Agenda packet — Pacific Grove City Council, January 12, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

Water right application 32263C. Max. diversion = 3 cfs. Removed from project portfolio during water rights process. See RECLAMATION DITCH YIELD STUDY, Schaaf and Wheeler, March 2015.

Includes secondary effluent wastewater currently used to produce recycled water at the Salinas Valley Reclamation Project (SVRP), and additional amounts which may be used during periods of low demand (<5 mgd) with the proposed improvements to the SVRP.

New source waters not used by AWPF will be available to SVRP for CSIP.

A drought reserve of up to 1,000 AF would be created over five years by producing 200 AFY additional product water from the GWR Project AWTF during winter months and storing the water in the Seaside Basin. This would establish a "water bank" that the CSIP can draw on in droughts. The drought reserve would allow flow at the RTP for the GWR Project to be temporarily reduced during critically dry periods, thus freeing up more of the newly available inflows to the RTP to be sent to the CSIP area. Extraction from the Seaside Basin would continue at the average rate to supply the Monterey Peninsula.

Average monthly RTP discharge, 2009-2013 (reported by M1W).

Secondary treated municipal effluent not used for SVRP or the AWPF.

Water right applciation 32263B. Max. diversion = 6 cfs. See final water right permit 21377. Assumes 2 cfs instream bypass requirement Dec-May, 1 cfs bypass in June and 0.7 cfs instream bypass requirement for July-Nov. Also assumes diversion stopped when flows reach 30 cfs (migration window) and restart when flow declines to 20 cfs. See final water right permit 21377 Table 8: Source Water Analysis for the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project Full Surface Water Yields, Normal Water Year, Building a Drought Reserve 10/14/2019
Presumes all facilities associated with diversions are completed, including SVRP modifications.

Table 2-1, p. 5, Groundwater Replenishment Project, Salinas River Inflow Impacts, Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Engineers, August 2015.

Volume of effluent from City of Salinas agricultural wash water to be directed into ponds 1,2,3, and the aeration pond for storage.

Average monthly flow from Groundwater Replenishment Project, Salinas River Inflow Impacts, Schaaf & Wheeler, August 2015.

Rainfall from Groundwater Replenishment Project, Salinas River Inflow Impacts, Schaaf & Wheeler, August 2015. Pond area presumed to be Ponds 1,2, 3 + Aeration lagoon. No rainfall/evaporation or storage assigned to drying beds.

Table 3, Todd Groundwater, Memorandum, Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project: Impacts of Changes in Percolation at the Salinas Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility on Groundwater and the Salinas River, February 11, 2015.

Table 4, Ibid.

Ponds 1,2,3 and aeration basin hold up to 1,065 acre-feet (one foot of freeboard). If flow to ponds would exceed the maximum volume, it is presumed that excess flow can be diverted to the RIBs or drying beds or flow can be diverted to the RTP. Presume that pond storage goes to zero sometime during the year (shown here starting in July).

Water right application 32263A. Max diversion = 6 cfs diversion. If SRDF is not operating (drought year), 2 cfs is bypassed to the Salians River. See final water right permit 21376 PWM_Expansion_20191014.xlsx/Table 8 10/14/2019
All facilities built 1 - average water year conditions - all flows in acre-feet SOURCES Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Existing RTP Inflows (Average 2009 to 2013) 1,798 1,678 1,867 1,796 1,850 1,799 1,893 1,888 1,813 1,844 1,762 1,776 21,764 Existing domestic flows to RTP (wells at RTP and MRWMD) 14 5 10 9 5 4 5 8 5 5 5 7 82 New Source Water
City of Salinas
1 Salinas Agricultural Wash Water 2156 158 201 307 311 391 435 444 367 410 329 223 3,732 Agricultural Wash Water (AWW) to Ponds 3
156 158 201 0 0 0 0 0 0 410 329 223 1,477
AWW directly to RTP 0 0 0 307 311 391 435 444 367 0 0 0 2,255 2 Salinas Urban Storm Water Runoff 452 41 34 16 2 0 0 0 2 8 23 47 225 Urban runoff to ponds 52 41 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 23 47 205
Urban runoff to RTP 0 0 0 16 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 20
3 Rainfall (on SIWTF, 121 acre pond area) 526 24 21 11 3 1 0 0 2 6 14 24 132 4 Evaporation (from SIWTF, 121 acre pond area) 6(12) (16) (29) (41) (46) (52) (28) (15) (12) (251) 5 Percolation 7(143) (129) (143) (138) (143) (138) (143) (138) (143) (1,257) 6 SIWTF pond storage balance 8684 763 847 647 362 0 0 0 0 253 466 605 7 Recovery of flow from SIWTF storage ponds to RTP 0 0 0 32 100 172 0 0 0 0 0 0 304 8 AWW and Salinas Runoff to RTP 0 0 0 355 413 563 435 444 369 0 0 0 2,579 Water Rights Applications to SWRCB
9 Blanco Drain 90 0 0 252 225 274 277 244 184 0 0 0 1,456 10 Reclamation Ditch at Davis Road 10 0 0 0 106 79 99 113 109 72 11 0 0 589 11 Tembladero Slough at Castroville 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 City of Monterey - Diversion at Lake El Estero 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 13 Subtotal New Waters Available 0 0 0 718 718 936 825 797 626 11 0 0 4,631 Total Projected Water Supply 1,812 1,683 1,877 2,523 2,574 2,739 2,723 2,692 2,443 1,860 1,767 1,783 26,477 DEMANDS Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Average SVRP deliveries to CSIP (2009-2013) 13 459 726 1,376 1,763 1,750 1,866 1,854 1,698 984 448 18 12,955 14 FIVE YEAR AVERAGE CSIP AREA WELL WATER USE (2009-2013) 448 195 304 412 324 606 519 504 300 75 233 352 4,272 TOTAL CSIP Demand (excludes SRDF use) 461 654 1,030 1,788 2,087 2,356 2,385 2,358 1,998 1,059 681 370 17,227 15 FEEDWATER AMOUNT AT RTP TO PWM BASE PROJECT AWPF 367 331 367 355 367 355 367 367 355 367 355 367 4,320 16 FEEDWATER TO ESTABLISH CSIP AREA DROUGHT RESERVE
(200 AFY AWTF PRODUCT WATER) 14 42 38 42 42 41 42 248
FEEDWATER FOR 2250 AFY EXPANSION 362 333 357 114 106 101 105 111 109 340 357 382 2,778 17 FEEDWATER TO AWPF FOR MCWD RUWAP18 28 19 33 70 108 110 113 94 85 51 21 9 741 18 TOTAL TO GWR ADVANCED WATER TREATMENT FACILITY 799 721 800 539 581 566 585 572 549 800 773 800 8,087 Total Projected Water Demand 1,260 1,376 1,829 2,328 2,668 2,922 2,971 2,929 2,547 1,860 1,455 1,169 25,314 Use of Source Water Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total 19 Secondary effluent to SVRP for CSIP 12 461 654 1,030 1,735 1,747 1,693 1,785 1,802 1,733 1,059 681 370 14,750 20 New sources available to CSIP 13 0 0 0 249 245 480 353 319 162 0 0 0 1,808 21 Total Supply to CSIP 461 654 1,030 1,984 1,993 2,173 2,138 2,121 1,894 1,059 681 370 16,558 Net CSIP Increase 3,603
22 Surface waters at RTP to AWPF 0 0 0 114 106 101 105 111 109 11 0 0 657 23 Secondary effluent to AWPF 771 702 767 0 0 0 0 0 0 738 752 791 4,522 24 AWW and Salinas urban runoff to AWPF 0 0 0 355 367 355 367 367 355 0 0 0 2,166 25 Secondary effluent to AWPF for MCWD RUWAP 28 19 33 70 108 110 113 94 85 51 21 9 741 26 Feedwater to AWPF 799 721 800 539 581 566 585 572 549 800 773 800 8,086 Subtotal- all waters (including secondary effluent) 1,260 1,376 1,829 2,523 2,574 2,739 2,723 2,692 2,443 1,860 1,455 1,169 24,644 27 FIVE YEAR AVERAGE WASTE WATER EFFLUENT TO OCEAN OUTFALL (2009-2013)15 1,785 1,219 1,141 420 88 49 27 34 114 859 1,314 1,759 8,809 28 WASTE WATER EFFLUENT TO OCEAN OUTFALL WITH PROPOSED
DIVERSIONS TO CSIP/AWT/RUWAP 16 552 308 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 313 614 1,833 29 NEW SUPPLIES IN EXCESS OF AWT DEMANDS FOR GWR 17 (771) (702) (767) 249 245 480 353 319 162 (738) (752) (791) (2,714) 30 AWT BRINE TO OCEAN OUTFALL 152 137 152 102 110 108 111 109 104 152 147 152 1,536 Notes
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
Water right applciation 32263B. Max. diversion = 6 cfs. See final water right permit 21377. Assumes 2 cfs instream bypass requirement Dec-May, 1 cfs bypass in June and 0.7 cfs instream bypass requirement for July-Nov. Also assumes diversion stopped when flows reach 30 cfs (migration window) and restart when flow declines to 20 cfs. See final water right permit 21377 Table 9: Source Water Analysis for the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project Diversion Pattern for a Normal Water Year, Building a Drought Reserve 10/14/2019
Presumes all facilities associated with diversions are completed, including SVRP modifications.

Table 2-1, p. 5, Groundwater Replenishment Project, Salinas River Inflow Impacts, Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Engineers, August 2015.

Volume of effluent from City of Salinas agricultural wash water to be directed into ponds 1,2,3, and the aeration pond for storage.

Average monthly flow from Groundwater Replenishment Project, Salinas River Inflow Impacts, Schaaf & Wheeler, August 2015.

Table 4, Ibid.

Water right application 32263A. Max diversion = 6 cfs diversion. If SRDF is not operating (drought year), 2 cfs is bypassed to the Salians River. See final water right permit 21376 Excess is calculated as Line 13 minus Lines 15 & 16
RUWAP supply comes from existing RTP inflows of municipal wastewater. Demands reflect existing urban irrigation customers along trunk main.

Water right application 32263C. Max. diversion = 3 cfs. Removed from project portfolio during water rights process. See RECLAMATION DITCH YIELD STUDY, Schaaf and Wheeler, March 2015.

New source waters not used by AWPF will be available to SVRP for CSIP.

Average monthly RTP discharge, 2009-2013 (reported by M1W).

Secondary treated municipal effluent not used for SVRP or the AWPF.

PWM_Expansion_20191014.xlsx/Table 9 10/14/2019
All facilities built 1 - average water year conditions - all flows in acre-feet SOURCES Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Existing RTP Inflows (Average 2009 to 2013) 1,798 1,678 1,867 1,796 1,850 1,799 1,893 1,888 1,813 1,844 1,762 1,776 21,764 Existing domestic flows to RTP (wells at RTP and MRWMD) 14 5 10 9 5 4 5 8 5 5 5 7 82 New Source Water
City of Salinas
1 Salinas Agricultural Wash Water 2156 158 201 307 311 391 435 444 367 410 329 223 3,732 Agricultural Wash Water (AWW) to Ponds 3
156 158 201 0 0 0 0 0 0 410 329 223 1,477
AWW directly to RTP 0 0 0 307 311 391 435 444 367 0 0 0 2,255 2 Salinas Urban Storm Water Runoff 452 41 34 16 2 0 0 0 2 8 23 47 225 Urban runoff to ponds 52 41 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 23 47 205
Urban runoff to RTP 0 0 0 16 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 20
3 Rainfall (on SIWTF, 121 acre pond area) 526 24 21 11 3 1 0 0 2 6 14 24 132 4 Evaporation (from SIWTF, 121 acre pond area) 6(12) (16) (29) (41) (46) (52) (28) (15) (12) (251) 5 Percolation 7(143) (129) (143) (138) (143) (138) (143) (138) (143) (1,257) 6 SIWTF pond storage balance 8684 763 847 647 362 0 0 0 0 253 466 605 7 Recovery of flow from SIWTF storage ponds to RTP 0 0 0 32 100 172 0 0 0 0 0 0 304 8 AWW and Salinas Runoff to RTP 0 0 0 355 413 563 435 444 369 0 0 0 2,579 Water Rights Applications to SWRCB
9 Blanco Drain 90 0 0 252 225 274 277 244 184 0 0 0 1,456 10 Reclamation Ditch at Davis Road 10 0 0 0 106 79 99 113 109 72 0 0 0 578 11 Tembladero Slough at Castroville 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 City of Monterey - Diversion at Lake El Estero 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 13 Subtotal New Waters Available 0 0 0 718 718 936 825 797 626 0 0 0 4,620 Total Projected Water Supply 1,812 1,683 1,877 2,523 2,574 2,739 2,723 2,692 2,443 1,849 1,767 1,783 26,466 DEMANDS Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Average SVRP deliveries to CSIP (2009-2013) 13 459 726 1,376 1,763 1,750 1,866 1,854 1,698 984 448 18 12,955 14 FIVE YEAR AVERAGE CSIP AREA WELL WATER USE (2009-2013) 448 195 304 412 324 606 519 504 300 75 233 352 4,272 TOTAL CSIP Demand (excludes SRDF use) 461 654 1,030 1,788 2,087 2,356 2,385 2,358 1,998 1,059 681 370 17,227 15 FEEDWATER AMOUNT AT RTP TO PWM BASE PROJECT AWPF 367 331 367 355 367 355 367 367 355 367 355 367 4,320 16 FEEDWATER TO ESTABLISH CSIP AREA DROUGHT RESERVE
(200 AFY AWTF PRODUCT WATER) 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FEEDWATER FOR 2250 AFY EXPANSION 362 333 357 114 106 101 105 111 109 340 357 382 2,778 17 FEEDWATER TO AWPF FOR MCWD RUWAP18 28 19 33 70 108 110 113 94 85 51 21 9 741 18 TOTAL TO GWR ADVANCED WATER TREATMENT FACILITY 757 683 757 539 581 566 585 572 549 758 733 758 7,839 Total Projected Water Demand 1,218 1,338 1,787 2,328 2,668 2,922 2,971 2,929 2,547 1,818 1,414 1,127 25,066 Use of Source Water Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total 19 Secondary effluent to SVRP for CSIP 12 461 654 1,030 1,735 1,747 1,693 1,785 1,802 1,733 1,059 681 370 14,750 20 New sources available to CSIP 13 0 0 0 249 245 480 353 319 162 0 0 0 1,808 21 Total Supply to CSIP 461 654 1,030 1,984 1,993 2,173 2,138 2,121 1,894 1,059 681 370 16,558 Net CSIP Increase 3,603
22 Surface waters at RTP to AWPF 0 0 0 114 106 101 105 111 109 0 0 0 646 23 Secondary effluent to AWPF 729 664 724 0 0 0 0 0 0 707 712 749 4,285 24 AWW and Salinas urban runoff to AWPF 0 0 0 355 367 355 367 367 355 0 0 0 2,166 25 Secondary effluent to AWPF for MCWD RUWAP 28 19 33 70 108 110 113 94 85 51 21 9 741 26 Feedwater to AWPF 757 683 757 539 581 566 585 572 549 758 733 758 7,839 Subtotal- all waters (including secondary effluent) 1,218 1,338 1,787 2,523 2,574 2,739 2,723 2,692 2,443 1,818 1,414 1,127 24,397 27 FIVE YEAR AVERAGE WASTE WATER EFFLUENT TO OCEAN OUTFALL (2009-2013)15 1,785 1,219 1,141 420 88 49 27 34 114 859 1,314 1,759 8,809 28 WASTE WATER EFFLUENT TO OCEAN OUTFALL WITH PROPOSED
DIVERSIONS TO CSIP/AWT/RUWAP 16 594 346 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 354 656 2,070 29 NEW SUPPLIES IN EXCESS OF AWT DEMANDS FOR GWR 17 (729) (664) (724) 249 245 480 353 319 162 (707) (712) (749) (2,477) 30 AWT BRINE TO OCEAN OUTFALL 144 130 144 102 110 108 111 109 104 144 139 144 1,489 Notes
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
Water right applciation 32263B. Max. diversion = 6 cfs. See final water right permit 21377. Assumes 2 cfs instream bypass requirement Dec-May, 1 cfs bypass in June and 0.7 cfs instream bypass requirement for July-Nov. Also assumes diversion stopped when flows reach 30 cfs (migration window) and restart when flow declines to 20 cfs. See final water right permit 21377 Table 10: Source Water Analysis for the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project Diversion Pattern for a Normal Water Year with a Full Reserve 10/14/2019
Presumes all facilities associated with diversions are completed, including SVRP modifications.

Table 2-1, p. 5, Groundwater Replenishment Project, Salinas River Inflow Impacts, Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Engineers, August 2015.

Volume of effluent from City of Salinas agricultural wash water to be directed into ponds 1,2,3, and the aeration pond for storage.

Average monthly flow from Groundwater Replenishment Project, Salinas River Inflow Impacts, Schaaf & Wheeler, August 2015.

Table 4, Ibid.

Water right application 32263A. Max diversion = 6 cfs diversion. If SRDF is not operating (drought year), 2 cfs is bypassed to the Salians River. See final water right permit 21376 Excess is calculated as Line 13 minus Lines 15 & 16
RUWAP supply comes from existing RTP inflows of municipal wastewater. Demands reflect existing urban irrigation customers along trunk main.

Water right application 32263C. Max. diversion = 3 cfs. Removed from project portfolio during water rights process. See RECLAMATION DITCH YIELD STUDY, Schaaf and Wheeler, March 2015.

New source waters not used by AWPF will be available to SVRP for CSIP.

Average monthly RTP discharge, 2009-2013 (reported by M1W).

Secondary treated municipal effluent not used for SVRP or the AWPF.

PWM_Expansion_20191014.xlsx/Table 10 10/14/2019
All facilities built 1 - average water year conditions - all flows in acre-feet SOURCES Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Minimum Year RTP Inflows (2013) 1,725 1,494 1,645 1,657 1,722 1,675 1,748 1,773 1,715 1,690 1,634 1,612 20,090 Existing domestic flows to RTP (wells at RTP and MRWMD) 14 5 10 9 5 4 5 8 5 5 5 7 82 New Source Water
City of Salinas
1 Salinas Agricultural Wash Water 2156 158 201 307 311 391 435 444 367 410 329 223 3,732 Agricultural Wash Water (AWW) to Ponds 3
156 158 201 0 0 0 0 0 0 410 329 223 1,477
AWW directly to RTP 0 0 0 307 311 391 435 444 367 0 0 0 2,255 2 Salinas Urban Storm Water Runoff 417 14 11 5 1 0 0 0 1 3 8 16 76 Urban runoff to ponds 17 14 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 16 69
Urban runoff to RTP 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7
3 Rainfall (on SIWTF, 121 acre pond area) 526 24 21 11 3 1 0 0 2 6 14 24 132 4 Evaporation (from SIWTF, 121 acre pond area) 6(12) (16) (29) (41) (46) (52) (28) (15) (12) (251) 5 Percolation 7(143) (129) (143) (138) (143) (138) (143) (138) (143) (1,257) 6 SIWTF pond storage balance 8598 650 711 511 226 0 0 0 0 248 446 554 7 Recovery of flow from SIWTF storage ponds to RTP 0 0 0 32 100 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 168 8 AWW and Salinas Runoff to RTP 0 0 0 344 412 427 435 444 368 0 0 0 2,430 Water Rights Applications to SWRCB
9 Blanco Drain 90 0 246 252 225 274 277 244 184 168 133 0 2,003 10 Reclamation Ditch at Davis Road 10 0 0 70 106 79 99 113 109 72 65 89 0 802 11 Tembladero Slough at Castroville 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 City of Monterey - Diversion at Lake El Estero 0 0 14 5 1 0 0 0 1 4 10 0 35 13 Subtotal New Waters Available 0 0 330 707 717 800 825 797 625 237 232 0 5,270 Total Projected Water Supply 1,739 1,499 1,985 2,373 2,444 2,479 2,578 2,578 2,345 1,931 1,871 1,619 25,442 DEMANDS Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Max Year SVRP deliveries to CSIP (2013) 0 692 1,558 1,669 1,799 1,675 1,786 1,803 1,725 1,548 1,127 88 15,469 14 PEAK CSIP AREA WELL WATER USE (10/2013-09/2014) 509 9 221 242 1,197 1,261 1,303 1,025 453 165 35 730 7,150 TOTAL CSIP Demand (excludes SRDF use) 509 701 1,779 1,911 2,996 2,936 3,089 2,828 2,178 1,713 1,162 818 22,619 15 FEEDWATER AMOUNT AT RTP TO PWM BASE PROJECT AWPF 367 331 367 133 137 133 137 137 133 367 355 367 2,963 16 FEEDWATER TO ESTABLISH CSIP AREA DROUGHT RESERVE
(200 AFY AWTF PRODUCT WATER) 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FEEDWATER FOR 2250 AFY EXPANSION 362 333 357 114 106 101 105 111 109 340 357 382 2,778 17 FEEDWATER TO AWPF FOR MCWD RUWAP18 28 19 33 70 108 110 113 94 85 51 21 9 741 18 TOTAL TO GWR ADVANCED WATER TREATMENT FACILITY 757 683 757 317 351 344 355 342 327 758 733 758 6,482 Total Projected Water Demand 1,266 1,384 2,537 2,228 3,348 3,280 3,444 3,170 2,505 2,471 1,894 1,575 29,102 Use of Source Water Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total 19 Secondary effluent to SVRP for CSIP 12 509 701 1,227 1,596 1,619 1,569 1,640 1,687 1,635 1,173 1,138 818 15,312 20 New sources available to CSIP 13 0 0 0 460 474 567 583 549 383 0 0 0 3,015 21 Total Supply to CSIP 509 701 1,227 2,056 2,093 2,136 2,223 2,236 2,018 1,173 1,138 818 18,328 Net CSIP Increase 2,858
22 Surface waters at RTP to AWPF 0 0 330 114 106 101 105 111 109 237 232 0 1,445 23 Secondary effluent to AWPF 729 664 394 0 0 0 0 0 0 471 480 749 3,487 24 AWW and Salinas urban runoff to AWPF 0 0 0 133 137 133 137 137 133 0 0 0 809 25 Secondary effluent to AWPF for MCWD RUWAP 28 19 33 70 108 110 113 94 85 51 21 9 741 26 Feedwater to AWPF 757 683 757 317 351 344 355 342 327 758 733 758 6,482 Subtotal- all waters (including secondary effluent) 1,266 1,384 1,985 2,373 2,444 2,479 2,578 2,578 2,345 1,931 1,871 1,575 24,810 27 DRY YEAR WASTEWATER EFFLUENT TO OCEAN OUTFALL (2013) 15 1,725 802 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 142 507 1,607 4,870
28 WASTE WATER EFFLUENT TO OCEAN OUTFALL WITH PROPOSED
DIVERSIONS TO CSIP/AWT/RUWAP 16 473 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 632 29 NEW SUPPLIES IN EXCESS OF AWT DEMANDS FOR GWR 17 (729) (664) (394) 460 474 567 583 549 383 (471) (480) (749) (471) 30 AWT BRINE TO OCEAN OUTFALL 144 130 144 60 67 65 68 65 62 144 139 144 1,232 Notes
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
Water right applciation 32263B. Max. diversion = 6 cfs. See final water right permit 21377. Assumes 2 cfs instream bypass requirement Dec-May, 1 cfs bypass in June and 0.7 cfs instream bypass requirement for July-Nov. Also assumes diversion stopped when flows reach 30 cfs (migration window) and restart when flow declines to 20 cfs. See final water right permit 21377 Table 11: Source Water Analysis for the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project Diversion Pattern for a Drought Year, Starting with a Full Reserve 10/14/2019
Presumes all facilities associated with diversions are completed, including SVRP modifications.

Table 2-1, p. 5, Groundwater Replenishment Project, Salinas River Inflow Impacts, Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Engineers, August 2015.

Volume of effluent from City of Salinas agricultural wash water to be directed into ponds 1,2,3, and the aeration pond for storage.

Average monthly flow from Groundwater Replenishment Project, Salinas River Inflow Impacts, Schaaf & Wheeler, August 2015.

Table 4, Ibid.

Water right application 32263A. Max diversion = 6 cfs diversion. If SRDF is not operating (drought year), 2 cfs is bypassed to the Salians River. See final water right permit 21376 Excess is calculated as Line 13 minus Lines 15 & 16
RUWAP supply comes from existing RTP inflows of municipal wastewater. Demands reflect existing urban irrigation customers along trunk main.

Water right application 32263C. Max. diversion = 3 cfs. Removed from project portfolio during water rights process. See RECLAMATION DITCH YIELD STUDY, Schaaf and Wheeler, March 2015.

New source waters not used by AWPF will be available to SVRP for CSIP.

Average monthly RTP discharge, 2009-2013 (reported by M1W).

Secondary treated municipal effluent not used for SVRP or the AWPF.

PWM_Expansion_20191014.xlsx/Table 11 10/14/2019
EXHIBIT 3
Volume I – Consolidated Final PWM EIR, January 2016 - Figure 2-9 Historic Regional Treatment Plant Flows
EXHIBIT 4
SEIR Appendices to the M1WS Draft Supplemental EIR 11-7-2019 Appendix E - Water Quality and Statutory Compliance ReportAppendix C – Projected Monthly Flows of Source Waters to the Regional Treatment Plant Influent
EXHIBIT 5
Monterey One Water
July 20, 2020 Special Meeting of the Ad-Hoc JPA Revision Committee
Attachment 3: Table 1 Member Entity Population Revenue and Account Data
Table 1 - Monterey One Water Member Entity Data
Population Avg. Dry Flow Revenue Accounts
Member Entity Population Percentage
Weather Flows
(MGD) Percentage
Residential
(Monthly)
Commercial
(Monthly) Annual Total Percentage Residential Commercial Total Percentage Boronda CSD 1,325 0.49% # $ 8,925.20 $ 2,527.65 $ 137,434.20 0.51% 424 65 489 0.48% Castroville/Moss Landing 7,097 2.63% 0.64 3.99% $ 50,625.25 $ 10,690.60 $ 735,790.20 2.73% 2,405 322 2,727 2.65% County of Monterey*
Del Rey Oaks 1,662 0.62% + $ 14,970.80 $ 1,310.70 $ 195,378.00 0.73% 712 59 771 0.75% MCWD 28,233 10.48% 2.09 13.02% $ 264,543.95 $ 29,920.27 $ 3,533,570.64 13.13% 12,569 737 13,306 12.93% Monterey 28,170 10.45% 1.97 12.27% $ 269,517.00 $ 103,043.34 $ 4,470,724.08 16.61% 12,828 2,973 15,801 15.36% Pacific Grove 15,265 5.66% 1.15 7.17% $ 168,139.50 $ 25,798.91 $ 2,327,260.92 8.65% 7,998 1,009 9,007 8.76% Salinas 162,222 60.20% 8.39 52.27% $ 906,380.10 $ 179,299.36 $ 13,028,153.52 48.41% 43,074 8,339 51,413 49.98% Sand City 385 0.14% + $ 3,692.25 $ 4,227.85 $ 95,041.20 0.35% 177 242 419 0.41% Seaside 33,537 12.45% 1.81 11.28% $ 172,475.60 $ 26,357.76 $ 2,386,000.32 8.87% 8,200 736 8,936 8.69% TOTALS 269,474 16.05 $ 1,859,269.65 $ 383,176.44 $ 26,909,353.08 88,387 14,482 102,869 Notes - Residential totals include vacant residences
Population Numbers are per the department of Finance as of 1/1/20 Flows are averages for January through June 2020
* - Monterey County data needs to be confirmed prior to inclusion in this table # - Boranda flows accounted for in Salinas
+ - Del Rey Oaks and Sand City flows accounted for in Seaside Revenue Contribution Accounts
EXHIBIT 6 - Water Use Figure
SEIR Appendix O - Supply and Demand for Water on the
Monterey Peninsula
FINAL
March 13, 2020, Page 7
EXHIBIT 7 - Reclamation Ditch Flow
USGS 5 year Monthly Discharge Data from Reclamation Ditch Monitoring Station at Davis Road
USGS 10 year Monthly Discharge Data from Reclamation Ditch Monitoring Station at Davis Road
Peer Review of CCC Staff Report, Lon House Report and MCWD Media Statement 1 California American Water
Peer Review of CCC Staff Report, Lon House Report and MCWD Media Statement
Prepared By: Kevin Alexander, P.E.

Hazen and Sawyer – September 10, 2020
This memorandum is in response to a review of the September 25, 2020 California Coastal Commission (CCC) Staff Report concerning California-American Water Company’s (Cal-Am) proposal to construct and operate the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (Project), the Energy and Water Consulting memorandum by Lon House, PhD. dated April 2020 that was provided to the CCC, and the Media Statement by Marina Coast Water District issued September 9, 2020.

I. RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT
The following are Hazen’s comments on the CCC Report:
• Hazen and Sawyer’s August 11, 2020 and August 23, 2020 memoranda demonstrate that water supply and demand analysis provided to the CCC by Monterey One Water (M1W) and Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) relied on outdated wastewater flow data and that M1W and MPWMD were aware that wastewater flows were decreasing. Moreover, outdated and misleading assumptions of 2009 to 2013 wastewater flows were carried throughout the Draft and Final SEIR for the Pure Water Expansion, which indicates that the SEIR analysis of water supply and demand was inadequate. In response to Hazen and Sawyer’s August 11 memorandum demonstrating these inadequacies, on August 20, 2020, M1W provided for the first time its purported wastewater flows from 2014 to 2019 (though without the underlying data). Hazen and Sawyer’s August 23 memorandum reviewed the 2014 to 2019 flow information provided by M1W and confirmed that wastewater flows are insufficient to supply the Pure Water Expansion as previously concluded by Hazen.

The Staff Report largely ignores Hazen’s August 11, 2020 and August 23, 2020 memoranda and does not consider M1W’s recent flow information. As a result, the Staff Report does not address the significance of Hazen’s conclusion that the Pure Water Expansion project simply does not have an adequate source of water supplies for it to produce its promised 2,250 acre-feet per year (afy). It is clear that the CCC staff has not reviewed or relied upon the latest information provided by Hazen or by M1W. Page 7 of the Staff Report states: “However, based on staff’s evaluation of technical information provided by Monterey One Water and others, staff believe there is sufficient source water, include at least one certain source – i.e., no less than about 8,000 acre-feet per year of treated wastewater – to provide the approximately 3,000 acre-feet per year the Pure Water Expansion will need to produce its expected 2,250 acre-feet per year and satisfy the service area’s water demand.”
Peer Review of CCC Staff Report, Lon House Report and MCWD Media Statement 2 o The Staff Report is incorrect in stating there is 8,000 acre-feet of wastewater flows available. Although the Draft SEIR indicated that there was approximately 8,000 afy of wastewater effluent available to the ocean outfall in a normal year, the Final SEIR updated this assumption and states that only 5,811 afy is assumed to be available. (Appendix M Table 2.)
o When average flows per year for the past 3 years of 18,555 afy are considered, the 5,811 afy of available wastewater is further reduced to 5,732 acre-feet. When considering the most current data for 2020, wastewater flows are 17,980 acre-feet, which will reduce the available wastewater flow to the ocean outfall to 5,554 acre-feet.
o The current Pure Water project requires 4,320 acre-feet of that wastewater to produce the 3,500 acre-feet of water for Cal-Am’s customers, and 4,568 acre-feet of wastewater to produce 3,700 acre-feet when building a drought reserve. o The Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project (RUWAP) must be supplied from wastewater effluent at 822 acre-feet; however, with backwash flows reintroduced, that flow is reduced to 741 acre-feet. o Therefore, the remaining amount of wastewater available for the Pure Water Expansion is 5,732 minus 4,568 minus 741, which equals 432 acre-feet. 432 afy is not sufficient source water for the Pure Water Expansion to produce 2,250 afy.

Instead, at least 2,778 afy of source water would be required. o In Dry Years as noted, the actual wastewater flows are estimated to be substantially less and therefore, no flow is available for the Pure Water Expansion.
• The quantity of source water to supply the Pure Water project and the Pure Water Expansion are evaluated in the Staff Report. However, as noted above, the Staff Report incorrectly relies on the availability of source water base on flawed analysis from M1W and MPWMD without consideration for whether the availability of a given source is documented and reliable year round or during drought. CCC Staff are directed to Appendix M of the SEIR Table 2 and Table 3 for available sources for the Pure Water Expansion. The Staff Report noted that M1W has agreements for more than enough water actually needed to supply the Pure Water Expansion. This conclusion is incorrect based on the methodology and assumptions and Table 2 and 3 of the SEIR Appendix M.

Continuing the calculation from above:
o When all available assumed and estimated flows, including the 432 acre-ft calculated above, according to the Source Water Priority Table 3 in Appendix M of the SEIR are available, there is only 2,297 acre-feet actually available for Pure Water Expansion. The maximum flow that could be produced at best case is 1,860 acre-feet. This assumes all flows from all of the sources “allowed” to feed the Pure Water Expansion are available 100 percent of the time. That flow is further reduced to 1,597 afy if the flows are reduced for the current wastewater Peer Review of CCC Staff Report, Lon House Report and MCWD Media Statement 3 flow of 17,980 afy. The following Table 1 shows the flows from SEIR Appendix M Table 2 used in assessing the available water to the Pure Water Expansion:

TABLE 1
Source Water Quantity of Water Available to
M1W in a Typical Year (Acre Feet
Per Year)
Secondary Effluent to Ocean Outfall 432 afy remaining from calculation above. (245 afy if WW flow to ocean outfall is
5,554 based on current year at 17,980 afy)
Reclamation Ditch 0 - (SEIR Appx M, Pg 9) “The new source waters conservatively are not assumed toe
available for the Proposed Modification,
regardless whether condition precedence
are met.”
Blanco Drain 0 - (SEIR Appx M, Pg 9) “The new source
waters conservatively are not assumed toe
available for the Proposed Modification,
regardless whether condition precedence
are met.”
Agricultural Wash Water (AWW) 0 - (SEIR Appx M, Pg 9) “The new source waters conservatively are not assumed toe
available for the Proposed Modification,
regardless whether condition precedence
are met.”
Recycle Sump #1 41
Recycle Sump #2 104
Approved PWM Project and MCWD AWPF
Backwashes
290
Proposed Modifications AWPF Backwashes (only
available for Modifications)
152 at 2250 AFY
(36 when producing 528 AFY with current
WW flows at 17,980)
SVRP Backwash 515 in 2018 (492 when WW flow reduced
from 18,810 to 17,980 in 2020)
Boranda 95
Farmworker Housing 18
M1W’s ARWRA Summer Water (ARWRA Section IV

4.01 1(d))
650
SRDF Screening 0 - SEIR Appendix M -Table 2, “*** SRDF
Screening and Salinas IWTF Pond System
waters are assumed to not be available.”
Salinas IWTF Pond System 0 - SEIR Appendix M -Table 2, “*** SRDF Screening and Salinas IWTF Pond System
waters are assumed to not be available.”
Total Available for feed to the M1W AWPF 2,297 (1,971 including current 17,980 WW flow)
o M1W stated in the SEIR Appendix M that its assumptions are conservative.

Hazen does not agree, as it is clear there is not enough wastewater flow, since Peer Review of CCC Staff Report, Lon House Report and MCWD Media Statement 4 M1W’s own flow information from 2014 to 2019 shows that wastewater flow has declined significantly since 2013, the last year evaluated in the SEIR.

Additionally, the other surface water flows proposed as source water for the Pure Water Expansion are based on unverified flows that were stated to be “assumed and estimated” in the SEIR. (SEIR Appendix M, pp. 7, 9 10 and 12.) o The “Assumed Flows and Estimated Flows” in SEIR Appendix M do not have backup information that validates the reliability of these flows in recent years or over multiple years. Additionally, according to SEIR Appendix M, Methodology and Assumptions, the Blanco Drain, Reclamation Ditch and Agricultural Wash Water are not included as source water available to the PWM Expansion. These flows, although not part of the source water to the Pure Water Expansion, have not been updated with recent information and the validity, availability and reliability of flow from those supplies even to the existing Pure Water project are speculative.
• Staff Report page 110 states that the August 20, 2020 letter from M1W to the CCC addresses Cal-Am’s contentions and clarifies that Cal-Am’s concerns about inadequate wastewater were based on incorrect analysis. The Staff Report asserts that Cal-Am’s concerns about source water quality are misplaced because the Pure Water Project has treated wastewater from agricultural operations.
o M1W states that wastewater flows from the Peninsula make up a portion of the influent to the Wastewater Treatment Plant and asserts that because they are only a portion of the flows, the demand reductions are not proof that the wastewater flows are reducing. The data provide by M1W in the August 2020 memorandum clearly reveals otherwise and supports the deficit conclusions in the Hazen Memorandum from August 11, 2020.
o In an area where demands are weighed down by moratoria, outdoor watering is limited by regulations, and tiered rates are used as a mechanism to drive down, excess use results in water use being closer to wastewater flow since indoor water ends up in the sewer. The contributing agencies to M1W all use such tools to control water demand meaning reductions in demand declines would be similar across the area. Hazen reaffirms its analysis that clearly shows wastewater flows are reduced to the levels predicted in Hazen’s August 11, 2020 memorandum.

Hazen’s August 11 memorandum estimated 17,987 acre-feet of wastewater flow today using a demand corollary. Based on M1W’s new flow information, flows are 17,980 acre-feet today.
o Regarding Water Quality of the source waters, the Draft SEIR Appendix E -Water Quality and Statutory Compliance Report, at Appendix B-1 (2013-2014 test data) used testing procedures for perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOA/PFOS) compounds that had a higher detection limit than current procedures. M1W was recently added to the list of agencies having to provide updated data for 31 PFOA/PFOS compounds in its effluent and RO concentrate Peer Review of CCC Staff Report, Lon House Report and MCWD Media Statement 5 using updated testing methods that detect such compounds at much lower levels.1

It should be noted that even with the older test data that the Lake El Estero has PFOA/PFOS compounds at detectible levels. With current regulations for drinking water supplies being much lower, it will be important to understand each source of supply and if the levels will be required to be removed. The RO Technology will remove the compound, however it will end up in the Bay as concentrate at much higher concentrations which could be another issue. This issue has not been evaluated by M1W or the CCC.
• The Staff Report fails to consider the limited availability of ASR. Throughout the 2020 and 2019 MPWMD reports and in the CCC Staff Report there are references to ASR being a proven approach. Hazen would agree with that statement that ASR when used appropriately can be a solution. However, what is not addressed by MPWMD or the SEIR (as noted in the Hazen Memorandum dated August 11, 2020 and August 23, 2020) is that there must be water available to treat to be able to inject into the aquifer for storage and ultimate recovery. ASR using excess Carmel River water in the past 15 years has not shown the ability to build adequate storage. In the context of the proposed Pure Water Expansion, there is not enough flow available to build the drought reserve over time let alone meet current demand.
• Regarding startup related issues, the CCC Staff Report references the Orange County Water District (OCWD) Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) and notes that the system did not start up at full capacity for various reasons. It should be noted that the reason the system did not produce at the full capacity in the first years of operation is that wastewater flows had dropped at Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1 similar to the situation being faced by M1W. That reduction in wastewater flow ultimately forced OCWD to install very large 15 million gallon equalization tanks to capture excess flows during the day to allow the system to operate at nearly full flow at night. The Author of this memorandum was the lead process engineer for OCWD during development of the Phase 1, planning of the Phase 2 and ultimate build out of the GWRS projects for OCWD. Further, the Author is intimately familiar with that system and how it started and continues to operate. • The Draft and Final SEIR have water supply projections that have not been updated to address lower wastewater flows. The environment will be impacted if MPMWD and M1W divert effluent by Water Right from the CSIP program to the Pure Water projects.

No analysis has been provided with regard to how to prioritize CSIP and reducing seawater intrusion from continued groundwater pumping versus supplying the Pure Water project.

1 State Water Resources Control Board, Water Code Sections 13267 and 13383 Order for the Determination of The Presence of Per and Polyfluroralkyl Substances at Publicly Owned Treatment Works, ORDER WQ 2020-0015-DWQ, Attachment 2, available at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2020/wqo2020_ 0015_dwq.pdf.

Peer Review of CCC Staff Report, Lon House Report and MCWD Media Statement 6 • Table 6 on page 121 of the Staff Report provides a comparison of Cal-Am’s water supply portfolio with Cal-Am’s desalination Project or with the Pure Water Expansion. What is not made clear is what the table looks like when actual available water supplies and updated SEIR Tables 9, 10, and 11 based on the most recent 3 years of wastewater flow data are accounted for. Appendix A below provides that updated accounting. Although Hazen and Sawyer used the same methodology and approaches used to calculate predictions of current and future demand by MPWMD and House, as shown in Appendix A, when ASR is accounted for at a realistic level, the Pure Water Expansion cannot meet MPWMD lowest demand estimate of 10,855 acre-feet per year. Likewise, when WWTP flows and Reclamation Ditch flows are accounted for based on current flow data, the Pure Water Expansion cannot meet 10,855 acre-feet per year demand. When the SEIR tables are updated to account for current WWTP flow and Reclamation Ditch Flow, it is apparent that MPWMD has overestimated supplies. In Appendix A, Updated SEIR Table 9 reveals there is enough flow to produce 528 acre-feet from the Pure Water Expansion.

Appendix A, Updated Table 10 would likely never apply because there is not adequate flow to build a reserve. Appendix A, Updated Table 11 reveals that during drought years, there must be 5,311 acre-feet available from ASR that is not actually available because, as explained in the August 11, 2020 report from Hazen and Sawyer, between 1997 and 2019, annual ASR reinjection only reached the 1,300 acre-feet per year twice, averaging only 450 acre-feet per year over a 22 year period. During drought conditions, ASR is essentially unavailable. These are significant issues that MPMWD and M1W must address before the CCC can consider the Pure Water Expansion as a potential alternative to Cal-Am’s Project. The future demand ranges presented in House Table 3 are similar to the demand ranges provided by MPWMD and for the same reasons that the Pure Water Expansion cannot meet MPWMD’s lowest estimate of demand, it is speculative to assume that the demand levels presented by House are attainable.

II. RESPONSE TO LON HOUSE MEMORANDUM
The following response is based on a review of the Lon House Memorandum:
• The House Report asserts that MPWMD is an expert at water supply and demand determinations “and has no reason to defer to the CPUC or any other agency[.]” (House Report, p. 1.) Based on Hazen and Sawyer’s peer review of MPWMD’s supply and demand analysis, it is clear that their evaluation of these issues neglected to consider the complete and current picture of how the supplies and demands work together, which is especially important when supply is inextricably linked to demand as is the case with wastewater. In this case, MPMWD did not make available or evaluate key information on wastewater flows and the impacts of those flows on the availability of water supplies to the community. In the case of supply, MPWMD selectively used outdated data that supported its narrative that there is plenty of supply for the Pure Water Expansion. In the case of demand, the MPWMD elected to use up to the minute demand information and actually updated its report between September 2019 and December 2019 to better support MPWMD’s narrative. In our judgement, an expert should not selectively choose a dataset to sway results to achieve an outcome.

Peer Review of CCC Staff Report, Lon House Report and MCWD Media Statement 7 • Page 2 of the House Report states: “Three more full years (2017-2019) of recorded water demand data is now available. This recent data makes the CPUC data set obsolete, reducing the existing customer 10-year average water demand available in the CPUC proceeding by 1,275 acre-feet per year (afy), a reduction of 10.7 percent.” • The House Report overlooks the data that M1W presented to its Ad-Hoc JPA Revision Committee on July 20, 2020 that indicates since the beginning of 2020, wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) flows were reduced by 20.3.% since 2013 to 17,980 afy or 16.05 mgd.2 If the CPUC data set is rendered “obsolete” because of new demand data, then so is the WWTP flow data in the SEIR and in the analysis by Stoldt that only relied on WWTP flow data from 2009 to 2013. 2013 to 2020 WWTP flow information demonstrates that WWTP flows are inadequate to supply the Expansion so that it could provide product water to meet the most restrictive demand projections by MPWMD (10,855 afy). Appendix A below and the Hazen memorandum from August 11, 2020 and August 23, 2020 show how the current wastewater flows translates directly to reduced capacity for supply. • Page 3 of the House Report states: “The CPUC recognizes the importance of using the latest water demand data. In its decision in CalAm’s last General Rate Case, the CPUC concluded “‘Given the declining consumption pattern in the Monterey main district, the most recent data available is likely to be the most accurate.’ What could substitution of a couple more years of recent water demand information make? It turns out – a lot.” o Similar to the CPUC’s consideration of the last 3 years of data for demand, the same could be said for the WWTP Flows. What could substitution of a couple more years of recent wastewater flow information make? It turns out – a lot. o The Expansion SEIR relied on WWTP flow data from 2009 to 2013. Hazen and CalAm commented that the WWTP flow data did not reflect actual WWTP flow available to M1W. In Hazen’s August 11 memo, Hazen identified publicly available data (including evidence of 2020 flows) indicating that WWTP flows have declined significantly since 2013. On August 20, 2020, M1W provided WWTP flow data from 2014 to 2019. So what difference does a few years make? “It turns out – a lot.” Since 2009 to 2013, WWTP flows have decreased from 21,764 afy to 17,980 afy, a reduction of 3,209 afy. Using M1W’s own updated numbers, it is evident that WWTP is not a sufficient or reliable source water for the Pure Water project or the Pure Water Expansion to produce its promised product water to CalAm’s customers of 3,500 afy and 2,250 afy, respectively. • Pages 3, 4 and 5. The House Report confuses various characterizations of demand by calling CPUCs Planning Level Demand of 12,350 the “current” demand. It is not the current demand but is the planning level that is used to identify what level of demand to use based on the 2021 CDO date for starting the future projections of demand to use in planning for future water supplies. Planning level demand makes various additions

2 Attached as Exhibit 5 to Hazen’s August 11, 2020 memorandum.

Peer Review of CCC Staff Report, Lon House Report and MCWD Media Statement 8 including tourism bounce back, Lots of Record, and Pebble Beach to the “current” demand to account for uncertainty in the demand when the pressures to suppress demand are lifted as supply constraints are mitigated.
o Similarly, House developed the table below as a comparison of Customer Existing Water Demand. None of the values in that table are Customer Existing Water Demand. These numbers are Planning Level Demand.
o In addition, it appears there is an error in the analysis between the 10-year average Demand and the 5-year average demand when compared to the 2020 Stoldt Memorandum at 10,863 and 9,825 afy, respectively. The Lon House Memorandum table below appears to use different values that are not explained in the memorandum for the same time period. With no transparency in how this was determined, these numbers form a speculative base to calculate future demand. • As noted above, House provides updated 10-year and 5-year average data that do not agree with the Stoldt updates from March 2020. House carries those numbers into the House Table 3 below estimating the Eventual Demand ranges.

House again references Existing Customer Demand and adds New Water Demand and introduces the concept of Eventual Demand. Eventual Demand would appear to mean the demand to use in starting future planning and future demand projection efforts rather than relying on current water demand data that does not account for uncertainty. House Peer Review of CCC Staff Report, Lon House Report and MCWD Media Statement 9 does not address uncertainty in the estimates of Existing Customer Demand that can be weighed down by measures such as the moratorium and the cost of purchasing allocations. Secondly, he does not address uncertainty in the estimates of the New Water Demands but continues to use the Range of Eventual Demands. Although the demand projections made by House appear to be uncertain and in error, the demand range presented by House is well within the range presented by MPWMD and others, which the Pure Water Expansion is unable to satisfy.
• House does not appear to analyze the water supply of 2,250 afy that can be produced from the PWM Expansion. The House memorandum does not evaluate available wastewater supply necessary to produce that 2,250 afy and therefore does not come to the conclusion that the PWM Expansion cannot meet “existing” and “eventual” demands.

This is a mistake considering the updated wastewater flow information that calls further into question supply availability, reliability or sustainability. However, what is key is that House understands that another water supply is necessary and given the updated supply information would have only been able to state that the MPWSP is the only project that will add a new supply of water that is critical to meeting todays demands and future demands.
o Due to lack of wastewater flows and other supplies, the PWM Expansion fails to meet even the lowest Eventual (future) demand projection of 10,855 from Stoldt and the 10,794 afy from House.
o Refer to Updated Table 2 below from August 11, 2020 with the Flows updated with the latest WW Flows from M1W. The importance of the Updated Table 2 shown in the ERRATA below is that in Normal Years while building a reserve (Updated Table 9 column) there is only 652 afy available as feed to the PWM Expansion. The Pure Water Expansion will therefore only produce 528 afy. o Refer to the Table 2, Updated Table 9 column, for actual water supplies available to meet current and future demands with the Pure Water Expansion. The demands above 9,772 afy cannot be met even with a speculative maximum ASR output of 1,300 afy.
• Page 7. House introduces a calculation for instantaneous and permanent water demand increase of 881 afy. The calculation is based on an increase from 2019 demand up to the 10 year average demand or a 9% change. We do not agree with this calculation which underestimates the demand that should be used for planning and does not account for uncertainty in demand.
• Page 9. House notes that MPMWD has clearly identified water supplies and demands.

This is an incorrect statement. House does not look at the where the water is originating similar to the errors made by MPWMD and the SEIR. Paper water without actual flow is not an adequate source.

Peer Review of CCC Staff Report, Lon House Report and MCWD Media Statement 10 III. ERRATA TO AUGUST 23, 2020 UPDATED TABLE 2
Table 2 in the Hazen and Sawyer August 11 and August 23, 2020 memorandums highlight the impact of the reduced wastewater flow on the actual supply flow balance and ultimately in the amount of flow to ASR.

In Hazen’s August 11, 2020 memorandum, wastewater flows were based on the 17,987 afy calculated from the correlation with demand. In Hazen’s August 23, 2020 memorandum, wastewater flows were revised based on the 18,555 afy average of the last 3 years of wastewater flows provided by M1W.

The Flow to PWME in the Table 8-11 Updates are adjusted to reduce flow to allow the Actual Use Flows to match with the available Supplies in the Updated Table 1 from the August 23, 2020 memorandum. The ASR Deficit calculated for the Table 8-11 Updates are calculated by subtracting the planned ASR value from the amount of ASR calculated in the Table 8-11 Update.

In all cases, there is and will be a deficit to ASR based on the reduced wastewater flows.

Updated TABLE 2 from Hazen’s August 23, 2020 memoranda is replaced with the Updated TABLE 2 below to correct a tabulation error highlighted herein. This revision does not impact or modify Hazen and Sawyer’s conclusion that due to reduced wastewater flows, there is only enough supply flows available to send 652 afy feed to the Pure Water Expansion to produce 528 afy in the normal years.

UPDATED TABLE 2 – IMPACTS OF REDUCED WWTP FLOW ON SUPPLY FLOW

BALANCE
Flow Balance in Acre-Ft Table
8 Table
9 Table
10 Table
11 Table 8
Update
Table 9
Update
Table 10
Update
Table
11 Update
Flow to CSIP + CSIP Well
Pumping
17227 17227 17227 22619 17227 17227 17227 21091e
Flow to PWMf 4320 4320 4320 2963 4320 4320 4320 0
Flow to PWM Drought 248 248 0 0 248 248 0 0
Flow to PWMEg 2778 2778 2778 2778 2321
1753
652
84 889
321 0
Flow to RUWAP 741 741 741 741 741 741 741 741
Actual Use Flowsh 25314 25314 25066 29101 24857
24289
23188
22620
23177
22609 21832
Flow to ASRi 5950 5950 5750 4650 5580
5120
4228
3768
4219
3759 0
Concentrate Flow to Outfallj 1536 1536 1489 1232 1450 1133 1130 141 Deficit To ASR 0 0 0 -1100 -370 -1722 -1530 -4650
Notes:
e
CSIP and CSIP Well Flows from Table 8-11 Demand. Reduced CSIP in “Table 11 Updated” by taking Water Right
f Revised flow to PWM down for Table 11 to match actual Use to supply g
Flow available to PWME is calculated based on maintaining flow to PWM and RUWAP and to Concentrate
h Actual Use is calculated to confirm balance with Supply i ASR Flow is from the AWT product water flow without RUWAP j Concentrate flow is 19% of Flow for PWM, PWM Drought, PWME, and RUWAP k Deficit to ASR based on Flow to ASR minus the PWM AND PWME DEMAND from Table 1 Peer Review of CCC Staff Report, Lon House Report and MCWD Media Statement 11 IV. REVIEW OF THE MCWD MEDIA STATEMENT ISSUED SEPTEMBER 9, 2020 The Marina Coast Water District issued a Media Statement on September 9, 2020 titled Contractual Agreements Guarantee Source Water To Monterey One Water For Pure Water Monterey Expansion. Hazen and Sawyer reviewed the Media Statement and provide the following comments:
• The Media Statement is continuing to mislead the community as to the volume of surface water and wastewater that are available as compared to “paper” water rights. Possession of certain water rights and agreements does not mean there is actually water available. This is similar to the Colorado River, where there are more water rights than available water.

Recent wastewater flow information provided by Monterey One Water for years 2013 to 2020 prove that wastewater volumes available on an annual basis have dropped substantially compared to what was indicated and planned in the SEIR for the Pure Water Monterey Expansion.
• According to the SEIR, the newly identified sources proposed by MCWD for use by the Pure Water Expansion are not available to be used by that project. (SEIR Appendix M, pg. 9).

Therefore, claiming the volume of water from these sources can be used does not demonstrate that these source are actually available and conflicts with the SEIR already circulated under CEQA.
• The Salinas Urban Runoff/Stormwater requires additional agreements as stated in the SEIR Appendix M, pg. 5. Therefore, the contractual agreements for this source are not in place and reliance on the availability of this source is speculative. • The Reclamation Ditch and wastewater water volumes assumed available by MCWD and M1W in the SEIR have been shown to be much less than estimated. The Agricultural Wash Water flows and the Blanco Drain flows are both unverified and remain speculative. The agricultural waste water volumes have not been verified on an annual basis beyond 2013 and were only estimated according to the yield studies in the SEIR. The Blanco Drain flows beyond 2013 have not been provided and were estimated based on very limited data as stated in the Blanco Drain Yield Study, page. 7. Knowing that the Reclamation Ditch and wastewater flows have been shown to be much less than claimed in the SEIR, there is a need for verifiable data and values for these new sources identified by MCWD’s media statement. • The EIR for the Pure Water Monterey project included modifications to the Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant (SVRP) to allow for more treated wastewater to be sent to Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project (CSIP) during winter months. Although, the proposed modifications to the SVRP have not been completed, it will further reduce the wastewater available to the Pure Water Monterey Expansion. Additionally, MCWRA intends to take wells offline in the CSIP area to reduce the increasing seawater intrusion. o In conclusion, MCWD by its own Media Statement is continuing to mislead the community that water is available for the PWM Expansion.

Peer Review of CCC Staff Report, Lon House Report and MCWD Media Statement 12 o The “New Sources” referenced are not to be used for the Pure Water Monterey Expansion accordingly to its own SEIR.
o The volume of wastewater available has been shown to be much less than planned.
o Finally, MCWRA is planning to expand CSIP and is reducing the number of wells in the area of seawater intrusion thus needing more of the treated wastewater effluent.
o Having adequate, reliable, sustainable water supplies for the Peninsula are critical to the community. When there are competing interests for limited supplies of water, it is critical to know that water supplies will actually be available and not just the paper volume stated in a water rights document or agreement.

Peer Review of CCC Staff Report, Lon House Report and MCWD Media Statement 13 Appendix A: Identified Available Water Supplies In Acre-Feet Per Year Source / Assumption Scenario
Proposed by Others ASR Controlled* Wastewater & Reclamation Ditch Controlled*

CPUC MPWMD
2020
MPWMD 2019
No ASR
Half ASR (650 AFY)
Full ASR(1,300 AFY)
Updated Table 9 – Normal Year building Reserve
Updated Table 10 – Normal Yr after full Reserve
Updated Table 11 – Dry Year

1. Carmel River 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376 2. Seaside Groundwater Basin 774 774 774 774 774 774 774 774 774

3. Aquifer Storage and Recovery
1,300 1,300 1,300 0 650 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300

4. Sand City Desalination Facility
94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94

5. Pure Water Project 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,700 3,500 0 6. Pure Water Expansion - 2,250 2,250 2,250 2,250 2,250 528 719 0 7. Other Available Supplies - 300 406 - - - - - -
Total without desalination Project
9,044 11,594 11,700 9,994 10,644 11,294 9,772 9,763 5,544 Surplus/Deficit assuming 10,855 afy demand
-1,811 739 845 -861 -211 439 -1083 -1,092 -5,311
* Figure 2 from the August 11, 2020 Hazen and Sawyer report depicts these alternative scenarios. (August 11, 2020 Hazen Memo, p. 19.) Technical Memorandum
PWM and Expansion Reliabilty Analysis_DRAFT TM.docx
Date: 6/8/2021
To: Candace Coleman
California American Water

Prepared by: Heather Freed, PE
Reviewed by: Jeroen Olthof, PE
Project: California American Water Monterey County District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan SUBJECT: DRAFT - PURE WATER MONTEREY AND PURE WATER MONTEREY EXPANSION SUPPLY AVAILABILITY FOR THE 2020 UWMP
California American Water (CAW) Monterey Main Water System has a contractual agreement to 3,500 acre-feet per year (AFY) of water from the Pure Water Monterey (PWM) Project. The PWM Project is a joint project between the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) and the Monterey One Water (M1W).

The PWM Project provides indirect potable reuse for storage in the Seaside Groundwater Basin and subsequent potable use in the Monterey Main System, as well as purified recycled water for landscape irrigation, the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project (CSIP) and the Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project (RUWAP). In April 2021, the MPWMD and M1W certified the Supplement Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the PWM Expansion Project, which is envisioned to provide an additional 2,250 AFY to the Seaside Basin and subsequent potable use for Monterey Main.

In 2020, CAW contracted Hazen and Sawyer to evaluate the source waters available for the PWM, PWM Expansion, CSIP, and RUWAP Projects (Hazen Analysis). The SEIR at that time was relying on wastewater flows from 2009 to 2013. The Hazen Analysis updated the tables in the Supplemental EIR using 2020 source water flowrates, and it found that the current flowrates cannot support all projects. Table 1 presents the original Supplemental EIR source water supply and demand balance and the updated tables using 2020 flowrates. The Tables 8 through 11 of the SEIR represent various hydrologic conditions. The Hazen analysis represents Table 9 as the normal year hydrologic conditions and Table 11 as the worst-case dry year hydrologic conditions.

Future water use on the Monterey Peninsula is anticipated to increase when the new Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) Desalination Plant is online. As water use increases, the wastewater flows would also be expected to increase. This technical memorandum was prepared to support the CAW Monterey Main 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and updates the Hazen Analysis for conditions from 2025 through 2045 in five-year increments to estimate the reliably available supply from the PWM and PWM Expansion Project in normal and dry year types.
1 Demand and Wastewater Flow Projections
The only updates to the Hazen Analysis to support the 2020 UWMP are the estimated wastewater flows (Line 1 of the supplies presented in Table 1) based on the UWMP demand projections. The 2020 water demand is the actual water demand in Monterey Main in 2020, and wastewater flow values are based on the 2020 flows in the Hazen Analysis. The wastewater flows for future years were estimated using the 2020 ratio of demand to wastewater flows. For year 2025, the projected demands are anticipated to exceed the available supply, and CAW would need to enact its Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) to reduce demands. The reduced demand is based on the projected available supply. Water use and wastewater flows are not expected to increase until 2030 when the MPSWP Desalination Plant is online and provides a drought proof supply source for the region.

Until the MPWSP is online, the PWM Project is not anticipated to have enough source water for dry years.

The PWM Expansion project is anticipated to be online by 2025. Without the MPWSP Desalination Plant providing additional supply, there is insufficient source water for the full 2,250 AFY design supply from the PWM Expansion project. In 2025 only 528 AFY of water will be available for the PWM Expansion project in normal years, and no water would be available in the worst-case dry year scenario. In 2030 when the MPWSP Desalination Plant comes online, the PWM Expansion Project is projected to be 100 percent reliable in a normal hydrologic year. During a dry year, the PWM Expansion is expected to become more reliable as wastewater flows increase over time.

California American Water Monterey County District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan DRAFT - Pure Water Monterey and Pure Water Monterey Expansion Supply Availability for the 2020 UWMP 6/8/2021 Page 4 of 4
PWM and Expansion Reliabilty Analysis_DRAFT TM.docx
Table 2. PWM and PWM Expansion Supply Availability 2020- 2045, AFY Modified SEIR App I
(2020 Flows)
Modified SEIR App I
(2025 Flows)
Modified SEIR App I
(2030 Flows)
SUPPLY Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 WW Flows 17,987 17,987 17,987 17,016 18,431 18,431 18,431 17,436 23,390 23,390 23,390 22,128 Domestic Flow 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82
New Sources 2,579 2,579 2,579 2,430 2,579 2,579 2,579 2,430 2,579 2,579 2,579 2,430 Surface Water 3,641 1,972 1,961 2,304 3,641 1,972 1,961 2,304 3,641 1,972 1,961 2,304 TOTAL WW Flow 24,289 22,620 22,609 21,832 24,733 23,064 23,053 22,252 29,692 28,023 28,012 26,944 DEMAND
CSIP 17,227 17,227 17,227 22,619 17,227 17,227 17,227 22,619 17,227 17,227 17,227 22,619 PWM 4,320 4,320 4,320 2,963 4,320 4,320 4,320 2,963 4,320 4,320 4,320 2,963 PWM drought 248 248 0 0 248 248 0 0 248 248 0 0
PWME 0 0 0 0 2,778 2,778 2,778 2,778 2,778 2,778 2,778 2,778 RUWAP 741 741 741 741 741 741 741 741 741 741 741 741
TOTAL Demand 22,536 22,536 22,288 26,323 25,314 25,314 25,066 29,101 25,314 25,314 25,066 29,101 Supply Surplus/ Deficit 1,753 84 321 -4,491 -581 -2,250 -2,013 -6,849 4,378 2,709 2,946 -2,157 Water Available for PWM +
drought
4,568
(100%)
0 (0%)
4,568
(100%)
0 (0%)
4,568
(100%)
2,963
(100%)
Water Available for PWM
Expansion
N/A- not
online
N/A- not
online
528
(23%)
0 (0%)
2,778
(100%)
503
(22%)
Modified SEIR App I
(2035 Flows)
Modified SEIR App I
(2040 Flows)
Modified SEIR App I
(2045 Flows)
SUPPLY Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 WW Flows 24,546 24,546 24,546 23,221 25,717 25,717 25,717 24,329 26,880 26,880 26,880 25,429 Domestic Flow 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82
New Sources 2,579 2,579 2,579 2,430 2,579 2,579 2,579 2,430 2,579 2,579 2,579 2,430 Surface Water 3,641 1,972 1,961 2,304 3,641 1,972 1,961 2,304 3,641 1,972 1,961 2,304 TOTAL WW Flow 30,848 29,179 29,168 28,037 32,019 30,350 30,339 29,145 33,182 31,513 31,502 30,245 DEMAND
CSIP 17,227 17,227 17,227 22,619 17,227 17,227 17,227 22,619 17,227 17,227 17,227 22,619 PWM 4,320 4,320 4,320 2,963 4,320 4,320 4,320 2,963 4,320 4,320 4,320 2,963 PWM drought 248 248 0 0 248 248 0 0 248 248 0 0
PWME 2,778 2,778 2,778 2,778 2,778 2,778 2,778 2,778 2,778 2,778 2,778 2,778 RUWAP 741 741 741 741 741 741 741 741 741 741 741 741
TOTAL Demand 25,314 25,314 25,066 29,101 25,314 25,314 25,066 29,101 25,314 25,314 25,066 29,101 Supply Surplus/ Deficit 5,534 3,865 4,102 -1,064 6,705 5,036 5,273 44 7,868 6,199 6,436 1,144 Water Available for PWM +
drought
4,568
(100%)
2,963
(100%)
4,568
(100%)
2,963
(100%)
4,568
(100%)
2,963
(100%)
Water Available for PWM
Expansion
2,778
(100%)
1,388
(62%)
2,778
(100%)
2,778
(100%)
2,778
(100%)
2,778
(100%)
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District I 2020 Urban Water Management Plan I
Appendix I. Water
Shortage Contingency Plan
2021 Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
Final
JUNE 2021 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER CENTRAL DIVISION- MONTEREY COUNTY DISTRICT

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER CENTRAL
DIVISION – MONTEREY COUNTY DISTRICT
2021 Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
JUNE 2021
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District i 2021 Water Shortage Contingency Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................................... ii List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................................... ii

1.1 Water Supply Reliability Analysis ....................................................................................................2

1.2 Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment.............................................................................2

1.3 Six Standard Water Shortage Levels ..............................................................................................3

1.3.1 Shortage Level 1..........................................................................................................................6

1.3.2 Shortage Level 2..........................................................................................................................6

1.3.3 Shortage Level 3..........................................................................................................................6

1.3.4 Shortage Level 4..........................................................................................................................6

1.3.5 Standard Water Shortage Level Crosswalk ..........................................................................7

1.4 Shortage Response Actions.................................................................................................................7

1.4.1 Demand Reduction.......................................................................................................................7

1.4.2 Supply Augmentation............................................................................................................... 10

1.4.3 Operational Changes .............................................................................................................. 10

1.4.4 Emergency Response Plan....................................................................................................... 10

1.4.5 Seismic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan....................................................................... 11

1.4.6 Shortage Response Action Effectiveness............................................................................... 11

1.5 Communication Protocols.................................................................................................................. 11

1.6 Compliance and Enforcement.......................................................................................................... 12

1.7 Legal Authorities ................................................................................................................................ 14

1.8 Financial Consequences of WSCP .................................................................................................. 14

1.9 Monitoring and Reporting................................................................................................................ 14

1.10 WSCP Refinement Procedures...................................................................................................... 15

1.11 Special Water Feature Distinction ............................................................................................... 15

1.12 Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Availability................................................................................ 15 California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District ii 2021 Water Shortage Contingency Plan

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Water Shortage Level Crosswalk.................................................................................................7 Figure 2. WSCP Communications Matrix................................................................................................... 12 Figure 3. Penalties for Water Wastage ................................................................................................... 13

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. DWR 8-1 Water Shortage Contingency Plan Levels.................................................................4 Table 2. DWR 8-2 Demand Reduction Actions by Customer....................................................................8 Table 3. DWR 8-3R Supply Augmentation & Other Actions.................................................................. 10 California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 1 2021 Water Shortage Contingency Plan 1 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER MONTEREY COUNTY DISTRICT
Water Shortage Contingency Plan
A water shortage occurs when the water supply is reduced to a level that cannot support typical demand at any given time. The WSCP is used to provide guidance to the California American Water (CAW) Central Division – Monterey County District’s (Monterey Main), local government, staff, and the public by identifying response actions to allow for efficient management of any water shortage with predictability and accountability. Preparation provides the tools to maintain reliable supplies and reduce the impacts of supply interruptions due to extended drought or catastrophic supply interruptions. This WSCP addresses such potential water shortage conditions resulting from future droughts as well as other causes such as impacts to distribution system infrastructure, regulatory imposed shortage restrictions, catastrophic events, etc. The WSCP describes the following:

1. Water Supply Reliability Analysis: Summarizes Monterey Main’s water supply analysis and reliability and identifies any key issues that may trigger a shortage condition.

2. Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment Procedures: Describes the key data inputs, evaluation criteria, and methodology for assessing the system’s reliability for the coming year and the steps to formally declare any water shortage levels and response actions.

3. Six Standard Shortage Stages: Establishes water shortage levels to clearly identify and prepare for shortages.

4. Shortage Response Actions: Describes the response actions that may be implemented or considered for each stage to reduce gaps between supply and demand as well as minimize social and economic impacts to the community.

5. Compliance and Enforcement: Defines compliance and enforcement actions available to administer demand reductions

6. Legal Authority: Lists the legal documents that grant CAW the authority to declare a water shortage and implement and enforce response actions.

7. Financial Consequences of WSCP Implementation: Describes the anticipated financial impact of implementing water shortage stages and identifies mitigation strategies to offset financial burdens.

8. Monitoring and Reporting: Summarizes the monitoring and reporting techniques to evaluate the effectiveness of shortage response actions and overall WSCP implementation. Results are used to determine if additional shortage response actions should be activated or if efforts are successful and response actions should be reduced.

9. WSCP Refinement Procedures: Describes the factors that may trigger updates to the WSCP and outlines how to complete an update.

10. Special Water Features Distinctions: Identifies exemptions for ponds, lakes, fountains, pools, and spas, etc.

11. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Availability: Describes the process for the WSCP adoption, submittal, and availability after each revision.

This WSCP was prepared in conjunction with the Monterey Main’s 2020 UWMP and is a standalone document that can be modified as needed. The current authorized Water Shortage Contingency Plan is detailed in Rule and Schedule 14.1.1 (Attachment 1) which CAW might revise and adopt to the updated version that meets the requirements set forth by DWR. Each section within this chapter discusses the California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 2 2021 Water Shortage Contingency Plan planned changes the Monterey Main district intends to include in the revised Rule 14.1.1 in order to create a complete Water Shortage Contingency Plan.

This Plan (Rule 14.1.1) shall remain dormant until activated by Commission authorization via a Tier 2 advice letter. Once activated, CAW can implement Stages of the Plan by filing a Tier 2 advice letter to the Commission. This Plan will remain in effect until CAW files a Tier 1 advice letter to deactivate a specific stage of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan and such is authorized by the Commission.

This document is compliant with the California Water Code (CWC) Section 10632 and incorporated guidance from the State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR) UWMP Guidebook (Department of Water Resources, 2020) and the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Manual of Water Supply Practices (M60) Drought Preparedness and Response (American Water Works Association (AWWA), 2019). Water purveyor planning for possible water supply shortages has become an increasingly important subject considering the drought conditions over the last several years. The plan is intended to provide guidance, rather than absolute direction, for CAW action in response to water shortages and provide the Monterey Main district with options to responsibly manage water shortages.

1.1 Water Supply Reliability Analysis
Chapter 7 of the Monterey UWMP discusses the potential of future water supply shortages a normal year, single-dry year, and five-consecutive dry years. The supply from the Carmel River Aquifer, Seaside Groundwater Basin, Sand City Desalination Plant, and MPWSP Desalination Plant are all anticipated to be reliable and provide their contractual or design supply in all year types. Supplies from the PWM Expansion are expected to be limited by available source water (wastewater flows) until the MPWSP is online. Until the MPWSP is online, it is expected that demands will need to be constrained through the enaction of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP).

1.2 Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment
As established by CWC Section 10632.1, urban water suppliers must conduct annual water supply and demand assessments and submit an annual water shortage assessment report to DWR. The Annual Assessment is an evaluation of the short-term outlook for supplies and demands to determine whether the potential for a supply shortage exists and whether there is a need to trigger a WSCP shortage level and response actions in the current fiscal year to maintain supply reliability. Beginning by July 1, 2022, Monterey Main must prepare the annual water supply and demand assessment and submit an Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report to DWR. The preparation of this report will inform Monterey Main, the public, and state and other local agencies about the water supply conditions and the likelihood of water shortages. The annual report should report the approved anticipated shortage level, triggered shortage response actions, compliance and enforcement actions, and communication actions that will be implemented to mitigate the shortage identified in the Annual Assessment. The Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report will be due by July 1 of every year. Per CWC, the annual assessment must include:
• The written decision-making process that CAW will use each year to determine its water supply reliability.
• The key data inputs and assessment methodology used to evaluate the supplier’s water supply reliability for the current year and one dry year, including:
− Current year unconstrained demand.
− Current year available supply in the current year and one dry year. − Existing infrastructure capabilities and plausible constraints.

California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 3 2021 Water Shortage Contingency Plan − A defined set of locally applicable evaluation criteria that are consistently relied upon for each annual water supply and demand assessment.
− A description and quantification of each source of water supply.

See Section 1.3 on how CAW’s Monterey Main district determines water shortage levels.

1.3 Six Standard Water Shortage Levels
CAW filed the Water Shortage Contingency Plan, Rule 14.1.1 (Attachment 1), in response to the adoption of Regulation XV, Water Conservation and Rationing Plan by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District ("MPWMD"), the regulatory agency of the Monterey Peninsula’s water resources and as amended to comply with regulatory Orders as required by the Commission through Resolution W-5041 and referenced predecessors. The plan is intended to help ensure that all responsible measures are instituted to enable the Company's Monterey Main District to comply with the limitations on productions found in State Board’s Cease and Desist Order (CDO), SWRCB Order No. WR 95-10, 2016-0016) and the Seaside Basin Decision, as well as other State mandated restrictions and requirements. This Rule applies to Monterey’s Main System which is the Company's largest distribution system in its Monterey District that serves customers in the Cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Sand City, Seaside, and Pacific Grove, and portions of unincorporated Monterey County in the Carmel Valley, Del Monte Forest, and Carmel Highland areas. The Main System derives its source of supply from the Carmel River System and Coastal Subareas of the Seaside Basin. All other non Monterey Main areas follow the currently authorized 5 stage Rule and Schedule 14.1.

The Monterey Main Rule establishes a 4-stage system of increasing water conservation. Stage 1 is in effect at all times. Stages 2 and 3 are triggered when the Monterey Main exceeds its allocation from the Carmel River System and Seaside Basin or by a regulatory or emergency trigger. Stage 4 is enacted by a regulatory trigger, which includes any subsystem that relies on production or production offsets from the Main Monterey system, physical storage limitations, or as an emergency response to ensure public health, safety, or welfare. In the need to enact the WSCP and enter a shortage stage, CAW will notify California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) through an advice letter and then MPWMD will implement the appropriate stage and enforce demand reduction methods. Below is a summary of the 4 water conservation stages of the Water Conservation Plan.

There are a number of criteria that will trigger the water shortage stages of the Water Conservation plan including, but not limited to: 1) physical storage trigger; 2) emergency trigger; and 3) regulatory trigger.

Water shortage stages and a description of the corresponding water supply conditions are included in Table 1and described further in separate sections below the table. The menu of potential reduction measures for each stage are described in Section 1.4.1.

California American Water Central Division – Monterey County District 4 2021 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Table 1. DWR 8-1 Water Shortage Contingency Plan Levels

SHORTAGE
LEVEL

PERCENT SHORTAGE
RANGE

WATER SUPPLY CONDITION
1 In effect at all times during any supply condition
2 <5% Physical Shortage Trigger: Stage 2 shall take effect on June 1, or such earlier date as may be determined by MPWMD, if the Total Storage Available in Table XV-4 in MPWMD’s Rule 160 is below the Total Storage Required, but at least 95% of the Total Storage Required. The amount of voluntary reduction shall equal the percentage shortfall in Total Storage Required.

Regulatory Trigger – Production Targets: Stage 2 shall take effect when the most recent 12month Company production from the Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System (MPWRS)1 is greater than the then-current annual production target as determined in Table XV-1 of MPWMD Rule 160 but no greater than 105% of the annual production target. The amount of voluntary reduction shall equal the percentage overage of the annual production.

Regulatory Trigger – Regulatory Order: Stage 2 shall take effect when that system is directed to reduce use by a governmental or regulatory agency. The amount of voluntary reduction shall equal the percentage directed by that governmental or regulatory agency relative to a base year determined by the governmental or regulatory agency.

Emergency Trigger: Stage 2 shall take effect when the MPWMD or Company finds that a water supply emergency exists. Stage 2 shall take effect upon adoption of a Resolution of the MPWMD Board of Directors, or a declaration of a Water Supply Emergency by the Company or a State or County entity, due to a catastrophic event. In that Resolution or declaration, there shall be a finding of an immediate need to reduce production. The amount of voluntary reduction shall be determined by MPWMD, the Company, or the State or County entity.

The Requirements of Stage 1 remain in effect
3 >5% Trigger: Stage 2 Deemed Unsuccessful : Stage 3 shall take effect if Stage 2 has been implemented and has failed to sunset after a period of 6 months, except in the case of a government required targeted percentage implementation that has been met and continues to be met.

Physical Shortage Trigger: Stage 3 shall take effect when production or production offsets from the Carmel River System or the Seaside Coastal Subareas, on June 1 or such earlier date as may be set by the MPWMD Board following MPWMD’s May Board meeting if Total Storage Available in Table XV-4 of MPWMD’s Rule 160 is below 95% of Total Storage Required.

Regulatory Trigger – Production Targets: Stage 3 shall take effect when the most recent 12 month Company production from the MPWRS is greater than 105% of the then-current annual production target as determined in Table XV-1 of Rule 160 and Stage 2 has not been implemented
Regulatory Trigger – Regulatory Order: Stage 3 shall take effect when requested by a governmental or regulatory agency to implement Stage 3, when Stage 2 has been deemed unsuccessful in meeting the governmental or other regulatory agency targets, or a governmental or other regulatory agency has increased the requested reduction to a level greater than that achieved in Stage 2.

Emergency Trigger: Stage 3 shall take effect when the MPWMD Board or Company finds that a water supply emergency exists and upon adoption of a Resolution of the MPWMD Board or declaration of a catastrophic event by a governing body.

In that Resolution or declaration of a catastrophic event, there shall be a finding of an immediate need to reduce production California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 5 2021 Water Shortage Contingency Plan through the imposition of Stage 3 Conservation Rates.

The Requirements of Stage 1 and 2 remain in effect
4 As Needed Trigger - Stage 3 Deemed Unsuccessful: Stage 4 shall take effect if Stage 3 has been implemented and has failed to sunset after a period of 8 months.

Regulatory Trigger: Stage 4 shall take effect when requested by a governmental or regulatory agency to implement Stage 4, when Stage 3 has been deemed unsuccessful in meeting the governmental or other regulatory agency targets, or a governmental or other regulatory agency has increased the requested reduction to a level greater than that which can be achieved in Stage 3.

Emergency Trigger: Stage 4 shall take effect when the MPWMD Board finds that a water supply emergency exists and upon adoption of a Resolution of the MPWMD Board, or a declaration of a water supply emergency by the Company, or a State or County entity, due to a catastrophic event. In that Resolution or declaration of a catastrophic event, there shall be a finding of an immediate need to reduce production through the imposition of Stage 4 Water Rationing.

The Requirements of Stage 1, 2 and 3 (if applicable) remain in effect Notes: 1. “Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System" or "MPWRS" means the surface water in the Carmel River and its tributaries, groundwater in the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer which underlies the Carmel River, and groundwater in the Seaside Groundwater Basin; California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 6 2021 Water Shortage Contingency Plan Each of the water shortage stages will be rescinded by resolution of the MPWMD when the usable storage in the Carmel River System and Seaside Coastal Subareas is greater than the physical storage trigger for that stage.

1.3.1 Shortage Level 1
As part of Stage 1 of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan, Monterey Main must maintain its Water Year production from the Carmel River System below amounts specified in the CDO, as amended, and must comply with the production limits imposed by the Seaside Watermaster.

Monterey Main’s customers must comply with the water waste and non-essential water use prohibitions. A few examples of the water waste and non-essential water use prohibitions are listed below; a full list can be seen in MPWMD Regulation XV in Attachment 2. • Operation of fountains, ponds, lakes, or other ornamental use of potable water without recycling. • Using unmetered fire hydrant water by individuals for any reason other than fire suppression or utility system maintenance.
• Use of potable water for washing buildings, structures, driveways, patios, parking lots, tennis courts, or other hard surfaced areas, except in the cases where health and safety are at risk. • Use of potable water to irrigate turf, lawns, gardens, or ornamental landscaping between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM by means other than drip irrigation or hand-watering without quick acting positive action shut-off nozzles. Exceptions may be granted by MPWMD to professional gardeners where the only option is to water between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM. • Operation of commercial car washes without recycling at least 50% of the potable water used per cycle
• Use of potable water for street cleaning

1.3.2 Shortage Level 2
Stage 2 comes into effect when Monterey Main exceeds its year-to-date at month-end production as defined in Rule 14.1.1, by regulatory order or by an emergency trigger. When Stage 2 or higher of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan has been activated by Commission authorization, the water use restrictions of Stage 1 in the Water Shortage Contingency Plan in Section G.2 of Rule 14.1.1 become subject to fines imposed by the utility. When Monterey Main’s year-to-date at month-end targets are met for two consecutive months in the subsequent water year, Monterey Main will revert back to Stage

1. 1.3.3 Shortage Level 3
Stage 3 of the water shortage contingency plan implements specific Conservation Rates. Level 1 Conservation Rates are comprised of a 25% surcharge on the then existing rates for a minimum of 3 months. The surcharges do not apply to Rate Tier 1 residential Customers. Level 2 Conservation Rates are comprised of a 40 percent surcharge implemented on the then existing rate (without the 25 percent Level 1 surcharge) if after the imposition of Level 1 Conservation Rates for 3 months the monthly production in the Company’s system exceeds the monthly production target for the previous two (2) consecutive months. When Stage 3 comes into effect, all of the reduction measures identified in Stage 1 and 2 remain enacted.

1.3.4 Shortage Level 4
Water shortage Level 4 enforces water rationing. While CAW’s Monterey Main district does not hold the authority to implement the water rationing stage, CAW will aid the MPWMD in implementing all water rationing measures. As part of the water rationing stages, CAW will send written notice of mandatory California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 7 2021 Water Shortage Contingency Plan water rationing upon the determination. For stage 4, CAW’s Monterey Main district will send monthly reminders of the water rationing stage in the water bill and include the customer’s water ration and the quantity of the water ration consumed by the customer. Water rations will be determined in accordance with MPWMD Rule 165 for each customer by dividing the reduced available production by the percentage of use for each Customer Category. However, water rationing care will be taken to ensure health, safety, and welfare. Under no circumstances will residential water rations be less than 35 gallons per person per day. In addition to the water rationing measures outlined below, all previously enacted measures through from Stage 1 will be enforced.

1.3.5 Standard Water Shortage Level Crosswalk
CWC Section 10632(a)(3)(A) includes six standard water shortage levels corresponding to progressive ranges of up to 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 percent shortages and greater than 50 percent shortage. If the supplier’s water shortage levels do not correspond with the six standard levels, then a crosswalk between the supplier’s stages and the standard levels is required for compliance, shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Water Shortage Level Crosswalk

1.4 Shortage Response Actions
Water Code Section 10632 (a)(4) requires the WSCP to specify shortage response actions that align with the defined shortage levels. MPWMD has defined specific shortage response actions that align with the defined shortage levels in Table 1. Error! Reference source not found.These shortage response actions were developed with consideration to the system infrastructure and operations changes, supply augmentation responses, customer-class or water use-specific demand reduction initiatives, and increasingly stringent water use prohibitions.

1.4.1 Demand Reduction
The demand reduction measures that would be implemented to address shortage levels are described in Table 2. This table indicates which actions align with specific defined shortage levels and estimates the extent to which that action will reduce the gap between supplies and demands to demonstrate that choose suite of shortage response actions can be expected to deliver the expected outcomes necessary to meet the requirements of a given shortage level. The table also identifies the enforcement action, if any, associated with each demand reduction measure.

California American Water Central Division – Monterey County District 8 2021 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Table 2. DWR 8-2 Demand Reduction Actions by Customer

SHORTAGE

LEVEL DEMAND REDUCTION ACTIONS

HOW MUCH IS THIS

GOING TO REDUCE
THE SHORTAGE GAP?

ADDITIONAL EXPLANATION OR REFERENCE

PENALTY,

CHARGE, OR
OTHER
ENFORCEMENT?
STAGE 1 - MONTEREY MAIN

RESTRICTIONS - DEMAND REDUCTION ACTIONS BY CUSTOMER
1 Other - Customers must repair leaks, breaks,
and malfunctions in a timely manner
0-1% Prohibit allowing potable water to escape from breaks within the customer's plumbing system for more than seventy-two (72) hours after the customer is notified or discovers the break
YES
1 Other - Prohibit use of potable water for
washing hard surfaces
0-1% Including driveways, patios, parking lots, tennis courts, streets, or other hard surfaced areas
YES
1 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to
specific times
0-1% Irrigation is prohibited between 9am and 5pm on any day YES 1 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to
specific days
0-5% Irrigation is prohibited on any day besides Wednesday and Saturdays, except irrigation by a professional gardener or landscaper on site limited to 2 watering days per week
YES
1 Other - Require automatic shut of hoses 0-1% For landscape irrigation, washing private vehicles, and washing livestock
YES
1 Landscape - Other landscape restriction or
prohibition
0-1% Prohibiting irrigation during rainfall and for 48 hours after measurable precipitation
YES
1 Water Features - Restrict water use for
decorative water features, such as fountains
0-1% Fountains, ponds, lakes, and other ornamental water features must use recirculating water
YES
1 Other - Prohibit vehicle washing except at
facilities using recycled or recirculating water
0-1% Vehicle-washing facilities must recycle and reuse at least 50% or 60% water depending on if constructed before or after January 1, 2014, respectively.

YES
1 Other 0-1% When washing commercial aircraft, cars, buses, boats, trailers, or other commercial vehicles, use of potable water is prohibited, except at water efficient facilities
YES
1 CII - Restaurants may only serve water upon
request
0-1% No restaurant, hotel, café, cafeteria, or other public place where food is sold is served or offered for sale, shall serve drinking water to any customer unless expressly requested.

YES
1 CII - Lodging establishment must offer opt out of
linen service
0-1% Hotels/motels must provide guests with option to reuse towels and linens for more than one day
YES
1 Other - Prohibit use of potable water for
construction and dust control
0-1% Prohibit use of potable water for construction, compaction, dust control, street or parking lot sweeping, building wash down where non-potable or recycled water is sufficient.

YES
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 9 2021 Water Shortage Contingency Plan 1 Other 0-1% Delivery, receipt, and/or use of water from an unpermitted Mobile Water Distribution System
YES
1 Other 0-1% Use of an unmetered fire hydrant by individuals other than for fire suppression or utility system maintenance
YES

DEMAND REDUCTION ACTIONS BY UTILITY
1 Offer Water Use Surveys 0-1% Use of water leak surveys to all community members NO 1 Expand Public Information Campaign 0-1% Community outreach that includes educational information and saving tips included in billing inserts
NO
STAGE 2 - WATER SHORTAGE

RESTRICTIONS - DEMAND REDUCTION ACTIONS BY CUSTOMER
All Restrictions of Stage 1 remain in place, additional restrictions below apply

DEMAND REDUCTION ACTIONS BY UTILITY
2 Other - Fines for Water Waste 0-2% Increasing fines for violating Stage 1 water waste prohibitions STAGE 3 - WATER SHORTAGE

RESTRICTIONS - DEMAND REDUCTION ACTIONS BY CUSTOMER
All Restrictions of Stage 1 & 2 remain in place, additional restrictions below apply

DEMAND REDUCTION ACTIONS BY UTILITY
3 Implement or Modify Drought Rate Structure or
Surcharge
5-15% Will implement Commission-approved emergency conservation rates
YES
STAGE 4 - WATER SHORTAGE

RESTRICTIONS - DEMAND REDUCTION ACTIONS BY CUSTOMER
All Restrictions of Stage 1, 2 & 3 remain in place, additional restrictions below apply 4 Other varies New Annexations to service area are prohibited YES 4 Other water feature or swimming pool
restriction
0-1% Prohibit draining or refilling of swimming pools and spas except to prevent or correct structural damage or to comply with public health regulations
YES
4 Other varies Implement residential and non-residential water rations at the discretion of MPWMD. See MPWMD Regulation XV Rule 165
Section E and F for more detail.

YES
Demand Reduction Actions by Utility
4 Moratorium or Net Zero Demand Increase on
New Connections
0-2% Temporarily limit or ban new water service connections within the service area
NO
Notes: Reduction in the shortage gap is estimated and can vary significantly.

California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 10 2021 Water Shortage Contingency Plan

1.4.2 Supply Augmentation
Although CAW has no immediate plan to augment supply, Monterey Main strives to build carryover storage during wet years in order to utilize full allotment of water volume during dry years to meet demands, as indicated in Table 3. Monterey Main injects excess Carmel River flows during the wet years into the Seaside Groundwater Basin as part of its Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Program to be pumped back out and used in the summer months or for dry years. This volume of additional extracted groundwater can vary significantly dependent on previous seasons injections and the current demand gap. These options are discretionary and quantifying their ability to reduce the shortage gap can vary significantly.

Table 3. DWR 8-3R Supply Augmentation & Other Actions

SHORTAGE
LEVEL

SUPPLY AUGMENTATION

METHODS AND OTHER

ACTIONS BY WATER

SUPPLIER

HOW MUCH IS THIS GOING

TO REDUCE THE SHORTAGE
GAP?

ADDITIONAL EXPLANATION OF REFERENCE
CAW
Discretion
Stored Emergency Supply As Needed Additional pumping of stored groundwater

1.4.3 Operational Changes
California American Water will make operational changes such as decreasing lengths and frequency of line flushing in Stages 3 and higher among other water savings measures. The Monterey district will evaluate additional operational measures to further increase its system efficiency and minimize leaks by potentially expediting infrastructure repairs or altering maintenance cycles.

1.4.4 Emergency Response Plan
This section describes the response to emergency situations which interrupt water supply including earthquakes, regional power outages, system failures and other events specific to CAW’s sources.

CAW has analyzed the nature and extent of likely catastrophes which could affect the ability to provide water supply for both consumptive and emergency use. Catastrophes are broadly classified as “naturally occurring” and “manmade”. Natural catastrophes include such incidents as fire, flood, earthquake, and electrical supply failure. Manmade catastrophes include such incidents as chemical spill, vandalism, and sabotage, including terrorist attack, and mechanical failure. Manmade catastrophes can also have the same end result as those of natural disasters. As an example, a dam break regardless of the cause, could flood and damage or destroy facilities.

CAW has installed a broad range of systems, procedures, and facilities to reduce the potential of significant water supply interruptions regardless of cause. Some of these systems, procedures and facilities are summarized here:
• All production facilities are fenced and locked to prevent unauthorized entry. • Emergency generators are located at critical facilities. The generators are equipped with automatic transfer switches which upon a power failure will automatically disconnect the facility from commercial power source, start the generator, and power up the facility. While some generators are stationary, most are trailer mounted thus allowing movement within the various service areas should that be required.
• System pressure, water production flow rate, and power status are monitored and reported at representative locations throughout the various water systems. Reports are sent to Monterey Main California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 11 2021 Water Shortage Contingency Plan office where they are displayed, monitored, and recorded. Additionally, approximately twenty representative water supply and production sites are equipped with “mission controllers”, a webbased monitoring system. The mission controllers alert both on-duty and on-call staff by cell phone when operational problems arise.
• CAW maintains on-call staff twenty-four hours a day for rapid response. • CAW maintains a stockpile of service line repair parts and associated construction equipment for repair of small leaks and line breaks.
• CAW has blanket contracts with two local contractors to assist with larger emergency repairs caused by earthquake or other major events.
• CAW has completed an Emergency Operations Plan detailing procedures and contacts and outlining responses to several most probable catastrophic events and has filed it with the Department of Public Health.

An inherent strength in the CAW system is the fact that water is produced from multiple wells spread more or less uniformly throughout the various service areas. As a result, the system has a high degree of redundancy.

1.4.5 Seismic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan
A seismic risk assessment has been completed as part of the America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 Risk and Resilience Assessment (RRA) requirements. The RRA includes detailed information about the water system’s assets and an assessment of seismic risk and potential mitigation measures.

Additionally, the Monterey district maintains an emergency response plan that addresses seismic risk.

1.4.6 Shortage Response Action Effectiveness
In CAW’s Monterey district, all accounts are metered. During a water shortage, a comparison of delivery records would be carried out to determine if water is being conserved. All water sources, including all groundwater wells and the desalination plant, are metered and have continuous recording equipment. During a water shortage, a comparison of total water purchased would be carried out to determine if water is being conserved.

For each specific Shortage Level Response Action identified in the plan, the WSCP also estimates the extent to which that action will reduce the gap between supplies and demands identified in Table 2. To the extent feasible, Monterey Main has estimated percentage savings for the chosen suite of shortage response actions, which can be anticipated to deliver the expected outcomes necessary to meet the requirements of a given shortage level.

1.5 Communication Protocols
As discussed in Rule 14.1.1, Section G Water Conservation Plan triggers customers notifications through bill messaging or direct mail. Notifications must occur prior to rate changes or fines. Any change in stage level (up or down) shall be notified via press release and on the Company’s website and in emails sent to customers when provided. Notification occurs one week prior to fines, drought surcharge, or rate changes. CAW will maintain communications and updates on supply conditions.

Updates on supply status and results of the customers conservation efforts included in every bill. The following Communications Matrix (Figure 2) summarizes the Company’s Communication Tactic for each Shortage stage:

California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 12 2021 Water Shortage Contingency Plan Figure 2. WSCP Communications Matrix

1.6 Compliance and Enforcement
When a shortage stage of the WSCP has been activated by Commission authorization, the water use restrictions of Stage 1 in Section D of Rule 14.1.1 become subject to fines and penalties imposed by CAW. CAW will first work closely with local law enforcement and MPWMD with enforcing the mandatory water use restrictions. MPWMD has penalties for violation of the water waste restrictions that were mentioned above in Table 2. The fines are noted in Figure 3 and based on MPWMD Regulation XV, Rule 162, Table XV-5 Water Waste Fines.

California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 13 2021 Water Shortage Contingency Plan Figure 3. Penalties for Water Wastage
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 14 2021 Water Shortage Contingency Plan

1.7 Legal Authorities
CAW does not have authority to adopt resolutions or ordinances as a public utility company. However, CAW can support local jurisdictions in developing ordinances or resolutions within its Monterey District service areas that would be compatible with CAW’s WSCP. For all intents and purposes of this UWMP, the Rule No. 14.1.1 (Attachment 1) serves as the WSCP resolution and anticipated course of action to achieve all necessary requirements of the WSCP if needed.

CAW as a public utility does not have the authority to declare a water shortage emergency, but will advise the CPUC of a water shortage emergency and then the MPWMD will implement the appropriate stage and enforcement. CAW will coordinate with the MPWMD for communication with adjacent cities and Monterey County for the possible proclamation of a local emergency.

1.8 Financial Consequences of WSCP
CAW develops a proposed rate structure on a three‐year cycle and submits it to the CPUC for review and approval. To assist in revenue stabilization and provide an incentive to promote conservation, CAW requested a full decoupling Water Revenue Adjustment Mechanism (WRAM) in its General Rate Case.

WRAM is the mechanism through which sales are decoupled from revenues, so that conservation is encouraged without having a negative financial impact. Currently, all of CAW’s districts have received CPUC approval for a WRAM.

The WRAM tracks the differences between total quantity charge revenues authorized by CPUC (“Total Actual Quantity Revenues”) and the total revenues actually recovered through the quantity charge based on actual sales (“Total Actual Quantity Revenues”) during conservation rates, emergency rates or rationing rates. The revenue requirements are the same under conservation rates as they are under the current Commission “standard” rate structure. To recover any under collection or refund any over collection CAW implements a surcharge/ surcredit that considers the net balance of the WRAM balancing account. The WRAM will provide a cost accounting means to stabilize revenues and ensuring protection of revenue shortfalls.

In 2020, the CPUC ordered that regulated water utilities may not include the continuation of the WRAM and MCBA in their next general rate case filing but may propose the use of a Monterey-Style Revenue Adjustment Mechanism and Incremental Cost Balancing Account.

In the absence of a WRAM/MCBA, during a water shortage, California American Water will file for a Drought Memorandum Account, or similar, to track incremental shortage-related expenses to be reviewed by the CPUC for future recovery in rates. California American Water will also file for a Drought Lost Revenue Memorandum Account, or similar, to track reduced sales to be reviewed by the CPUC for future recovery in rates.

Both the Drought Memorandum Account and Drought Lost Revenue Memorandum Account are mechanisms that have been approved by the CPUC in previous droughts.

1.9 Monitoring and Reporting
As described in Section 1.2, CAW intends to track its supplies and project demands on an annual basis and, if supply conditions described in Table 1 are projected, CAW will enact the WSCP through an advice letter sent to CPUC, and work with MPWMD to aid in communicating to the water service area of any relevant restrictions of water use. Monitoring demands is essential to ensure the WSCP response actions are adequately meeting reductions and decreasing the supply/demand gap. This will help to analyze the effectiveness of the WSCP or identify the need to activate additional response actions.

The water savings from implementation of the WSCP will be determined based on monthly production reports which will be compared to the supply from prior months, the same period of the prior year, and/ California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 15 2021 Water Shortage Contingency Plan or the allocation. At first, the cumulative consumption for the various sectors (e.g., residential, commercial, etc.) will be evaluated for reaching the target demand reduction level. Then if needed, individual accounts can be monitored. Weather and other possible influences may be accounted for in the evaluation.

1.10 WSCP Refinement Procedures
CAW intends to use this WSCP as an adaptive management plan to respond to foreseeable and unforeseeable water shortages. The WSCP is used to provide guidance to Monterey Main and its staff and the public by identifying response actions to allow for efficient management of any water shortage with predictability and accountability. To maintain a useful and efficient standard of practice in water shortage conditions, the requirements, criteria, and response actions need to be continually evaluated and improved upon to make sure it provides the tools to maintain reliable supplies and reduce the impacts of supply shortages.

1.11 Special Water Feature Distinction
Per Water Code Section 10632 (b), CAW has defined water features that are artificially supplied with water, including ponds, lakes, waterfalls, and fountains, separately from swimming pools and spas. As listed in Table 2 there are separate demand reduction actions for decorative water features, including decorative fountains, lakes, or ponds, and for pools and spas. Non-pool or non-spa water features may use or be able to use recycled water, whereas pools and spas must use potable water for health and safety considerations. Limitations to pools and spas may require different considerations compared to non-pool or non-spa water features.

1.12 Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Availability
Per Water Code Section 10632 (a)(c), CAW sent letters of notification of preparation of the 2020 UWMP to all cities and counties within its Monterey Main service areas 60 days prior to the public hearing. CAW made the draft 2021 WSCP available for public review and held a public hearing on June 17, 2021. The notice of the public review hearing was distributed June 2, 2021.

Once the 2021 WSCP has been adopted, a copy of the WSCP will be submitted to the California State Library, DWR, and all cities and the County of Monterey within 30 days of adoption. Based on DWR’s review of the WSCP, CAW will make any amendments in its adopted WSCP, as required, and directed by DWR. If CAW revises its WSCP after approved by DWR, then an electronic copy of the revised WSCP will be submitted to DWR within 30 days of its adoption.

Attachment 1: CPUC Water Shortage Contingency Plan, Rule 14.1.1 CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 8376-W 655 West Broadway, Suite 1410
San Diego, CA 92101 CANCELLING Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 7904-W (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY C.P.U.C.) ADVICE LETTER NO. 1145 J.T. LINAM DATE FILED NAME EFFECTIVE DECISION NO. D.16-12-003 DIRECTOR – Rates & Regulatory RESOLUTION NO. TITLE
Rule No. 14.1.1.

WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN

MONTEREY COUNTY DISTRICT
1 As amended by MPWMD through Ordinance No. 169, adopted on February 17, 2016. A full copy of the Regulation is appended to this Rule as Attachment 1.

A. GENERAL INFORMATION
This Water Shortage Contingency Plan, filed in response to the adoption by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District's ("MPWMD") Regulation XV, a Water Conservation and Rationing Plan1, and as amended to comply with Regulatory Orders as required by the Commission through Resolution W-5041 and referenced predecessors, is intended to help insure that all responsible measures are instituted to enable the Company's Monterey District to comply with the limitations on productions found in SWRCB Order No. WR 95- 10 and the Seaside Basin Decision, as well as other State mandated restrictions and requirements.

The Commission shall authorize Tariff Schedule MO-14.1.1, which sets forth charges for the removal of flow restrictors, fines for violation of water use restrictions, and emergency conservation rates to indicate the need to further reduce water use. The Company will continue to make water conservation devices available to its Customers as required by its Rule 21 and to remind Customers of the availability of conservation devices and all rebate programs.
(Continued)
(C)
(C)
(L)
(L)
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 8377-W 655 West Broadway, Suite 1410
San Diego, CA 92101 CANCELLING Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 7905-W (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY C.P.U.C.) ADVICE LETTER NO. 1145 J.T. LINAM DATE FILED NAME EFFECTIVE DECISION NO. D.16-12-003 DIRECTOR – Rates & Regulatory RESOLUTION NO. TITLE
Rule No. 14.1.1. (Continued)

WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN

MONTEREY COUNTY DISTRICT
B. DEFINITIONS

1. "Bishop" shall mean the Company's Bishop Water Distribution subsystem as described in the purchase agreement between Bishop Water Company and the Company datedSeptember 1, 1996;

2. "Carmel River System" means the surface water in the Carmel River and its tributaries, and groundwater in the underlying Alluvial Aquifer;

3. "CCF” or “ccf”” means one hundred cubic feet, which equals 748 gallons or one unit;

4. "Commission" or “CPUC” means the California Public Utilities Commission;

5. "Company" means California-AmericanWater Company;

6. "Customer" means any person who uses water supplied by the Company in its Monterey District;

7. "Dedicated Irrigation Meter" means a water meter exclusively used to measure outdoor water consumption;

8. "Final Production Orders" means any Cease and Desist Order, final order by the SWRCB or Seaside Watermaster or any other final court decision issued after December 10, 2008 that explicitly requires the Company, on a certain date, to reduce its production of water. For the purposes of this Rule, the effective date of any such order shall be the same date that the water production reduction limit is imposed;

9. "Flow Restrictor" means a device placed into the water distribution system by the Company that restricts the volume of flow to the Customer by 50%;

10. "Hidden Hills" means the Company’s Hidden Hills subsystem as described in the purchase agreement between Carmel Valley Mutual Water Company and the Company recorded July 8, 1994, Document #49389, Reel 3125, Page 696;

11. “Household” means all the people who occupy a housing unit. A housing unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room occupied (or if vacant, intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live separately from any other people in the building and that have direct access from the outside of the building or through a common hall;

12. "Main System" means the Company's largest distribution system in its Monterey District that serves Customers in the Cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Sand City, Seaside, and Pacific Grove, and portions of unincorporated Monterey County in the Carmel Valley, Del Monte Forest, and Carmel Highland areas. The Main System derives its source of supply from the Carmel River System and Coastal Subareas of the Seaside Basin;

13. “Measurable Precipitation” means rainfall of 0.1 inch or more;

14. "Mobile Water Distribution System" means any potable or sub-potable water delivery that originates at a location apart from the site of use and that is delivered via a truck or other movable container. This definition shall not apply to deliveries of water by commercial companies in volumes less than or equal to 55 gallons per container;

15. "MPWMD" means the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and its designated representatives acting on its behalf;

16. "MPWMD Board" or “Board” means the Board of Directors of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District;
(Continued)
(C)
(C)
(L)
(L)
(N)
(N)
(L)
(L)
(C)
(L)
(L)
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 8378-W 655 West Broadway, Suite 1410
San Diego, CA 92101 CANCELLING Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 7906-W (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY C.P.U.C.) ADVICE LETTER NO. 1145 J.T. LINAM DATE FILED NAME EFFECTIVE DECISION NO. D.16-12-003 DIRECTOR – Rates & Regulatory RESOLUTION NO. TITLE
Rule No. 14.1.1. (Continued)

WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN

MONTEREY COUNTY DISTRICT
B. DEFINITIONS, Cont'd

17. "Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System" or "MPWRS" means the surface water in the Carmel River and its tributaries, groundwater in the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer which underlies the Carmel River, and groundwater in the Seaside Groundwater Basin;

18. “Non-Residential” means all Customers not falling within the definition of Residential, including commercial, industrial, public authority, golf course, and non-revenue metered Customers;

19. "Plan" means this Water Shortage Contingency Plan;

20. "Regulation XV" means MPWMD Regulation XV, The 2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan;

21. “Regulatory Order” means an order by the California State Water Resources Control Board, the Commission, or other governmental or regulatory agency;

22. “Residential” means single-family residential or multi-family residential Customers;

23. "Rule" means this Rule 14.1.1;

24. "Ryan Ranch" means the Company's Ryan Ranch Water Distribution subsystem as described in the purchase agreement between Neuville Co. N.V. (a Delaware Corporation) and the Company dated April 30, 1990;

25. "Seaside Basin" means the water in Seaside Groundwater Basin as described in the Seaside Basin Decision;

26. "Seaside Basin Decision" means the California American Water v. City of Seaside, et. al, Case No.M66343, California Superior Court, Monterey County;

27. "Seaside Watermaster" means either (a) the court appointed Seaside Basin Watermaster Board pursuant to Section 111-L of the Decision rendered for Monterey County Superior Court Case No.

M66343 (California American Water vs. City of Seaside, et. al,) dated March 22, 2006, as it may be amended from time to time or (b) the Superior Court, when issuing any order in California American Water vs. City of Seaside, et al.;

28. “SWRCB" means the California State Water Resources Control Board;

29. "SWRCB Order" means Order No. WR 95-10 issued by the SWRCB;

30. "System Production Limit" means the Company's maximum annual production from the Carmel River System and the Seaside Basin as summarized in Table XV-1 of MPWMD Rule 160;

31. "Water'' means water supplied by the Company;

32. "Water Ration" means a specific amount of water available to each Customer during water rationing Stage 4. The Water Rations will be determined on a Household basis for Residential Customers and by percentage reductions by user category based on a prior year as necessary to achieve the required reductions to the allotments of all Non-Residential Customers. Variances for verifiable medical needs are available. In no circumstance shall the Residential Water Ration be lower than 90 gallons per Household per day;

33. "Water Year" means the period from October 1 of any year to September 30 of the following year;

34. "Water Year Allocation" means the annual regulatory production limit from the Carmel River System and Seaside Basin.
(L)
(L)
(L)
(N)
(N)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(N)
(N)
(C)
(C)
(L)
(C)
(C)
(L)
(L)
(L)
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 8379-W 655 West Broadway, Suite 1410
San Diego, CA 92101 CANCELLING Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 7907-W (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY C.P.U.C.) ADVICE LETTER NO. 1145 J.T. LINAM DATE FILED NAME EFFECTIVE DECISION NO. D.16-12-003 DIRECTOR – Rates & Regulatory RESOLUTION NO. TITLE
(Continued)
Rule No. 14.1.1. (Continued)

WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN

MONTEREY COUNTY DISTRICT

C. APPLICABILITY
This Rule applies to water Customers of the Monterey County District’s Main System and Customers of the Ryan Ranch, Bishop and Hidden Hills systems all of which are served under rate schedule MO-1, MO1MU, and MO-1C authorized by the Commission. This Rule applies to Customers supplied by water from the Carmel River System and Seaside Basin (including the Ryan Ranch, Hidden Hills and Bishop systems).

It does not apply to Customers in Toro, Ambler Park, Ralph Lane, Garrapata and Chualar systems.

D. TERRITORY
The territory includes the incorporated Cities of Monterey, Pacific Grove, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Sand City, a portion of Seaside, and unincorporated areas in the County of Monterey served by the Company, except for Toro, Ambler Park, Ralph Lane, Garrapata and Chualar.

E. WATER CONSERVATION INITIATION
This Plan shall commence immediately upon approval of the Commission. Trigger criteria for the various Stages are found in this Rule and MPWMD Regulation XV.

F. CUSTOMER NOTIFICATION

1. When a utility requests authorization of Schedule 14.1.1 – Water Shortage Contingency Plan tariff, via a Tier 2 advice letter, it shall provide notice of the Tier 2 advice letter and associated public meeting provided to Customers, per Resolution W-4976, and shall comply with all requirements of Sections 350-358 of the California Water Code (CWC), including but not limited to the following:
a. In order to be in compliance with both the General Order (GO) and CWC, the utility shall provide notice via both newspaper and bill message/direct mailing. b. Utility shall file one notice for each advice letter filed, that includes both notice of the filing of the Tier 2 advice letter as well as the details of the public meeting (date, time, place, etc.).
c. The public meeting shall be held after the utility files the Tier 2 advice letter, and before the Commission authorizes implementation of the tariff. d. Utility shall consult with DWA staff prior to filing advice letter, in order to determine details of public meeting.

2. In the event that the Company’s Schedule 14.1.1- Water Shortage Contingency Plan is triggered, and the utility requests activation of an increased Stage, or an increased level of Emergency Conservation Rates in Stage 3, of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan through the filing of a Tier 2 advice letter, the utility shall notify its Customers and provide each Customer with a summary of Rule 14.1.1 and Schedule 14.1.1 Stage changes by means of bill message or direct mailing. Notification shall take place prior to imposing any fines or conservation rates associated with this Plan.

3. The Company shall notify Customers via press release, messages on the Company website, and email where an email address is provided on a Customer’s account before the effective date of any change in Stages either moving up Stages, e.g. from Stage 2 to Stage 3, or moving down Stages, e.g. from Stage 3 to Stage 1; or when moving up or down in the Stage 3 level of Emergency Conservation Rates. Notification will occur at least one week before any fines are levied or emergency conservation rates are enacted. In addition, the Company shall maintain communication with Customers regarding the ongoing water supply situation, and related conservation requirements.

During the period that a stage of the Company’s Schedule 14.1.1 is activated, the utility shall provide Customers with periodic updates regarding its water supply status and the results of Customers' conservation efforts.
(C)
(C)
(L)
(L)
(C)
(C)
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 8380-W 655 West Broadway, Suite 1410
San Diego, CA 92101 CANCELLING Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 7908-W (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY C.P.U.C.) ADVICE LETTER NO. 1145 J.T. LINAM DATE FILED NAME EFFECTIVE DECISION NO. D.16-12-003 DIRECTOR – Rates & Regulatory RESOLUTION NO. TITLE
Rule No. 14.1.1. (Continued)

WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN

MONTEREY COUNTY DISTRICT

4. After Schedule 14.1.1 has been activated and it is determined that water supplies are again sufficient to meet demands, and staged reduction measures are no longer necessary, the utility shall seek Commission authority via a Tier 1 advice letter to de-activate the particular stage of reduction that was previously authorized.

G. WATER CONSERVATION

1. Company Responsibilities
a. Communicate conservation messages to Customers. At all times during Stages 2 through 4 the Company shall send monthly conservation reminders.
b. Include conservation message on water bills.
c. Participate in a joint rebate program with the MPWMD. d. Promote water conservation and undertake conservation programs in coordination with MPWMD.
e. Cooperate with the MPWMD to establish and maintain a water conservation website that responds to local concerns.
f. Provide conservation bill inserts.
g. Amend its Urban Water Management Plan and its Rule 14.1.1, Water Shortage Contingency Plan--Monterey District, to conform to MPWMD Regulation XV. A copy of Rule 14.1.1 shall be filed with the CPUC and the MPWMD within thirty (30) days of the effective date of any amendment to this Regulation. h. Provide Residential and Non-Residential water audits upon request. i. Make water-saving conservation devices available to all Customers and provide notices of availability.
j. Provide MPWMD with all Customer data required by Regulation XV as authorized by Commission Decision 09-02-006 and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a nondisclosure agreement.
k. Shall not provide portable water meters unless an MPWMD permit has been issued and in compliance with any tariff moratorium provisions.

2. Customers' Responsibilities
a. All Customers shall comply with Rule 14.1.1 and MPWMD Regulation XV (The 2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan).
b. All Customers shall prioritize the conservation of water at all times. c. All Customers are responsible for notifying the Company whenever there is a change of use from Residential to Non-Residential, or Non-Residential to Residential.

3. “Water Waste” shall mean the indiscriminate, unreasonable, or excessive running or dissipation of water. Water Waste shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. Waste caused by correctable leaks, breaks or malfunctions. All leaks, breaks, or other malfunctions in a Customer’s plumbing or distribution system must be repaired within 72 hours of notification that a leak exists. This loss of potable water may be cited for water waste after the time period established in Schedule 14.1.1 in which a leak or malfunction was to have been corrected. Exceptions may be granted by the General Manager for corrections, which are not feasible or practical.
(Continued)
(C)
(C)
(L)
(C)
(C)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(C)
(C)
(L)
(N)
(N)
(N)
(N)
(N)
(L)
(L)
(C)
(L)
(C)
(C)
(L)
(L)
(C)
(C)
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 8381-W 655 West Broadway, Suite 1410
San Diego, CA 92101 CANCELLING Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 7909-W (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY C.P.U.C.) ADVICE LETTER NO. 1145 J.T. LINAM DATE FILED NAME EFFECTIVE DECISION NO. D.16-12-003 DIRECTOR – Rates & Regulatory RESOLUTION NO. TITLE
Rule No. 14.1.1. (Continued)

WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN

MONTEREY COUNTY DISTRICT
b. Indiscriminate or excessive water use which allows excess to run to waste. c. Washing driveways, patios, parking lots, tennis courts, or other hard surfaced areas with potable water, except in cases where health or safety are at risk and the surface is cleaned with a water broom or other water efficient device or method. Water should be used only when traditional brooms are not able to clean the surface in a satisfactory manner. d. Power or pressure washing buildings and structures with potable water, except when preparing surfaces for paint or other necessary treatments or when abating a health or safety hazard. e. Hand watering by a hose, during permitted hours, without a quick acting positive action shut-off nozzle.
f. Irrigation between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on any day, and irrigation on any day other than Saturdays and Wednesdays, except for irrigation overseen by a professional gardener or landscaper who is available on site and that is not exceeding a maximum two watering days per week. This prohibition applies to hand watering with a hose, and irrigation systems whether spray, drip or managed by a smart controller. Limited hand watering of plants or bushes with a small container or bucket is permitted on any day at any time. Subsurface greywater irrigation systems may also be operated at any time. An exemption may be given to a Non-Residential establishment whose business requires water in the course of its business practice (e.g., golf courses, nurseries, recreational space, among others) with notification by the business owner to the MPWMD, and subject to the approval of the MPWMD General Manager. g. Irrigating during rainfall and for 48 hours after Measurable Precipitation of at least 0.10 inches. h. Use of water for irrigation or outdoor purposes in a manner inconsistent with California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Water, Division 2, Department of Water Resources, Chapter 2.7, Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, where applicable, or in a manner inconsistent with local regulations.
i. Operation of fountains, ponds, lakes or other ornamental use of potable water without recycling, and except to the extent needed to sustain aquatic life, provided such animals are of significant value and have been actively managed.
j. Individual private washing of cars with a hose except with the use of a Positive Action Shut-Off Nozzle.
k. Washing commercial aircraft, cars, buses, boats, trailers or other commercial vehicles with potable water, except at water efficient commercial or fleet vehicle or boat washing facilities where equipment is properly maintained to avoid wasteful use. l. In-bay or conveyor car washes permitted and constructed prior to January 1, 2014, that do not recycle and reuse at least 50 percent of the wash and rinse water. In-bay or conveyor car washes that were permitted and constructed after January 1, 2014, that do not either (1) use and maintain a water recycling system that recycles and reuses at least 60 percent of the wash and rinse water; or (2) use recycled water provided by a water supplier for at least 60 percent of its wash and rinse water.
m. Charity car washes.
n. Use of potable water for street cleaning.
o. Failure to meet MPWMD Regulation XIV water efficiency standards for an existing NonResidential use after having been given a reasonable amount of time to comply. p. Serving drinking water to any Customer unless expressly requested, by a restaurant, hotel, café, cafeteria or other pubic place where food is sold, served or offered for sale. (Continued)
(L)
(C)
`
(C)
(N)
(L)
(C)
(C)
(N)
(N)
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 8382-W 655 West Broadway, Suite 1410
San Diego, CA 92101 CANCELLING Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 7910-W (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY C.P.U.C.) ADVICE LETTER NO. 1145 J.T. LINAM DATE FILED NAME EFFECTIVE DECISION NO.

D.16-12-003
DIRECTOR – Rates & Regulatory RESOLUTION
NO. TITLE
Rule No. 14.1.1. (Continued)

WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN

MONTEREY COUNTY DISTRICT
q. Visitor-Serving Facilities that fail to adopt and promote towel and linen reuse programs and provide written notice in the rooms, whereby towels and linens are changed every three days or as requested by action of the guest.
r. Washing of livestock with a hose except with the use of a Positive Action Shut-Off Nozzle. s. Transportation of water from the Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System without prior written authorization from the MPWMD.
t. Delivery, receipt, and/or use of water from an unpermitted Mobile Water Distribution System. u. Unreasonable or excessive use of potable water for dust control or earth compaction without prior written approval of the MPWMD General Manager where non-potable water or other alternatives are available or satisfactory.
v. Use of unmetered fire hydrant water by individuals other than for fire suppression or utility system maintenance purposes, except upon prior approval of the MPWMD General Manager. w. Water use in excess of a Water Ration.
x. Non-compliance with MPWMD Regulations XIV and XV.

4. Non-Essential Water Use shall mean the uses of water that are acceptable during times of normal water availability, as long as proper procedures to maximize efficiency are followed. However, when water is in short supply, Non-Essential Water Uses must be curtailed to preserve limited water resources for essential uses. Non-Essential Water Uses do not have health and safety impacts, are not required by regulation, and are not required to meet the core functions of Non-Residential use.

5. Prohibitions against Water Waste and Non-Essential Water Use shall be enforced by the MPWMD and its designated agents, unless indicated otherwise.
a. If the MPWMD does not enforce Water Waste and Non-Essential Water Use when Stage 2 or higher of this Rule is activated, then that responsibility will lie with either another governmental agency, or the Company.

6. Each occurrence of Water Waste or Non-Essential Water Use that continues after the Customer has had reasonable notice to cease and desist that type of water use shall constitute a Flagrant Violation, as defined in MPWMD’s Rule 167.

7. Repeated occurrences of Water Waste or Non-Essential Water Use, which continue or occur after the Customer has had a reasonable notice to cease and desist that type of water use, or which continues or occurs after the Customer has had a reasonable opportunity to cure any defect causing that type of water use, shall provide cause for MPWMD to request the placement of a Flow Restrictor with a maximum flow rate of six (6) ccf/month within the water line or water meter. The Flow Restrictor installation and removal shall be made by the Company in accordance with Schedule No. MO-14.1.1.
(N)
(N)
(N)
(C)
(C)
(C)
(N)
(N)
(C)
(C)
(N)
(N)
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 8383-W 655 West Broadway, Suite 1410
San Diego, CA 92101 CANCELLING Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 7911-W (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY C.P.U.C.) ADVICE LETTER NO. 1145 J.T. LINAM DATE FILED NAME EFFECTIVE DECISION NO.

D.16-12-003
DIRECTOR – Rates & Regulatory RESOLUTION
NO. TITLE
Rule No. 14.1.1. (Continued)

WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN

MONTEREY COUNTY DISTRICT
H. STAGE 1 WATER CONSERVATION: Prohibition on Water Waste Stage 1 Water Conservation is the first stage of water conservation measures as defined in this Rule and MPWMD Regulation XV.

1. Stage 1 shall be in effect at all times as long as this Rule is active.

2. Schedule MO-14.1.1 shall not be activated during this Stage.

3. The Company shall maintain its Water Year production from the Carmel River System below amounts specified in the CDO, as amended, and shall comply with the production limits imposed by the Seaside Watermaster.

4. Each Customer shall comply with the Water Waste and Non-Essential Water Use prohibitions as stated in this Rule.

I. STAGE 2 WATER CONSERVATION – Voluntary Reduction Use or Commission Ordered Compliance Stage 2 Water Conservation is the second stage of water conservation as defined in this Rule and MPWMD Regulation XV. In addition to the requirements of Stage 1, the following shall apply in Stage 2 Water Conservation.

1. Triggers
a. Physical Shortage Trigger: Stage 2 shall take effect on June 1, or such earlier date as may be determined by MPWMD, if the Total Storage Available in Table XV-4 in MPWMD’s Rule 160 is below the Total Storage Required, but at least 95% of the Total Storage Required. The amount of voluntary reduction shall equal the percentage shortfall in Total Storage Required. b. Regulatory Trigger – Production Targets: Stage 2 shall take effect when the most recent 12 month Company production from the MPWRS is greater than the then-current annual production target as determined in Table XV-1 of MPWMD Rule 160 but no greater than 105% of the annual production target. The amount of voluntary reduction shall equal the percentage overage of the annual production.
c. Regulatory Trigger – Regulatory Order: Stage 2 shall take effect when that system is directed to reduce use by a governmental or regulatory agency. The amount of voluntary reduction shall equal the percentage directed by that governmental or regulatory agency relative to a base year determined by the governmental or regulatory agency. d. Emergency Trigger: Stage 2 shall take effect when the MPWMD or Company finds that a water supply emergency exists. Stage 2 shall take effect upon adoption of a Resolution of the MPWMD Board of Directors, or a declaration of a Water Supply Emergency by the Company or a State or County entity, due to a catastrophic event. In that Resolution or declaration, there shall be a finding of an immediate need to reduce production. The amount of voluntary reduction shall be determined by MPWMD, the Company, or the State or County entity. (Continued)
(C)
(L)
(L)
(C)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(C)
(C)
(C)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(N)(D)
(N)(D)
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 8384-W 655 West Broadway, Suite 1410
San Diego, CA 92101 CANCELLING Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 7912-W (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY C.P.U.C.) ADVICE LETTER NO. 1145 J.T. LINAM DATE FILED NAME EFFECTIVE DECISION NO. D.16-12-003 DIRECTOR – Rates & Regulatory RESOLUTION NO. TITLE
Rule No. 14.1.1. (Continued)

WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN

MONTEREY COUNTY DISTRICT

2. The Company shall notice Customers in compliance with the noticing requirements in Section F above and state the reduction necessary to comply with the need in the activation event.

3. Schedule 14.1.1 shall be activated at Stage 2 and remain in effect until Stage 2 sunsets.

4. The requirements of Stage 1 shall remain in effect.

5. Sunset.
a. Without further action, Stage 2, when implemented pursuant to Rule I-1-a, shall sunset and water use restrictions shall revert to Stage 1 when Total Storage Available computed consistent with Table XV-4 of MPWMD Rule 160 is greater than Total Storage Required for two (2) consecutive months.
b. Without further action, Stage 2, when implemented pursuant to Rule I-1-b, shall sunset and water use restrictions shall revert to Stage 1 when the Company’s 12 month total production has been less than or equal to its then-current annual production target for two (2) consecutive months.
c. Without further action, Stage 2, when implemented pursuant to Rule I-1-c, shall sunset and water use restrictions shall revert to Stage 1 when the governmental or regulatory agency rescinds the request or MPWMD determines that the voluntary reduction has been met, and conditions I-5-a and I-5-b above have been met.
d. Stage 2, when implemented pursuant to Rule I-1-d, shall sunset and water use restrictions shall revert to Stage 1 when the MPWMD Board finds that a water supply emergency no longer exists or other government agency declares the catastrophic event is over and service is no longer impaired.

J. STAGE 3 WATER CONSERVATION: Conservation Rates
Stage 3 is the third stage of water conservation as defined in this Rule and MPMWD Regulation XV. The requirements of Stage 1 and 2 Water Conservation shall remain in effect in Stage 3 Water Conservation. In addition, the following shall apply in Stage 3 Water Conservation:

1. Trigger
a. Stage 2 Deemed Unsuccessful: Stage 3 shall take effect if Stage 2 has been implemented and has failed to sunset after a period of 6 months, except in the case of a government required targeted percentage implementation that has been met and continues to be met. b. Physical Shortage Trigger: Stage 3 shall take effect when production or production offsets from the Carmel River System or the Seaside Coastal Subareas, on June 1 or such earlier date as may be set by the MPWMD Board following MPWMD’s May Board meeting if Total Storage Available in Table XV-4 of MPWMD’s Rule 160 is below 95% of Total Storage Required. (Continued)
(C)
(C)
(N)
(N)
(C)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(D)(N)
(D)(N)
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 8385-W 655 West Broadway, Suite 1410
San Diego, CA 92101 CANCELLING Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 7913-W (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY C.P.U.C.) ADVICE LETTER NO. 1145 J.T. LINAM DATE FILED NAME EFFECTIVE DECISION NO. D.16-12-003 DIRECTOR – Rates & Regulatory RESOLUTION NO. TITLE
Rule No. 14.1.1. (Continued)

WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN

MONTEREY COUNTY DISTRICT
c. Regulatory Trigger – Production Targets: Stage 3 shall take effect when the most recent 12 month Company production from the MPWRS is greater than 105% of the then-current annual production target as determined in Table XV-1 of Rule 160 and Stage 2 has not been implemented
d. Regulatory Trigger – Regulatory Order: Stage 3 shall take effect when requested by a governmental or regulatory agency to implement Stage 3, when Stage 2 has been deemed unsuccessful in meeting the governmental or other regulatory agency targets, or a governmental or other regulatory agency has increased the requested reduction to a level greater than that achieved in Stage 2.
e. Emergency Trigger: Stage 3 shall take effect when the MPWMD Board or Company finds that a water supply emergency exists and upon adoption of a Resolution of the MPWMD Board or declaration of a catastrophic event by a governing body. In that Resolution or declaration of a catastrophic event, there shall be a finding of an immediate need to reduce production through the imposition of Stage 3 Conservation Rates.

2. The requirements of Stage 1 and 2 shall be in effect.

3. The Company shall notice Customers in compliance with the noticing requirements in Section F above and state the necessary reduction.

4. Schedule 14.1.1 shall be effective in Stage 3 and remain in effect as long as in Stage 3. Customers will have at least 30 days prior notice as to the implementation of the required Level 1 Conservation Rates, or a change from Level 1 to Level 2 Conservation Rates prior to implementation. a. Level 1 Conservation Rates comprised of a 25 percent surcharge shall be implemented on the then existing rates for a minimum of 3 months. The surcharge shall not apply to Tier 1 Residential Customers.
b. Level 2 Conservation Rates comprised of a 40 percent surcharge shall be implemented on the then existing rate (without the 25 percent Level 1 surcharge) if after the imposition of Level 1 Conservation Rates for 3 months the monthly production in the Company’s system exceeds the monthly production target for the previous two (2) consecutive months. The surcharge shall not apply to Tier 1 Residential Customers.

5. Sunset
a. Without further action, Stage 3, when implemented pursuant to Rule J-1-a or J-1-b, shall sunset and water use restrictions shall revert to Stage 1 when Total Storage Available computed consistent with Table XV-4 is greater than Total Storage Required for two (2) consecutive months.
(Continued)
(N)
(N)
(D)(N)
(D)(N)
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 8386-W 655 West Broadway, Suite 1410
San Diego, CA 92101 CANCELLING Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 7914-W (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY C.P.U.C.) ADVICE LETTER NO. 1145 J.T. LINAM DATE FILED NAME EFFECTIVE DECISION NO. D.16-12-003 DIRECTOR – Rates & Regulatory RESOLUTION NO. TITLE
Rule No. 14.1.1. (Continued)

WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN

MONTEREY COUNTY DISTRICT
b. Without further action, Stage 3, when implemented pursuant to Rule J-1-a or J-1-c, shall sunset and water use restrictions shall revert to Stage 1 when 12 month total production has been less than or equal to the then-current annual production target for two (2) consecutive months. c. Without further action, Stage 3, when implemented pursuant to Rule J-1-d, shall sunset and water use restrictions shall revert to Stage 1 when the governmental or regulatory agency rescinds the request, and Rules J-1-b and J-1-c do not apply. d. Stage 3, when implemented pursuant to Rule J-1-e, shall sunset and water use restrictions shall revert to Stage 1 when the MPWMD Board finds that a water supply emergency no longer exists or other government agency declares the catastrophic event is over and service is no longer impaired, and Rules J-1-b and J-1-c do not apply.

K. STAGE 4 WATER RATIONING

1. Trigger
a. Stage 3 Deemed Unsuccessful: Stage 4 shall take effect if Stage 3 has been implemented and has failed to sunset after a period of 8 months.
b. Regulatory Trigger: Stage 4 shall take effect when requested by a governmental or regulatory agency to implement Stage 4, when Stage 3 has been deemed unsuccessful in meeting the governmental or other regulatory agency targets, or a governmental or other regulatory agency has increased the requested reduction to a level greater than that which can be achieved in Stage 3.
c. Emergency Trigger: Stage 4 shall take effect when the MPWMD Board finds that a water supply emergency exists and upon adoption of a Resolution of the MPWMD Board, or a declaration of a water supply emergency by the Company, or a State or County entity, due to a catastrophic event. In that Resolution or declaration of a catastrophic event, there shall be a finding of an immediate need to reduce production through the imposition of Stage 4 Water Rationing.
d. Stage 4 shall not be triggered if it is determined upon credible evidence that the production targets associated with Final Production Orders are likely to be met by adhering to the requirements of a lesser Stage.
e. Delay of Stage Implementation. A delay in implementation of Stage 4 Water Rationing to ensure adequate operation of the program shall not exceed sixty (60) days.

2. Amount of Reduction.
a. The amount of mandatory reduction shall equal the shortfall in Total Storage Available as compared to the Total Storage Required; or
b. The amount of mandatory reduction shall equal the overage of the last 12 months actual production as compared to the then-current annual production target; or c. The amount of mandatory reduction shall equal some other amount as reflected in a governmental or regulatory order.
(Continued)
(N)
(N)
(D)
(N)
(N)
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 8387-W 655 West Broadway, Suite 1410
San Diego, CA 92101 CANCELLING Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 7915-W (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY C.P.U.C.) ADVICE LETTER NO. 1145 J.T. LINAM DATE FILED NAME EFFECTIVE DECISION NO. D.16-12-003 DIRECTOR – Rates & Regulatory RESOLUTION NO. TITLE
Rule No. 14.1.1. (Continued)

WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN

MONTEREY COUNTY DISTRICT

3. Stages 1, 2, and 3 (if applicable) shall remain in effect.

4. Additional Prohibitions.
a. Consideration should be given to prohibiting all or specific Non-Essential Water Uses.

MPWMD or Commission may enact such prohibitions by Resolution. b. Moratorium. Upon implementation of Stage 4, the MPWMD Board shall declare a moratorium on all Water Permit applications other than those applications that rely upon a water credit, water use credit, or water use permit. The Board may amend the moratorium to include the use of water credits and/or water use credits if warranted. c. No New Potable Water Service: Upon declaration of Stage 4 Water Rationing, no new potable water service will be provided, no new temporary meters or permanent meters will be provided, and no statements of immediate ability to serve or provide potable water service (e.g. will-serve letters, certificates, or letters of availability) will be issued, except under the following circumstances:
i. The project is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; ii. The setting of meters in the Company’s service area shall not be terminated or diminished by reason of any water emergency, water moratorium or other curtailment on the setting of meters for water use permits issued to entitlement holders; or iii. This provision does not preclude the resetting or turn-on of meters to provide continuation of water service or the restoration of service that has been interrupted for a period of one year or less.
d. No New Annexations: Upon the declaration of a Stage 4, the Company will suspend consideration of annexations to its Monterey Main System service area. This subsection does not apply to boundary corrections and annexations that will not result in any increased use of water from Main System sources of supply, or annexations required by a regulatory agency. e. Customers utilizing portable water meters or hydrant water meters or using hydrants to fill water tanks without the use of a water meter, shall be required to cease use of the water. Portable water meters shall be returned to the Company at least thirty (30) days before the implementation of Stage 4.
f. Draining and refilling of swimming pools or spas except (a) to prevent or correct structural damage or to comply with public health regulations, or (b) upon prior approval of the MPWMD General Manager.
(Continued)
(D)
(N)
(N)
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 8388-W 655 West Broadway, Suite 1410
San Diego, CA 92101 CANCELLING Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 7916-W (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY C.P.U.C.) ADVICE LETTER NO. 1145 J.T. LINAM DATE FILED NAME EFFECTIVE DECISION NO. D.16-12-003 DIRECTOR – Rates & Regulatory RESOLUTION NO. TITLE
Rule No. 14.1.1. (Continued)

WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN

MONTEREY COUNTY DISTRICT
g. Restriction on Watering or Irrigating: Watering or irrigating of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is subject to restriction. This restriction does not apply to the following categories of use, or where it has been determined that recycled non-potable water is available and may be applied to the use:
i. Businesses dependent on watering or irrigating in the course of business such as agriculture, nursery, and similar uses;
ii. Maintenance of existing landscape necessary for fire protection; iii. Maintenance of existing landscape for soil erosion control; iv. Maintenance of plant materials identified to be rare or essential to the well-being of protected species;
v. Maintenance of landscape within active public parks and playing fields, day care centers, and school grounds, provided that such irrigation does not exceed one (1) day per week;
vi.Actively irrigated environmental mitigation projects.

5. Residential Water Rations.
a. Upon adoption of a Resolution by the MPWMD Board or a specific finding in response to a declaration or order by another government agency for a specific reduction in Residential water use, daily Household Water Rations shall be set at a level to achieve the necessary reduction.

In no case shall daily Household Water Rations fall below 90 gallons per Household. Where two or more Households are served by a master meter, it shall be the responsibility of the Customers to divide the Water Rations among the Customers. b. Additional Rations for Large Households:
i. Where four or more permanent residents occupy a single Household served by one water meter, the daily Water Ration may be increased by the amounts listed below:

Household
Gallons per Day
Fourth Permanent Resident 30
Fifth Permanent Resident 25
Sixth Permanent Resident 20
Seventh or More Permanent Resident 15
(Continued)
(D)
(N)
(N)
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 8389-W 655 West Broadway, Suite 1410
San Diego, CA 92101 CANCELLING Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 7917-W (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY C.P.U.C.) ADVICE LETTER NO. 1145 J.T. LINAM DATE FILED NAME EFFECTIVE DECISION NO. D.16-12-003 DIRECTOR – Rates & Regulatory RESOLUTION NO. TITLE
Rule No. 14.1.1. (Continued)

WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN

MONTEREY COUNTY DISTRICT
c. Procedure for Obtaining Additional Rations for Large Households:
i. The applicant shall complete a Residency Affidavit (obtained from MPWMD) that requests the name, age and verification of full time permanent residents for each resident in the Household for which the additional Ration is requested. The information on the application shall be presented under penalty of perjury. The additional Water Ration request shall be submitted to the MPWMD General Manager, who will approve or disapprove the request within 10 business days of submission of a completed application.
ii. If the application is disapproved, the MPWMD General Manager will explain in writing the reason for the disapproval, and if the applicant is not satisfied with the decision, the applicant may appeal the decision to the MPWMD Board.
d. Procedure for Obtaining Additional Water Rations Where Two or More Households are Served by One Meter:
i. The applicant must fill out the required form that lists the number of residences served by the single meter and submit a use permit issued by the jurisdiction for the multiresidential residences served by the meter. MPWMD shall retain the right to require Residency Affidavits to determine the appropriate Water Rations. The additional Water Ration request shall be submitted to the MPWMD General Manager, who will approve or disapprove the request within 10 business days of submission of a completed application. The application shall be submitted under penalty of perjury. ii. If the application is disapproved, the MPWMD General Manager will explain in writing the reason for the disapproval, and if the applicant is not satisfied with the decision, the applicant may appeal the decision to MPWMD’s Board.
e. Additional Ration for Special Needs. Where more water than allowed in Sections 5-c or 5-d above is necessary to preserve the health or safety of a Household, the MPWMD General Manager may increase the Water Ration to the Household during the period of need according to the needs of the applicant.
.
(Continued)
(D)
(N)
(N)
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 8390-W 1033 B Avenue, Suite 200
CORONADO, CA 92118 CANCELLING Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 7918-W (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY C.P.U.C.) ADVICE LETTER NO. 1145 J.T. LINAM DATE FILED NAME EFFECTIVE DECISION NO. D.16-12-003 DIRECTOR – Rates & Regulatory RESOLUTION NO. TITLE
Rule No. 14.1.1. (Continued)

WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN

MONTEREY COUNTY DISTRICT
i. The applicant or his or her representative may file a request for an additional Water Ration and shall state in a letter to the MPWMD General Manager: (1) the amount of the requested additional Water Ration, and (2) a general statement in support of the need. Where appropriate, applicant shall provide a letter from a medical doctor stating the need for additional water usage and projected duration of that need, if possible, or other appropriate justification for the special need.
ii. Additional Water Rations shall require the replacement of inefficient water fixtures to comply with MPWMD Rule 142-E, Residential and Non-Residential Change of Ownership, Change of Use, and Expansion of Use Water Efficiency Standards, which requires installation of, among other items, water efficient toilets, showerheads, faucets, and irrigation rain sensors.
iii. If the MPWMD General Manager does not approve an additional Water Ration, the applicant may appeal to the MPWMD Board. An appeal from the General Manager’s decision must contain all of the following: (a) a copy of the original application; (b) a copy of the written explanation of the General Manager’s decision; and (c) a written explanation of why the applicant believes the decision should be changed. f. Misrepresentation. Any Customer intentionally over-reporting the number of permanent residents in a Household may be charged with a misdemeanor punishable as an infraction as provided by Section 256 of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Law, Statutes of 1981, Chapter 986, as well as fees and penalties set forth in Regulation XV. During this Stage 4, whenever there is a change in the number of permanent residents in a Household, the Customer shall notify the MPWMD.

6. Non-Residential Water Rations.
a. If Residential rationing does not achieve measurable results as expected after a period of six (6) months, upon adoption of a Resolution by the MPWMD Board for a specific reduction in Non-Residential water use, Non-Residential Water Rations shall be implemented at a level to achieve the necessary reduction in use.
i. Non-Residential Water Rations shall be determined by selection by MPWMD of a previous year for which Stages 2, 3, or 4 conservation or rationing was not in place and then reducing each month’s water use by a percentage determined by the MPWMD to achieve the Non-Residential reduction in use.
ii. Exemptions: In the Resolution to implement a level of Non-Residential rationing, the MPWMD Board shall include an exemption for compliance with District Rule 143 and an exemption for a Non-Residential establishment whose business requires water in the course of its business practice (e.g. laundromats, nurseries, among others). iii. The applicant or his or her representative may file a request for an additional Water Ration. The applicant shall state in a letter to the MPWMD General Manager: (1) the amount of the requested Water Ration, and (2) a general statement in support of the need.
iv. If the request is disapproved, the MPWMD General Manager will explain in writing the reason for the disapproval, and if the applicant is not satisfied with the decision, the applicant may appeal to the MPWMD Board for a hearing.
(Continued)
(D)
(N)
(N)
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 8391-W 655 West Broadway, Suite 1410
San Diego, CA 92101 CANCELLING Revised C.P.U.C. SHEET NO. 7919-W (TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY C.P.U.C.) ADVICE LETTER NO. 1145 J.T. LINAM DATE FILED NAME EFFECTIVE DECISION NO. D.16-12-003 DIRECTOR – Rates & Regulatory RESOLUTION NO. TITLE
Rule No. 14.1.1. (Continued)

WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN

MONTEREY COUNTY DISTRICT

7. Irrigation required by the Mitigation Program adopted when the Water Allocation Program Environmental Impact Report was adopted in 1990, and as required by SWRCB Order No. WR 95- 10 shall not be subject to reductions in use. Required irrigation of the Riparian Corridor shall be identified and reported separately from other non-revenue metered uses.

8. Sunset.
a. Stage 4 shall sunset and water use restrictions shall revert to Stage 1 when 12 month total production has been less than or equal to the then-current annual production target for two (2) consecutive months.
b. Stage 4 shall sunset and water use restrictions shall revert to Stage 1 when Total Storage Available computed consistent with Table XV-4 of MPWMD’s Rule 160 is greater than remaining Total Storage Required for two (2) consecutive months. c. Stage 4, when implemented shall sunset and water use restrictions shall revert to Stage 1 when the governmental or regulatory agency rescinds the request and conditions 8-a. and 8-b, above, have been met.
d. Stage 4, when implemented pursuant to K-1-c, shall sunset and water use restrictions shall revert to Stage 1 when the MPWMD Board finds that a water supply emergency no longer exists or other government agency declares the catastrophic event is over and service is no longer impaired.
e. Restoration of Lower Stage. A MPWMD Resolution causing the sunset of one or more provisions of Stage 4 may also activate any lower Stage as may be warranted for good cause. (C)
(C)
Attachment 2: MPWMD Regulation XV
5 Harris Court, Building G, Monterey, CA 93940  P.O. Box 85, Monterey, CA 93942-0085 831-658-5601  Fax 831-644-9558  www.mpwmd.net  www.montereywaterinfo.org

MPWMD REGULATION XV
2016 MONTEREY PENINSULA

WATER CONSERVATION
AND

RATIONING PLAN
(MPWMD Rules 160-167)
Ordinance No. 169 - adopted February 17, 2016

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 2 of 42 ends

Contents
Regulatory Production Targets And Physical Storage Target ........................................................ 3 Table XV-1 Regulatory Water Production Targets for All Cal-Am Systems from Sources within the Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System ............................................................ 4 Table XV-2 Regulatory Water Production Targets for California American Water Satellite Systems from Sources within the Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System ....................... 5 Table XV-3 Regulatory Water Production Targets from Carmel River Sources for California American Water Systems within the Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System .................. 6 Table XV–4 Physical Storage Target for the Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System for the Remainder of WY 2015 and all WY 2016 ............................................................................ 7 General Provisions ...................................................................................................................... 8 Stage 1 Water Conservation: Prohibition on Water Waste ........................................................... 10 Table XV-5 Water Waste Fines ................................................................................................ 14 Stage 2 Water Conservation: Voluntary Reduction in Use .......................................................... 15 Stage 3 Water Conservation: Conservation Rates ........................................................................ 18 Stage 4: Water Rationing .............................................................................................................. 21 Water Rationing Exemptions and Variances ................................................................................ 31 Definitions Used in the 2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan ...... 33

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 3 of 42 ends

Regulatory Production Targets And Physical Storage Target (MPWMD Rule 160) The monthly distribution of water production from sources within the Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System (MPWRS), as shown in Tables XV-1, XV-2, and XV-3 shall be approved by the Board of Directors as part of the Quarterly Water Supply Strategy and Budget process. The Board shall hold public hearings during the Board’s regular meetings in September, December, March, and June, at which time the Board may modify Tables XV-1, XV-2, and XV-3 by Resolution.

The Physical Storage Target, as shown in Table XV-4 shall be approved as of May 1 each year by the Board of Directors. The Board shall hold a public hearing during the Board’s regular meeting in May, at which time the Board may modify Table XV-4 by Resolution.

Month Monthly Year-to-Date
Target at Month-End Target
October 1,076 1,076
November 904 1,980
December 796 2,776
January 797 3,573
February 748 4,321
March 850 5,171
April 914 6,085
May 1,112 7,197
June 1,157 8,354
July 1,258 9,612
August 1,239 10,851
September 1,151 12,002
TOTAL 12,002 ---
Approved by Resolution 2015-18 (9/21/2015)
(All Values in Acre-Feet)
Table XV-1
Regulatory Water Production Targets
for California American Water Systems
Sources within the Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System Notes:

Monthly and year-to-date at month-end production targets are based on the annual production limit specified for the California American Water (Cal-Am) systems for Water Year (WY) 2016 from Carmel River sources per State Water Resources Control Board Order WR 2009-0060 (9,703 acre-feet) and adjusted annual production limits specified for the Cal-Am satellite systems from its Coastal Subarea sources (2,251 acre-feet) and Laguna Seca Subarea sources (48 acre-feet) of the Seaside Groundwater Basin per the Seaside Basin Adjudication Decision. These values do not include consideration of any carryover credit in the Seaside Basin for WY 2016.

This combined total (12,002 acre-feet) was distributed monthly based on Cal-Am's reported monthly average production for its main and satellite systems during the WY 2006 through 2013 period.

U:\demand\Conservation\Rationing\2016 Rationing Plan\FINAL2015-18ATTACHMENT.xlsx Month Monthly Year-to-Date
Target at Month-End Target
October 5 5
November 3 8
December 3 11
January 3 14
February 2 16
March 3 19
April 3 22
May 5 27
June 5 32
July 6 38
August 5 43
September 5 48
TOTAL 48 ---
Table XV-2
Regulatory Water Production Targets
for California American Water Satellite Systems
Sources within the Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System Approved by Resolution 2015-18 (9/21/2015)
(All Values in Acre-Feet)
Notes:

Monthly and year-to-date at month-end production targets are based on the adjusted annual production limit specified for the California American Water (Cal-Am) satellite systems for Water Year 2016 from its sources in the Laguna Seca Subarea of the Seaside Groundwater Basin per the Seaside Basin Adjudication Decision. This Laguna Seca Subarea total (48 acre-feet) was distributed monthly based on Cal-Am's reported monthly average production for its satellite systems during the WY 2006 through 2013 period.

U:\demand\Conservation\Rationing\2016 Rationing Plan\FINAL2015-18ATTACHMENT.xlsx Month Monthly Year-to-Date
Target at Month-End Target
October 869 869
November 730 1,599
December 644 2,244
January 645 2,889
February 605 3,494
March 687 4,181
April 740 4,920
May 899 5,820
June 934 6,754
July 1,017 7,771
August 1,002 8,773
September 930 9,703
TOTAL 9,703 ---
Approved by Resolution 2015-18 (9/21/2015)
(All Values in Acre-Feet)
Table XV-3
Regulatory Water Production Targets
for California American Water Systems
Carmel River Sources within the Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System Notes:

Monthly and year-to-date at month-end production targets are based on the annual production limit specified for California American Water (Cal-Am) for Water Year (WY) 2016 from its Carmel River system sources per State Water Resources Control Board Order WR 2009-0060 (9,703 acre-feet). This amount was distributed monthly based on Cal-Am's reported monthly average production for its main system sources during the WY 2006 through 2013 period. These values incorporate consideration of the triennial reductions specified for the Cal-Am systems in the Seaside Basin Adjudication Decision, in setting the monthly maximum production targets from each source as part of the MPWMD Quarterly Water Supply Budget Strategy.

U:\demand\Conservation\Rationing\2016 Rationing Plan\FINAL2015-18ATTACHMENT.xlsx 160-5
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
Table XV-4
Physical Storage Target
for the Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System
for the Remainder of WY 2015 and all WY 2016
Producer May-September Demand Carryover Storage Needs for Next Year Demand
Total Storage Required on May 1
California American Water
(Cal-Am)
7,071 12,123 19,194
Non Cal-Am 1,946 3,046 4,992
Total 9,017 15,169 24,186
Total Storage
Available on May 1
30,990 5
Notes:

1. The May-September period refers to the remainder of the current Water Year.

2. Carryover Storage refers to the volume of usable surface and Groundwater that is in storage at the end of the current Water Year and is projected to be available for use at the beginning of the following Water Year.

3. Total Storage Required refers to the combination of demand remaining from May 1 to September 30 and Carryover Storage for the next Water Year that is required to avoid imposing various levels of water Rationing. The values in bold type represent the storage triggers that would be used for the system in Water Year 2015. The values are based on the production limits for California American Water (Cal-Am) from Carmel River sources (9,945 Acre-Feet in WY 2015 and 9,703 Acre-Feet in WY 2016) set by State Water Resources Control Board Order WR 2009-0060, the production limit for Cal-Am from the Seaside Groundwater Basin (2,299 Acre-Feet in WY 2015 and in WY 2016) set by the Court in its March 27, 2006 Seaside Basin Adjudication Decision, and the production limit specifi ed for non-Cal-Am users from the Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System set in the District’s Water Allocation Program (Ordinance No. 87)

4. The rationing triggers are based on physical water availability and do not account for legal or environmental constraints on diversions from the Carmel River system.

5. May 1, 2015 System Storage = 30,990 Acre-Feet (26,220 Acre-Feet Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer; 3,100 Acre-Feet Seaside Groundwater Basin; 1,670 Acre-Feet Los Padres Reservoir); this is 97 percent of average and 82 percent of System Capacity (37,505 AF).

Table XV-4 added by Resolution 2014-07 (5/19/2014); amended by Resolution 2014-15 (9/15/2014); Resolution 2015-08 (5/18/2015); Ordinance No. 169 (2/17/2016)

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 8 of 42 ends

General Provisions (MPWMD Rule 161)
A. All Water Users within the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District shall comply with the District’s Water Waste Prohibitions of Rule 162 and with the requirements of MPWMD Regulation XIV, Water Conservation.

B. California American Water shall amend its Urban Water Management Plan and its Rule

14.1.1 (Standard Practice U-40-W), Water Shortage Contingency Plan - Monterey County District, to conform to this Regulation. A copy of Rule 14.1.1 shall be filed with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the District within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Regulation and any amendment thereto.

C. Water Distribution Systems regulated by the CPUC shall amend their Rule 14.1 to conform to this Regulation. A copy of Rule 14.1 shall be filed with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the District within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Regulation and any amendment thereto.

D. At least ten (10) days prior to a first reading of amendments to Regulation XV, a copy of the proposed changes shall be provided to the CPUC Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA).

E. California American Water shall provide the District with monthly consumption reports by customer classification and Jurisdiction in a format approved by the District. A Water Year summary report shall be provided by December 1 of the next Water Year. Monthly reports shall be provided within fifteen (15) days of the close of the preceding month.

F. Each Water Distribution System Operator shall provide individual consumption data pertaining to any Water User of that Water Distribution System upon written request of the General Manager. Data shall be in the form and manner specified by the General Manager and may be subject to a non-disclosure agreement with the Water Distribution System Owner/Operator. Each failure to respond in full to such written request by the date specified therein shall result in a penalty to the Water Distribution System of fivehundred dollars ($500) per day for each day or portion thereof that the response is delayed.

G. The General Manager shall retain and use any data received under this provision for the sole purposes of testing, administering, evaluating or enforcing water Rationing, Water Waste, or other provisions of the Rules and Regulations.

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 9 of 42 ends

H. California American Water shall maintain Non-Revenue Water in its Water Distribution Systems at or below seven (7) percent. Average losses of more than seven (7) percent during the most recent twelve-month period shall be considered Water Waste.

I. Each Water Distribution System Operator shall provide written notice of any adjustment to a Water Conservation or Rationing Stage to every customer via first class mail at least thirty (30) days before any change in Stage is imposed.

J. At all times during Stages 2 through 4 each affected Water Distribution System shall send monthly conservation reminders.

K. During a Water Supply Emergency, or at the direction of the Board of Directors, each Owner or Operator or Extractor of a private water Well, Water Distribution System, or other Water-Gathering Facility shall comply with the provisions of this Regulation, as they relate to such Well, Water Distribution System, or other Water-Gathering Facility.

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 10 of 42 ends

Stage 1 Water Conservation: Prohibition on Water Waste (MPWMD Rule l62) A. Trigger. Stage 1 shall remain in effect at all times and shall apply to all Water Users subject to modification by the Board.

B. Water Waste Prohibitions. Water Waste shall mean the indiscriminate, unreasonable, or excessive running or dissipation of water. Water Waste shall include, but not be limited, to the following:

1. Waste caused by correctable leaks, breaks or malfunctions. All leaks, breaks, or other malfunctions in a Water User’s plumbing or distribution system must be repaired within 72 hours of notification that a leak exists. Exceptions may be granted by the General Manager for corrections which are not feasible or practical;

2. Indiscriminate or excessive water use which allows excess to run to waste;

3. Washing driveways, patios, parking lots, tennis courts, or other hard surfaced areas with Potable water, except in cases where health or safety are at risk and the surface is cleaned with a Water Broom or other water efficient device or method.

Water should be used only when traditional brooms are not able to clean the surface in a satisfactory manner;

4. Power or pressure washing buildings and structures with Potable water, except when preparing surfaces for paint or other necessary treatments or when abating a health or safety hazard;

5. Irrigation between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on any day, and irrigation on any day other than Saturdays and Wednesdays, except for irrigation overseen by a professional gardener or landscaper who is available on Site and that is not exceeding a maximum two watering days per week. This prohibition applies to hand watering with a hose, and Irrigation Systems whether spray, drip, or managed by a Smart Controller. Limited hand watering of plants or bushes with a small container or a bucket is permitted on any day at any time. Subsurface Graywater Irrigation Systems may also be operated at any time. An exemption may be given to a NonResidential establishment whose business requires water in the course of its business practice (e.g. golf courses, nurseries, recreational space, among others)

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 11 of 42 ends

with notification by the business owner to the District, and subject to the approval of the General Manager;

6. Hand watering by a hose, during permitted hours, without a quick acting Positive Action Shut-Off Nozzle;

7. Irrigating during rainfall and for 48 hours after Measurable Precipitation;

8. Use of water for irrigation or outdoor purposes in a manner inconsistent with California’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Code of Regulations, Title 23, Water, Division 2, Department of Water Resources, Chapter 2.7, and any successor regulations) where applicable, or in a manner inconsistent with local regulations;

9. Operation of fountains, ponds, lakes or other ornamental use of Potable water without recycling, and except to the extent needed to sustain aquatic life, provided such animals are of significant value and have been actively managed;

10. Individual private washing of cars with a hose except with the use of a Positive Action Shut-Off Nozzle;

11. Washing commercial aircraft, cars, buses, boats, trailers or other commercial vehicles with Potable water, except at water efficient commercial or fleet vehicle or boat washing facilities where equipment is properly maintained to avoid wasteful use;

12. In-Bay or Conveyor Car Washes permitted and constructed prior to January 1, 2014, that do not recycle and reuse at least 50 percent of the wash and rinse water.

In-Bay or Conveyor Car Washes that were permitted and constructed after January 1, 2014, that do not either (1) use and maintain a water recycling system that recycles and reuses at least 60 percent of the wash and rinse water; or (2) use recycled water provided by a water supplier for at least 60 percent of its wash and rinse water;

13. Charity car washes;

14. Use of Potable water for street cleaning;

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 12 of 42 ends

15. Failure to meet MPWMD Regulation XIV water efficiency standards for an existing Non-Residential User after having been given a reasonable amount of time to comply;

16. Serving drinking water to any customer unless expressly requested, by a restaurant, hotel, café, cafeteria or other pubic place where food is sold, served or offered for sale;

17. Visitor-Serving Facilities that fail to adopt and promote towel and linen reuse programs and provide written notice in the rooms, whereby towels and linens are changed every three days or as requested by action of the guest;

18. Washing of livestock with a hose except with the use of a Positive Action ShutOff Nozzle;

19. Transportation of water from the Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System without prior written authorization from the MPWMD;

20. Delivery, receipt, and/or use of water from an unpermitted Mobile Water Distribution System;

21. Unreasonable or excessive use of Potable water for dust control or earth compaction without prior written approval of the General Manager where Subpotable water or other alternatives are available or satisfactory;

22. Use of unmetered fire hydrant water by individuals other than for fire suppression or utility system maintenance purposes, except upon prior approval of the General Manager;

23. Water use in excess of a Water Ration;

24. Non-compliance with Regulations XIV and XV;
C. The following activities shall not be cited as Water Waste:

1. Flow resulting from firefighting or essential inspection of fire hydrants;

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 13 of 42 ends

2. Water applied to abate spills of flammable or otherwise hazardous materials, where water application is the appropriate methodology;

3. Water applied to prevent or abate health, safety, or accident hazards when alternate methods are not available;

4. Storm run-off;

5. Flow from fire training activities during Stage 1 Water Conservation through Stage 3 Water Conservation;

6. Reasonable quantities of water applied as dust control as required by the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, except when prohibited;

7. When a Mobile Water Distribution System Permit is not obtained by a State licensed Potable water handler by reason of an emergency or health related situation, authorization for the Mobile Water Distribution System Permit shall be sought from the District by submittal of a complete application compliant with Rule 21, within five working days following commencement of the emergency or health related event.

D. Prohibitions against Water Waste and Non-Essential Water Use shall be enforced by the District and its designated agents, unless indicated otherwise. All notices and assessments of Water Waste and/or excess water use charges made by a Water Distribution System Operator shall be reported to the District within thirty (30) days.

E. Each occurrence of Water Waste or Non-Essential Water Use that continues after the Water User has had reasonable notice to cease and desist that type of water use shall constitute a Flagrant Violation.

F. Repeated occurrences of Water Waste or Non-Essential Water Use, which continue or occur after the Water User has had a reasonable notice to cease and desist that type of water use, or which continues or occurs after the Water User has had a reasonable opportunity to cure any defect causing that type of water use, shall provide cause for the placement of a Flow Restrictor with a maximum flow rate of six (6) CCF/month within the water line or Water Meter. Exemptions to the installation of a Flow Restrictor as a means to enforce the Water Ration shall occur when there are provable risks to the health, safety and/or welfare of the Water User. An exemption shall be made for Master Meters serving three or more Multi-Family Households or Master Meters serving both

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 14 of 42 ends

Residential and Non-Residential Users by substituting an excess water use charge equivalent to the appropriate Water Meter size, Rationing stage, and 4th offense amount times the number of Dwelling Units located on the Water Meter during each month in which a violation of the Water Ration occurs. The Responsible Party shall be liable for payment of all excess water use charges.

G. Water Waste Fines shall be assessed as shown in Table XV-5. Table XV-5 may be amended by Resolution of the Board. Amendments to this table shall be concurrently made to the Fees and Charges Table found in Rule 60.

H. In addition to Water Waste fines and fees described in this Rule 162, enforcement of all District Rules and Regulations is subject to District Regulation XI and may include an Administrative Compliance Order, a Cease & Desist Order, or other remedy available to the District under its Regulation XI.

Table XV-5 Water Waste Fines
First offense No fee: Written notice and opportunity to correct the situation
Fine for first Flagrant Violation $100*
Fine for second Flagrant Violation within two
(2) months
$250*
Fine for third and subsequent Flagrant
Violations within twelve (12) months
$500*
Fine for Administrative Compliance Order or
Cease & Desist Order
Up to $2,500 per day* for each ongoing violation,
except that the total administrative penalty shall
not exceed one hundred thousand dollars
($100,000.00) exclusive of administrative costs,
interest and restitution for compliance reinspections, for any related series of violations Late payment charges Half of one percent of the amount owed per month
*Fines triple for customers using over 500,000 gallons/year

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 15 of 42 ends

Stage 2 Water Conservation: Voluntary Reduction in Use (MPWMD Rule 163) A. Trigger.

1. Physical Shortage Trigger (California-American Water Company Distribution Systems): Stage 2 shall take effect for all California-American Water Company Water Distribution Systems that rely, in whole or in part, on production or production offsets from the Carmel River System or the Seaside Coastal Subareas, on June 1 or such earlier date as may be set by the Board following the District’s May Board meeting if Total Storage Available in Table XV-4 is below the Total Storage Required, but at least 95 percent of Total Storage Required. The amount of voluntary reduction shall equal the percentage shortfall in Total Storage Required.

2. Physical Shortage Trigger (Non-California-American Water Company Distribution Systems): Stage 2 shall take effect for any Water Distribution System, other than California-American Water Company’s Water Distribution Systems, that relies in whole or in part on production or production offsets from the Carmel River System or the Seaside Coastal Subareas on June 1 or such earlier date as may be set by the Board following the District’s May Board meeting if Total Storage Available in Table XV-4 is below the Total Storage Required. The amount of voluntary reduction shall equal the percentage shortfall in Total Storage Required.

3. Regulatory Trigger – Production Targets: Stage 2 shall take effect on the California-American Water Company Water Distribution System when the most recent 12 month California American Water production from the MPWRS is greater than the then-current annual production target as determined in Table XV1 but no greater than 105 percent of the annual production target. The amount of voluntary reduction shall equal the percentage overage of the annual production.

4. Regulatory Trigger – Regulatory Order: Stage 2 shall take effect in any Water Distribution System when that system is directed to reduce use by a governmental or regulatory agency. The amount of voluntary reduction shall equal the percentage directed by that governmental or regulatory agency relative to a base year determined by the governmental or regulatory agency.

5. Emergency Trigger: Stage 2 shall take effect for any Water Distribution System,

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 16 of 42 ends

private Well, or Water User when the Board finds that a Water Supply Emergency exists for a Water Distribution System. Stage 2 shall take effect upon adoption of a Resolution of the District Board of Directors, or a declaration of a Water Supply Emergency by the Water Distribution System Operator or a State or County entity, due to a catastrophic event. In that Resolution or declaration, there shall be a finding of an immediate need to reduce production and shall name the Water Distribution System(s) affected. The amount of voluntary reduction shall be determined by the Board, the Water Distribution System Operator, or the State or County entity.

B. The Water Distribution System Owner or Operator shall provide notice of the amount of voluntary reduction requested to affected Water Users pursuant to Rule 161. Additional noticing and public outreach may be provided by the District at the direction of its Board of Directors.

C. The District and its agents shall increase enforcement activities related to Water Waste prohibitions.

D. Stage 1 shall remain in effect.

E. Sunset.

1. Without further action of the Board of Directors, Stage 2, when implemented pursuant to Rule 163-A-1 and Rule 163-A-2, shall sunset and water use restrictions shall revert to Stage 1 when remaining Total Storage Available computed consistent with Table XV-4 is greater than remaining Total Storage Required for two (2) consecutive months.

2. Without further action of the Board of Directors, Stage 2, when implemented pursuant to Rule 163-A-3, shall sunset for the California-American Water Company and water use restrictions shall revert to Stage 1 when that Water Distribution System’s 12 month total production has been less than or equal to its then-current annual production target for two (2) consecutive months.

3. Without further action of the Board of Directors, Stage 2, when implemented pursuant to Rule 163-A-4, shall sunset for that Water Distribution System(s) and water use restrictions shall revert to Stage 1 when the governmental or regulatory agency rescinds the request.

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 17 of 42 ends

4. Stage 2, when implemented pursuant to Rule 163-A-5, shall sunset and water use restrictions shall revert to Stage 1 when the Board finds that a Water Supply Emergency no longer exists.

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 18 of 42 ends

Stage 3 Water Conservation: Conservation Rates (MPWMD Rule 164) A. Trigger.

1. Stage 2 Deemed Unsuccessful: Stage 3 shall take effect for all CaliforniaAmerican Water Company Water Distribution Systems if Stage 2 has been implemented pursuant to Rule 162-A-1 or Rule 162-A-3 and has failed to sunset after a period of six (6) months.

2. Physical Shortage Trigger: Stage 3 shall take effect for all California-American Water Company Water Distribution Systems, on June 1, or such earlier date as may be set by the Board following the District’s May Board meeting, if Total Storage Available in Table XV-4 is below 95% of Total Storage Required.

3. Regulatory Trigger – Production Targets: Stage 3 shall take effect for all California-American Water Company Water Distribution Systems when the most recent 12 month California American Water production from the MPWRS is greater than 105 percent of the then-current annual production target as determined in Table XV-1 and Stage 2 has not been implemented.

4. Regulatory Trigger – Regulatory Order: Stage 3 shall take effect for all California-American Water Company Water Distribution Systems when directed by a governmental or regulatory agency to implement Stage 3.

5. Emergency Trigger: Stage 3 shall take affect for all California-American Water Company Water Distribution Systems when the Board finds that a Water Supply Emergency exists and upon adoption of a Resolution of the Board of Directors, or a declaration of a Water Supply Emergency by California American Water, or by a State or County entity due to a catastrophic event. In that Resolution or declaration, there shall be a finding of an immediate need to reduce production through the imposition of Stage 3 Conservation Rates.

B. Stages 1 and 2 shall remain in effect.

C. If Stage 2 has not already been implemented, Stage 2 shall be triggered simultaneously with Stage 3.

D. Thirty days prior to implementation of Stage 3, California American Water shall file to

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 19 of 42 ends

implement Level 1 Conservation Rates within its Main California-American Water Company Water Distribution System, the Bishop Water Distribution System, Hidden Hills System, and Ryan Ranch Water Distribution System and shall provide notification to its customers that such rates shall be implemented after thirty (30) days. Prior to an increase to Level 2 Conservation Rates, California American Water shall provide notification to its customers that such rates shall be implemented after thirty (30) days.

1. Level 1 Conservation Rates comprised of a 25 percent surcharge shall be implemented on the then existing rates for a minimum of three (3) months. The surcharge shall not apply to Tier 1 Residential customers.

2. Level 2 Conservation Rates comprised of a 40 percent surcharge shall be implemented on the then existing rates (without the 25 percent Level 1 surcharge) if after the imposition of Level 1 Conservation Rates for three (3) months, the monthly production in the California American Water System exceeds the monthly production target for the previous two (2) consecutive months. The surcharge shall not apply to Tier 1 Residential customers.

E. Sunset.

1. Without further action of the Board of Directors, Stage 3, when implemented pursuant to Rule 164-A-2, shall sunset and water use restrictions shall revert to Stage 1 when remaining Total Storage Available computed consistent with Table XV-4 is greater than remaining Total Storage Required for two (2) consecutive months.

2. Without further action of the Board of Directors, Stage 3, when implemented pursuant to Rule 164-A-3, shall sunset and water use restrictions shall revert to Stage 1 when the 12 month total production has been less than or equal to its thencurrent annual production target for two (2) consecutive months.

3. Without further action of the Board of Directors, Stage 3, when implemented pursuant to Rule 164-A-4, shall sunset and water use restrictions shall revert to Stage 1 when the governmental or regulatory agency rescinds the request.

4. Stage 3, when implemented pursuant to Rule 164-A-5, shall sunset and water use restrictions shall revert to Stage 1 when the Board finds that a Water Supply Emergency no longer exists and Rules 164-A-2 and 164-A-3 do not apply.

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 20 of 42 ends

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 21 of 42 ends

Stage 4: Water Rationing (MPWMD Rule 165)
A. Trigger.

1. Stage 3 Deemed Unsuccessful (California-American Water Company Distribution Systems): Stage 4 shall take effect for all California-American Water Company Water Distribution Systems if Stage 3 has been implemented and has failed to sunset after a period of 8 months.

2. Physical Shortage Trigger. Stage 3 Deemed Unsuccessful for CaliforniaAmerican Water Company Distribution Systems and Stage 2 Deemed Unsuccessful for Non-California American Water Systems: Stage 4 shall take effect for any Water Distribution System that relies, in whole or in part, on production or production offsets from the Carmel River System or the Seaside Coastal Subareas if Stage 2 (Non-California-American Water Company Water Distribution Systems, private Wells, or Water Users) and Stage 3 (CaliforniaAmerican Water Company Distribution Systems) have been implemented and have failed to sunset after a period of eight (8) months.

3. Regulatory Trigger: Stage 4 shall take effect in any Water Distribution System when that system is directed by a governmental or regulatory agency to enact Stage 4.

4. Emergency Trigger: Stage 4 shall take effect for any Water Distribution System, private Well, or Water User when the Board finds that a Water Supply Emergency exists and upon adoption of a Resolution of the Board of Directors, or a declaration of a Water Supply Emergency by the California American Water, or a State or County entity, due to a catastrophic event. In that Resolution or declaration, there shall be a finding of an immediate need to reduce production through the imposition of Stage 4 Water Rationing.

5. Stage 4 shall not be triggered if the General Manager determines upon credible evidence that the production targets associated with a final Cease and Desist Order are likely to be met by adhering to the requirements of a lesser Stage. The General Manager shall record this determination and any amendment thereto, by memorandum which may be appealed to the Board in accord with Regulation VII, Appeals.

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 22 of 42 ends

6. Delay of Stage Implementation. The Board may delay implementation of Stage 4 Water Rationing for any Water Distribution System to ensure adequate operation of the program. Delays authorized by the Board shall not exceed sixty (60) days.

B. Amount of Reduction.

1. The amount of mandatory reduction shall equal the shortfall in Total Storage Available as compared to the Total Storage Required; or

2. The amount of mandatory reduction shall equal the overage of the last 12 months actual production as compared to the then-current annual production target; or

3. The amount of mandatory reduction shall equal some other amount as reflected in a governmental or regulatory order.

C. Stages 1, 2, and 3 (if applicable) shall remain in effect.

D. Additional Prohibitions.

1. The Board shall consider prohibiting all or specific Non-Essential Water Uses.

The Board may enact such prohibitions by Resolution.

2. California American Water shall maintain Non-Revenue Water at or below seven (7) percent.

3. Moratorium. Upon implementation of Stage 4, the Board shall declare a moratorium on accepting Water Permit applications within the affected Water Distribution System other than those applications that rely upon a Water Credit, Water Use Credit, or Water Use Permit. The Board may amend the moratorium to include the use of Water Credits and/or Water Use Credits if warranted. All pending Water Permits not issued within 120 days of declaration shall be suspended. Water Use Permits shall be exempt from any moratorium on Water Permits.

4. No New Potable Water Service: Upon declaration of Stage 4 Water Rationing, no new Potable water service will be provided, no new temporary Water Meters or permanent Water Meters will be provided, and no statements of immediate ability to serve or provide Potable water service (e.g. will-serve letters, certificates, or

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 23 of 42 ends

letters of availability) will be issued by the Water Distribution System Operator, except under the following circumstances:
a. The project is necessary to protect the public health, safety, or welfare. b. The setting of meters in the California-American Water Company Water Distribution System shall not be terminated or diminished by reason of any water emergency, water moratorium or other curtailment on the setting of meters for holders of Water Use Permits.
c. This provision does not preclude the resetting or turn-on of Water Meters to provide continuation of water service or the restoration of service that has been interrupted for a period of one year or less.

5. No New Annexations: Upon the declaration of a Stage 4, California-American Water Company will suspend annexations to its Service Area. This subsection does not apply to boundary corrections and annexations that will not result in any increased use of water, or annexations required by a regulatory agency.

6. Customers utilizing portable Water Meters or hydrant Water Meters or using hydrants to fill water tanks without the use of a Water Meter, shall be required to cease use of the water, except upon prior approval of the General Manager.

Portable Water Meters shall be returned to the Water Distribution System at least thirty (30) days before the implementation of Stage 4.

7. Draining and refilling of swimming pools or spas except (a) to prevent or correct structural damage or to comply with public health regulations, or (b) upon prior approval of the General Manager.

8. Restriction on Watering or Irrigating: Watering or irrigating of Lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with Potable water will be subject to restriction at the direction of the District. This restriction does not apply to the following categories of use, or where the District has determined that recycled Sub-potable Water is available and may be applied to the use:
a. Businesses dependent on watering or irrigating in the course of business such as agriculture, nursery, and similar uses;

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 24 of 42 ends

b. Maintenance of existing Landscaping necessary for fire protection; c. Maintenance of existing Landscaping for soil erosion control; d. Maintenance of plant materials identified to be rare or essential to the well-being of protected species;
e. Maintenance of Landscaping within active Public parks and playing fields, Day Care Centers and school grounds, provided that such irrigation does not exceed one (1) day per week;
f. Actively irrigated environmental mitigation projects.

E. Residential Rations.

1. Upon adoption of a Resolution by the Board for a specific reduction in Residential water use, daily Household Water Rations shall be set at a level to achieve the necessary reduction. In no case shall daily Household Water Rations be less than 90 gallons per Household. This shall be known as the Minimum Daily Water Ration.

Where two or more Households are served by a Master Meter, it shall be the responsibility of the Water Users to divide the Water Rations among the Water Users.

2. Additional Water Rations for Large Households:

Where four or more Permanent Residents occupy a single Household served by one Water Meter, the Minimum Daily Water Ration may be increased by the amounts listed below:

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 25 of 42 ends

Number of Permanent Residents Residential
Household
Gallons per Day
Fourth Permanent Resident 30
Fifth Permanent Resident 25
Sixth Permanent Resident 20
Seven or More Permanent Residents
(Per Additional Resident)
15 3. Procedure for Obtaining Additional Water Rations for Large Households:
a. The Applicant shall complete a Residency Affidavit (obtained from the District) that requests the name, age and verification of full-time Permanent Residents for each resident in the Household for which the additional Water Ration is requested. The information on the application shall be presented under penalty of perjury. The additional Water Ration request shall be submitted to the General Manager, who will approve or disapprove the request within 10 business days of submission of a completed application.
b. If the application is disapproved, the General Manager will explain in writing the reason for the disapproval, and if the Applicant is not satisfied with the decision of the General Manager, the Applicant may appeal the General Manager’s decision to the Board of Directors.

4. Procedure for Obtaining Additional Water Rations Where Two or More Households are Served by a Master Meter:
a. The Applicant must fill out the required form that lists the number of Residences served by the Master Meter and submit a use permit issued by the Jurisdiction for the Multi-Residential Dwelling Units served by the Master Meter. The District shall retain the right to require Residency Affidavits to determine the appropriate Water Rations. The additional Water Ration request shall be submitted to the General Manager, who will approve or disapprove the request within 10 business days of submission of a completed application. The Application shall be submitted under penalty of perjury.

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 26 of 42 ends

b. If the application is disapproved, the General Manager will explain in writing the reason for the disapproval, and if the Applicant is not satisfied with the decision of the General Manager, the Applicant may appeal the General Manager’s decision to the Board of Directors.

5. Additional Water Ration for Special Needs. Where more water than allowed in Sections 3 or 4 above is necessary to preserve the health or safety of a Household, the General Manager may increase the Water Ration during the period of need according to the needs of the Applicant.
a. The Applicant or his or her representative may file a request for an additional Water Ration and shall state to the General Manager: (1) the amount of the requested additional Water Ration, and (2) a general statement in support of the need. Where appropriate, Applicant shall provide a letter from a medical doctor stating the need for additional water usage and projected amount and duration of that need, if possible, or other appropriate justification for the special need.
b. Additional Water Rations shall require the replacement of inefficient water fixtures to comply with Rule 142-E, Residential and NonResidential Change of Ownership, Change of Use, and Expansion of Use Water Efficiency Standards.
c. Additional Water Rations shall require the Connection have a working Pressure Regulating Device that maintains water pressure at a maximum of 60 psi.
d. If the General Manager does not approve an additional Water Ration, the Applicant may appeal to the Board. An appeal from the General Manager’s decision must contain all of the following: (a) a copy of the original application; (b) a copy of the written explanation of the General Manager’s decision; and (c) a written explanation of why the Applicant believes the decision should be changed.

6. Misrepresentation. Any Water User intentionally over-reporting the number of Permanent Residents in a Household may be charged with a misdemeanor punishable as an infraction as provided by Section 256 of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Law, Statutes of 1981, Chapter 986, as well as fines

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 27 of 42 ends

and penalties set forth in this Regulation. During this Stage 4, whenever there is a change in the number of Permanent Residents, the Water User shall notify the District.

F. Non-Residential Water Rations.

1. If Residential Water Rationing does not achieve measurable results as expected after a period of six (6) months, upon adoption of a Resolution by the Board for a specific reduction in Non-Residential water use, Non-Residential Water Rations shall be implemented at a level to achieve the necessary reduction in use.

2. Non-Residential Water Rations shall be determined by selection by the District of a previous year for which Stages 2, 3, or 4 Conservation or Rationing was not in place and then reducing each month’s water use by a percentage determined by the District to achieve the Non-Residential reduction in use. Where a previous year history is deemed to be unavailable or inappropriate by the District, a NonResidential Water Ration shall be established by the District based on type of Non-Residential water use, building design, and water fixtures.

3. Exemptions: In the Resolution to implement a level of Non-Residential Rationing, the Board shall include an exemption for compliance with District Rule 143 and an exemption for a Non-Residential establishment whose business requires water in the course of its business practice (e.g. laundromats, nurseries, among others.)

4. An Applicant or his or her representative may file a request for an additional Water Ration. The Applicant shall state in a letter to the General Manager: (1) the amount of the requested additional Water Ration, and (2) a general statement in support of the need.

5. Additional Water Rations shall require the Connection have a working Pressure Regulating Device that maintains water pressure at a maximum of 60 psi.

6. If the request for additional Water Ration is disapproved, the General Manager will explain in writing the reason for the disapproval, and if the Applicant is not satisfied with the decision of the Board, the Applicant may appeal to the Board of Directors for a hearing.

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 28 of 42 ends

G. Irrigation required by the Mitigation Program adopted when the Water Allocation Program Environmental Impact Report was adopted in 1990, and as required by SWRCB Order No. WR 95-10, shall not be subject to reductions in use. Required irrigation of the Riparian Corridor shall be identified and reported by California American Water separately from other Non-Revenue Water.

H. CAWD/PBCSD Wastewater Reclamation Project Recycled Water Users. Recycled Water Irrigation Areas receiving water from the CAWD/PBCSD Wastewater Reclamation Project shall be subject to Stage 4 for Potable water used during an Interruption or emergency, in accordance with contractual Agreements between the District and the respective Owners of the Recycled Water Irrigation Areas.

1. The Owners of the Recycled Water Irrigation Areas shall have the respective irrigation requirements thereof satisfied to the same degree as any non-Project Golf Course or open space which derives its Source of Supply from the California American Water system. The irrigation requirements of the Recycled Water Irrigation Areas will be determined based on the most-recent non-Rationed fouryear average irrigation water demand, including both Recycled Water and Potable water, for each respective Recycled Water Irrigation Area.

2. Each Recycled Water Irrigation Area shall be entitled to receive the average irrigation requirement determined above, reduced by the percentage reduction required by the current stage of Water Rationing. If the quantity of Recycled Water that is available is less than the quantity of water that the Recycled Water Irrigation Area is entitled to, Potable water shall be provided to make up the difference and satisfy the irrigation requirements of the Recycled Water Irrigation Areas to the same degree that the irrigation requirements of non-Project Golf Course and open space Users are being satisfied. The preceding sentence shall not apply to the extent that the irrigation requirements of any Recycled Water Irrigation Area are met with water legally available to Buyer from any source other than the Carmel River System or the Seaside Groundwater Basin, including percolating Groundwater underlying Buyer’s Property, to make up any such difference.

3. When Recycled Water (as defined in Rule 23.5) is available in sufficient quantities to satisfy the irrigation requirements of the Recycled Water Irrigation Areas, such irrigation shall not be subject to Stage 4, and neither Potable water nor any water described in the preceding sentence (whether or not it is Potable)

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 29 of 42 ends

shall be used for irrigation of the Recycled Water Irrigation Areas except to the extent allowed in the circumstances described in the next two sentences.

4. If there is an Interruption in Recycled Water deliveries to any Recycled Water Irrigation Area (as the capitalized terms are defined in Rule 23.5), the temporary use of Potable water for irrigating each such Recycled Water Irrigation Area is authorized in the manner described in Rule 23.5, Subsection F.

5. If the District has adopted an ordinance in response to any emergency caused by drought, or other threatened or existing water shortage pursuant to section 332 of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management Law, said ordinance shall prevail over contrary provisions of this Rule. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, Potable water shall be made available for irrigating tees and greens of the Recycled Water Irrigation Areas in sufficient quantities to maintain them in good health and condition during an Interruption, without any limitation on the duration.

6. The District shall have no obligation to furnish Potable water for irrigation of the Recycled Water Irrigation Areas except in the circumstances set forth above.

7. If (1) an emergency or major disaster is declared by the President of the United States, or (2) a “state of war emergency,” “state of emergency,” or “local emergency,” as those terms are respectively defined in Government Code section 8558, has been duly proclaimed pursuant to the California Emergency Services Act, with respect to all or any portion of the territory of MPWMD, the provisions of this section shall yield as necessary to respond to the conditions giving rise to the declaration or proclamation.

I. Sunset.

1. Without further action of the Board of Directors, Stage 4, when implemented due to non-compliance with regulatory targets, shall sunset for all CaliforniaAmerican Water Company Water Distribution Systems and water use restrictions shall revert to Stage 1 when the 12 month total production has been less than or equal to its then-current annual production target for two (2) consecutive months.

2. Physical Shortage Trigger: Without further action of the Board of Directors, Stage 4 shall sunset and water use restrictions shall revert to Stage 1 when remaining Total Storage Available computed consistent with Table XV-4 is

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 30 of 42 ends

greater than remaining Total Storage Required for two (2) consecutive months.

3. Regulatory Trigger: Without further action of the Board of Directors, Stage 4 shall sunset for that Water Distribution System(s) and water use restrictions shall revert to Stage 1 when the governmental or regulatory agency rescinds the request.

4. Emergency Trigger: Stage 4 shall sunset and water use restrictions shall revert to Stage 1 when the Board finds that a Water Supply Emergency no longer exists.

5. Restoration of Lower Stage. A Resolution causing the sunset of one or more provisions of Stage 4 may also activate any lower Stage as may be warranted for good cause by circumstances affecting a particular Water Distribution System, private Well, or Water User.

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 31 of 42 ends

Water Rationing Exemptions and Variances (MPWMD Rule 166) A. Special Needs Exemptions. The following needs shall be given additional Rations:

1. Medical and/or sanitation needs certified by a doctor;

2. Hospital and/or health care facilities that have achieved all BMPs for those uses;

3. Riparian irrigation using water efficient irrigation technology when required as a condition of a River Works Permit issued by the District;

4. Non-Residential Users that can demonstrate compliance with all District regulations appropriate for the type of use and where there is minimal exterior water use on the Water Meter or water supply serving the use.

B. Hardship Variances. The following shall be given consideration of additional Rations to meet extraordinary needs:

1. Health and safety situations on a case-by-case basis;

2. Drinking water for large livestock;

3. Commercial laundromats with signs advising full loads only;

4. Business in a home on a case-by-case basis;

5. Emergency, extreme, or unusual situations on a case-by-case basis.

C. No Exemption or Variance. The following categories of water use shall not qualify for an additional Ration:

1. Short-Term Residential Housing as defined in Rule 11 (Definitions);

2. Guests and short-term visitors;

3. Irrigation, other than variances allowed for required riparian irrigation or safety;

4. Filling pools, spas, ponds, fountains, etc;

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 32 of 42 ends

5. Leaks that are not repaired within 72 hours of notice.

D. Mandatory Conditions of Approval. Prior to approving any variance, the Site must be in compliance with all applicable District Rules and Regulations and the water conservation standards. Verification by District inspection may be conducted prior to granting a variance.

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 33 of 42 ends

Definitions Used in the 2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan (MPWMD Rule 167)
Acre-Foot – “Acre-Foot” shall mean an amount of water equal to 325,851 gallons.

Administrative Compliance Order – “Administrative Compliance Order” shall mean a written order issued by the General Manager directing any Person responsible for serious, continuing or recurring violations to take affirmative action to remedy consequences of those violations. Administrative Compliance Orders are in addition to all other legal remedies, criminal or civil, which may be pursued by the Water Management District. An Administrative Compliance Order may be issued in conjunction with a Cease & Desist Order.

Applicant – “Applicant” shall mean the Person or Persons responsible for completing the requirements of an application.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) – “Best Management Practices” shall mean a conservation measure or series of measures that is useful, proven, cost-effective, and generally accepted among conservation experts to reduce water consumption and protect water quality.

Bishop Water Distribution System – “Bishop Water Distribution System” or “Bishop” shall mean the California American Water subsystem as described in the purchase agreement between Bishop Water Company and California American Water dated September 1, 1996.

California-American Water Company Water Distribution System – “California-American Water Company Water Distribution System” shall mean all California-American Water Company Water Distribution Systems that rely, in whole or in part, on production or production offsets from the Carmel River System or the Seaside Coastal Subareas.

Carmel River System – “Carmel River System” shall mean water from the Carmel River and underlying alluvial aquifer.

CAWD/PBCSD Wastewater Reclamation Project Recycled Water Users – “CAWD/PBCSD Wastewater Reclamation Project Water Users” shall mean those Users of the wastewater reclamation project undertaken by the Carmel Area Wastewater District and the Pebble Beach Community Services District that supplies Reclaimed Water to the Golf Courses and certain open space areas within Pebble Beach.

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 34 of 42 ends

Cease & Desist Order – “Cease & Desist Order” shall mean an order issued by the General Manager prohibiting a Person from continuing a particular course of conduct. Cease & Desist Orders are in addition to all other legal remedies, criminal or civil, which may be pursued by the Water Management District. A Cease & Desist Order may be issued in conjunction with an Administrative Compliance Order.

CCF– “CCF” (or one-hundred cubic feet) is equivalent to 748 gallons.

Conservation Rates – “Conservation Rates” shall mean the increase in the water rates for California American Water customers at levels of either 25 percent (Level 1 Conservation Rates) or 40 percent (Level 2 Conservation Rates). Conservation Rates do not apply to Residential Tier 1 water use.

Conveyor Car Wash – “Conveyor Car Wash” shall mean a commercial car wash where the vehicle moves on a conveyor belt during the wash and the driver of the vehicle can remain in, or wait outside of, the vehicle.

District – See Monterey Peninsula Water Management District.

Dwelling Unit – “Dwelling Unit” shall mean single or multiple residences suitable for single household occupancy but shall not refer to non-permanent student or transient housing, the occupancy of which is projected to average 24 months or less.

Extractor – “Extractor” shall means a user, or consumer of water delivered by a water Well or Water-Gathering Facility, which is not a part of any Water Distribution System.

Flagrant Violation – “Flagrant Violation” shall mean any willful or wanton disregard of the Rules and Regulations of the District which results in unreasonable waste, contamination, or pollution of District waters by any Extractor, User, or by the Owner or Operator of a Well, Water-Gathering Facility or Water Distribution System.

Flow Restrictor – “Flow Restrictor” shall mean a device placed into the Water Distribution System by the distribution system Operator, or put into the output of a private Well, that restricts the volume of flow to the User.

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 35 of 42 ends

Graywater Irrigation System – “Graywater Irrigation System” shall mean an onsite wastewater treatment system designed to collect Graywater and transport it out of the structure for distribution in an Irrigation System.

Hidden Hills System – “Hidden Hills System” shall mean the California American Water subsystem as described in the purchase agreement between Carmel Valley Mutual Water Company and California American Water recorded July 8, 1994, Document #49389, Reel 3125, Page 696.

Household – “Household” shall mean all the people who occupy a housing unit. A housing unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room occupied (or if vacant, intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live separately from any other people in the building and that have direct access from the outside of the building or through a common hall.

In-Bay Car Wash – “In-Bay Car Wash” shall mean a commercial car wash where the driver pulls into bay, parks the car, and the vehicle remains stationary while either a machine moves over the vehicle to clean it or one or more employees of the car wash clean the vehicle, instead of the vehicle moving through a tunnel.

Interruption – “Interruption” shall mean an interruption for longer than 12 hours in the supply of Recycled Water to a Recycled Water Irrigation Area.

Laguna Seca Subarea – “Laguna Seca Subarea” shall mean one of the subdivisions of the Southern Seaside Subbasin. Its boundary is shown on a map maintained at the offices of the Water Management District, as that map may be amended from time to time.

Landscaping – “Landscaping” shall mean the arrangement of plants and other materials that may result in outdoor water use.

Lawn – “Lawn” shall mean an area of land planted with live, healthy grass which is regularly maintained, irrigated and groomed at a low, even height.

Main California American Water System – “Main California American Water System” shall mean the California American Water’s Water Distribution System that derives its Source of Supply from the Carmel River System and the Seaside Coastal Subareas of the Seaside Groundwater Basin.

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 36 of 42 ends

Master Meter – “Master Meter” shall mean a single Water Meter that supplies water to more than one Water User.

Measurable Precipitation – “Measureable Precipitation” shall mean rainfall of 0.1 inch or more.

Minimum Daily Water Ration – “Minimum Daily Water Ration” shall mean a minimum Water Ration of 90 gallons per day per Household.

Mobile Water Distribution System – “Mobile Water Distribution System” shall mean any Potable or Sub-potable Water delivery that originates at a location apart from the Site of use and that is delivered via a truck or other movable container. This definition includes, but is not limited to, trucked water. This definition shall not apply to deliveries of water by commercial companies in volumes less than or equal to 55 gallons per container.

Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance – “Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance” shall mean the ordinance found at California Code of Regulations, Title 23.

Waters, Division 2. Department of Water Resources, Chapter 2.7.

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (District) – “Monterey Peninsula Water Management District” (“District”) is a public agency created by the California State Legislature in 1977 and approved by the voters on June 6, 1978. The enabling legislation is found at West's California Water Code, Appendix Chapters 118-1 to 118-901.

Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System (MPWRS) – “Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System” (“MPWRS”) shall mean the surface water in the Carmel River and its tributaries, Groundwater in the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer which underlies the Carmel River, and Groundwater in the Seaside Groundwater Basin.

MPWMD– See Monterey Peninsula Water Management District.

Multi-Family Household – “Multi-Family Household” shall mean a Household where two or more Dwelling Units receive water from a Master Meter.

Non-Essential Water Use – “Non-Essential Water Use” shall mean uses of water that are acceptable during times of normal water availability, as long as proper procedures to maximize efficiency are followed. However, when water is in short supply, NonEssential Water Uses must be curtailed to preserve limited water resources for essential

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 37 of 42 ends

uses. Non-Essential Water Uses do not have health or safety impacts, are not required by regulation, and are not required to meet the core functions of a Non-Residential use.

Non-Residential – “Non-Residential” shall mean water uses not associated with Residential use.

These uses include Commercial, Industrial, Public Authority, Golf Course, Other Use, Non-Revenue Metered Use, and Reclaimed Water.

Non-Revenue Water – “Non-Revenue Water” shall mean those components of system input volume that are not billed and produce no revenue; equal to unbilled authorized consumption, plus apparent losses, plus real losses.

Open Space – “Open Space” shall mean public land area left in an un-built state as defined in the California Government Code, Section 65560. Open Space includes plazas, parks, and cemeteries.

Owner or Operator – “Owner or Operator” shall mean the Person to whom a Water-Gathering Facility is assessed by the County Assessor, or, if not separately assessed, the Person who owns the land upon which a Water-Gathering Facility is located.

Permanent Resident – “Permanent Resident” shall mean a Person who resides continuously in a Dwelling Unit for more than 30 days or a resident that can submit such other evidence to clearly and convincingly demonstrate permanent residency.

Positive Action Shut-Off Nozzle – “Positive Action Shut-Off Nozzle” shall mean a device that completely shuts off the flow of water from a hose when released.

Potable – “Potable” shall mean water that is suitable for drinking.

Pressure Regulating Device – “Pressure Regulating Device” shall mean a water pressure reducing device installed in the water line after the Water Meter that automatically reduces the pressure from the water supply main to a lower pressure.

Production Limit – “Production Limit” shall mean the maximum production permitted for a Water Distribution System.

Reclaimed Water – “Reclaimed Water” shall mean wastewater that has been treated to the tertiary level, including disinfection. Reclaimed Water is a form of Recycled Water.

Recycled Water – “Recycled Water” shall mean water that originates from a Sub-potable Source of Supply such as wastewater treated to the tertiary level.

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 38 of 42 ends

Recycled Water Irrigation Areas – “Recycled Water Irrigation Areas” shall mean the golf courses and other vegetated areas located within the Del Monte Forest that are being irrigated with Recycled Water.

Residency Affidavit – “Residency Affidavit” shall mean a document attesting to the number of Permanent Residents in a Household.

Residential – “Residential” shall mean water used for Household purposes, including water used on the premises for irrigating lawns, gardens and shrubbery, washing vehicles, and other similar and customary purposes pertaining to Single-Family and Multi-Family Dwellings.

Responsible Party – “Responsible Party” shall mean the Person or Persons who assume through the District Permit process legal responsibility for the proper performance of the requirements of a Permit holder as defined in the Rules and Regulations and/or in conditions attached to a Permit. “Responsible Party,” when used in the context of the 2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan, shall mean the Person who is responsible for paying the water bill. When a property is served by a private Well or a small Water Distribution System, the “Responsible Party” shall be the Water Users of the Well and the small distribution system Operator.

Riparian Corridor – “Riparian Corridor” shall mean all that area which comprises the Riverbed and riverbanks of the Carmel River which lies within the boundaries of the Carmel River Management Zone (Zone No. 3), and all those areas which lie within 25 lineal feet of the Riverbank Assessment Line, excepting however, all lands which lie outside of the Zone No. 3 boundary, and exempting Lawns, Landscaping and cultivated areas as shown on the spring 1983 aerial photographs taken by California American Water pursuant to the agreement with the District in accord with MPWMD Rule 123 A.

Ryan Ranch Water Distribution System – “Ryan Ranch Water Distribution System” or “Ryan Ranch” shall mean the California American Water subsystem as described in the purchase agreement between Neuville Co. N.V. (a Delaware Corporation) and California American Water dated April 30, 1990.

Seaside Basin Adjudication Decision – “Seaside Basin Adjudication Decision” or “Seaside Decision” shall mean the March 27, 2006 court adjudication, as amended, determining water rights in the Seaside Groundwater Basin that restrict California American Water production from the Coastal Subareas and Laguna Seca Subarea of the basin.

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 39 of 42 ends

Seaside Groundwater Basin – “Seaside Groundwater Basin” shall mean the set of geologic formations that stores, transmits, and yields water in the Seaside area, comprising of the Northern Seaside Subbasin and the Southern Seaside Subbasin. The Seaside Groundwater Basin also includes those areas known as the Northern Coastal Subarea, the Northern Inland Subarea, the Southern Coastal Subarea and the Laguna Seca Subarea.

Short-Term Residential Housing – “Short-Term Residential Housing” shall mean one or more Residential Dwelling Units on a property that are occupied by Visitors, are operated as a business and for which a fee is charged to occupy the premises.

Single Residential Household – “Single Residential Household” shall mean a Household that receives its water supply through a Water Meter that is not shared with other Households.

Site – “Site” shall mean any unit of land which qualifies as a Parcel or lot under the Subdivision Map Act, and shall include all units of land: (1) which are contiguous to any other Parcel (or are separated only by a road or easement); and (2) which have identical owners; and (3) which have an identical present use. The term “Site” shall be given the same meaning as the term “Parcel.”
Smart Controller – “Smart Controller” shall mean a weather-based device (typically a “timer”) that automatically controls an outdoor Irrigation System. Smart Controllers use weather, site or soil moisture data as a basis for determining an appropriate watering schedule.

Smart Controllers (commonly referred to as ET controllers, Weather Based Irrigation Controllers, smart sprinkler controllers, and water smart controllers) are a new generation of irrigation controllers that utilize prevailing weather conditions, current and historic Evapotranspiration, soil moisture levels, and other relevant factors to adapt water applications to meet the actual needs of the plants.

Source of Supply – “Source of Supply” shall mean the Groundwater, surface water, Reclaimed Water sources, or any other water resource where a Person, Owner or Operator gains access by a Water-Gathering Facility.

Sub-potable Water – “Sub-potable Water” shall mean water which is not fit for human consumption without treatment and shall include Reclaimed Water as that term is used in the Water Reclamation Law, and particularly in Section 13550 of the Water Code.

Total Storage Available – “Total Storage Available” shall mean the usable water as measured by the District on May 1 in any year that is contained in the Carmel Valley Alluvial

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 40 of 42 ends

Aquifer plus usable water in the Seaside Groundwater Basin and the usable water in the Los Padres Reservoir.

Total Storage Required – “Total Storage Required” shall mean the combination of demand remaining from May 1 to September 30 and carryover storage for the next Water Year that is required to meet the following Water Year production limit for California American Water from Carmel River sources set by State Water Resources Control Board Order WR 2009-0060, plus the production limit for California American Water from the Seaside Groundwater Basin set by the Court in its March 27, 2006 Seaside Basin Adjudication Decision and the production limit specified for non-California American Water Users from the Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System set in the District’s Water Allocation Program.

User – “User” shall mean a customer or consumer of water delivered by a Water Distribution System. User does not include any Owner or Operator of a Water Distribution System.

Each residence, commercial enterprise, or industrial enterprise shall be deemed a separate and distinct User.

Visitor-Serving Facility – “Visitor-Serving Facility” shall include all hotels, motels, restaurants, convention/meeting facilities, and service stations within the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. Other facilities may be designated as a Visitor- Serving Facility by the General Manager upon finding that such facility exists primarily for the use of tourists and the traveling public. Short term rentals of private property are not included under this definition.

Water Broom – “Water Broom” shall mean a water efficient broom-like cleaning device that uses a combination of water and air to clean hard surfaces with no runoff.

Water Credit – “Water Credit” shall mean a record allowing reuse of a specific quantity of water upon a specific Site. A Water Credit differs from a Water Use Credit in that it is not characterized by a Permanent Abandonment of Use, but may be the result of a temporary cessation of use.

Water Distribution System – “Water Distribution System” shall mean all works within the District used for the collection, storage, transmission or distribution of water from the Source of Supply to the Connection of a system providing water service to any Connection including all Water-Gathering Facilities and Water-Measuring Devices. In systems where there is a Water Meter at the point of Connection, the term “Water

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 41 of 42 ends

Distribution System” shall not refer to the User’s piping; in systems where there is no Water Meter at the point of Connection, the term “Water Distribution System” shall refer to the User’s piping.

Water Distribution System Operator – “Water Distribution System Operator” shall mean the Person or Persons who assume through the District Permit process legal responsibility for the proper performance of the requirements of a Water Distribution System Permit holder as defined in the Rules and Regulations and/or in conditions attached to a Permit.

Water-Gathering Facility – “Water-Gathering Facility” shall mean any device or method, mechanical or otherwise, for the production of water from dams, Groundwater, surface water, water courses, Reclaimed Water sources, or any other Source of Supply within the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District or a zone thereof. Water-Gathering Facilities shall include any water-production facility as defined in the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Law. This definition shall not apply to On-Site Cisterns that serve an existing single-Connection Residential situations where rainwater is captured for On-Site Landscape irrigation use.

Water Ration – “Water Ration” shall mean a specific amount of water available to each Water User during Stage 4 Water Rationing.

Water Supply Emergency – “Water Supply Emergency” shall mean a declaration pursuant to Regulation XV, The 2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan, that a water shortage emergency condition prevails within one or more Water Distribution Systems.

Water Use Credit – “Water Use Credit” shall mean a limited entitlement by a Person to use a specific quantity of water upon a specific Site. Water Use Credits shall be limited by time, and by other conditions as set forth in the District’s Rules and Regulations.

Water User – “Water User” shall mean Users of water for domestic or other uses from any Water Distribution System or private Well.

Water Waste – “Water Waste” shall mean the indiscriminate, unreasonable, or excessive running or dissipation of water as defined in Rule 162.

Water Year – “Water Year” shall mean the period from October 1 of one year to September 30 of the succeeding year.

2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan Adopted February 17, 2016

Page 42 of 42 ends

Well – “Well” shall mean any device or method, mechanical or otherwise, for the production of water from Groundwater supplies within the District excluding seepage pits and natural springs.

Water Meter – “Water Meter” shall mean any measuring device intended to measure water usage. The term “Water Meter” shall have the same meaning as the term “Water Measuring Device.”
Attachment 3: Resolution Approving the WSCP
amwater.com
July 1, 2021
Attention: Coordinator, Urban Water Management Plans
California Department of Water Resources
1416 9th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Adoption of California American Water’s Monterey County District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan
To Whom It May Concern:

This letter confirms that California American Water has formally adopted its 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan for its Monterey County District as required by the California Water Code Section 10642. These plans will be submitted to the California Department of Water Resources for review.

Sincerely,
Ian C. Crooks
Vice President, Engineering
California American Water
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District J 2020 Urban Water Management Plan J
Appendix J. Public Notices
1 Nina Miller
From: Nina Miller
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 11:56 AM
To: Nina Miller
Cc: Ian C Crooks; Catherine A Stedman; Jeroen Olthof
Subject: California American Water Monterey Division 2020 Urban Water Management Plan California American Water Monterey Division 2020 Urban Water Management Plan California American Water is in the process of preparing its Monterey County District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) as required by the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Act). The Act requires California American Water to notify cities and counties within its service areas that it is preparing its 2020 UWMP 60 days prior to holding a public hearing thereby encouraging public involvement and agency coordination. California American Water will notify you of the specific date, time, and location of this public hearing when finalized.

This letter serves as your official notice of preparation and intent to adopt the UWMP. A draft of the UWMP will be available for review in June 2021. Until that time, if you have any questions or comments regarding the Monterey County District UWMP, please contact Water Systems Consulting, Inc., the consultant responsible for the preparation of the UWMP at:

Jeroen Olthof, P.E.

Water Systems Consulting, Inc.
9815 Carroll Canyon Road, Suite 205
San Diego, CA 92131
(858) 397‐2617 ext. 301
jolthof@wsc‐inc.com
Sincerely,
Nina Miller
Manager, Capital Program and Asset Planning
California American Water
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Dave Stoldt BCC From: Nina Miller
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Dave Stoldt Cc: Candace Coleman; Catherine A Stedman; Jeroen Olthof Subject: Notice of Public Hearing California American Water Monterey District - 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Date: Thursday, June 10, 2021 10:50:23 AM
Notice of Public Hearing- California American Water Monterey District - 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by California American Water on June 17, 2021 at 1:00 P.M., via webinar https://bit.ly/3bO0C7O or call in (audio only) +1 916-244-8157, Phone Conference ID: 187 057 3#
The public hearing will be held to receive public comments and consider adoption of the Draft 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020 UWMP) and Draft Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP), which have been prepared in compliance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act.

Following the public hearing, California American Water may adopt the Draft 2020 UWMP and Draft WSCP with recommended modifications as a result of public input.

The Draft 2020 UWMP is a long-range planning document that assesses current water demand, projects future demand over a minimum 20-year planning horizon and identifies water resources and conservation efforts to meet future demand. The Draft WSCP contains details on California American Water’s water shortage contingency planning and shortage response actions.

A copy of the Draft 2020 UWMP, and Draft WSCP will be available for public review beginning on June 10, 2021, on the California American Water website https://www.amwater.com/caaw/Customer-Service-Billing/Water-Rates/GRC-Applications-andCustomer-Notifications Please contact California American Water if you require special accommodations.

If you’d like to provide comments on the Plans, you may submit written comments during the public hearing or via email at [email protected] no later than 1:00 P.M., June 18, 2021. If you have any questions regarding the 2020 UWMP, WSCP, or public hearing meeting, please contact Nina Miller at [email protected] or 831-884-3175.

Sincerely,
Nina Miller
Manager, Capital Program and Asset Planning
California American Water
Published by The Monterey Herald
P.O. Box 271 • Monterey, California 93942
(831) 726.4382

PROOF OF

PUBLICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Monterey
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid.

I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of The Monterey Herald, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published daily and Sunday in the City of Monterey, County of Monterey, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Monterey, State of California; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than 6 point), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit:

I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Signature
This space is reserved for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
On California American Water’s
Urban Water Management Plan
California American Water will hold a public
hearing on Thursday, June 17, 2021, on the
final draft of the 2020 Urban Water
Management Plan and Water Shortage
Contingency Plans for its Monterey County
District service area. This service area
includes the cities of Monterey, Pacific
Grove, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks,
Sand City, a portion of Seaside, Hidden
Hills and Ryan Ranch subdivisions, Bishop
subdivision including the area known as
Laguna Seca Ranch Estates and vicinity,
and certain unincorporated areas in the
County of Monterey. Copies of the plan will
be available for public review, and public
comment will be accepted. The hearing will
be held online at 1:00 p.m., Thursday, June
17, 2021.

The link for this meeting is as follows:
https://bit.ly/3bO0C7O
Or call in (audio only) +1 916-244-8157
Phone Conference ID: 187 057 3#
Draft plans are available for review in the
customer notifications section of
www.californiaamwater.com
Published June 2 & June 9, 2021

MURPHY NELSON MARKETING
Account No. 2140097
P.O. BOX 33368
SAN DIEGO, CA 92163
Legal No. 0006580196
2020 UWMP Notices Coastal Monterey
Ordered by:
06/02/21, 06/09/21
Executed on 06/09/2021 at Monterey, California.

California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District K 2020 Urban Water Management Plan K
Appendix K. Adopting
Resolution
amwater.com
July 1, 2021
Attention: Coordinator, Urban Water Management Plans
California Department of Water Resources
1416 9th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Adoption of California American Water’s Monterey County District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan
To Whom It May Concern:

Sincerely,
Ian C. Crooks
Vice President, Engineering
California American Water

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, et. al., Defendants and Respondents.

No. H029242.

June 23, 2006.

As Modified July 21, 2006.

Court of Appeal of California, Sixth District.
389 *389 Michael W. Stamp, Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp, Monterey, CA, for Appellants: Save Our Carmel River, et al. *390 David C. Laredo, Delay & Laredo, Pacific Grove, CA, Deborah Mall, City Atty., for Respondents: Monterey Peninsula Water Dist., et al., City of Monterey.
390
Charles R. Olson, Sanger & Olson, a Law Corp., San Francisco, Donald Hubbard, Hubbard & Hubbard LLP, for Real Parties in Interest: Foursome Development Co.
388 *388 BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J.

Appellants Save Our Carmel River, Patricia Bernardi and the Open Monterey Project appeal from the denial of their petition for a writ of mandate to overturn decisions by the City of Monterey (City) and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (Water District) to approve a water credit transfer. The City had found the water credit transfer was exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)[1] under the categorical exemption for replacement or reconstruction of existing facilities contained in section 15302 of the CEQA Guidelines.[2] The Water District had also approved the transfer, based in part on the City's exemption determination, and further found that the water credit transfer complied with the Water District's rules and regulations governing such transfers.

Appellants contend that the water credit transfer does not fall within the categorical exemption for replacement or reconstruction of existing structures or facilities. (Guidelines, § 15302.) They further contend that even if the categorical exemption were applicable, there was evidence that two of the exceptions contained in the Guidelines applied here to remove the project from exempt status. (Guidelines, §§ 15300.2, subd. (b), 15300.2, subd. (c).) Finally, they contend that the Water District violated its own rules in approving the transfer.

We find that section 15302 of the Guidelines, which provides that the replacement of an existing structure or facility is exempt from CEQA review, does not apply to the water credit transfer here. We further find that the Water District's approval of the transfer was not supported by substantial evidence in the record, in part because it was based on the City's exemption determination as lead agency, but also because the record reflected that the Water District did not consider the possible cumulative impacts of the water credit transfer, as expressly required by its rules. We will therefore reverse the trial court's denial of the writ of mandate and direct that the court enter an order granting the writ of mandate.

BACKGROUND
Save Our Carmel River v. MONTEREY PENINSULA, 46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 387 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 6th Appellate Dist. 2006 - Google Scholar 1/12/22, 12:26 PM https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1843619135503413505…CT,+et.+al.,+Defendants+and+Respondents.&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&pli=1 Page 2 of 16 I. Water Issues on the Monterey Peninsula — An Historical Perspective The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District was created by the State Legislature in 1977, based on findings that integrated water management was necessary because of severe water shortages in the area. The mandate of the Water District is to conserve and augment existing water supplies and to prevent waste and unreasonable use of those supplies. (Water Code Appendix, Chapter 118, § 118-2.) Nearly 25 years later, this court wrote that "[i]t is well documented that water availability is a critical problem throughout Monterey County . . . ." (Save our Peninsula *391 Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 108-109, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 326.) We noted that a Monterey County Ordinance passed in 1988 found that "`the potential exists that Monterey County's allocation of water will be exhausted so as to pose an immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare.'" (Ibid.) 391
The California-American Water Company (Cal-Am) is the main water supplier on the Monterey Peninsula, serving approximately 90 percent of the water users throughout the Monterey Peninsula Water District. Cal-Am draws on two principal sources of water for its customers: the Carmel River Basin and aquifers in the Seaside Basin. The primary source of Cal-Am's water supply is the Carmel River, either via surface diversion or from a number of wells situated along the lower Carmel River. In 1995, in response to complaints that Cal-Am was illegally taking water from the Carmel River, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) issued Order No. 95-10. Order No. 95-10 is generally considered to be the controlling factor in water allocation and water resource management on the Monterey Peninsula.

In Order No. 95-10, the State Water Board found that Cal-Am was diverting excess water from the Carmel River Basin "without a valid basis of right," causing environmental harm.[3] In a related decision, the State Water Board found that " [e]xisting diversions from the Carmel River have adversely affected the public trust resources in the river." Cal-Am was ordered by the state agency to significantly reduce its pumping from the Carmel River, to mitigate the adverse environmental effects of its excess usage and to develop a new plan for obtaining water legally. (Save our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at pp. 108-109, 104 Cal. Rptr.2d 326.) In addition to the Carmel River Basin, Cal-Am also extracts water from pumping in the Seaside Groundwater Basin.

Because State Water Board Order 95-10 required Cal-Am to limit its diversions from the Carmel River Basin, this necessitated that it maximize its production from the Seaside Basin. As a result of the increased reliance on production from these wells, the aquifers in the Seaside Basin have not been able to fully recharge in recent years and are being depleted.

Under the Water District's water allocation program, the Water District allocates shares of Cal-Am's total annual water supply among its eight member jurisdictions, including the City of Monterey. Each jurisdiction manages its water allocation. Permits for new or intensified use of water require Water District approval. When a jurisdiction assigns all of its allocated water for new projects within the jurisdiction, it is "out of water" and cannot issue any further permits that require new water use. The Water District Rules[4] provide that each new or expanded water use shall be "strictly accounted for." (District Rule 32-B.) An environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for the District's allocation program 392 mandated that the District institute *392 a 15 percent water conservation program.

A. The Water Use Credit Program — District Rule 25.5
As part of its oversight of water allocation and distribution, the Water District established a program whereby a water customer may obtain and reuse water credits when water use on a particular property is reduced or discontinued. This program is described in Water District Rule 25.5. A reduction of water use, whether by changing to a less-intensive use, by retrofitting equipment with water conserving devices, or by abandoning or demolishing a building, results in a water Save Our Carmel River v. MONTEREY PENINSULA, 46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 387 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 6th Appellate Dist. 2006 - Google Scholar 1/12/22, 12:26 PM https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1843619135503413505…CT,+et.+al.,+Defendants+and+Respondents.&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&pli=1 Page 3 of 16 credit that may be used later on the same site.

The property owner applies to the Water District for the water credit and the District calculates the amount of the credit based upon the number and types of water-using fixtures that will be discontinued. A 15 percent reduction is figured into the credit, to be reserved by the District pursuant to its mandated conservation program. (See District Rule 25.5-A.1.) Thus the credit received by the water customer is only 85 percent of the reduction in capacity.

Under Rule 25.5-A.1, a documented water credit obtained from the District "may be applied to, and shall allow future water use on that Site at any time within a period of 60 months." The owner may apply for one extension of the 60- month period. However after this time, "any remaining unused Water Use Credit shall expire." There are no provisions for further extensions.

B. The Water Credit Transfer Program — District Rule 28-B In 1993, the Water District began the Water Credit Transfer Program as a means to facilitate commercial expansion in the community while also supporting the District's conservation goals. Under the Water Credit Transfer Program, transfers of documented water credits (for commercial and industrial property only) are allowed from an existing commercial use to an expanding commercial use in the same jurisdiction. In 1995, a provision was added to the rule authorizing a transfer from a commercial use to a jurisdiction's water allocation. Water credit transfers must be approved by the Water District Board of Directors, with prior approval of the jurisdiction in which the property is located.

In a property-to-property water credit transfer, the credit may only be used for water use intensification purposes, "as proposed by a current application for a water permit." (Rule 28-B.7.) Transferred credits "shall not be `banked' for future use at any new or different site." (Rule 28-B.7.) In a property-to-jurisdiction water credit transfer, the future use of the credits "shall be at the discretion of the jurisdiction." (Rule 28-B.8.) The effect of any water credit transfer is "the irrevocable extinction of any right or entitlement to the actual water use, water use capacity, or water credit which has been transferred from the originating (transferring) site." (Rule 28-B.15.) Because any water credit is subject to a 15 percent reduction and reservation by the District pursuant to Rule 25.5, only 85 percent of the water use capacity is actually transferred in a water credit transfer. Thus a "key assumption" of the water credit transfer program is that "transfers will result in net reduced water use." In 2000, in order to test this assumption, the Water District ordered a report to determine whether or not water demand had actually been reduced as a result of the water credit programs. The preliminary *393 report indicated that the anticipated water savings from the water credit transfer program were not occurring. There were concerns that commercial water use factors did not accurately reflect actual historic water use at the transferring site. A final study completed in 2001 was "inconclusive" due to the lack of sufficient verifiable data. The data that was collected showed an increase in acre-feet of water actually used as a result of the water credit transfer program, rather than a decrease. 393
In 2002, the Water District determined that "the water transfer program had not resulted in the anticipated savings that had originally motivated the program and, in some cases, may have resulted in an increase in water usage." The water credit transfer program was discontinued, but was then reinstated the following year, in 2003, in response to a lawsuit by some of the District's jurisdictions. In reinstating the program, the District clarified that approval of a water credit transfer application is a discretionary act by the Board that requires environmental review. This language was added to District Rule 28-B.1: "Due to the District's ongoing concern about the viability of the available water supply and the possibility that water transfers may result in additional water usage, water transfers shall be approved by the Board of Directors, subject to the other provisions of this Rule, if the transfer will not have an adverse impact on the water supply. In exercising its discretion, the Board of Directors shall consider the impacts of the application under consideration, as well as the cumulative impacts of other transfers, on the water supply." Save Our Carmel River v. MONTEREY PENINSULA, 46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 387 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 6th Appellate Dist. 2006 - Google Scholar 1/12/22, 12:26 PM https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1843619135503413505…CT,+et.+al.,+Defendants+and+Respondents.&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&pli=1 Page 4 of 16 In enacting the 2003 ordinances that reinstated the Water Credit Transfer Program with an additional requirement for individual environmental assessment, the Water District Board indicated an intent to prepare an EIR to address concerns about the program in general, including whether it was accomplishing its water savings goals or whether it was, according to a staff report, "exacerbating current environmental damage to local water resources." However, the Board later voted not to proceed with an EIR.[5]
A staff report in July of 2004 reflected ongoing concerns about the Water Credit Transfer Program. Staff noted that since the program had been initiated in 1993, circumstances had changed regarding water issues on the Monterey Peninsula.

First and foremost, the State Water Board's Order 95-10 had severely limited the water supply within the District and had mandated a comprehensive water conservation plan in the region. In letters from the State Water Board to the Water District clarifying Order 95-10, the State Board had indicated that the water credit transfer program might violate both the letter and spirit of Order 95-10. Although the amount of water usage that had been transferred thus far pursuant to the water credit transfer program was relatively small (26 transfers totaling 60.843 acre-feet) in relation to Cal-Am's total water production supply, District staff wrote that "there is the potential for increased utilization of the program, particularly as water supplies are less available in the local jurisdictions and transfers provide one of the only ways to obtain a water permit for expanded uses."
Before turning to the water credit transfer in this case, it will be useful to have in mind the applicable requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

II. CEQA Overview
"CEQA embodies our state's policy that `the long-term protection of the environment *394 . . . shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions.'" (Architectural Heritage Assn. v. County of Monterey (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1100, 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 469; § 21001, subd. (d).) As this court has observed, "the overriding purpose of CEQA is to ensure that agencies regulating activities that may affect the quality of the environment give primary consideration to preventing environmental damage. [Citation.]" (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 117, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 326.) Consistent with this strong environmental policy, the CEQA statutes and the Guidelines issued by the State Resources Agency to implement CEQA "have established a three-tiered process to ensure that public agencies inform their decisions with environmental considerations." (Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 106, 112, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 612.) 394
"The first tier is jurisdictional, requiring that an agency conduct a preliminary review in order to determine whether CEQA applies to a proposed activity. (Guidelines, §§ 15060, 15061.)" (Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 112, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 612.) CEQA applies if the activity is a "project" under the statutory definition, unless the project is exempt. If the agency finds the project is exempt from CEQA under any of the exemptions expressly set forth in the statute and in the Guidelines, no further environmental review is necessary. If no exemption applies, the agency proceeds to the second tier and conducts an initial study in order to determine "if the project may have a significant effect on the environment." (Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (a).) If the initial study shows that there is "no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment," the agency prepares a negative declaration so stating. (Guidelines, § 15063(b)(2); San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v.

Metropolitan Water Dist. (1999) 71 Cal. App.4th 382, 389-390, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 836.) If the project does not qualify for a negative declaration, the agency must proceed to the third step in the process, full environmental review in an EIR. (Guidelines, §§ 15063, subd. (b)(1), 15080; Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 113, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 612; §§ 21100, 21151.)
The case before us concerns only the first step of the process, namely the determination that the project was categorically exempt from CEQA.

Subdivision (b) provides that "[a]ll exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant." (Guidelines, § 15300.2, subd. (b).) Subdivision (c) provides that "[a] categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances." (Guidelines, § 15300.2, subd. (c).)
A determination by the agency that a project is categorically exempt constitutes an implied finding that none of the exceptions applies. (Association for Protection etc. Values v. City of Ukiah, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 731, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 488.)
III. The Water Credit Transfer in This Case
In November of 1994, a commercial building complex located on Foam Street in Monterey, totaling approximately 11,274 square feet, was demolished. The uses in the building complex included a plumbing shop, barber shop, bakery, massage parlor and antique store. Based on the number of fixtures on the property, the District calculated a water credit of 0.789 acre-feet. A coordinated commercial development was planned in phases for the entire block of properties where the Foam Street property is located. In the first phase, the property where the building was demolished was to be used as a parking lot. That has been its continuing use since 1994.

On August 24, 2004, Foursome informed the City that it proposed either to create an addition to its office complex at 765 Wave Street or to design and develop a new structure on a vacant lot owned by it at 860 Wave Street. These locations were in the vicinity of the demolished building *396 on the Foam Street property.[6] The letter asked the City to permit the transfer of the .789 acre-feet of water credit allocated to the Foam Street property to the City for approximately one year, "to be held in reserve" until the architectural plans were complete, and then to be re-transferred for use at the new site. As the letter acknowledged, this procedure would effectively "eliminate the expiration date of November 1, 2004 as established by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District." 396
On August 27, 2004, Foursome applied to the Water District for a property-to-jurisdiction water credit transfer from 784 Foam Street to the City of Monterey, pursuant to District Rule 28-B. The application noted that the water credit was due to expire on November 1, 2004. The water credit transfer was placed on the agenda of the Water District's board meeting on October 18, 2004.

On September 15, 2004, the Water District's Water Demand Manager, Stephanie Pintar, wrote to the City regarding Foursome's application for a water credit transfer. Pintar emphasized that under Water District Rule 28-B.1, the Water District Board in approving a water credit transfer must find that the transfer "will not have an adverse impact on the water supply" and must also consider the impacts of the transfer, as well as the cumulative impacts of other transfers, on the water supply. Pintar asked to review the City's environmental analysis, and in particular the City's determination as to cumulative impacts relating to the transfer.

The City approved the water credit transfer from 784 Foam Street to the City of Monterey and issued a "Notice of Exemption" on September 27, 2004, finding the project to be categorically exempt from CEQA under the Class 2 exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15302, for replacement of an existing structure. The notice explained that the project was exempt as a Class 2 exemption because it involved a transfer of a water credit from a previously existing building to the City's water allocation, which the City stated it would re-transfer back to the same site "with the understanding that the property owner will construct a similar-sized building to that which previously existed on the site." On September 28, 2004, the City responded to the inquiry from Water Demand Manager Pintar. City planner Richard Rerig explained that upon review he had determined that the water credit transfer could not have a significant effect on the environment. The letter notified the District that the City had found the water credit transfer to be exempt from CEQA and that the City had filed a Notice of Exemption.

The administrative record does not contain any further evidence of any environmental evaluation of the water credit transfer by the City. However, in a declaration later provided to the court, City planner Rerig stated that it was his opinion that the water credit transfer "could not possibly have a significant effect on the environment." He determined there were no cumulative impacts from this water *397 credit transfer because any new building on the site would be required to use 15 percent less water than the buildings that previously occupied the site, due to the mandatory 15 percent reduction of the credit under the Water District's conservation policy. 397
At the October 18, 2004 board meeting of the Water District, Water Demand Manager Pintar recommended that the water credit transfer be approved. Pintar noted that the District would retain 15 percent of the credit, resulting in a net transfer of .671 acre-feet. She concluded that the transfer met the requirements of District Rule 28-B. The staff report explained that the transfer would not result in cumulative impacts because the City had found it was categorically exempt from CEQA. The report acknowledged that this was the first water credit transfer application that the Water District Board had considered since the language had been added to Rule 28-B.1 mandating consideration of adverse Save Our Carmel River v. MONTEREY PENINSULA, 46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 387 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 6th Appellate Dist. 2006 - Google Scholar 1/12/22, 12:26 PM https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1843619135503413505…CT,+et.+al.,+Defendants+and+Respondents.&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&pli=1 Page 7 of 16 impacts on the water supply, and expressly requiring the Board to consider the cumulative impacts of other transfers. In response to a question by a Board member regarding the cumulative impacts of transfers of other water credits due to expire, Pintar conceded she "did not look at similar properties with credits that would expire in the near term." A representative of Foursome spoke at the Water District board meeting about a planned development on the entire block of properties, including the property entitled to a water credit. He asked the Board to allow the water credit transfer to the City so that the credit could "be held in abeyance" until plans for the development were finalized.

Appellants submitted a letter to the Board, objecting to the proposed water credit transfer on CEQA grounds, as well as on the basis that it violated the District's own Rules. They contended that the water credit transfer did not fall within the Class 2 categorical exemption because it was not a replacement of an existing structure. Furthermore, there was evidence in the record showing environmental impacts from the water credit transfer, in the form of studies commissioned by the District indicating that the net result of water credit transfers was an increase in overall water demand. The letter noted that if the Board approved this transfer, it would be the first time the Board had ever allowed a credit to be transferred to a jurisdiction to be held for future use in order to avoid the ten-year mandatory expiration date.

The letter referred to records showing numerous other on-site water credits that could be similarly "banked" by transferring them for a holding period to the City, in the event that the Board established a precedent with the Foursome transfer. The letter pointed out that the District Rules expressly prohibited banking of water credits for future use. (Rule 28-B.7) Furthermore, the Rules provided for no exception to the ten-year expiration date in Rule 25.5.

The Board voted to approve the water credit transfer by a vote of 4 to 2. The dissenters expressed concerns about the CEQA exemption and about compliance with District Rule 28-B, particularly the lack of any cumulative impact analysis.

Appellants filed their petition for a writ of mandate on October 25, 2004, contending that the Water District and the City had violated CEQA in approving the water credit transfer based on the Class 2 exemption without any environmental review, and that the Water District in addition had violated its own Rules. Appellants asked the court to set aside the approvals of the project. Foursome and Cal-Am participated as real parties in interest. *398 The court denied the writ petition. The court found that substantial evidence supported the determination that the Class 2 exemption in Guidelines section 15302 applied. The court reasoned that because the credit would not be used for any new or additional structure that was not based on historic use, it fell within the class of exemptions for replacement or reconstruction of existing structures. The court found that no exceptions applied. Acknowledging that studies done by the District appeared to show that the water credit transfer programs did not generally result in any actual water savings, the court found that this did not constitute substantial evidence showing a possibility of an adverse environmental impact because "the current use will be substantially the same as the historical use associated with the site." The court further found that substantial evidence did not support a finding that there would be cumulative impacts from successive projects of this same type. The court relied on evidence that there was a 15 percent reduction figured into the water credit, and that only 26 transfers had been approved by the District since the program had been initiated in 1993. Finally, the court found that the requirements of Rule 28-B were satisfied by the District's finding that this was not a complex transfer involving multiple sites and therefore did not result in any cumulative impact. 398

ANALYSIS
I. Standards of Review
As always, we start with the standards that will guide our review.

Save Our Carmel River v. MONTEREY PENINSULA, 46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 387 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 6th Appellate Dist. 2006 - Google Scholar 1/12/22, 12:26 PM https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1843619135503413505…CT,+et.+al.,+Defendants+and+Respondents.&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&pli=1 Page 8 of 16 A. The City's Action
The City's determination that the project was exempt from compliance with CEQA requirements was a quasi-legislative action, where no administrative hearing was held or required. A preliminary determination such as this is subject to judicial review under the abuse of discretion standard in Public Resources Code section 21168.5. (Association for a Cleaner Environment v. Yosemite Community College Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 629, 636, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 560; Association for Protection etc. Values v. City of Ukiah, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th 720, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 488.) Our inquiry focuses on "whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence." (§ 21168.5.)
Where the issue turns only on an interpretation of the language of the Guidelines or the scope of a particular CEQA exemption, this presents "a question of law, subject to de novo review by this court." (Fairbank v. City of Mill Valley (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1243, 1252, 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 233; Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1192, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 447.) Our task is "to determine whether, as a matter of law, the [project] met the definition of a categorically exempt project." (Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce v. City of Santa Monica (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 786, 792, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 731.) Thus as to the question whether the activity comes within the categorical class of exemptions, "we apply a de novo standard of review, not a substantial evidence standard." (Ibid.; See also, Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 573, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 139, 888 P.2d 1268.)
Where the record contains evidence bearing on the question whether the project qualifies for the exemption, such as reports or other information submitted in *399 connection with the project, and the agency makes factual determinations as to whether the project fits within an exemption category, we determine whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the agency's decision. (Apartment Assn. of Greater Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1162, 1173, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 504; Fairbank v. City of Mill Valley, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 1252, 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 233; Dehne v. County of Santa Clara (1981) 115 Cal. App.3d 827, 842, 171 Cal.Rptr. 753.) There must be "`substantial evidence that the [activity is] within the exempt category of projects.' [Citation.]" (Magan v. County of Kings (2002) 105 Cal.App.4th 468, 475, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 344.) Generally speaking, the court "may consider only the administrative record in determining whether a quasi-legislative decision was supported by substantial evidence within the meaning of Public Resources Code section 21168.5." (Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 573, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 139, 888 P.2d 1268.)
399
An agency's determination that the project falls within a categorical exemption includes an implied finding that none of the exceptions identified in the Guidelines is applicable. The burden then shifts to the challenging party to produce evidence showing that one of the exceptions applies to take the project out of the exempt category. (Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce v. City of Santa Monica, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 795, 124 Cal. Rptr.2d 731; City of Pasadena v. State of California, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at pp. 824-825, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 766, disapproved on another point in Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court, supra, 9 Cal.4th 559, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 139, 888 P.2d 1268.) The question whether an exception applies is a question of fact, which is subject on appeal to review for substantial evidence. (Fairbank v. City of Mill Valley, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1259-1260, 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 233.) Some courts apply the "fair argument" test, holding that an exemption cannot stand if the challengers present a fair argument that an exception applies. (Id. at p. 1259, 89 Cal. Rptr.2d 233.) Other courts apply an ordinary substantial evidence test. (Id. at pp. 1259-1260, 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 233.)
B. The Water District's Action
Save Our Carmel River v. MONTEREY PENINSULA, 46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 387 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 6th Appellate Dist. 2006 - Google Scholar 1/12/22, 12:26 PM https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1843619135503413505…CT,+et.+al.,+Defendants+and+Respondents.&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&pli=1 Page 9 of 16 In reviewing the Water District's approval of the water credit transfer, where a public hearing was held and an adjudicatory decision was made, we apply the test for administrative mandamus. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5.) "Section 1094.5 clearly contemplates that at minimum, the reviewing court must determine both whether substantial evidence supports the administrative agency's findings and whether the findings support the agency's decision. . . . [W]hen petitioned for a writ of mandamus, a court's inquiry should extend, among other issues, to whether `there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion.' Subdivision (b) [of section 1094.5] then defines `abuse of discretion' to include instances in which the administrative order or decision `is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.' (Italics added.) Subdivision (c) declares that `in all . . . cases' (italics added) other than those in which the reviewing court is authorized by law to judge the evidence independently, [fn. omitted] `abuse of discretion is established if the court determines that the findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole record.' [Citation.]" (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-515, 113 400 Cal.Rptr. 836, 522 P.2d 12; Stolman v. City of Los Angeles *400 (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 916, 923, 8 Cal. Rptr.3d 178.) II. Does the Class 2 Exemption Apply to This Project?
In order to answer this question, we must first address the threshold issue, as to which the parties disagree, namely what is "the project" in this case?
A. What is the "Project?"
A "project" under CEQA is a discretionary activity by a public agency that "may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. . . ." (§ 21065, subd. (a).) It includes agency approval of "a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement." (§ 21065, subd. (c).) Appellants contend that the project in this case is the transfer of the water use credit from the Foam Street property to the City of Monterey. Foursome argues that this is too narrow a definition of the project. Foursome points out that under the Guidelines definition, a "project" is "the whole of an action." (Guidelines, § 15378, subd. (a).) In Foursome's view, the whole project in this case is the replacement of the commercial structure that was demolished on the Foam Street property in 1994. Thus the water credit transfer must be evaluated in this context. The City essentially shares this point of view, arguing that the water credit transfer is simply one of the aspects of the replacement of the building on the Foam Street property, and that the Class 2 exemption applies to all aspects of the project.

Although the Guidelines define a project as "the whole of an action" (Guidelines, § 15378, subd. (a)), an agency action qualifies as a project if it is "necessary to the carrying out of some private project involving a physical change in the environment." (Simi Valley Recreation & Park Dist. v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 648, 664, 124 Cal.Rptr. 635, italics omitted.) Here it appears that the transfer of water credits was a necessary step in the eventual plan by Foursome to develop the block of properties that included 784 Foam Street. Furthermore, the water credit transfer was also an activity unto itself, as it was the approval of an "entitlement" to future water rights. (§ 21065, subd. (c).)
Foursome contends that the water credit transfer by itself could not possibly cause any direct or indirect change to the environment. As appellants point out, however, courts have considered water credit transfers to have environmental impact. (See, e.g., Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at pp. 129-131, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 326.) Furthermore, the record in this case reflects that the State Water Board considered water credit transfers to have an effect on the water supply. And the Water District has expressly stated its "concern about the viability of the available water supply and the possibility that water transfers may result in additional water usage, . . ." (District Rule 28-B.) Thus the Water District, which supervises and manages water distribution in the area, Save Our Carmel River v. MONTEREY PENINSULA, 46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 387 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 6th Appellate Dist. 2006 - Google Scholar 1/12/22, 12:26 PM https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1843619135503413505…T,+et.+al.,+Defendants+and+Respondents.&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&pli=1 Page 10 of 16 views a water credit transfer to be an activity with possible environmental consequences, and its Board is required in approving a transfer to consider whether it would have "an adverse impact on the water supply." In this case, if the water credit were not transferred to the City, it would expire under Rule 25.5. Thus the transfer of the credit, to be held for future development of the property, results in an increment of water that will be used rather than conserved. Thus the City's action can be seen as causing a "reasonably foreseeable indirect physical *401 change in the environment." (§ 21065, subd. (a).)
401
For all of these reasons, and bearing in mind that "`project' is given a broad interpretation in order to maximize protection of the environment" (McQueen v. Board of Directors (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1143, 249 Cal.Rptr. 439, disapproved on another point in Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court, supra, 9 Cal.4th 559, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 139, 888 P.2d 1268), we conclude that the water credit transfer in this case was a "project" within the meaning of CEQA.

This conclusion is fully supported by the record. Foursome applied here only for a transfer of water credits and the only action taken by the City was to approve the water credit transfer. Furthermore, the City's Notice of Exemption described the "Project" as a "Transfer of commercial water credit from 784 Foam Street to the City of Monterey." Similarly, the "Project Title" on the Notice of Exemption was "Water credit transfer from 784 Foam Street to City of Monterey." And the Water District staff report identified the project as a "Commercial-to-jurisdiction Water Use Credit Transfer." B. Was the Project Categorically Exempt Under Guideline 15032? The Guidelines provide that certain classes of projects "have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment." (Guidelines, § 15300.) Since a determination that a project falls within a categorical exemption excuses any further compliance with CEQA whatsoever, we must construe the exemptions narrowly in order to afford the fullest possible environmental protection. (Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at p. 1193, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 447; County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 966, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 66; Dehne v. County of Santa Clara, supra, 115 Cal.App.3d at p. 842, 171 Cal.Rptr. 753.) " [E]xemption categories are not to be expanded or broadened beyond the reasonable scope of their statutory language." (Dehne v. County of Santa Clara, supra, 115 Cal.App.3d at p. 842, 171 Cal.Rptr. 753; Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 125, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 580, 939 P.2d 1280.) These rules ensure that in all but the clearest cases of categorical exemptions, a project will be subject to some level of environmental review.

The Class 2 exemption at issue here consists of "replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced, . . ." (Guidelines, § 15302.) Subdivision (b) of this Guideline provides that it applies specifically to "[r]eplacement of a commercial structure with a new structure of substantially the same size, purpose, and capacity." (Guidelines, § 15302, subd. (b).) On its face, this exemption does not apply to a water credit transfer, which is neither a structure nor a facility and therefore does not fit the elements of this exemption.

The City contends that the exemption applies for the reasons stated on its Notice of Exemption: "The project will transfer a documented water credit from a previously-existing building at 784 Foam Street to the City's water allocation. The City will then commit the water credit back to the same site with the understanding that the property owner will construct a similar-sized building to that which previously existed on the site." Even if we were to consider the water credit transfer at issue here as part of an ongoing project to replace an existing *402 structure, the City's determination that the requirements of the Class 2 exemption were met must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (Magan v. County of Kings, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 475, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 344.) In our view, the City's "understanding" that there will be a replacement structure of similar size and purpose on the same site does not amount to substantial evidence within the meaning of CEQA. The Guidelines define "substantial evidence" as "enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to 402
Save Our Carmel River v. MONTEREY PENINSULA, 46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 387 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 6th Appellate Dist. 2006 - Google Scholar 1/12/22, 12:26 PM https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1843619135503413505…CT,+et.+al.,+Defendants+and+Respondents.&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&pli=1 Page 11 of 16 support a conclusion, . . . ." Substantial evidence does not include "[a]rgument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative . . . ." (Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (a).) In the record before us, there is no "information" from which the City could conclude that the contemplated building meets the elements of the Class 2 exemption, in that it is a replacement structure "located on the same site" as the former structure and that it will have "substantially the same purpose and capacity" as the replaced structure. (Guidelines, § 15302.) There were no plans, reports or proposals submitted with the application for a water credit transfer that showed a replacement structure to be built on the Foam Street property where the commercial complex was demolished in 1994.

The only application to the City consisted of Foursome's letter of August 24, 2004, which stated that Foursome proposed to build either an "addition" to an office complex or a "new structure," the purpose of which was not described.

Both of these were to be located on sites other than the Foam Street property at issue here. As we have noted, categorical exemptions must be carefully applied and supported by the evidence. (Dehne v. County of Santa Clara, supra, 115 Cal.App.3d at p. 842, 171 Cal.Rptr. 753.) At the very least a Class 2 exemption determination must be based on evidence from which the agency can compare the replacement structure and the existing structure. Foursome's application letter does not provide this evidence.

We have found no cases applying a Class 2 exemption that have extended its application beyond the reasonable scope of its plain language. The typical application involves an agency's consideration of plans for reconstruction or replacement of an existing structure. For example, in Dehne v. County of Santa Clara, supra, 115 Cal. App.3d 827, 171 Cal.Rptr. 753, the applicant submitted plans and proposals to modernize its cement plant. The evidence in the record showed that the new plant would be in the same location as the existing facility, that the new facilities would not extend outside the area bounded by the present facility, that the purpose of the new facility would be the same, and that it would have substantially the same production capacity. (Id. at p. 829, 171 Cal.Rptr. 753.) On review of the agency's determination that the project was exempt, the court was thus able to evaluate whether the elements of the Class 2 exemption were met and it found that they were. In the case before us, there is no similar factual predicate for the City's determination of a Class 2 exemption. There is only the City's "understanding" that a new structure will eventually be built that qualifies for the exemption.

Foursome contends that the City was in possession of plans for the replacement structure, and refers us to several documents contained in City's files.[7] These documents show that in 1991 Foursome's *403 predecessor company wrote a letter to the City, requesting an amendment to a 1989 use permit to allow use as a parking lot of property at 738 and 790 Foam Street and 799 Wave Street. This was to be a first phase for future development of the property. Use permits issued in 1992 and extended in 1993 refer to a phase one parking lot and a phase two parking structure and a 17,972 square-foot commercial building to be constructed on property at 738 and 790 Foam Street and 799 Wave Street. The use permits provide that they expire on March 9, 1994. No site plans are included in the record before us and no further documentation appears until Foursome's letter to the Water district in 1999, requesting a five-year extension of the water credit at issue here.
403
The building that was demolished in 1994, for which the credit was issued, was 11,274 square feet. Its uses included retail shops, a bakery and a massage parlor. The project referred to in the 1992 use permit, which has apparently expired, consists of a parking structure and a 17,972 square foot commercial building of indeterminate use, to be located on several sites that may include the site where the building was demolished. The 2004 application for a water credit transfer refers to two different buildings on entirely different sites. In order to support a Class 2 exemption, there must be substantial evidence that the activity meets the requirements of the exempt category. (Magan v. County of Kings, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 475, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 344.) In other words, there must be evidence from which it can be concluded that a new structure will replace an existing structure "on the same site" with "substantially the same purpose and capacity." (Guidelines, § 15302.) The record before us, even including the prior proposals and permits for the property, does not contain such evidence.

Foursome, the City and the Water District all emphasize the small amount of the water credit at issue here, when viewed in the context of the water supply in the entire region. They argue that a water credit transfer of such a small amount cannot possibly have any significant effect on the environment. This argument does not bear on the Class 2 exemption *404 determination. The size of the project in relation to the surrounding area is not an element of a Class 2 exemption.

To the extent that the project's size is relevant to the cumulative impacts analysis, we will address this issue in that portion of the discussion.
404
Foursome argues in its briefing on appeal that there may be other CEQA exemptions that apply to the water credit transfer. Since these issues were not raised below, we do not address them here. The City's exemption determination was based only on Guidelines section 15302. We express no opinion as to whether any other categorical exemption or other CEQA exemption may apply or as to what level of environmental review may be appropriate for this project.

We find as a matter of law that the water credit transfer in this case does not fit the definition of a categorically exempt project under the Class 2 exemption defined in Guidelines section 15302. We further find that substantial evidence in the record does not support City's determination that the project met the requirements of a Class 2 replacement structure. "An agency abuses its discretion if there is no basis in the record for its determination that the project was exempt from CEQA." (Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 114, 62 Cal. Rptr.2d 612.) We therefore conclude that the City's exemption determination constituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion. (§ 21168.5.) III. The Exceptions to Exempt Status
Since we conclude that the water credit transfer did not come within the Class 2 categorical exemption, we need not reach the next step of the analysis, which focuses on the question whether any exceptions to the exemption apply.

Furthermore, the evidence submitted by appellants to support the exceptions they contend applied here was not before the City when it determined that this project was exempt. Such evidence was, however, before the Board of the Water District, when it held a hearing on Foursome's request for a water credit transfer. We will therefore discuss appellants' evidence in the context of the Water District decision.

IV. The Water District Approval
Under CEQA law, the City acted as the "lead agency" with the principal responsibility for approving the water credit transfer and preparing any environmental documents. (Guidelines, § 15367.) The Water District was the "responsible agency." (Guidelines, § 15381.) As the responsible agency, the Water District is entitled to rely on the lead agency's environmental documents in acting on whatever aspect of the project requires its approval. (§ 21080.1; Guidelines, § 15050, subd. (c).) The responsible agency typically has permitting authority or discretionary approval power over some aspect of the project for which a lead agency is primarily responsible. (§ 21069; Guidelines, §§ 15096, 15381; Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 173-175, 217 Cal.Rptr. 893.) And the "responsible agency may refuse to approve a project in order to avoid direct or indirect environmental Save Our Carmel River v. MONTEREY PENINSULA, 46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 387 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 6th Appellate Dist. 2006 - Google Scholar 1/12/22, 12:26 PM https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1843619135503413505…T,+et.+al.,+Defendants+and+Respondents.&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&pli=1 Page 13 of 16 effects of that part of the project which the responsible agency would be called on to carry out or approve." (Guidelines, § 15042.)
Here the water credit transfer program was created by the Water District, which was responsible for ensuring that any water credit transfer complied with its Rules, namely Rule 25.5 and Rule 28-B. The Water District's approval of the project, although it was based in part on the City's *405 environmental assessment, was a determination independent from that of the City and must be separately evaluated against the Water District's Rules. As noted, our review of the Water District's action consists of a determination whether the District's findings supported its decision and whether substantial evidence supported the findings. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).) 405
Appellants first contend that in approving the water credit transfer the Water District made no findings that the transfer would not have "an adverse impact on the water supply," or that it had considered "the cumulative impacts of other transfers[] on the water supply" as required by Rule 28-B.1. We believe the District made sufficient findings. The findings of an administrative agency can be informal so long as they serve the purposes of enabling the parties to determine whether and on what basis to appeal and enabling a reviewing court to determine the basis for the decision. (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 517, 113 Cal.Rptr. 836, 522 P.2d 12.) Findings may consist of adopting the recommendations in a staff report. (McMillan v. American Gen. Fin. Corp. (1976) 60 Cal. App.3d 175, 183-184, 131 Cal.Rptr. 462.) That is what happened here at the Water District Board meeting, where a motion to adopt the staff recommendations and approve the water transfer was passed.

The Water District staff report acknowledged that Rule 28-B required the Board to approve the transfer "if the transfer will not have an adverse impact on the water supply," and the same rule further called for "consideration of the impacts of the application under consideration, as well as the cumulative impact of other transfers, on the water supply." The Water Demand Manager preparing the report found no adverse impact and also identified no "cumulative impact that could result from the proposed transfer." While these are sufficient findings to support the Board's decision, that does not end the inquiry. We must in addition determine whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 11 Cal.3d at pp. 514-515, 113 Cal.Rptr. 836, 522 P.2d 12.)
Appellants contend that the evidence does not support the findings contained in the staff report and adopted by the Water District Board. The record supports this contention. The Water District staff report concluded that the water credit transfer would not have an adverse impact on the water supply based solely on the Class 2 exemption determination made by the City. The Water Demand Manager referred to the Notice of Exemption issued by the City and to a letter from the City planner stating that the water credit transfer was "exempt from the provisions of [CEQA]." Since we have concluded that the water credit transfer did not meet the requirements for a Class 2 categorical exemption, the City's Class 2 exemption determination does not provide substantial evidence for the finding in the Water District staff report, and adopted by the Board, that the transfer would not have an adverse environmental impact.

As to the consideration of the possible cumulative impacts of the water credit transfer, the report concluded there were no cumulative impacts for three reasons: First, the City had impliedly found that there were no cumulative impacts by determining that the project came within a categorical exemption. Second, the City had committed the water credit to be transferred back to the same property for use by a replacement structure of a similar *406 size and capacity as the structure that originally existed on the site. And finally, the transfer in question was a simple transfer involving only one property and was "not a complex transfer involving multiple originating sites or multiple receiving sites." 406
Because City's Class 2 exemption determination cannot stand, City's implied finding under Guidelines section 15300.2, subdivision (b), that the project would have no cumulative impacts, must also fail and cannot suffice to provide substantial evidence to support the District's finding regarding cumulative impacts. The second and third reasons cited by the Water District staff relate to the specific water credit transfer at issue, and do not address "the cumulative impacts Save Our Carmel River v. MONTEREY PENINSULA, 46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 387 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 6th Appellate Dist. 2006 - Google Scholar 1/12/22, 12:26 PM https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1843619135503413505…T,+et.+al.,+Defendants+and+Respondents.&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&pli=1 Page 14 of 16 of other transfers," as required by Rule 28-B.1. As to this issue, Water Demand Manager Pintar, who prepared the report, was asked directly by a Board Director whether her cumulative impacts analysis included consideration of other properties in similar situations where water credits were due to expire and thus could be transferred to the jurisdiction for holding purposes. Pintar answered: "I did not look at similar properties with credits that would expire in the near term." In their letter to the Board, appellants had argued that approval of a water credit transfer for the acknowledged purpose of tolling the mandatory ten-year expiration period in Rule 25.5 would establish a precedent for other properties in similar situations. Appellants submitted copies of records listing commercial properties with existing water credits, showing water credits totaling from 35 to 85 acre feet that could possibly be affected by the Board's decision. As is apparent from the Water Demand Manager's response, this evidence was not considered or taken into account in her recommendation that the transfer be approved.

Foursome argues that the colloquy that took place at the Water District Board meeting reflects that the Board considered cumulative impacts, which was all that it was required to do under Rule 28-B.1. We disagree. The rule requires the Board to consider not only the proposed transfer but also the cumulative impacts of "other transfers" on the water supply. The discussion and the staff report indicate that evidence of other properties with water credits due to expire was not considered by staff in its report for the Board. As a Board Director observed, "if we allow people to transfer an expiring water credit to the City for the City to hold in abeyance for them until such time as they are going to use it again, I mean it's basically an end run around Rule 25.5, and I think there are a number of properties that fall into the same pattern, and I am concerned that we don't have an adequate report from staff on the cumulative impacts of those . . . ." The Board had before it no assessment as to how many other properties were similarly situated and therefore it had no basis to evaluate the possible "cumulative impacts of other transfers."[9] Respondents stress the small amount of the water credit transfer at issue here, contending that it could have no possible effect on the water supply. However, the purpose of the requirement that cumulative impacts be considered, in CEQA law as well as in the District Rules, is to ensure review of the effects of the project in context with other projects of the same type. Thus the Guidelines expressly provide that "[c]umulative impacts can result from individually minor but 407 collectively significant projects taking place over a period *407 of time." (Guidelines, § 15355, subd. (b).) Respondents point out that since the water credit transfer program was instituted in 1993, only 26 transfers have been made, transferring a total of 60.843 acre-feet. They contend that this shows that even the cumulative effect of the transfer program is de minimus. We disagree, for several reasons. The cumulative impact analysis requires the Board to consider changes in the environment resulting from "the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects." (Guidelines, § 15355, subd. (b), italics added.) A consideration of only the past water credit transfers does not fulfill this requirement. This is particularly so since the record indicates that water credit transfers may be on the rise. A previous staff report had acknowledged "the potential for increased utilization of [water credit transfers], particularly as water supplies are less available . . . and transfers provide one of the only ways to obtain a water permit for expanded uses." Furthermore, the transfer at issue here was the first water credit transfer to be considered by the Board under the revised Rule 28-B, which added the requirement that the Board consider environmental impacts, and specifically cumulative impacts, when considering an application for a water credit transfer. And it was the first such transfer where the credit was to be held by the jurisdiction to be re-transferred to the development site in order to avoid the ten-year expiration date in Rule 25.5. Thus the precedential effect of the approval of this project has some bearing on the cumulative impact analysis.

Foursome and the Water District assert repeatedly that the water credit transfer at issue cannot possibly have any impact on water resources on the Monterey Peninsula because the State Water Board will count all water credit transfers towards the 11,285 acre-feet water diversion limit imposed by the State Board on Cal-Am under Order 95-10.

The record citations provided by Foursome and Water District do not support these assertions. The citations reference a staff report prepared for a Water District Board meeting in January of 2004. Staff noted that after the State Water Board Save Our Carmel River v. MONTEREY PENINSULA, 46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 387 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 6th Appellate Dist. 2006 - Google Scholar 1/12/22, 12:26 PM https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1843619135503413505…T,+et.+al.,+Defendants+and+Respondents.&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&pli=1 Page 15 of 16 issued Order 95-10, the Water District had sought to clarify certain aspects of the order. The executive staff of the State Water Board had responded with several letters. In two of these, the state agency staff had asserted that the water credit transfers may violate both the letter and the spirit of Order 95-10. The State Water Board staff "indicated that it would recommend action to reduce the 11,285 AF Cal-Am diversion limit to correspond with future water allocations associated with water credit transfers." The actual letters from the State Water Board are not included in our record.

There is no evidence that the State Water Board ever took action to require that water allocations associated with water credit transfers be counted as part of Cal-Am's water diversion limit.

Finally, respondents insist that the water credit transfer at issue here, even if considered with other water credit transfers, cannot have any cumulative impact or other impact because the Water District reserves 15 percent of the water credit and thus only 85 percent of the credit is transferred, resulting in a net water savings. The evidence in the record shows, however, that because of the method of calculating the water credit, the 15 percent reservation may not be representative of actual water savings. Two studies were ordered by the Water District, and based on these studies the Water District had determined in 2002 that "the water transfer program had not resulted in the anticipated savings *408 that had originally motivated the program and, in some cases, may have resulted in an increase in water usage." Because of these studies, the Water District actually discontinued the program, and questioned whether it was "exacerbating current environmental damage to local water resources." When the program was reinstituted, the revised Water District Rule 28-B expressed the Water District's continued concern about "the possibility that water transfers may result in additional water usage."
408
In sum, based on our review of the record before us, we conclude that the Water District's finding of no cumulative impacts associated with the water credit transfer was not supported by substantial evidence. Although Rule 28-B.1 provided that the Board must consider "the cumulative impacts of other transfers," staff did not consider evidence of other potential transfers of water credits, particularly those that were facing the ten-year expiration date, and therefore the Board did not have the relevant evidence from which to make an informed decision. As we have noted, this was the first occasion for the Board to apply the new provision in Rule 28-B.1, which acknowledged the Board's "ongoing concern about the viability of the available water supply and the possibility that water transfers may result in additional water usage," and which provided that the Board must consider adverse impacts and specifically cumulative impacts of other transfers on the water supply. And it was the first transfer application to be considered by the Board where the water credit was to be held by the jurisdiction for later use, in order to avoid the ten-year expiration date in Rule 25.5.

We express no opinion as to the possible significance of the evidence of any cumulative impacts or as to whether the Board's consideration of such impacts might change the outcome here.

DISPOSITION
The order denying a writ of mandate is reversed and the court is directed to issue an order granting the writ of mandate and ordering that the City of Monterey and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District reverse their approvals of the water credit transfer in accordance with the opinions expressed herein. Appellants are awarded costs on appeal.

WE CONCUR: PREMO, Acting P.J., and DUFFY, J.
[1] Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. Further unspecified statutory references are to this code. [2] These guidelines, which we will refer to simply as "Guidelines," are contained at California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15000, et seq.
[3] Approximately 75 percent of Cal-Am's average annual diversions from the Carmel River were found to be illegal. However, in recognition of the health impacts of such a drastic cutback of water to the Monterey Peninsula, the State Water Board set the goal of achieving a 20 percent reduction of Cal-Am's historical use until a replacement supply for the unlawfully diverted amounts could Save Our Carmel River v. MONTEREY PENINSULA, 46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 387 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 6th Appellate Dist. 2006 - Google Scholar 1/12/22, 12:26 PM https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1843619135503413505…T,+et.+al.,+Defendants+and+Respondents.&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&pli=1 Page 16 of 16 be developed.
[4] Rules and Regulations of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. We will be referring to these as the Rules or the District Rules.
[5] No EIR had been prepared when the program was first put into effect in 1993. [6] The record is somewhat unclear about the address of the property where the building was demolished. The building was located on parcel No. 001-016-015, which apparently included addresses ranging from 762 to 798 Foam Street. The first water credit extension sought in 1999 referred to a credit for 738/790 Foam Street, as did Foursome's letter of August 24, 2004. The City's Notice of Exemption refers to the property location as 784 Foam Street. The Water Demand Manager assigned to the project "clarifie[d]" at the board meeting that the water credit was tied to 784 and 790 Foam Street. Foursome refers to the "donor site" throughout its briefing on appeal as 738/790 Foam Street. [7] These documents were apparently added to the administrative record by Foursome after the record was initially certified by the City and the Water District.
[8] In this declaration Rerig states that he reviewed Foursome's proposal to transfer its water credit. He determined that the credit arose because Foursome demolished a commercial building many years prior. He further determined "that the transfer of that water use credit to the City of Monterey for subsequent reuse at Foursome's development site could not possibly have a significant effect on the environment." He therefore prepared a Notice of Exemption. Rerig's declaration does not refer to the exemption contained in Guidelines section 15302.
[9] Foursome's assertion that the Board was aware that "few water credits were near their 10-year expiration date" is not supported by the record.

Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

Pacific Grove City CouncilJanuary 12, 2022

Pacific Grove City Council
January 12, 2022