Presentation on theme: "Item 20- Discuss Water Supply Concepts, Including Reclamation MPWMD Board Meeting March 15, 2004 Staff Contact: Henrietta Stern."— Presentation transcript:
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 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 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
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?
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 Carmel River production average. 260 AF is intermediate risk maximum based on Carmel River production average. 100 AF is lower risk maximum based on closest Carmel River production to SWRCB limit, except Zero allocation is safest (still some risk).
17 Preserve 156 AF for Jurisdictions or Not?
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 Click on Meetings, then Board Agenda This is Item 20 – full text is available on the MPWMD website.