EXHIBIT 2-C
February 24, 2005
The Honorable
2005 Presiding Judge of the
Superior Court
Dear
Judge Sillman:
We
respectfully present this response to the 2005 Grand Jury Report as it relates
to Ordinance No. 98 – Bathroom Fixture Ordinance. The Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District (District or MPWMD) respectfully disagrees in with Finding 1 and
offers the following comments and responses to Finding 1 and Recommendations 1
and 2.
Grand Jury Finding 1:
Current MPWMD permit requirements restrict individual property owners in
the use of their property, particularly for remodels and additions. When property owners wish to add water
fixtures such as toilets and showers to their homes, they are restricted by
Ordinance #98. Prior to the Ordinance,
property owners were not permitted to add water fixtures without meeting
onerous and complex requirements including deed restrictions.
MPWMD
permit requirements do not restrict individual property owners’ use of their
property. Each jurisdiction manages a
portion of the available water supply.
This “allocation” of the available supply is available at the discretion
of the jurisdiction. The jurisdiction,
as the “gatekeeper” of the allocation determines which projects receive
water. The MPWMD deducts water from the
jurisdiction’s allocation at the time a water permit is issued.
Finding
1 states that prior to the adoption of Ordinance No.
98, property owners could not add water fixtures without meeting complex
requirements. This statement is
inaccurate. Ordinance No. 98 (amended by
Ordinance No. 114, adopted May 14, 2004) provides a mechanism to allow the
addition of water fixtures for a second bathroom in a single-family residence
on a single-family residential site without debiting a jurisdiction’s water
allocation. The ordinance has no impact
on applications for water fixtures when the jurisdiction has authorized water
from its allocation. Prior to adoption
of Ordinance No. 98, all water permit applications required either water from a
jurisdiction’s allocation or available on-site water credits to offset the new
use. Prior to Ordinance No. 98, deed
restrictions were not routinely used.
Deed restrictions are widely used today to provide notice of water
permit requirements and to provide notice of the District’s ability to access
water records for the property.
Grand Jury Recommendation 1: Property owners should have the choice of
reducing landscaping to accommodate additional water fixtures as long as they
stay within their historical water usage.
The only restrictions that should apply are building codes, zoning
ordinances and other planning requirements related to rentals, not water
fixture controls.
Grand Jury Recommendation 2: The MPWMD should establish a water allocation
system for properties that are remodeled or added to based
on historical water usage. This
information is available from public records.
Recommendation
1 and 2 are impractical. To implement
this recommendation, the citizens of the District would be subject to permanent
water rationing. This would be
problematic for a number of reasons, the least of which is the fact that
historic water use is not a public record.
It would be an enormous undertaking to monitor and enforce permanent
rationing, and there would be numerous instances of properties having no
relevant historic water use.
Grand Jury Recommendation 3: Penalties should be established to enforce a
water allocation system to assure adherence to historical water usage for these
properties.
Recommendation
3 would create an unfair system where fees could potentially impact only those
people who added water fixtures or moved into a home that had at one time added
water fixtures. The economic impact of
these penalties would be greater in the median income levels and would have
less impact in the higher income residents.
Therefore, fees alone may not result in the maintenance of historic
water use levels.
The
District appreciates that the Grand Jury recognized the positive changes made
by the District to assist with adding a second bathroom to a one-bathroom
home. However, the findings and
recommendations related to Ordinance No. 98 appear to be policy matters that
the Grand Jury may not have the authority to address.
Thank
you for the opportunity to respond.
Sincerely,
Michelle
Knight
Chair,
MPWMD Board of Directors
cc: County Administrative Officer
U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2006\2006boardpackets\20060223\ConsentCal\02\item2_exh2c.doc