer to water permits that were cancelled after Ordinance No. 70 was adopted in 1993. In addition, there are quantities earmarked for specific projects or areas, based on previous contracts, ordinances or litigation. The largest involves water associated with the Carmel Area Wastewater District/Pebble Beach Community Services District Wastewater Reclamation Project, which is commonly referred to as the “Pebble Beach Reclamation Project” (see below).
It is notable that many jurisdictions have determined they have no water to allocate, while District records indicate an available supply. The difference is due to different stages within the planning process at which the jurisdiction and the District debit the jurisdiction’s allocation “account” for a specific project. A jurisdiction may also choose to hold water aside for specific projects, such as a major redevelopment project. The jurisdiction debits its water account early in the planning process, when an application is received. The District debits water from a jurisdiction’s account when a water connection permit is issued, which is one of the last approvals before a building permit is issued. Many months (or years) can pass for a project to move through the planning process. Using a banking analogy, the jurisdiction writes a “check” for a project based on its in-house allocation balance, and the District (serving as the “bank”) debits the jurisdiction account only when the “check is cashed.” Each jurisdiction manages its water allocation, and therefore the jurisdiction may be “out of water” while the District’s information shows that water is still available.
A total of 380 AF metered sales is guaranteed under contract for designated properties within Del Monte Forest due to the Pebble Beach Reclamation Project. This water is referred to as “water entitlements” and is recognized as a special class of supply by the SWRCB. To date, about 23 AF have been used, leaving about 357 AF.
10-A August 10, 2004 Water Demand Committee Minutes
10-B February 2, 2004 Board Workshop Meeting Minutes
10-C February 19, 2004 Regular Board Meeting Minutes
10-D March 15, 2004 Regular Board Meeting Minutes
10-E February 23, 1994 Letter from Jim Cofer, Regarding Ten-Year Water Needs Estimate
10-F January 25, 1999 Letter from Darby Fuerst, Regarding Current and Future Jurisdictional Water Needs
10-G Monthly Allocation Report, August 31, 2004
U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2004\2004boardpacket\20040920\ActionItems\10\item10.doc