EXHIBIT 15-K

MPWMD Review of CEQA Comments on Application to Provide California American Water Service to Monterey Bay Shores Ecoresort (MBSE)

Prepared February 18, 2009 by MPWMD Staff

Comment Number, Author and Date	CEQA-Related Comment	MPWMD Assessment
Comment 1: California Environmental Law Project/Sierra Club (L. Silver), 1/15/2009 and 1/26/2009	Include condition requiring that the 90 AFY pumped by CAW for use on the SNG site be subtracted from the SWRCB’s 11,285 AFY production limit from the Carmel River, in accordance with SWRCB Order 95-10.	The SWRCB letter of February 5, 2009 determined that the one-for-one replacement required in Order 95-10 does not apply to MBSE so long as CAW serves the project solely from Seaside Basin wells and not the Carmel River. MPWMD has revised Conditions of Approval to ensure compliance with SWRCB letter, thereby avoiding an impact to the river.
Comment 2: California Environmental Law Project/Sierra Club (L. Silver), 1/15/2009 and 1/26/2009	If MPWMD declines to address the Carmel River production limit, it should defer action on the application until the SWRCB Water Rights Division has made a determination.	MPWMD continued public hearing until February 26, 2009 to allow the Water Rights Division to render an opinion. SWRCB letter dated February 5, 2009 was received.
Comment 3: California Environmental Law Project/Sierra Club (L. Silver), 1/15/2009	MPWMD Rule 22-B compels a reduction in Carmel River pumping to protect public trust resources.	CAW stated in a letter dated January 29, 2009 that it would serve MBSE solely from Seaside wells; and the SWRCB February 5, 2009 letter will not apply Order 95-10 one-for-one replacement if only Seaside wells are used to serve the MBSE project.
Comment 4: California Environmental Law Project/Sierra Club (L. Silver), 1/15/2009	CEQA compliance is questionable as MPWMD is relying on an Addendum that has not been approved by the Lead Agency.	Issue is moot. The CELP letter was written before January 20, 2009, when City of Sand City formally adopted the Addendum (with minor corrections unrelated to water supply or hydrology) via Resolution #SC 09-06.
Comment 5: Land Watch Monterey County (C. Fitz), 1/27/09	A Subsequent EIR should be prepared by MPWMD, with focus on hydrology, water quality and water supply.	MPWMD disagrees that a Subsequent EIR is needed, based on assessment of criteria in CEQA Guidelines 15162(a).
Comment 6: Land Watch Monterey County (C. Fitz), 1/27/09	MPWMD as a Responsible Agency must reach its own conclusions on hydrology, water quality and water supply.	The MPWMD WDS permit process entails independent review of technical and environmental reports; independent Findings and Conditions of Approval are prepared.
Comment 7: Land Watch Monterey County (C. Fitz), 1/27/09	Only a Revised Draft Addendum has been provided to the Board; it should also review the original EIR.	The Final Addendum as adopted by the City of Sand City was provided to the Board and placed on the District website. The original EIR was also made available for review. The original EIR describes an outdated project as it relates to hydrology, water quality and water supply. The current project description avoids environment effects associated with the original application. The Addendum fully analyses the current project water effects which are less severe than the original application.
Comment 8: Land Watch Monterey County (C. Fitz), 1/27/09	The issuance of the Draft Cease and Desist Order (CDO) by SWRCB in 2008 is a new circumstance that must be considered in a Subsequent EIR.	MPWMD disagrees. CEQA Guidelines 15162(a)(2) calls for a Subsequent EIR only if the changed circumstances result in new or increased severity of environmental effects of the project. The MPWMD permit, as conditioned, does not allow use of Carmel River sources to serve the MBSE parcel. Thus, the CDO does not apply, as it relates solely to CAW diversions from the river. In addition, the potential for CAW to obtain 59 AFY in Seaside to reduce Carmel River pumping (see MBSE Condition #32) is encouraged by the SWRCB (see letter dated Feb. 5, 2009) and would show progress toward compliance with Order 95-10 and CDO.
Comment 9: Land Watch Monterey County (C. Fitz), 1/27/09	Other CAW customers may be impacted if they must reduce their consumption to enable CAW service to the MBSE project, due to adjudicated water rights available to the project.	MPWMD disagrees. The Court’s Final Decision requires cut-backs by CAW customers to achieve the natural safe yield of the basin, independent of this MBSE application before MPWMD. CAW use of the MBSE water rights adds 90 AFY to CAW’s allowed use in Seaside, and other customers do not have to cut back any more than without the project. Also, the project provides the opportunity to obtain 59 AFY additional Seaside Basin rights to offset pumping in the Carmel River, thereby enabling compliance with Order 95-10 more easily. The MPWMD permit would result in similar or reduced impacts to the community as compared to the existing situation.
Comment 10: Land Watch Monterey County (C. Fitz), 1/27/09	A Subsequent EIR should be prepared because the source of supply changed from onsite wells to CAW inland wells.	MPWMD disagrees. CEQA Guidelines 15162(a)(2) calls for a Subsequent EIR only if the changed circumstances result in new or increased severity of environmental effects of the project. The change to inland CAW wells is recognized as a means to reduce the potential for seawater intrusion due to coastal pumping.
Comment 11: Land Watch Monterey County (C. Fitz), 1/27/09	A Subsequent EIR should be prepared because water could be made available from the Sand City desalination project.	MPWMD disagrees. CEQA Guidelines 15162(a)(3) calls for a Subsequent EIR only if there are now mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different than those analyzed in the previous EIR, or were previously found to be infeasible, and would in fact be feasible. Also, these measures must substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the measure or alternative. All of the above criteria must be met, which is not the case for MBSE. The hydrologic impacts associated with the current project have already been shown to be less than significant. Project impacts on water supply are less than significant and may be beneficial. The desalination project is sized to serve the redevelopment needs of Sand City and desal water is not be available to MBSE, as it is viewed as having its own source of supply. Use of Sand City desalinated water delivered via CAW pipelines is not substantively different than CAW directly pumping Seaside wells because the source water for the desal plant is not the ocean — it is beach wells extracting brackish water from a specified aquifer of the Seaside Basin as designated in the Seaside Basin adjudication. From a hydrologic perspective, the two supplies (desal and well) are very similar—the difference is the treatment method.
Comment 12: Land Watch Monterey County (C. Fitz), 1/27/09	A Subsequent EIR should be prepared because the project would use greywater, which is not permitted in Monterey County.	MPWMD disagrees. Greywater currently is allowed in Monterey County for subsurface irrigation. The MBSE greywater system has been approved by the Monterey County Health Department and Regional Water Quality Control Board as described in the January 29, 2009 MBSE agenda materials.
Comment 13: League of Women Voters (J. Brennan), 1/6/2009	The issuance of the CDO is a new circumstance that must be considered in a Subsequent EIR.	MPWMD disagrees. See Comment 8.
Comment 14: League of Women Voters (J. Brennan), 1/6/2009	The issuance of the CDO is a new circumstance that must be considered in a Subsequent EIR. The District should delay action until a final decision on the CDO is made by the SWRCB	MPWMD disagrees. See Comment 8.
Comment 15: League of Women Voters (J. Brennan), 1/6/2009	The District should consider the effects of approving the MBSE application on the pending SWRCB decision on the CDO.	MPWMD disagrees. See Comment 8.
Comment 16: League of Women Voters (J. Brennan), 1/6/2009	A Subsequent EIR should include the Sand City desalination project alternative.	MPWMD disagrees. See Comment 11.

U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2009\20090226\PubHrgs\15\item15_exh15k.doc