Current Status of the New Agreement

The following is a running history (updated status) of the negotiation process.  Clicking on a given link will take you to the documents/reports associated with that item.

Workshop 1 was held on September 20, 2001, in Santa Rosa.  Its purpose was to identify the issues and get them out on the table and gather information for a vision statement. A Background Information Report on the water supply agreement was prepared for this workshop and presented in a slide show. Comments were received and a summary report prepared by the consultant.  A Draft Vision Statement was also prepared. 

Workshop 2 was held on December 6, 2001, in Sonoma.  Its purpose was to hear public comment on the issues and draft Vision Statement.  A slide show was prepared summarizing issues identified in Workshop 1. Public comments were taken and recorded. The public was then asked to indicate which issues needed further discussion.  A presentation was then made by Jim Fiedler of Santa Clara Valley Water District on Integrated Water Resources Planning.  Following the workshop, a report was prepared by the consultant. It contained a list of 56 items that the consultant recommends be considered in the new agreement or as part of the negotiation process.

At the WAC meeting of January 7, 2002, the parties revised the draft Vision Statement and requested that comments on the proposed list of 56 items be prepared by each party to the negotiation and that additional items each party deemed necessary be identified and that all comments and additions be submitted to the WAC by March 2002.

Workshop 3 was held on February 28, 2002, in Petaluma. Its purpose was to further discuss the issues. Key issues identified as having high priority for further discussion were focused on.  Participants were asked to comment on a list of 56 possible responses recommended by the consultant.  A full report, including a transcript of public comments and recommended changes/additions to the list of 56 items suggested by the public was prepared.

Workshop 4 was held on May 23, 2002, in Novato.  Subsequent to Workshop 3, the WAC, after considering all public input, prepared a draft of key (framework) issues - a list of issues to be included/considered in neotiating the agreement. This list was posted to over 400 persons and agencies in four counties who had at one time or other expressed interest in the new water agreement negotiation process. The purpose of Workshop 4 was to gather public comment on the list and to promote a dialog between the public and WAC members over the issues. A report on Workshop 4 was prepared. It includes a transcript of comments/discussion, changes to the draft Framework List recommended by participants, recommendations by consultant on next steps to take, and a revised negotiation schedule.  In addition, two documents tracking public comments and showing if and where they were addressed in the Framework List were prepared.

At the WAC meeting of June 3, 2003, the WAC reviewed Report 4 and the public input from Workshop 4 and agreed upon a Revised Framework Issues List.  This list was referred to City Councils and Boards of Directors of the various parties to the negotiation for review and additional comment. The last of these additional comments from the parties on the Revised Framework Issues List was received by July 30, 2002.  At the June 3 meeting, the WAC also agreed to have the consultant prepare an initial draft of the agreement.

At the WAC meeting of July 1, 2002, the WAC reviewed the negotiation and decided to introduce an Interest Based Negotiation (IBN) process suggested by the City of Santa Rosa to process. It was also decided to hold off on preparing a draft of a proposed agreement. Training sessions on the IBN process were provided for the parties and held on August 5 and 13, 2002.

First Negotiation Session was held on September 23, 2002, and let by IBN Facilitator Christ Sliz provided courtesy of the City of Santa Rosa. It was agreed to set aside time for public comment at both the beginning and end of each session.  Furthermore, the method of voting on issues was determined, additional issues identified by the parties listed, and a procedure for follow up reporting and drafting of consensus and agreement language agreed upon.  Lastly, issues pertaining to Conservation were taken up.  In discussing the merits of creating a special conservation charge, questions were raised regarding the impacts of including the Marin Municipal Water District and the Town of Windsor in the new agreement.  A detailed summary report of the session was prepared by the consultant.

Second Negotiation Session was held on October 28, 2002. Information requested by the WAC o the existing water agreements between the Agency and Marin Municipal Water District and Town of Windsor was presented. The WAC asked for additional analysis of impacts.  Following a format using the Revised Framework Issues List items as a guide, Conservation issues were further negotiated and Governance issues taken up. The Water Conservation Subcommittee was identified and assigned follow-up negotiation and information development tasks.  A summary report was prepared by the consultant.

Third Negotiation Session was held on November 25, 2002.  The Water Conservation Subcommittee presented its recommendations and findings and these were further negotiated.  Framework issues pertaining to Governance and Overarching Planning/Environmental Impacts were discussed.  Ad hoc groups were assigned follow up tasks pertaining to Conservation, impacts of including Marin Municipal Water District and the Town of Windsor in the new agreement and seeking better communication with the Board of Directors of the Agency. A summary report was prepared by the consultant.

Fourth Negotiation Session was held on January 27, 2003. Feed back from the ad hoc group on Conservation issue language was reviewed and refined.  A report from the ad hoc group working on bettering communication with the Board of Directors of the Agency was heard and agreed to in concept. The ad hoc group working on the Marin Municipal Water District and Town of Windsor impacts recommended letters be sent to these two entities requesting certain information and an indication of commitment to certain conditions developed to deal with cost impacts.  The parties confirmed negotiation meetings would be held on the fourth Monday of each month. A summary report was prepared by the consultant.

Fifth Negotiation Session was held on February 24, 2003.  Proposed language to settle Conservation issues was reviewed and approved with three changes. Governance issues were taken up. The parties agreed on a two tier WAC - a policy group meeting quarterly and a technical support group meeting monthly. The Agency agreed to appoint a liaison from its Board to coordinate with the WAC. The voting method applicable to powers granted to the WAC in the agreement was debated and the majority favored retaining the current method of voting. Proposed letters to be sent to the Marin Municipal Water District and Town of Windsor (see Fourth Negotiation Session notes) were further discussed. The parties reviewed the negotiation method and progress and decided to "stay the course" and continue with the Interest Based Negotiation method supplemented with ad hoc working groups as necessary. A revised negotiation timeline was reviewed including the estimated schedule for taking up the framework issues identified by the parties after hearing from the public and additional issues raised by the Agency.

Sixth Negotiation Session was held on March 24, 2003. Parties agreed on voting method WAC would employ to reach a decision regarding exercise of powers to be granted WAC in proposed new agreement. Copy of letter approved by WAC to be sent to Town of Windsor was distributed.  Suggested language for resolution of Framework Issues concerning Watershed Management, Planning, General Plan Relationships, and Basic Agreement Concepts was taken up.

Seventh Negotiation Session was held on April 28, 2003. Parties received a letter from the Town of Windsor agreeing in principal to key conditions suggested by the WAC.  The SCWA agreed to Conservation Issues language worked out with/by the WAC. The WAC took up 21 key issues identified by the SCWA as being in contention between the SCWA and the WAC.  Consultant John Nelson presented a table containing the position of the WAC on each issue, position of the SCWA, and resolution of each suggested by the consultant.  Negotiations proceeded on these 21 issues.  The WAC resolved that it would focus on these 21 issues and then take up remaining Framework Issues that had not yet been addressed or resolved.

Eighth Negotiation Session was held on May 19, 2003. SCWA offered one more change to Conservation Issues language and feedback on position on a number of Governance Issues.  WAC decided to circulate a final draft of letter to MMWD for comment.  Main focus was on review of changes to language suggested for key issues in contention between the SCWA and WAC.

Ninth Negotiation Session was held on June 23, 2003.  Key issues regarding "Governance" issues were agreed to.  Sending a letter to MMWD to solicit continued interest and positions on certain key issues was approved for sending. The parties' debated language suggested by SCWA for "Water Management and Watershed Planning", "Addition of New Facilities" and "Recycled Water" issues and suggested changes.

Tenth Negotiation Session was held on July 28, 2003.  Final language regarding powers of the Water Advisory Committee containing most of the "Governance" issues was negotiated.  It was noted by chair that letter to MMWD approved by WAC and soliciting continued interest and positions on certain key issues was being posted in a day or two. The parties' negotiated revised language regarding "Water Management and Watershed Planning" and "Addition of New Facilities" and suggested changes.

Eleventh Negotiation Session was held on August 25, 2003.  The General Manager of MMWD said the MMWD Board would soon be responding to the letter from the WAC soliciting continued interest and positions on certain key issues. Final language regarding powers of the Water Advisory Committee containing most of the "Governance" issues was reviewed and some editing and refinements suggested. Language regarding "Water Management and Watershed Planning" was reviewed and found wanting with regard to how the various funds interrelated. Regards "Addition of New Facilities", an ad hoc committee was appointed to sort out how allocation during shortages would work and other related issues. Funding and commitments regarding "Recycled Water and Local Water Supply Projects" that reduce demand on the aqueduct were debated and a redraft of this section requested together with a survey of the water contractors.

Twelfth Negotiation Session was held on September 22, 2003. Ron Theisen, Chief Engineer of Marin Municipal Water District said the MMWD Board had deferred discussion of the WAC letter soliciting continued interest and position on certain key issues to its Board meeting of October 1, 2003. Final language regarding powers of the Water Advisory Committee containing most of the "Governance" issues was reviewed and approved by the parties. Language regarding "Water Management and Watershed Planning" was reviewed and discussion centered on need to identify all beneficiaries of Endangered Species Act remedies and find a way for fairly allocating costs and obtaining revenues. An ad-hoc subcommittee of the WAC will soon be meeting on the matter of "Addition of New Facilities" and shortage allocation issues.  Regards "Recycled Water/Local Supply Projects", the SCWA representative offered to characterize the 7,500 ac-ft per year figure as a goal provided water contractors commit to paying a charge that would assist funding a portion (about half) of these types of projects. WAC members raised issues about the approach and how to assure equitable use of funds and water/offset yields.  A survey of projected project yields is being conducted.

Thirteenth Negotiation Session was held on October 27, 2003. The parties decided to pursue wrapping up areas of consensus reached to date in a 12th Amended Agreement.  SCWA consul will prepare the draft. It was understood it would include some other items for consideration that the SCWA wished to include at this time. The parties indicated they felt this interim approach was necessary as they awaited information expected to be forthcoming in the next year regards potential Endangered Species Act mitigation actions and costs and so that full energies can be devoted to negotiating an extension of the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Water Transmission System Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment which is necessary due to delay of the Transmission System EIR and projects related thereto. A list of unresolved negotiation issues will be prepared and the parties expressed their intent to pick up negotiations once again in the future.  The parties also reviewed revised provisions regarding Water Management and Recycled Water.

Fourteenth Negotiation Session was held on December 15, 2003.  Marin Municipal Water District noted it was not a party to the Eleventh Amended Agreement and acknowledged it therefore would not be a party to the proposed Twelfth Amended Agreement but stated it was interested in participating in future negotiations.  Mr. Poole presented a draft of the Twelfth Amended Agreement noting that he preferred calling it the "Restructured Agreement for Water Supply." After discussion, the WAC requested Consultant John Nelson prepare a list identifying changed language in the draft which is at variance with language previously tentatively agreed to during the course of negotiations - including any material new language and, working with Mr. Poole, document the Agency's purpose and intent as it relates to such variances.  Concern was expressed about priorities, i.e. whether to focus efforts on addressing extension of the MOU re. Interim Impairment or proceeding with the 12th Amended Agreement negotiation, etc. The WAC opted to place this matter on the next negotiation session agends (January 26th) for discussion.

Fifteenth Negotiation Session was held on January 26, 2004. After discussion, the WAC voted to pursue the following two parallel courses of action with goal of completing the WAC negotiation phase of each by July 31, 2004:

• Negotiate extension of the MOU re Interim Impairment
• Negotiate a new agreement using SCWA's January draft of the Restructured Water Supply Agreement as a beginning point.

The parties reviewed significant variances (termed modified and new language) between the January draft of the Restructured Water Supply Agreement and agreements previously reached by WAC negotiators.

Sixteenth Negotiation Session was held on February 23, 2004.  The WAC set the negotiation process in motion to extend the MOU re. Interim Impairment.  A technical group made up of representatives of all parties (Cotati, Petaluma, Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, Sonoma, Windsor, Forestville WD, North Marin WD, Marin Municipal WD, Valley of the Moon WD and Sonoma County Water Agency) will commence negotiations following the regular WAC meeting of March 2, 2004.  Regarding the proposed Restructured Water Supply Agreement, the parties reviewed tentative progress to date coming as a result of individual meetings held between the SCWA and water contractors.

Seventeenth Negotiation Session was held on March 22, 2004. The WAC received the 2nd Draft of the proposed Restructured Water Supply Agreement and reviewed changes negotiated between the parties and the Agency in the first round of individual negotiation meetings held between the Agency and each of the water contractors (Attachment B).  It was agreed that a second round of negotiations would ensue during which individual parties will bring forth their specific positions/language on matters of interest to them as it relates to the 2nd Draft.  Mr. Poole also prresented cost data on watersshed planning and restoration and other new charges proposed to be included in the agreement (Attachments C and D).

Eighteenth Negotiation Session was held on April 26, 2004. Mr. Poole presented a forecast of charges for the new funds created in the proposed new agreement (Attachment B).  The WAC received the 3rd Draft of the proposed Restructured Water Supply Agreement, reviewed changes and suggested additional changes (Attachment C). The parties reviewed a comparison of the original List of 56 suggestions coming from public input and suggested some additional changes for the next agreement draft (Attachment D).

Nineteenth Negotiation Session was held on May 24, 2004. Mr. Nelson presented copies of Draft 4 of the proposed Restructured Water Supply Agreement and discussed some added changes needed. Mr. Poole reported that negotiations with Town of Windsor regarding amendment of the Airport area service agreement and the agreement concerning direct diversions from the Russian River are well along and that he and Windsor staff expect to have revisions necessary to conform the agreements to the proposed Restructured Agreement ready to sign at the same time the Restructured Agreement is ready to approve. Mr. Kumar presented updated information comparing FY 04-05 costs vs. projections for FY 05-06 and the impact of proposed new charges on the overall rates projected to be paid by Water Contractors. This comparison is included in Attachment B. Mr. Poole indicated he hoped to have the Restructured Agreement reviewed by all attorneys and be completed enough for local councils and boards of signers to consider approval starting sometime in July.

Twentieth Negotiation Session was held on June 28, 2004.  Parties stated where they were in the process of legal and policy review of Draft 4 of the Restructured Agreement for Water Supply.  Discussion focused on two key issues of concern regarding how to equitably take demand hardening due to conservation efforts into account when allocating water during a shortage and issues pertaining to conforming delivery amounts contained in the agreement to current general plans. Mr. Nelson also presented the work product of the MOU Tech. Group charged with drafting an Extended MOU re. Interim Impairment.  This second agreement deals with how to respond to deficiency in Aqueduct System limitations currently being experienced during summer hot spells.  Path forward agreed to by Parties included continuation of parallel track on both agreements, completion of work on demand hardening issue, and feedback on legal and policy reviews of agreements.

Twenty-first Negotiation Session was held on August 23, 2004.  Parties stated where they were in the process of legal and policy review of Draft 4 of the Restructured Agreement for Water Supply.  Discussion followed on issue concerning allocation of water during a shortage. Santa Rosa has proposed a method that takes into account demand hardening and has met with the Water Contractors and has prepared and ciculated draft language changes for Section 3.5. This process is being pursued and parties hope to reach agreement on the Section 3.5 language in the next month or so. The SCWA has scheduled a workshop to discuss the allocation policy for November 1, 2004.

Work on the MOU is nearly complete with the exception of some technical changes pertaining to references, which is expected to be completed by the next negotiation session set for September 27, 2004.

Twenty-second Negotiation Session was held on September 25, 2004. Draft 6 of the Extended MOU was presented but noted it needed yet an additional revision to reflect SCWA's decision to update the Interim Impairment resolution. Parties discussed Santa Rosa's water shortage allocation approach.  The SCWA, Petaluma and Sonoma noted problems. SCWA will meet with Santa Rosa.  Petaluma is preparing an allocation proposal.  Other changes needed to Draft 4 of the Restructured Agreement were noted and a path forward discussed.

Twenty-third Negotiation Session was held on October 25, 2004. Draft 7 of the Extended MOU was prresented and approved by the WAC for circulation to decision makers. Regards the Restructured Agreement negotiation, the City of Petaluma presented an alternative allocation methodology, which was debated. Questions arose on Tier 2 allocations (allocation of water that may be available in excess of meeting human sanitation and fire protection needs). Further negotiation and study was indicated.

Twenty-fourth Negotiation Session was held on December 6, 2004. Allocation of water during a long-term shortage (Section 3.5) was discussed at length by the parties with no consensus arising. Petaluma's representative Mike Healy suggested changes to Section 1.6 concerning annual limits.  Pam Torliatt, of Petaluma, agreed to come back to the parties with more information about her proposal to adopt a goal of not increasing demand on the Russian River by meeting the demand of new growth allowed with conservation. 

Twenty-fifth Negotiation Session was held on January 24, 2005. Allocation of water during a long-term shortage (Section 3.5) was again the main topic and parties reviewed language presented by Santa Rosa. Toni Bertolero asked that the Agency address the applicability of the current water rights permit limit of 75,000 ac-ft per year.  Petaluma presenting language it preferred regarding Section 1.6. Marin Municipal Water District's upcoming option date in July concerning purchase of an additional 5.000 ac-ft per year in the Russian River was discussed.  Paul Helliker of MMWD suggested that the contractors consider an alternative to MMWD's exercising its option.

Twenty-sixth Negotiation Session was held on February 28, 2005.  The water rights permit limit was discussed. MMWD presented two options regards its option to purchase additional water and WAC considered offer to recommend to the Agency. Mr. Poole distributed a new draft of the Restructured Water Supply Agreement (Feb. 28, 2005 Draft) which included language addressing the issue of how to deal with demand hardening when allocating water during a shortage.

Twenty-seventh Negotiation Session was held on April 25, 2005. The status of key remaining issues was discussed. Parties indicated the need to see a water allocation.

Twenty-eighth Negotiation Session was held on June 6, 2005. Changes suggested by Pam Torliatt of Petaluma concerning water conservation, recycled water and local supply project details were discussed and the consensus of the parties was that these were best dealt with by the new Water Conservation subcommittee provided for in the new agreement. Changes agreed upon at the last session were reviewed and general agreement to conclude negotiations agreed upon.  Marin Municipal Water District offered another alternative regarding its option for an additional 5,000 acre-ft of water from Lake Sonoma storage and the WAC agreed to consider same."

Twenty-ninth Negotiation Session was held on June 27, 2005.  WAC members reported their position on the Marin Municipal Water District request to defer payment for additional 5.000 acre-ft of water from Lake Sonoma and the matter was referred to the Sonoma County Water Agency Board of Directors without a WAC recommendation.  Final draft of the new Extended MOU was presented.  Some minor typos were noted. Jake Mackenzie moved that the parties approve the Extended MOU, with corrections, and that the parties present it to their respective governing bodies for approval. Krishna Kumar seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. The parties reviewed the allocation model prepared by John Nelson.  Santa Rosa staff offered comments on how the model might be improved by also considering a reward for conservation efforts when allocating "Tier 2" water.  The parties agreed this could be discussed later in the fall when better data was available from the ongoing studies being conducted for the new Urban Water Management Plan.  Pam Torliatt said that Petaluma would need to see the final model before considering approval of the proposed Restructured Agreement. It was the consensus of the parties that the allocation model should be reviewed and updated when the new data is available. The final draft of the proposed Restructured Agreement was reviewed and Mike Martini of Santa Rosa, moved that the parties approve the Restructured Water Supply Agreement as to form and present it to their respective governing bodies for approval. Terry Stubbings of Cotati seconded the motion.   After discussion, the motion was approved by the representatives of Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Sonoma, Cotati, Windsor, Valley of the Moon WD, North Marin WD, and Forestville WD.  Pam Torliatt, Petaluma, voted "no" stating that her vote was contingent on Council review and that they may have changes for the parties to consider.

Negotiations on both the Restructured Agreement for Water Supply and Extended MOU were completed in mid-calendar year 2006. See box note on Home page.

Back to top