CONTRA COSTA WATER
DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
REGULAR MEETING
April 1,
2009
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
President
Campbell called to order a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the
Contra Costa Water District at 6:34 p.m., at 1331 Concord Avenue, Concord,
the regular meeting place of the Board.
ROLL
CALL
Directors Present: Joseph
L. Campbell, President
Karl
L. Wandry, Vice President
Elizabeth
R. Anello
Bette
Boatmun
John
A. Burgh
General Manager: Walter
J. Bishop
Legal
Counsel: Robert
B. Maddow
District Secretary: Sharon L. Burris
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Assistant
General Manager of Engineering/Construction Steve Welch led the pledge of
allegiance.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Mr. Bishop reported that there was a minor change to
Agenda Item No. 1.a. – Future Services – April.
PUBLIC COMMENT
President
Campbell announced that he had several speakers’ cards for Agenda Item No. 6 – Consideration of Adopting Amended
Ordinance No. 09-01 Establishing Drought Management Program Rules and Regulations. He then asked if anyone would like to comment
on an item that was not on the agenda.
There were no comments.
CONSENT
1. Approve
Directors’ Services/Business and Travel Expenses
a. Future
Services – April
b. Expenses
– February/March
c. Compensation
– March
2. Approve the minutes of March 4,
2009.
3. Approve the warrant register dated April
2, 2009.
4. Adopt Resolution No. 09-05 authorizing
the acceptance of a quitclaim deed from Conoco Phillips for an abandoned
pipeline easement at the Los Vaqueros Reservoir.
5.
Authorize recommendation to the United States Bureau of
Reclamation to grant an easement to Delta Diablo Sanitation District for a
casing pipe at Los Medanos Wasteway in Pittsburg.
President Campbell advised approval of the consent calendar
would include revised Agenda Item No. 1.a. – Future Services – April.
MOTION: Boatmun/Anello to
approve the consent calendar. The motion
carried by a unanimous voice vote.
ACTION
6.
Consideration of Adopting Amended Ordinance No. 09-01
Establishing Drought Management Program Rules and Regulations
a. Conduct
the second reading of amended Ordinance No. 09-01 describing the 15% Drought
Management Program rules and regulations;
b.
Conduct a public hearing to provide information and receive
comments on the proposed 15% Drought Management Program; and
c.
Adopt amended Ordinance No. 09-01 to establish the rules
and regulations in Title 5 of the District’s Code of Regulations applicable
throughout the period of the water shortage condition declared by the Board of
Directors.
President Campbell advised that speaker’s cards were
located on the credenza at the back of the Board Room for anyone in the
audience who wanted to complete one.
Mr. Bishop reported that the first reading of Ordinance No.
09-01 took place on March 18. He also reported
that Assistant General Manger of Planning/Operations and Maintenance Jerry
Brown would be making a presentation on the District’s water supply. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) had
reduced the District’s water allocation to 55% of the contract. The District would not be imposing that level
of curtailment on its customers. Surplus
water was being purchased at four times the cost of water from the Bureau. An excess use charge was being proposed for
customers using excess water.
Mr. Bishop reported that the District was not raising rates
and customers who saved water would see a reduction in their bill. Customers using less than 1,000 gallons per
day (gpd) would not be subjected to an excess use charge even if they did not
meet the 15% reduction goal. Customers
using more than 1,000 gpd, which was less than 10% of the customers, and
customers who increased their water usage over the three-year historical
average would be subject to an excess use charge. The proposed plan also included an exceptions
program for qualifying customers.
President Campbell advised that the Board was familiar with
what was being discussed at the meeting.
He also noted that the Board had advised staff that they wanted a very
fair water policy.
Mr. Brown reported that this was the third consecutive year
of extreme dry conditions. The Board had
declared a water shortage at the meeting on March 4. Since that time, the District had received an
updated water allocation from Central Valley Project (CVP) of 55%. The precipitation period for the year was substantially
complete, which allowed for an indication of the water supply for the
year. The major river indexes for the Sacramento and San
Joaquin Rivers
were critically dry. Lake Shasta,
the primary supplier for the District, was 63% full.
Mr. Brown reviewed a comparison table showing the projected
water demands and supplies. He reported
that normal demand for the District’s service area was approximately 130,000 acre
feet (af). The proposed 15% reduction
would make demands 111,000 af. The
District planned to supply those demands through 95,000 af from the CVP allocation
and 16,000 af through water transfers purchased from irrigation districts. The proposed 15% reduction and the supplies
available would enable the District to meet the demand.
President Campbell asked if there were any questions for
the presenter. There were no
questions.
Assistant General Manager of Administration Kurt Ladensack presented
the proposed 15% Drought Management Program.
He advised that additional copies of the ordinance and staff report were
available at the back of the Board Room.
He reported that a public hearing would be conducted at this meeting prior
to the Board considering adoption of the program. The public hearing had been properly noticed
through Proposition 218 requirements. The
District had received 20 written comments as well as public comments at the
Board meeting on March 18. The Drought
Management Program was contained in Amended Ordinance 09-01: Establishing Drought Management Program Rules
and Regulations. The only change to the
ordinance since the March 18 meeting was that the only program now included for
Board consideration was a 15% program.
Mr. Bishop noted that the majority of the comments received
were on the 25% program, which was not a consideration at this meeting. The District had received very few comments
relative to the 15% program.
President Campbell commented that water supplies had
changed since the first reading of the ordinance on March 18.
Mr. Ladensack presented the key messages. He reported that the proposed program did not
raise rates and was designed to achieve an overall 15% reduction in water usage. The program recognized customer conservation
efforts and focused on outside water use and large water users. The plan also focused on minimizing impacts
on jobs and the economy.
Mr. Ladensack reviewed the water use reduction goals by
customer category and reported that consumption was based on average historical
use for years 2005, 2006 and 2007. The
categories being asked to conserve 15% were single family and multi-family
residential, wholesale municipal, public authority, and commercial. Industrial users were being asked to conserve
5%, to not impact the local economy and jobs.
Irrigation and agriculture users were being asked to conserve 45%, which
aligned with the reduction allocated from CVP.
Mr. Bishop added that it matches the District’s reduction,
but the CVP had allocated 15% for agriculture accounts. He explained that the District was trying to
allocate more than the Bureau had dedicated for agriculture accounts.
President Campbell noted that the year 2008 was not used for
historical averaging because customers had already been asked to conserve
during that year.
Mr. Bishop emphasized that the proposed program would not
penalize a water user who used 300 gpd and did not meet their goal. The customer using 1,000 gpd who did not meet
their goal would pay an excess use charge.
There would not be a sliding scale below 1,000 gpd because it was not a
mandatory program at that level.
Mr. Ladensack reviewed the excess use charges. He reported that a customer who increased
their water usage compared to the historical average would be subject to an
excess use charge only on that quantity of increased usage. As an example, a single-family residential
customer with a historical average usage of 1,000 gpd or more that did not meet
their 15% reduction goal would be subject to an excess use charge applied to
the quantity above the reduction goal.
He emphasized that this constituted approximately 10% of the single-family
customers. As another example, irrigation
and agricultural customers with a historical average use of 1,000 gpd or more who
did not meet the 45% reduction goal would be subject to an excess use charge
applied to the usage quantity above the reduction goal. The excess use charge would be four times the
quantity charge, which was based on the cost to purchase supplemental
water.
Mr. Ladensack reviewed examples of a single-family residential
customer who increased their historical average. Using a chart, he reviewed examples of excess
use charges for customers using 300, 500 and 700 gpd. As an example, a customer using 700 gpd, who did
not conserve, and increased their usage by 10%, would pay an excess use charge
of $60 for a bi-monthly billing period. Increasing
usage by 20%, would result in an excess use charge of $120 for the bi-monthly
billing period.
Responding to a question from President Campbell about the average
use per day in the District, Mr. Ladensack responded it was approximately 550
gpd for single-family residential customer.
Mr. Ladensack reviewed an example of a single-family residential customer with
historical average usage of 1,000 gpd and a water budget of 850 gpd, which
would be a 15% reduction, who did not meet their water budget. If this customer exceeded water budget by
10%, there would be an excess use charge of $72 for the two-month period. The customer who exceeded their water budget
by 20% would pay an excess use charge of $144.
This excess use charge was based on four times the quantity charge over
a two-month billing period. As another
example, a customer using 700 gpd who achieved 15% reduction in their usage
would save $22 on the bi-monthly billing period.
Mr. Ladensack reviewed the exceptions process and reported
that customers could submit an application requesting an exception to their water
budget based on changed or special circumstances. Examples of an exception included medical
needs, a new home built in 2007, or a change in the number of residents in a
home. Responses to the exception
applications would be made within two business days.
Mr. Ladensack reported that the District would revoke all
current hydrant meter authorizations.
Customers could apply for an exception based on special
circumstances. Landscaping for new development
would be deferred until after the water shortage was declared over. Applications for new irrigation services
would not be accepted during the period of the water shortage.
Addressing the customer outreach and public education plan,
Mr. Ladensack reported that a drought guide explaining the rules and
regulations, advanced notice of conservation goals, customer specific water
budgets and potential charges for excess usage would be mailed to every District
customer during the month of April. Briefings
by customer category would also be conducted explaining the drought
program. Education materials that had
been distributed and would be made available included: bill inserts, On Tap publications, the Annual
Water Quality Report, the District’s website, kiosks in areas with high
pedestrian traffic, conservation booths at local events, newspaper advertising, media
packets, and water savings tips.
President Campbell asked about one-on-one meetings between customers
and District staff. Mr. Ladensack
responded that onsite water audits could be conducted at the customer’s
property, where very specific recommendations would be provided concerning
water management.
Mr. Bishop advised that the District’s conservation website
had incurred many hits. The number of Customer
Service representatives had doubled and responses were being handled on a very
timely basis. All water meters within
the District would be read within a one-week period pending Board adoption of
the proposed program. District customers
would receive their water budget before May 1 along with a sample water bill
based on their historical consumption.
Mr. Ladensack commented on the District’s Water Savings
Team. He reported that water wasters
could be reported to the District by calling 688-8009 and a member of the team would
respond to the site and work with the customer to remedy the problem. Failure to remedy the situation in a timely
manner could result in the District installing a flow restrictor or
interruption of service until the repair was completed.
Mr. Ladensack reviewed the schedule and advised that following
the public hearing the proposed Drought Management Program would be before the
Board for consideration. Pending adoption, the effective date of the
program would be May 1.
President Campbell asked if the Board had any questions for
the presenter. There were no
questions.
President Campbell opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m.
Assistant Program Manager for the Contra Costa Clean Water
Program (CCCWP) Tom Dalziel advised that he was representing the 21 public
agencies that comprise the CCCWP, including 19 cities and towns incorporated in
the County, Contra
Costa County
unincorporated, and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District. The program was
formed in 1991 in response to the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act and
the federal storm water rules that came out in November 1990. These requirements mandated that
municipalities obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit. The NPDES permits required the
development and implementation of comprehensive storm water quality protection
programs. He advised that storm water
was the single largest source of pollutants entering urban surface waters. The federal and state storm water rules were enforced
and administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Contra
Costa County’s
jurisdiction was under the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Mr. Dalziel advised there was a potential conflict between
federal and state mandated storm water requirements and the District’s proposed
Drought Management Plan. The federal and
state storm water rules required proponents of new development and
redevelopment projects to capture and treat storm water runoff onsite before it
could be discharged offsite into the municipal storm drain system. Federal and state storm water permits mandate
landscape-based storm water bio-filtration facilities. These facilities were engineered planter
boxes either above ground or in ground.
Storm water runoff was drained into and through these planters, which
effectively remove storm water pollutants and reduce the amount of new runoff
which can cause stream erosion and flooding.
These facilities prevent and treat pollutants such as hydrocarbons,
heavy metals, pathogens and sediment from reaching the local waterways. Project proponents are required to design
these facilities to minimize irrigation and also to minimize the addition or
use of pesticides and fertilizers. CCCWP
was requesting exclusion for these landscape-based storm water treatment
facilities, which would require some irrigation during the summer months.
President Campbell reminded Mr. Dalziel that there was an
exception form that could be completed.
Mr. Bishop advised that the District’s rules were not in
conflict with the CCCWP, and the District’s exceptions program was established
to address this type of a situation. He
stated that he had discussed this with the County Administrator
earlier in the day and he felt they were on the right page.
President Campbell thanked Mr. Dalziel.
President Campbell invited Matt Graul to the podium. Mr. Graul advised that he was a staff member
from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and was present
to support the comments made by Mr. Dalziel.
He wanted to make sure there would be an exceptions program for
landscape based treatment features.
Mr. Graul noted that he was specifically speaking about
storm water treatment that was required under their Municipal Storm Water
Department. Mr. Bishop added that the
District received a letter today from the County that was talking about both
rose gardens and water quality as being critical to the protection of the Bay. He clarified
that ornamental landscaping was not going to be considered for an exception
unless there was a critical need.
President Campbell thanked Mr. Graul.
President Campbell invited Concord resident Paul Louis to the
podium. Mr. Louis noted that he had
spoken with Director Burgh before the meeting and thanked Director Burgh for
his time and comments. He questioned the
effect that Los Vaqueros (LV) Reservoir had on the current water situation. He commented that he had been paying for LV for many years and had envisioned that because of LV we would not be having
this situation. He also noted newspaper
articles regarding the expansion of LV.
President Campbell advised that he was a private citizen who
co-chaired the Measure W Committee, which originally supported LV. He
gave background on water quality before LV
was built and stated that the reservoir was built to enhance water quality, not
quantity.
Mr. Louis asked about reclaimed water and commented that he
had not seen much of it in the District.
Mr. Bishop responded that most of the reclaimed water was
for industrial use. The District is the
largest per capita user of recycled water of any drinking water agency in Northern California. The largest user was the Calpine Plant in
East County.
He commented on the cost of using recycled water for residential use vs.
the cost of desalination. The next potential
large project was the Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS), where the majority of
outside use would be recycled water.
Mr. Louis commented that his next question concerned
CNWS. President Campbell acknowledged
City of Concord Mayor Laura
Hoffmeister in the audience and indicated that perhaps
Mr. Louis could meet with her later.
Mr. Louis asked how many gallons of reclaimed water the
District took from Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCSSD) on a daily
basis. Mr. Bishop responded that CCCSD
has a pipeline on Contra Costa
Boulevard to serve the Buchanan Fields and Contra
Costa Country Club Golf Courses and Diablo
Valley College. The District maintained the pipeline for
CCCSD.
Mr. Louis indicated that he did not see a sunset date for
the Drought Management Program. President
Campbell replied that a date was not known at this time, and that it would be
based on rainfall and allocations from the Bureau. He also added that the District was trying to
be fair to the customers.
Mr. Louis thanked the Board.
President Campbell invited Sandra Frost to the podium. Ms. Frost reported that she also had spoken
with Director Burgh prior to the meeting.
She reported that she had lived many years in Southern
California and commented on the drought during the 70s. She opined that California was a desert state and the
resources had been stretched beyond the ability to supply people with the
necessities of life, which were water and electricity. She asked what the District and Board were proposing
to do other than reclaimed water. She noted
that 10,000 new homes and business were being proposed for the CNWS land and the
resources were not available. She
thought a moratorium was needed in the state until the resources were under
control.
President Campbell stated that water storage was badly needed
in the state and this was the reason the District was proposing to expand LV. He added that the Board was comprised of five
hard working citizens actively voicing their concerns to the legislature and
recommended that the public do so as well.
Mr. Bishop reported that the population had doubled in the
County over the past 20 years and the
District was delivering the same amount of water. Demands were being met through conservation
and recycling. This was the only Board
of Directors in the state going forward with the expansion of a reservoir. He also noted a four-agency desalination pilot
project near Pittsburg. The
agencies involved in the project with the District were San Francisco Public
Utility District, East Bay Municipal Utilities District, and Santa Clara Valley
Water District.
President Campbell noted that conservation was the
key. He also commented that the District
delivered approximately the same amount of water in 1976 as it did during 2008
even though the population had increased.
President Campbell welcomed Concord resident Robb Kingsbury to the podium. Mr.
Kingsbury indicated that he had recently moved to Concord
from Seattle, WA.
He reported that his home was vacant for two years and last year the
occupants did not use much water. He purchased
the home on two-thirds of an acre for the purpose of raising vegetables and
fruit trees. He noted that the District
was only using two months to base the water usage and wanted to know about the
other months when less water was used. Mr.
Bishop responded that the District was using the entire year, in two month increments,
for calculation purposes. Mr. Kingsbury asked
if the District was planning to charge more for a two-month period if they used
1,000 gallons. Mr. Bishop responded,
yes, if a customer did not meet their allocation for that two month period they
would be charged for excess use.
President Campbell explained that the District did not have
the water to deliver and it would be necessary to purchase it on the spot
market at four times the normal cost.
Mr. Kingsbury advised that he planned to water based on a
computer, recycling grey water, and programming it so the vegetables and trees
received the necessary water. He also
addressed his concern about agriculture in the area and the need to raise
vegetables and fruit with the downturn in the economy. He reported that he would be raising his own
food and would like some consideration; however, under this program he was
being asked to pay more for water.
Mr. Bishop advised that he could apply for an exception. He also advised that the District had an agriculture user who grew ornamental pumpkins. According to the Bureau, they should be cut
back to 15%, but the Board was giving them 55%.
Mr. Kingsbury thanked the Board.
President Campbell invited Concord resident Verle Hendrickson to the podium. Mr. Hendrickson indicated that he had
difficulty hearing the Boardmembers and asked if they could please speak into
the microphone. He commented that he viewed
this program as penalties being placed on the customers and the penalties in a
sense were a tax. He opined when you
increase taxes in the state you were against the law and this would be taxation
without representation. He indicated
that the discussions were slanted toward water quality and not water quantity,
and what was needed in the state was water for everyone.
President Campbell thanked Mr. Hendrickson for his
comments.
Bird Morningstar, a Concord
resident, addressed the Board. He reported that he had spoken with Water
Conservation Manager Chris Dundon to ensure that he had clarity on the proposed
program. He reported on a successful
survey he conducted in a neighboring agency’s service area where
9 million gallons of water was saved over a one-year period
using good water management. He advised that
good water conservation required good tools, education and knowledge. Putting these elements in place, the 15%
program would not be a burden.
President Campbell thanked Mr. Morningstar for his
comments.
President Campbell invited Concord resident Paul Poston to the
podium. Mr. Poston advised that he addressed
the Board on March 18. He reported that
he had spoken with members of the community and they shared the same
concerns. Customers in this area had
conserved during the last drought and watched the water run down the streets in
Southern California. This was a concern for many people and there
was also a concern that the rates would be raised. He was in favor of customers who exceeded their
allotment paying an excess use and thought that the 15% program was very
doable. He was also concerned that, if the
situation continued to next year, it could become a mandatory program. President Campbell advised that was an
unknown at this time.
President Campbell thanked Mr. Poston for his comments.
President Campbell invited Steve Zalewski to the
podium. Mr. Zalewski advised that he was
a member of the Advisory Board for the Diablo Vista Water System (DVWS), an
irrigation system in the City of Pleasant
Hill servicing approximately 475 households. They were fully supportive of the District’s
conservation efforts, but asked the Board to consider two issues. The first issue was that DVWS was requesting
that the Board consider a seasonal allocation vs. a monthly allocation. He compared the program to the rollover
minutes – a situation of use it or lose it at the end of the month. DVWS would like the flexibility to be more
efficient during the non peak season to have water to use during the peak
season. The results would be beneficial
because during a cooler summer less water would be used, it could be given back
to use during the peak demands.
The second issue was that they would like the Board to
consider a 45% allocation as a hard number.
When the Board was originally considering a Drought Management Program there
was going to be an allocation based on a formula. He suggested that the District apply the 45%
number, look at the formula, and determine which allocation method was better
for an irrigation district.
Mr. Bishop commented that there were very few irrigation
customers without meters. Those
customers would receive a water budget based on the irrigatable vs. non-irrigatable
landscape.
Mr. Zalewski commented that he was present to be supportive. He thought that it would be valuable to go
through the exercise and understand the numbers.
President Campbell
advised Mr. Zalewski to complete the exception form and staff would speak with
him. Mr. Bishop added that there would
be a water budget established for the irrigators. He also noted that 45% was a pretty severe
reduction but that it could be met. Mr. Zalewski
agreed and reiterated that he was fully supportive of the program. DVWS would continue to work with the District,
as they believed it was in the best interest of the public.
President Campbell thanked Mr. Zalewski.
President
Campbell introduced the next speaker, the Mayor of the City of Concord Laura Hoffmeister. Mayor Hoffmeister addressed the Board and
commented to those in the public interested in the CNWS that the project would
not start in the timeframe being discussed at this meeting. This meeting was focused on immediate issues
facing the water district.
Mayor
Hoffmeister advised that she was present to address the Board on other
issues. She commented positively on the 1,000
gpd level for residential households. Customers
using above that amount needed to cutback.
She advised that water was a scarce resource and people needed to
conserve. She likened the water shortage
to previous energy shortages and rolling brownouts. She referenced the droughts in the 70s and
80s and the amount of water allotted during those times. She applauded the fact that a three-year
historical average was taken into consideration to determine a water
budget.
Mayor Hoffmeister
referenced email correspondence between District and City staff. The emails regarded new development and bioengineering
swales for the storm water runoff and whether it would qualify for an exception
under the proposed drought program. She added
that she was present to confirm whether this would qualify as an
exception.
President
Campbell indicated that he and Mr. Bishop had discussed this issue and a
bioengineering swale would weigh heavily on an exception. Mayor Hoffmeister indicated that she
understood and that the reason for her presence was because of information
received this afternoon. President
Campbell indicated he understood and noted there was a time issue.
Mr. Bishop
commented that ornamental plantings would be deferred until after the
drought. Mayor Hoffmeister noted that
perennials, such as rose bushes were planted in areas so that the roots could uptake
the minerals. Discussion took place on a
reference made to water for rose gardens and a project in the County named the
Rose Garden, with bioengineering swales.
Mayor
Hoffmeister asked if consideration would be given for an exception for the
temporary meter hydrants for dust control.
Mr. Bishop commented that the District and the City’s Public Works
Department had discussed the use of reclaimed water and street sweeping and
this would be a consideration for a hydrant meter.
Mayor Hoffmeister
also advised that the City of Clayton’s
parks and landscape median water meters would not be in use until June. The watering period for the City was June
through October and she requested that this be taken into account, and that the
three-year historical average would give them the ebbs and flows in the baseline. Mr. Bishop responded that this was a
historical record.
Mayor Hoffmeister
commented that she was present for clarity on these last minute issues. She thanked the Board.
President
Campbell invited Concord
resident Tom Kostik to the podium. Mr. Kostik
asked whether there were any laws, rules or regulations prohibiting private
citizens from seeking reclaimed water to water their lawns. He also referenced Title 22, of the
California Code of Regulations.
Mr. Bishop
advised it would depend on where and how the reclaimed water was being
used. Title 22 had specific rules and
regulations.
Mr. Kostik
asked if citizens were able to seek reclaimed water if they furnished their own
containers. Mr. Bishop replied, most
likely not. President Campbell advised
that the filling stations were setup for industrial use. He suggested that Mr. Kostik direct his
questions to CCCSD or Delta Diablo Sanitary District.
Debra
Britton, a Pleasant Hill
resident, stated that she was a member of a homeowners’ association board of
directors. She was seeking additional information
about multi-family meters. She asked how the District knew how many users
were on the meters. She also wanted to
know if there was anything that might help multi-family units in future
years. Mr. Bishop advised that Water
Resources Manager Chris Dundon would work with her to answer some of her
concerns. Ms. Britton commented that she
had been working with Water Conservation Specialist Ray Cardwell. She
wanted to know if there was a long-term plan to help multi-family units get
single meters.
Mr. Bishop
advised that the District has had condominium associations request
multi-metering and it could be done. Ms.
Britton noted that the cost was approximately $15,000 per building and they had
19 buildings. She felt that if a
customer was paying for their own water they would be more likely to conserve.
President
Campbell noted that the Board was familiar with Ms. Britton’s concern. He advised her to speak with Mr. Dundon and
he would be able to assist her. Mr.
Bishop also advised that there was a financial program to assist with meters. President Campbell assured Ms. Britton that
the District would work with them.
Ms. Britton
thanked the Board and added that she thought this was a great program.
President
Campbell advised that he did not have any other speaker’s cards. He also advised that he would take three
questions from the audience. A gentleman
asked if the District had any wells.
President Campbell advised that the District does not have wells. He acknowledged Diablo Water District (DWD) General
Manager Mike Yeraka in the audience and advised that DWD had wells. He asked Mr. Yeraka how much water they were
pumping, Mr. Yeraka responded that they were pumping 15%. Mr. Bishop advised that the water quality from
wells was not acceptable within the District.
Wells needed to be drilled where potable water was acceptable.
A member of
the audience questioned the requirement cities have for a set percentage of
landscaping. Mr. Bishop responded that
they had spoken with cities within the service area and they believe that they
will not enforce it during this period.
The gentleman referenced landscaping
around an
older building in the City of Pleasant
Hill. Mr.
Bishop advised that Mr. Ladensack could speak with him immediately following
the meeting. Another gentleman in the
audience had a question concerning Attachment 1 to the docket. President Campbell asked Mr. Ladensack to
address the question. Mr. Ladensack
advised that the chart reflected the average historical use for a three-year
billing period. Mr. Bishop added that
the example was a customer using 1,500 gpd and the historical average was based
on years 2005, 2006 and 2007.
A member of
the audience referenced the Nestle Corporation and bottling water from Lake Shasta. Mr.
Bishop responded that the Shasta Reservoir held 4.5 million af of water. Nestle
Corporation was referring to a spring that they were planning to access. This was a local issue that would not impact
this region.
Another
member of the audience referred to a home he had recently moved into with a very
low water usage history. He understood
there would be an exceptions application and wanted to know what types of exceptions
would be included. President Campbell
advised that the exception would apply for anything reasonable, as an example, a
change in the number of people in a household would be one type of an exception
the District would be considering. He also emphasized that conservation staff
was available to work with customers to help them conserve.
Mr. Bishop
advised that pending adoption of the program, water allotments would be mailed to
all customers. President Campbell
advised that Mr. Ladensack and Director of Finance Brice Bledsoe would be in
the foyer after the meeting to talk with customers.
President
Campbell asked if everyone felt there was fair discussion on the item.
President
Campbell closed the public hearing at 8:13 p.m.
Director Boatmun commented that the District’s water
conservation tips were published in Contra Costa Times on Saturdays. She also asked customers to ensure that they
do not have leaks in their homes, and if they did discover leaks, the District
was cooperative in working with customers.
President
Campbell asked Mr. Bishop to read the recommended action. Mr. Bishop read the recommended action into
the record: Adopt Amended
Ordinance No. 09-01 to establish the rules and regulations in Title 5 of the
District’s Code of Regulations applicable throughout the period of the water
shortage condition declared by the Board of Directors.
MOTION: Boatmun/Wandry to
adopt Amended Ordinance No. 09-01 to establish the rules and regulations in
Title 5 of the District’s Code of Regulations applicable throughout the period
of the water shortage condition declared by the Board of Directors. The motion carried by a unanimous voice
vote.
Mr. Maddow advised that all mandatory notices required by
the California Water Code or by the California Constitution in regard to these
actions were taken as Mr. Bishop and Mr. Ladensack noted. Secondly, one of the notices that the
District gave was under Proposition 218, technically some of the 20 comments
the District received would qualify as written protests for the action that was
taken by the Board. However, the
constitutional standard was that 50% of the property owners or accountholders
of the District would need to register a protest before the District would be
prohibited from acting and that standard had not been met. Finally, it was important to note, that as
Mr. Ladensack stated, there were some changes in the ordinance since the first
reading on March 18. This was why the
document was called an amended ordinance.
Those changes were strictly to reflect the circumstances summarized by
Mr. Brown in the water supply presentation.
From a legal perspective, there was adequate legislative record to
support the actions that the Board had just approved.
The Board thanked the audience for their comments and for attending
the meeting.
REPORTS FOR DISCUSSION
7. Committee Report(s)
a. Bay
Area Water Forum Post-Meeting Report (3/23/09)
President Campbell asked
if there were any comments on the committee reports. There were no comments.
8. Schedule
Future Meeting Dates and Times
Mr.
Bishop reminded the Board that he would be receiving the American
Academy of Environmental Engineers’
Edward J. Cleary Award on May 6, in Washington, D.C.
and would not be present at that Board meeting.
Director of Engineering/Construction Steve Welch would be Acting General
Manager.
REPORTS
9.
General Manager
Mr. Bishop reported that the District had received the
Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) Excellence in Partnering Award
for the CCWD/City of Brentwood Water Treatment
Plant.
10. Legal
Counsel
Mr. Maddow did not have a report.
11. Board Members
Director Burgh congratulated staff on the success of the first
Vaqueros Day held at Los Vaqueros Reservoir on March 21. He commented that the event was creatively
organized and very successful.
Director Boatmun reported that she attended the public hearing
for the Los Vaqueros Environmental Impact Report on March 31 at Heald College. She reported that several members of the
public commented on the clarity of the information. She noted that a gentleman from Save Mt.
Diablo attended and his concern was what the mitigation was going to be for
inundated trails around the area. She also
noted that Ann Farrell from CCCSD spoke rebuking the report for not including
recycled water for the refineries. Former
CCWD Boardmember Craig Randall was also present.
Director Boatmun also reported on the Association of California
Water Agencies (ACWA) Board of Directors meeting on March 27 where the updated
version of ACWA’s Water Conservation and Water Use Efficiency Policy Principles
were received.
Director Anello did not have a report.
Vice President Wandry did not have a report.
President Campbell reported that he and Director Burgh
attended the Board of Supervisors’ Transportation, Water and Infrastructure
Committee meeting on March 30. Director
Burgh commented on conversations related to funds in the stimulus package for Vasco Road safety
improvement.
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:27 p.m., President Campbell adjourned the
meeting to the next regular meeting of the Board of Directors, scheduled for April
15, 2009 and commencing at 6:30 p.m.
Joseph
L. Campbell, President
ATTEST:
Sharon L. Burris
District Secretary
