RULES AND REGULATIONS REVIEW COMMITTEE

ITEM:		DISCUSSION ITEM
5.	DISCUSS ESTABLISHMENT OF A RULE THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE DISTRICT TO POST NOTICE OF WELL TESTING FOR COMPLETION OF WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM APPLICATIONS
Meeting Date:			October 19, 2011
From:			David J. Stoldt,
			General Manager
Prepared By:			Henrietta Stern, Project Manager
General Counsel Review: not reviewed
Committee Recommendation:
CEQA Compliance: N/A

SUMMARY: As a follow-up to the Beech appeal that was referred to the Board at its September 19, 2011 meeting (agenda item #17), the committee will consider whether the District should post notice of well testing associated with the Water Distribution System (WDS) application process. Currently, there is no formal notice posting process. Until the Beech appeal, there has been no complaint regarding noticing in the 10 years of WDS permit processing under Rules 20, 21 and 22 as revised by Ordinance No. 96 in 2001.

RECOMMENDATION: If formal notice posting is desired, staff recommends that a process similar (but not identical) to the current noticing for WDS permit public hearings is used. See the “Background” section below for the current noticing process, and see the “Discussion” section below for a conceptual protocol for posting of well tests. The current standard for MPWMD and nearly all local agencies is 10 days notice.

Due to limited staff resources, and the complexities of well drilling schedules, staff does not recommend that District staff be responsible for the posting. Instead, District staff should create and provide specific written direction to the applicant’s hydrogeologist describing what documentation is required to show a good faith effort to notify neighbors and obtain permission to monitor wells.

The MPWMD well testing procedures could be amended to require a section on notification and forms for use by the applicant’s consultant could be attachments to that document. Rule 21-A-7 already refers to the well testing procedures (i.e., “Implementation Guidelines”) so it need not be changed. Alternatively, a new Rule 21-A-10 could be created that specifically refers to documentation of noticing “as specified in the Implementation Guidelines.” The current Rule 21-A-10 (fees) would become Rule 21-A-11.

BACKGROUND: In brief, the current WDS process is as follows:

• Pre-Application is filed with basic information about the proposed WDS.
• District researches wells within 1000 feet of the subject well (300 feet if alluvial), and provides a map and table of hydrogeologic data about the neighboring wells.
• Applicant’s hydrogeologist is responsible for contacting neighboring property owners to offer them the opportunity to have their well monitored during testing of the subject well; no specific direction regarding posting or notification is included in the MPWMD well testing procedures or Rule 21 (see below).
• Applicant submits formal WDS Application package, including hydrogeologic assessment report, pursuant to Rule 21-A.
• MPWMD evaluates Application pursuant to Rule 22 and makes approval decision.

The MPWMD well testing protocol is provided on the website at:

http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/pae/wds/WDSPermits/WellAssessProcedures_ver3edit_14sep05.pdf

Rule 21 is provided on the website at:

http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/rules/2010/June/pdfs/RegII/RegII_rule21.pdf

The pertinent paragraph 7 in Rule 21-A (materials required for a WDS Application) reads:

7. The results of Well Capacity (Aquifer Pumping) Tests for the duration specified

by the Implementation Guidelines, the cost of which tests shall be borne by the

Applicant, and which shall be observed by a District representative or agent; and…

The MPWMD Procedures for Preparation of Well Source and Pumping Impact Assessments serve as the Implementation Guidelines referenced in Rule 21-A-7, and refers to monitoring neighboring wells in the following paragraph (page 3):

6. Wells Monitored. In all cases, the production well that is being tested shall be monitored as described in this section. In addition, nearby wells in the expected area of influence of the pumping well shall be monitored where feasible. The District recognizes that it may not be feasible to monitor all nearby wells due to logistical constraints (e.g., availability, monitoring equipment access, pumping requirements, etc.). Accordingly, in cases where nearby wells are not available for use as monitor wells during pumping tests, and the reasons for this are clearly documented in the Assessment, data developed from the production well shall be used to the extent possible to support the required analysis and evaluation.

Current Notice Protocol for WDS Public Hearings: For certain WDS applications, a public hearing is required. Given limited District staff, certain tasks are required to be performed by the applicant. A few weeks before the hearing, staff works with the applicant to ensure that, at least 10 days before the public hearing, there is: (a) a posted hearing notice on the perimeter of the subject property visible by the public, and (b) a mailed notice to all property owners of parcels within 300 feet of the subject property boundaries. The District also posts WDS hearing information on its website. Examples of the posted notice and mailed notice are provided as Exhibits 5-A and 5-B, respectively.

The District provides the posting notices, and the applicant is required to physically post them on-site. Similarly, the applicant is responsible to provide mailings lists and stamped, addressed envelopes for all neighboring property owners within 300 feet (available from County Assessor), and the District stuffs and mails these notices. It is made very clear that the hearing will be cancelled if timely notice is not provided. Importantly, the applicant must also file and return a Certificate of Posting form that describes when and where the notices were posted (see example as Exhibit 5-C).

DISCUSSION: The following amended scenario should meet the need to have better documentation regarding posting of well testing and not have an adverse effect on staff. It is noted that well testing tends to be more fluid in terms of a start date as compared to an MPWMD public hearing because many parties are involved (applicant, neighbors, Monterey County Health Department staff, drillers, hydrogeologist, etc). It would be onerous for District staff to try to keep track of various well test dates during the busy well testing season (June through November).

Concepts for Notice of Well Testing: Similar to Exhibit 5-A, a form could be created to be posted on the perimeter of the subject property that notifies the public that well testing is planned. The applicant’s hydrologist would fill in the dates, location and other pertinent data and post on phone poles, light posts, fences etc. He/she would also fill out a certificate of posting form similar to Exhibit 5-C.

Because a response is needed by the neighboring well owners, a mailed communication would be different than a notice for a public hearing. The applicant’s hydrogeologist may also directly communicate by visiting the neighbors, calling them or other means. Importantly, the neighbor needs to be apprised of their responsibilities (provide well data) and that they cannot use their well for up to 2 weeks while the testing is carried out.

As part of the WDS Application package, the hydrogeologic report would be required to show the proper documentation of:

• Timely posting of on-site notice of well test;
• Completed Certificate of Posting form;
• Timely mailing of notification forms to neighbors;
• Summary of response of neighbors (or lack of response)

EXHIBITS

5-A Example of posting notice for WDS hearing

5-B Example of mailed notice for WDS hearing

5-C Example of Certificate of Posting form

U:\staff\word\committees\RulesRegsReview\2011\20111019\05\item5.docx