HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-15-2016 Item 12, LucasFrom: Marx, Jan
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 1:52 PM
To: Maier, John Paul
Subject: FW: City Council Meeting March 15
Project
Agenda correspondence
KK:EIVFD '
MAR 15 2016
Item 12, Full Allocation of the Nacimiento Water
COUNCIL MEETING.
ITEM NO.: 10)_
(o,
From: From: Bob
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 1:10 PM
To: Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Rivoire, Dan; Lichtig, Katie; Mattingly, Carrie;
Floyd, Aaron
Cc:
Subject: City Council Meeting March 15: Item 12, Full Allocation of the Nacimiento Water Project
Agenda Item 12: Full Allocation of the Nacimiento Water Project
The document appears inconsistent in a very important regard. It states that new water from
Nacimiento would not be used for new development, that is, build -out.
The additional allocation of Nacimiento water would not be used to serve the City's build —out
population (Primary Water Supply), but would instead be added to the City's Secondary Water
Supply to meet short term losses to the City's water supply due to events such as drought or
maintenance and repair of infrastructure. The addition of 2,102 afy of Secondary Water Supply
to the City's current water supply accounting can be seen in Table 2. [Packet p. 130]
This paragraph raises its own question, like: Why the word "would "? What about "shall "? How does
the water get added to the City's water supply? Can the water be literally piped from the Naci
pipeline to Whale Rock to be stored there? Adding it to the city's "accounting" is spurious: a pipeline
that flows into a spreadsheet?
Then, on the next page, we find a paragraph that sounds like the same one just quoted above - -until it
goes into another direction.
The additional NWP allocation would be allocated to the City's secondary water supply and
would not be available to accommodate new projects or additional growth. An increase in
City's allocation would only serve areas already evaluated and approved for future
development potential consistent with existing specific plan areas and City policies and land
use designations of the City's General Plan Land Use Element adopted in 2014. Therefore, the
proposal to increase the NWP allocation would not result in any additional growth impacts over
those identified in the NWP EIR.
This paragraph now confuses the issue of primary and secondary water supply, whereas it was clear
in the earlier paragraph. Primary water supply, as defined in other city documents, serves current
needs and new development that is consistent with the general plan. But in the paragraph above, it
appears that secondary is serving build out. Which is it? Anyone trying to make sense of these two
conflicting paragraphs might appear to be bending the statements to their own end, whatever those
ends might be.
Since this proposed change is directed for special use such as drought, I am asking for an
unequivocal explication of exactly what the County, and therefore the City, is legally entitled to from
Nacimiento when dipping into the minimum pool for water. None of the documents available at the
City's website covers this important issue. Perhaps it is in the Nacimiento Agreement contract,
referenced in the agenda (packet p. 134). Unfortunately there is no link given to that document nor
does it appear at any of the slowater.org website's list of documents.
The interpretation.[ have from the City is that it can dip into the minimum pool year after year to draw
its full allocation without Monterey interfering. References to documents and quotations of wording
are always preferred to verbal reassurance when items as critical as this are at issue. I ask that these
be provided as part of the public record for your debate.
Thank you again for all of your work and your contribution to the well -being of our city.
Bob Lucas
1831 San Luis Drive
4594344