HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-14-2016 Item 21, ShanbromCOUNCIL MEETING: --(D b zt)(h
ITEM NO, -.T
To: Maier, John Paul
Subject: RE: Water update, June 14, 2016
From: Bob Shanbrom [
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 3:11 PM
To: E-mail Council Website
Cc: cc me lean;
Subject: Water update, June 14, 2016
Dear Mayor, Council,
It is with deep dissatisfaction, disappointment and frustration that I write you today concerning the water update. Over
the last 12 months I have studied thus issue intently with some of our community's finest minds and I feel obligated to
tell you how woefully misguided and prevaricating is this current "update."
I will not labor to point out the deficiencies because this council and staff have made it clear that they do not want to
hear, see or speak any "evil" on this subject and is in a reckless thrall to buildout and impact fee ponzi nirvana. Here are
the simplest points that are being overlooked:
1) climate change denial. We can find no indication that climate change has been taken under consideration. The third
Climate Change Assessment predicts at least a 5-10% decrease in rainfall for our area and cautions that it may be even
worse. This does not sound like a lot it is because the first 50% or so of our annual rainfall is necessary to rehydrate our
watershed before any rainfall runs off. This drought delivered only 63% of normal rain over four years. In only a slightly
worse scenario predicted by the TCCA Nacimiento would DRY UP. Two years ago there was virtually zero (under 10,000
af) of inflow into Nacimiento.
2) the planning denial. The water shortage contingency plan, more specifically, the trigger for a building moratorium, is
based on momentary water situations, not on climate projection. This is so ludicrous as to reveal this council to be
nothing short of corrupt, should it accept this prevarication.
3) the technology denial. At current situation little more than 1000 of of water a year is available for reuse. Even at
buildout this amount would not likely reach 2,000 afy. Even at that the water would be expensive, with costs, of course
being borne by current residents not by developers.
4) the Tunnel denial. Monterey County is pursuing a plan that would halve the storage capacity of Nacimiento. Under
such Nacimiento would have gone to zero two years ago.
5) water giveaway denial. We have suffered a 20% increase in rates during this drought; the contingency plan is proof
that the city expects further droughts. And yet the city is pursuing about 30% growth in baseline water demand. In
which universe does this make sense?
Sincerely,
Bob Shanbrom
Sent from my iPad