Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Monterey planners begin crafting a water‑allocation policy for MPWMD area; commissioners seek more detail before priorities set
Summary
Planning staff opened a public workshop Nov. 12 to solicit commissioner and public input on how to allocate a 72 acre‑foot water allocation from MPWMD; commissioners favored crafting a formal policy or ordinance but asked staff for more technical certainty and stakeholder analysis before priorities are set.
Monterey County planning staff led an extended public workshop on Nov. 12 to gather Planning Commission feedback on how the county should allocate water made available by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD). The session focused on how to use a recent MPWMD allocation (72 acre‑feet) together with state housing obligations that favor prioritizing water for affordable housing.
Staff framed three high‑level options: (A) adopt an ordinance and an implementing Board policy to memorialize allocation procedures; (B) adopt a Board policy only (more flexible); or (C) continue first‑come, first‑served allocation tied to building‑permit readiness. Staff recommended Option A (ordinance + policy) to provide a clear process for allocating limited water resources and allow the Board to set priorities, with the implementing policy adjustable by resolution.
Technical briefings highlighted that the 72 acre‑foot allocation derives from the Pure Water Monterey recycled water expansion, but that some sources feeding the system—such as agricultural runoff—can be “interruptible.” Craig Spencer and other county advisors warned that water inputs to the Pure Water system can vary and that the Monterey County Water Resources Agency has cautioned jurisdictions against assuming unlimited or guaranteed supply; commissioners asked for better technical certainty before committing water to long‑term residential uses.
Commissioners and members of the public urged different priorities. Several commissioners (including Diehl and Deal) expressed support for creating a policy that gives priority to planned housing growth and deed‑restricted affordable housing, but emphasized they wanted guardrails so a single large private project could not exhaust the entire allocation. Developers and their representatives pressed to protect pending pipeline or vested applications and asked for a clear list of projects in the queue. Public commenters urged compliance with state requirements such as dry‑year supply analyses and consultation with groundwater sustainability agencies.
On specific policy topics staff solicited input on allocation ratios (how much to reserve for planned housing growth, economic development, vacant lots, ADUs and a strategic reserve), a definition of "planned housing growth," limits on water fixtures per dwelling, and time limits for how long an approved water credit may be held before it reverts to the pool. Commissioners generally favored a policy (Option A or B) and asked staff to return with a more detailed, implementable draft, including sample applications and an analysis of pipeline projects and vested rights. Staff said it would conduct stakeholder outreach and return with a draft policy in 2026.
Next steps: staff will do additional outreach (including with MPWMD, Water Resources Agency and local stakeholders), refine the ordinance/policy options, and return to the Planning Commission and then the Board of Supervisors with a draft in 2026.
