EXHIBIT 5-A

FINDINGS OF APPROVAL OF

PISENTI WELL #2 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND

DENIAL OF APPEAL BY DAVID AND JUDY BEECH

BY MPWMD BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON AUGUST 20, 2012

Adopted by MPWMD Board on September 17, 2012

The Board of Directors of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD or District) hereby adopts the following Findings of Approval for the Pisenti (Well #2) Water Distribution System (WDS). Unless where otherwise specified, evidence to support the Findings is provided in the record for the August 20, 2012 public hearing available on the District website at: http://www.mpwmd.net/asd/board/boardpacket/2012/20120820/0820agenda.htm (click on Items #14 and #15), as well as related meeting minutes and video of the proceedings:

1. On July 12, 2012, the MPWMD District Engineer approved Application #20110401PIS for the Pisenti WDS on APN 103-071-019 at 577 Monhollan Road, Carmel. This staff action, as reviewed by District Counsel, authorized issuance of MPWMD WDS Permit S12-04-L2, subject to 26 Conditions of Approval. A CEQA Notice of Exemption was filed with the County Clerk and posted for 30 days.

2. Notice of the staff administrative decision to approve the Pisenti WDS Permit on July 12, 2012 was immediately posted on the District website under “Appealable Decisions.” Also, courtesy copies of the permit package and appeals information were electronically provided to the applicants, appellant, and Board members. The District mailed hearing notices to property owners within 300 feet of the Flores and Pisenti parcels, and staff posted hearing notices on Monhollan Road. The deadline for submitting an appeal was August 2, 2012.

3. An appeal of the staff action for the Pisenti (Well #2) WDS as well as the neighboring Flores (Well #1) WDS was submitted by David and Judy Beech (Beech) on August 2, 2012. The issue was also referred to the District Board by Director Markey on July 24, 2012.

4. The District Board held a public hearing on August 20, 2012 to address the Markey referral and Beech appeal. The applicant, appellant and other members of the public spoke, and the Board asked a series of questions to staff, the applicant and the appellant before rendering its decision.

5. The Board unanimously determined that the July 12, 2012 approval of the application by the District Engineer should be upheld, and that MPWMD WDS Permit S12-04-L2 should be issued, subject to the original 26 Conditions of Approval as written by staff. This action was deemed “Option 1.” The Board chose not to amend the Conditions of Approval, continue the item or overturn the staff determination (Options 2, 3 or 4, respectively).

6. The Board also directed staff to develop Findings of Approval for consideration as a Consent Item on the September 17, 2012 agenda. These Findings comply with that direction.

7. By its action described in Finding #5, the District Board denied the Beech appeal. As allowed by District Rule 70, the Board directed that the Beech’s $750 appeal fee be refunded.

8. The appellant has consistently asserted that testing of the Flores and Pisenti Wells in October 2010 was the cause of apparent loss of production of the Beech Well and dewatering of the Beech water storage tank. At that time, appellant was not advised of the opportunity to have the Beech Well monitored while the Flores and Pisenti Wells were being tested.

9. The grounds for appeal identified in the Beech appeal included: (a) failure to monitor impact on neighboring wells; (b) failure to comply with documentation requirements for drawdown and recovery; (c) denial of due process during the original appeal process in 2011; and (d) lack of evidence to support Findings of Approval #6, #9, #11 and #12.

10. The requested relief in the appeal was for the Pisenti (and neighboring Flores Well) to be tested again concurrently in October “pursuant to MPWMD procedures,” and that the Beech Well should be monitored during this time. Specific testing methods and protocol for the assessment of well recovery and assessment of well capacity were requested that are not consistent with District procedures, and do not reflect standard hydrogeologic science.

11. Some of the issues in the referral and appeal were already resolved by the Board in its action on November 21, 2011, and were not addressed again in the August 20, 2012 hearing. The November 21, 2011 hearing addressed an appeal by Beech on whether the Pisenti application was complete or not. The Board determined in November 2011 that the application was complete, meaning that the applicant properly followed MPWMD procedures for well testing that existed at that time, and submitted adequate information needed to make required Findings of Approval specified in Rule 22. Specifically, the conclusions confirmed by the Board in November 2011 included: (a) testing of the Flores and Pisenti Wells in October 2010 did not have an adverse effect on the Beech WDS based on available evidence; (b) well testing procedures to assess supply reliability were properly followed; and (c) well testing procedures to assess impact to neighboring wells were initially not properly followed in 2010, but were corrected as feasible in 2011.

12. The key issue before the Board on August 20, 2012 was: “Should the Flores and Pisenti Wells be retested in October to confirm lack of impact to the Beech Well and adequate supply before a WDS Permit is issued?” Specific questions associated with the key issue included: (a) Is retesting necessary to assess impact to Beech Well or is evidence adequate to show a less than significant effect? (b) Was data properly collected during testing to show adequate supply? (c) Is retesting necessary to demonstrate an adequate supply or does existing evidence support a finding of adequate supply? (d) If retesting is needed, should MPWMD test procedures be altered as requested in the appeal?

13. Based on the evidence in the record, District staff and the Board concluded that evidence in the record supports WDS Permit approval without a retest. Specifically: (a) the lack of hydrogeologic connectively between the Flores/Pisenti Wells and the Beech Well was demonstrated by several months of monitoring in 2011 and 2012, thus allowing the use of District well impact calculations with confidence; (b) supply adequacy was based on properly collected data during a 72-hour pumping test in October 2010; (c) the data support a finding of adequate supply, as confirmed by the Monterey County Health Department; and (d) MPWMD testing procedures should not be altered as recommended by the appeal, which makes inaccurate conclusions and calculations based on an incomplete knowledge of hydrogeology.

14. The August 20, 2012 hearing materials included a memorandum from the District Water Resources Division Manager, Joe Oliver, about certain assertions or calculations in the appeal related to hydrogeology that are factually incorrect and indicate a lack of understanding of certain hydrogeologic principles. The appellant is not a hydrogeologist and was not represented by a qualified hydrogeologist.

15. The applicant was represented by a qualified hydrogeologist, Aaron Bierman, who provided well monitoring data for the Flores Well (and neighboring Pisenti Well) for several months in 2011 and 2012 while the Beech Well was producing water for irrigation of the heavily landscaped 5-acre parcel. The graphs showed lack of hydrogeologic connectivity between the Flores and Pisenti Wells with the Beech Well.

16. The appeal and oral testimony by Beech on August 20, 2012 described desired changes to District rules and procedures, as well as concerns about other areas within the District or Monterey County. These topics were outside the scope of this site-specific hearing.

17. In summary, reasons for selection of Option 1, Approval of Permit #S12-04-L2 as written, included: (a) previous action and substantive determinations by the Board on November 21, 2011 about the completeness and adequacy of the application, including well monitoring evidence that showed no hydrogeologic connection between the Beech Well and the Flores and Pisenti Wells, confirmed again in 2012; (b) lack of scientific evidence showing a potential adverse impact to the Beech Well; (c) lack of new evidence since the November 21, 2011 hearing to support permit denial; (d) inaccurate assertions by the appellant about the calculations used for assessment of reliable supply; (e) the appellant’s apparent misunderstanding of, or disagreement with, State of California, County of Monterey and District standards used for well pumping tests; (f) the estimated cost of at least $10,000 for each applicant to retest the wells, or over $20,000 total; and (g) potential for litigation by applicants due to perceived violation of due process rights.

18. In addition, during questioning of the appellant at the August 20, 2012 hearing, Beech responded that: (a) the loss of 18,000 gallons of water from his storage tank in October 2010 could not have occurred in three days and likely began prior to the Flores/Pisenti Well tests; (b) Beech did not consult a plumber, water system expert or electrical contractor to determine if equipment malfunctions existed in October 2010; (c) the Beech Well was not metered in 2010, and a meter was installed in 2011; (d) Beech did not know how much water is used to irrigate his property; and (e) other factors could have contributed to the loss of Beech’s supply in October 2010.

U:\staff\Boardpacket\2012\20120917\Consent\05\item5_exh5a.docx