HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-15-2016 Item 12, MattinglyCouncil
0
March 16, 2016
TO: Mayor and City Council
RECEIVEn
MAR 16 2016
COUNCIL MEETING:
ITEM NO.: 10
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Direct
VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager
SUBJECT: Business Item 12 — Full Allocation of the Nacimiento Water Project
Attached is the Utilities' department response to Mr. Lucas's inquiry regarding full allocation of
the Nacimiento Water Project discussed at last night's Council meeting.
T: \Council Agenda Reports\2016\2016 -03 -15 \Nacimiento Full Allocation \Council Memo 3 -15 -16 -Lucas Resp.docx
Business Item 12- Agenda Correspondence
2
In response to Mr. Lucas's inquiry, Deputy Director Floyd called Mr. Lucas and followed up with
the following information. Mr. Lucas expressed his appreciation for the information.
From: Floyd, Aaron
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 4:48 PM
To: Mattingly, Carrie
Subject: FW: City Council Meeting March 15: Item 12, Full Allocation of the Nacimiento Water Project
From: Floyd, Aaron
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 3:36 PM
To: 'Bob'
Subject: RE: City Council Meeting March 15: Item 12, Full Allocation of the Nacimiento Water Project
Hello Bob,
Following up on our earlier phone conversation, attached is a screen shot of the cover
document and sections referencing the release. We'll have to find a way to transfer the entire
document to you.
Aaron
eN lev Rw eR4wb. IN►
Tools 1M & V.-
w
A
r
w
F
M 14
Cemme t
0 .i
NW A, -e
. pmmlee GOF [enev�am
Combine blel Inle a Ilnple PoF
Fyl ur w.
Business Item 12- Agenda Correspondence Page 3
Reau' mHabitat Flow Study for Nacimiento River Below Nacinuento Dare
It has been determined that a flog, of 60 cfs will provide adequate spawning habitat in Nacinuento Ricer
below Nacimiento Dann. Accordingly. this Supplenwnt to the BA for the S% VP provides a iniiiiniiuu
flow release of 60 cfs from Nacu" weiuo Reservoir for the period of the eighth day :after an adult steelhead
passage day occurs on the Salinas Ricer near Spreckels after January 1 through Nfay 31. From June I
until the following year's spawnung flow criteria is met. rearing conditions iii Nacuniento River below
30
51117 Flow Prescription Nacimiento Rh-er Below Nacimiento Dam
Nacinuento Dani nuist be niauitained for steelhead fish. Adequate rearing flow for that reach of ricer has
not been deteruu ned. Therefore N1CWR.A will con&wt a Steelbead Rearing Habitat Flow Study for
Nacuniento Ricer below Nacinuento Dam The snub plan will be subnutted to N IFS biology staff flu'
concurrence. The final report will be subnutted for .NNLFS biology staff approval. [until such study is
completed and a naiaunum rearing habitat flow is identified and concurred with by N1ffS bioloey staff
60 cfs will be the mini numi -rearing flow" for Nacirtuento Rarer Below N17acimiento Dam from Aire I
until the followuag year's spaaauiug flaw criteria is met. Therefore. the nuiwnum release from
Nacuniento Reservoir is 60 cfs for the entire year until a rearing habitat flow is identified. Tlus
Row criterion will be in effect as long as the surface elevation of Nacinuento Reservoir remains above
elevation 637.8 feet mean sea level (msl). the reservoir's +n+ *,uumn pool. Water will not be released
below this elevation by the NfCWRA,
From: Bob [mailto,boblucas(d)aol.com]
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: all�ncoopeftmail.com; shanbrom@aol.com; h!�nsgns2(Opacbell.net; milj)yQ@hotmail.com
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
Business Item 12- Agenda Correspondence
Page 4
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 I 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