Demand Management Dialogue Process

March 9, 2023

Dear Members of the Board,

On behalf of LandWatch Monterey County, I ask that the Board consider the following questions and comments on Mr. Ceppos’ recommendations regarding a Demand Management (DM) Dialogue Process.

SEPARATE WORKSHOP FOR INTERSUBBASIN ALLOCATION DM ISSUES: As Montgomery & Associates has explained, a DM program will necessarily include water allocations (even if these are not adjudications), which in turn requires some assessment not just of demand but of available supply. Supply in each subbasin of the the Valley is affected choices as to which subbasin to deploy available surface water, choices whether to move groundwater between subbasins, and choices whether to take measures that affect intersubbasin groundwater flows. Indeed, these intersubbasin DM issues may be more contentious than the DM issues internal to each subbaasins.

This suggests the need for some mechanism to begin a discussion about intersubbasin allocations. The proposal that DM dialogues be held first in workshops at the subbasin level in Steps 1-4 does not appear to provide a forum for getting to any consensus on the issues involved in intersubbasin allocations.

For example, leaving these questions initially to the 180/400 IC, or considering them serially in subbasin level workshops, may not facilitate reaching a broader consensus as each group looks only at their portion of the elephant in the room. And deferring these critical questions until the “Interim Final” basin-wide workshop in Step 5 may amount to postponing the hard work while the overall supply issue festers.

We suggest that the distinct intersubbasin DM issues related to intersubbasin supply allocations be addressed in a simultaneous and parallel workshop process that engages a basin-wide set of stakeholders.

RELATION OF WORKSHOP PLANNING SESSION TO WORKSHOP ITSELF: Step 2.1 of the dialogue process calls for a planning session with GSA staff, one or more 180/400 Implementation Committee members, and possibly consultants. A number of topics are to be “addressed” in this planning session, including identification of feasible DM options, success metrics, and triggers; definition of demand; water rights impacts; tiering; and impacts to adjacent subbasins. It appears that a great deal of scoping and narrowing of the scope of the DM options may occur in this planning sessions, which is not to be an open Brown Act process.

By contrast, it is unclear what work will occur and decisions will remain to be made in the open process under Step 2.5, described only as “conduct subbasin-specific workshops.”

We suggest that the Board seek clarification of the relation of the planning session to the workshop itself. Achieving consensus may require that the scope of the options to be considered in an open public process not be narrowed unduly in a planning sessions.

Thank you for your consideration of these questions and comments.

John H. Farrow