Item 20- Discuss Water Supply Concepts, Including

Reclamation

MPWMD Board Meeting

March 15, 2004

Staff Contact: Henrietta Stern

2

Water “Sources” Reviewed

• Pebble Beach Wastewater Reclamation Project -- benefited properties;

• PB Reclamation -- MPWMD share;

• Paralta well “community drought reserve;”

• Conservation savings;

• Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR);

• Seaside Basin in-lieu recharge.

3

Important Reminders

• All Cal-Am water comes from Carmel River Basin or Seaside Coastal Subareas; there are no other sources at this time.

• SWRCB Order 95-10 controls use of Carmel River (11,285 AFA diversion limit; one-for-one replacement);

• Seaside Basin hydrologic trends and ongoing litigation potentially limit use.

4

Pebble Beach Reclam. Project –Benefited Properties

• SWRCB recognizes up to 380 AF that can be added to 11,285 AFA diversion limit;

• Water goes only to benefited properties, and only in Del Monte Forest;

• Ordinance No. 109 in progress to help fund Phase II project expansion/improvements to maximize reclaimed water production and minimize need for Cal-Am water.

5

Pebble Beach Reclam. Project –MPWMD Share

• Up to 420 AF to MPWMD (not recognized by SWRCB to add to 11,285 AF limit);

• Assumes 800 AFA Cal-Am production is replaced; 280 AFA shortfall estimated;

• No more than 140 AFA should be released (420 – 280 = 140); this would be Carmel River water;

• Need CEQA review, based on Ordinance No. 84 litigation.

6

Paralta Well “Community Drought Reserve”

• No physical reserve from Paralta Well ever existed; 1,000 AFA used from beginning;

• Physical limits to Cal-Am system prevent greater use of Paralta well;

• Seaside Basin issues stymie use;

• Formal MPWMD policy against allocation of 385 AF reserve is presently in effect.

7

Conservation Savings

• MPWMD conservation program since 1987; • 2,040 AF estimated as permanently saved; 20%

savings despite 16% increase in customers;• Conservation enables compliance with Order 95-

10 limits;• Conservation is affected by weather, emotions;• How much more savings without hardship?• Recommend not using conservation savings.

8

Future Water Source -- ASR

• Aquifer storage and recovery is promising;• 941 AF injected and 440 AF recovered to date; • Aquifer recharge and water quality benefits;• Up to 1,300 AF with minor improvements to Cal-

Am system; larger sizes too expensive; • Need many permits for long-term program;

MPWMD in progress with water rights.• Worthwhile to pursue, even with Order 95-10.

9

Future Source –Seaside Basin In-Lieu Recharge

• MPWMD asked SWRCB to approve using more Carmel River water in wet years to let Seaside “rest” and recharge; Seaside could safely produce in dry years with less impact to river.

• SWRCB staff rejected MPWMD request for temporary relief in letter dated January 14, 2004 (distributed at January 29, 2004 meeting).

• MPWMD continues to pursue concept through long-term Petition for Change.

10

Summary of Concepts

1. Stop “bottom up” planning based on uncertain water “sources;” recognize existing “top down” limits (15,285 AFA); (Note: 14,785 AFA production is less risky.)

2. Recognize misconceptions about many water “sources.” All Cal-Am supply comes from Carmel River Basin and Seaside Basin Coastal Subareas.

11

Discussion Concepts, continued

3. Prepare an EIR on Water Allocation Program based on existing limits and recent trends; EIR must define and evaluate proposed project and alternatives.

4. Importantly, the SWRCB can change the 11,285 AFA limit. It is not a water right.

12

Basic EIR Questions

• How much water is available to allocate? Relates to risk of exceeding SWRCB 11,285 AFA Carmel River limit and protecting Seaside Basin.

• Who gets how much water? Distribution of water to jurisdictions affects cumulative growth impacts (e.g., traffic, air quality, biology).

• How to handle 156 AF existing tabulated jurisdiction allocations? Affects how much water, if any, is available for new uses.

13

Specific EIR Questions

1. How much water is used from Carmel River and Seaside Coastal Subareas now?

2. Compare actual use to SWRCB limit on Carmel River and Seaside production goals.

3. Assess “wiggle room” – how much to allocate and not go over 11,285 AF Carmel River limit?

4. Policy trade-off of economic benefits versus risk of more rationing, Seaside Basin impacts, or exceeding SWRCB limit (large fines).

14

EIR Questions, continued

5. Should military and District community reserve be added as “jurisdictions”?

6. Should all or some of the existing 156 AF on MPWMD books be preserved? Under what conditions?

7. Who pays for EIR; funding issues. Joint funding a possibility?

15

California-American Water Company Annual Production from Carmel River SourcesVersus Diversion Limit Set By State Water Resources Control Board Order 95-10

Water Years 1996 - 2003

Water Year SWRCB Cal-Am Difference Water Year Limit Production Class(AF) (AF) (AF) (%)

1996 11,990 11,701 -289 -2.4% Above Normal1997 11,285 12,847 1,562 13.8% Above Normal1998 11,285 10,154 -1,131 -10.0% Extremely Wet1999 11,285 10,384 -901 -8.0% Normal2000 11,285 11,179 -106 -0.9% Normal2001 11,285 10,721 -564 -5.0% Normal2002 11,285 10,759 -526 -4.7% Below Normal2003 11,285 11,131 -154 -1.4% Normal

Source: California-American Water Company, Monthly Production Reports

Note: Production values have been adjusted to exclude diversions that were made for injection into the coastal subarea of the Seaside Ground Water Basin.

16

Specific Allocation Concepts

• Higher the allocation, the higher the risk of exceeding 11,285 AFA limit.

• 560 AF is “higher risk maximum” based on 1998-2003 Carmel River production average.

• 260 AF is “intermediate risk maximum” based on 1997-2003 Carmel River production average.

• 100 AF is “lower risk maximum” based on closest Carmel River production to SWRCB limit, except 1997.

• Zero allocation is safest (still some risk).

17

Preserve 156 AF for Jurisdictions or Not?

  

 

Water for New Uses Risk Amount (AF) Keep 156 Delete 156

High 560 404 560 Medium 260 104 260 Lower 100 [-56] 100 Least 0 [-156] 0 U:\Henri\wp\staffnote\2004\021904item16tabv2.doc

18

Allocation “Sources”

• Actual drinking water comes from Carmel River (subject to SWRCB restrictions) and Seaside Coastal Subareas.

• “Sources” such as 140 AF from MPWMD share of Pebble Beach Reclamation Project is not a separate supply source, and is not recognized by SWRCB.

19

Overview of January 28, 2004 TAC/PAC Meeting

• The concept of 140 AF allocation was suggested by Chairman Edwards.

• Did not specify whether this would be in addition to or instead of the 156 AF currently tabulated for jurisdictions.

• TAC/PAC did not have a recommendation on allocation issues at the meeting.

20

Recommended Board Action

• Discuss concepts and provide direction on key questions.

• At this time, consider providing direction on process and committee/community involvement in developing proposals and alternatives for an EIR.

21

For Additional Information

• Visit www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us

• Click on “Meetings”, then “Board Agenda”

• This is Item 20 – full text is available on the MPWMD website.