MPRWA Agenda Packet 8-13-15

8/20/2019 MPRWA Agenda Packet 8-13-15

1/38

AgendaMonterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

Regular Meeting

7:00 PM, Thursday, August 13, 2015

CALL IN LOCATION: 407 South SupernawSkiatook, OK 74070

PHYSICAL LOCATION: Council Chamber580 Pacific Street

Monterey, California

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM BOARD DIRECTORS AND STAFF

PUBLIC COMMENTSPUBLIC COMMENTS allows you, the public, to speak for a maximum of three minutes on anysubject which is within the jurisdiction of the MPRWA and which is not on the agenda. Any personor group desiring to bring an item to the attention of the Authority may do so by addressing theAuthority during Public Comments or by addressing a letter of explanation to: MPRWA, Attn:Monterey City Clerk, 580 Pacific St, Monterey, CA 93940. The appropriate staff person will contact

the sender concerning the details.

CONSENT AGENDA

1. Approve the Minutes of July 9, 2015 Regular Meeting - Milton

2. Approve the Minutes of July 29, 2015 Special Meeting - Milton

3. Approve and File Checks - Milton

4. Receive the Most Recent Update of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Schedule for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project - Cullem

AGENDA ITEMS

5. Receive an Update on the Summary Project Schedule for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP), including Status of the Application to the Coastal Commission for an Amended Coastal Development Permit (CDP) to Resume Slant Test Well Operations, Receive Responses to Questions Provided to California American Water Company on July 29, 2015, Review the Table of Permits and Approvals, and Approve a Letter to Cal Am With Regard to Slant Well Financial Risk - Crooks

6. Receive Report, Discuss, and Provide Direction on Final Application to the State Water

Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) Extension

http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81691http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81691http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81682http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81682http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81683http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81683http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81685http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81685http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81685http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81686http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81686http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81686http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81686http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81686http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81686http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81687http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81687http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81687http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81687http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81686http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81686http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81686http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81686http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81686http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81686http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81685http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81685http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81683http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81682http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81691


2/38

Thursday, August 13, 2015

2

Request, and Authorize the Authority President to Send a Comment Letter to the Board Staff on Its Draft Response to the Cal Am Draft CDO Application - Cullem

7. Approve a Letter from the Water Authority to the Marina City Council Inviting Marina to

Name a Non-voting Hydrogeologist to the MPWSP Hydrogeological Working Group (HWG) - Cullem

8. Receive Presentation, Discuss, and Provide Staff Direction on the Deep Water Desal

Project - Adamson

9. Receive Presentation, Discuss, and Provide Staff Direction on the Peoples Desal Project -

Balch

ADJOURNMENT

The City of Monterey is committed to including the disabled in all of its services, programs andactivities. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistanceto participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (831) 646-3935.Notification 30 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangementsto ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II]. Later requests willbe accommodated to the extent feasible. For communication-related assistance, dial 711 to usethe California Relay Service (CRS) to speak to City offices. CRS offers free text-to-speech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you require a hearingamplification device to attend a meeting, dial 711 to use CRS to talk to the City Clerk's Office at(831) 646-3935 to coordinate use of a device.

Agenda related writings or documents provided to the MPRWA are available for publicinspection during the meeting or may be requested from the Monterey City Clerk’s Office at 580Pacific St, Room 6, Monterey, CA 93940. This agenda is posted in compliance with CaliforniaGovernment Code Section 54954.2(a) or Section 54956.

http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81687http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81687http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81698http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81698http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81698http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81688http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81688http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81689http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81689http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81689http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81689http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81688http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81688http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81698http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81698http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81698http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81687http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=81687


3/38

MINUTES

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)Regular Meeting

7:00 PM, Thursday, July 9, 2015COUNCIL CHAMBER580 PACIFIC STREET

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Directors Present: Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Burnett

Directors Absent: Roberson

Staff Present: Executive Director, Legal Counsel, Clerk

ROLL CALL

President Burnett called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.



President Burnett invited comments from the Directors.

President Burnett reported that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) announcedthe comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) will be extended fromJuly 13 to September 30th, 2015 to address a potential conflict of interest and attempt to alignthe document with the NEPA process. He then reported that the State Water ResourcesControl Board announced their ruling on the petition on the Odello water which would bring in85 acre foot of water into the Cal Am system and leave water in the Carmel River. This will

benefit the CDO extension request and has additional benefits to the Carmel River water shedand the City of Carmel by the Sea.

President Burnett requested tabling Agenda Item 4, as the letter is no longer relevant for tonightdue to the extension. He also reported that the SWRCB had intended to provide comments onthe draft petition in advance of this meeting but were not received. The letter will not be sentuntil comments are received and addressed.

Executive Director Cullem reported on the comment letter submitted by Janie Haines whichwas forwarded to Andrew Barnsdale at the CPUC as a DEIR comment expressing concernregarding the long term viability of the test well. He additionally reported on the PowerPurchase Agreement regarding renewable power that the cost of power is an issue due to the

capital investment. However preliminary engineering work has been done and a full report willbe brought back at a later date.

PUBLIC COMMENTSPresident Burnett invited comments from the public.

• Tom Rowley spoke representing Monterey Peninsula Tax Payers Association thankingthe Authority for commissioning the technical report about the DEIR and spoke insupport of the DEIR comment extension period. Finally, he clarified there areorganizations that continue to submit letters to the editor that say they represent taxpayers but they are not part of the MPTA, who has been advocating water issues foryears. The Authority has been effective in lobbying for water for the Peninsula and


4/38

MPRWA Minutes Thursday, July 9, 2015

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Regular Meeting Minutes - Thursday, July 9, 20152

encouraged them to keep up the good work.

• George Riley expressed serious concern regarding the management of the process thatis resulting in the delay of the DEIR including the lack of coordination to ensure CEQAand NEPA are on the same track. He expressed frustration that the conflict of interestissue was brought up before and should have been addressed previously.

• Dale Heikous thanked Royal Caulkins for his reporting on issues in Carmel and that hethinks it was a service to the Citizens.

President Burnett responded to public comment agreeing with Mr. Riley that it should havebeen a joint NEPA/CEQA document and spoke to previous efforts advocating for a jointdocument.

CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Director Kampe, seconded by Director Pendergrass, and carried by thefollowing vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority approved the Consent Agenda

with the exception of Item 4. Director Rubio Abstained from the Minutes.

AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, RubioNOES: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSENT: 1 DIRECTORS: RobersonABSTAIN: 1 DIRECTORS: Rubio, From Item 1RECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

1. Approve Minutes from June 23, 2015 Joint Special Meeting

Action: Approved

2. Approve Minutes from August 14, 2014 Regular MeetingAction: Approved

3. Approve and File Checks Through June 30, 2015

Action: Approved

4. Receive , Discuss, Provide Direction as Necessary on Final Comment Letter to the CaliforniaPublic Utilities Commission (CPUC) on the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project DraftEnvironmental Impact ReportAction: Tabled

AGENDA ITEMS

5. Receive an Update on the Summary Project Schedule for the Monterey Peninsula Water SupplyProject (MPWSP) including Status of Slant Test Well Operations and Results


5/38




Ian Crooks from Cal Am began by reporting on the Dana Point test well and spoke to thedifferences between the Dana Point and the current test well and detailed the lessons learned thathave been incorporated into this project. He listed the differences between the two projects toinclude time constrains, money constraints as well as differences in technology. Mr. Crooks spoketo a report written by the Principle Engineer for Dana Point addressing responses to the criticismsof the well and addressing the issues. The new project design has benefitted from the report, towhich he agreed to send to the Directors. Mr. Crooks answered questions from the Directors.

Director Kampe questioned is how long before they begin to see the effects of sand in the pumpand if it occurs, how much time is needed to resolve the problem if it occurs to which Mr. Crooksagreed to find out and report back.

Mr. Crooks gave a quick overview of the test well data statistics, then detailed the purpose andthe reasoning for discontinuing the test well pumping as required as part of the permitagreement. He indicated that, as the permit is written, if any decline in the water level occurs,pumping must cease. He spoke to data collected that proves the decline in water level was notrelated to the test well pumping and that the Hydrogeological Working Group has submitted aletter to the CPUC to request modification of the permit requirement. Draft language for thepermit modification will be submitted to the Coastal Commission for an August decision on theamendment. The Directors discussed the data results and the permit requirements for thedrawdown to ensure there is a conservative approach to protect the environment in an unknownsituation.

President Burnett invited public comment on the item.

• George Riley spoke to his continued concern regarding the lack of data. He indicted thathe did not think that the Dana Point project was time or financially constrained. If there wasa design change between the two projects, that's what the patent was about, regarding thefiltration of the sand particles, but they deny the use of the patent, and there are mixedfacts and it needs more clarification and research. The group has been concerned aboutthe feasibility question and it must be robust and short time frames are not acceptable forgood data.

• Doug Wilhelm requested clarification regarding the agricultural farmers using the purplepipe which should not have any effect on the water level.

Mr. Crooks spoke to Mr. Wilhelm's question and spoke to the trend line that regarding long termpumping which proves there was a decline in the ground water. It is a basin decline, not relatedto the well, it is general pumping which is causing the event. This is part of the seawaterintrusion issue. The report was received.

6. Discuss Concerns of the City of Marina with Respect to the Monterey Peninsula Water SupplyProject (MPWSP) and the Pure Water Monterey/Ground Water Replenishment (GWR) Projects

and Provide DirectionAction: Tabled

This item was tabled.

7. Receive Report, Discuss, Provide Staff Direction, and Authorize the Water Authority ExecutiveDirector and/or President to Co-sign or Send Letter in Support of the Proposed Cease andDesist Order Extension Request


6/38




Action: Discussed and Direction Provided

President Burnett reported that comments have not been received from the State WaterResources Control Board staff to date and think there is not an appetite to make significantchanges, but they will have the final say. Executive Director Cullem outlined the key points thatare included in the CDO request.

Director Pendergrass expressed satisfaction that the community retains it's rights to litigate theissue if necessary and he requested a copy of the letter be provide prior to the meeting the nexttime this item is agendized.

President Burnett invited public comment on the item.

• George Riley questioned the monitoring of Cal Am and monitoring of the 1,000 footlevel. What are some of the monitoring mechanisms and can that be taken up by theTAC to ensure they are caught in time.

• Tom Rowley indicated that this brings up who is going ot be the litigants, and all the CityCouncils may want to be a player and that the Monterey County still is not representedand this emphasizes the County should be represented as a member of the Authority.

• Dale Ellis spoke on behalf of the Coalition of Peninsula Businesses indicating that theysupport moving forward with this, and they are pleased to see the CPB’s concerns beingaddressed in the letter.

President Burnett requested the Authority to table sending the letter until comments arereceived from the SWRCB staff. The Directors agreed.

Executive Director Cullem acknowledged that as soon as there is authorization to release thedraft, amended letter, it will be distributed to Directors with enough time to review, and it will beposted on the website.

8. Discuss, Provide Direction and Authorize Sending of Comment letter to the PCA / WaterManagement District on the Pure Water Monterey/Ground Water Replenishment (GWR) ProjectAction: Discussed

Executive Director Cullem reported that there have been comments received and concernsexpressed by other agencies and interested parties concerning a the availability of adequatesources of intake water to meet the demands needed by the various water users as it relates tothe Groundwater Replenishment project. He reminded the Directors and the public that theGWR project is critical to the decision on the sizing of the MPRWSP desal facility.

President Burnett clarified that he requested this item be added to the agenda to provide theopportunity for the public to hear the answers to these concerns.

Paul Scuito, General Manager of the MRWPCA, spoke to his understanding of the concern ofsource water and reliability for the GWR Project. The reliability focuses on three areas;conservation of waste water flows to the plant, the viability of agricultural wash water and use ofsome of the drainage areas. He explained the status of each of the three areas including thevolume and the trends of the flows now and projected into the future. He did confirm that manyof the estimates are conservative.


7/38




Mr. Sciuto reiterated that the project is viable, as presented in the EIR. He spoke to theprogress made on the water purchase agreement, successful meetings with the County WaterResources Control Board, that wash water agreements with the City of Salinas are beingfinalized. Ongoing negotiations with MCWD are occurring, but meetings have been delayed dueto schedule conflicts.

Dave Stoldt, General Manager of the MPWMD agreed with Mr. Sciuto’s combination of water

sources and reported that the growers will continue find different sources and pull about thesame amount of water no matter where the source is and that technology will continue tochange processes. He indicated that the focus now is the Marina Coast Water District’sconcern regarding the monitization of stranded costs.

Director Rubio spoke to the positive tenor and in agreement with the progress that has beenmade on behalf of all negotiating parties. President Burnett spoke to his efforts on the Statelevel to discuss the success of the project and the need for federal/state funding.

Mr. Scuito closed by saying that both boards will be approving the application for the SRFfunding and that approval of SRF funds put you in an eligibility position for grant funds.

President Burnett invited comments from the public.

• Tom Rowley said it was encouraging that there is progress but disagreed withcertification of the EIR without solid agreements.

Mr. Stoldt responded that the certification of the EIR does not depend on the source water.Director Pendergrass spoke to a prototype of water cleaning at the MRWPCA that will berevealed in August and encouraged interested individuals to reach out and schedule a tour.

9. Annual Appointment of Officers for Fiscal Year 2015-16

Action: Approved Appointments

Director Rubio made a motion to keep the same format of officers as elected last term.President Burnett invited comments from the public and had no requests to speak. All membersagreed to keep their current positions.

On a motion by Director Rubio and seconded by Director Edelen, and carried by the followingvote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority approved the following appointment ofofficers for Fiscal Year 2015-16:

President: Mayor Jason BurnettVice President: Mayor Bill KampeSecretary: Mayor David Pendergrass

Treasurer: Mayor Jerry Edelen


10. Water Authority board members authorize the president to represent the city's interest at thegovernance committee for the pipeline RFP.


8/38




President Burnett spoke to being the Authority’s representative on the Governance Committeeand that in the near future the Governance Committee will be reviewing and approving the RFPfor the MPWSP Pipeline. He requested an understanding of the concern of the member cities tobe able to best represent their interests during the GC Meetings.

Director Pendergrass expressed concern that this pipeline is vital to both the GWR and Desal

projects and that the current legal issues with the MCWD can hinder both projects. Heencouraged cooperation. Director Burnett reported on the invitations to the City of Marina toattend this and the next meetings to assist with the cooperation and working with the City andthe District.

Director Edelen requested to get a map that shows the pipeline of the conveyance facilities towhich Mr. Crooks showed a map which outlines the desal plant site, the intake wells and thepipelines that the RFP would cover. After consultation with the Cities, the alternate route hasbeen accepted. Director Rubio reported that the City of Seaside comments were submitted aspart of the DEIR but he questioned the impacts to sewer lines. He spoke to the intent todevelop the currently undeveloped areas, and questioned if future sewer connections wereconsidered to which Crooks reported they are in contact with staff in Seaside. Mayor Rubio also

requested that impacts to residents are truly considered and highlighted.


• Tom Rowley spoke as a Monterey resident regarding the impacts to the residents andrequested outreach to the neighborhoods that will be impacted. This is an improvementfor what was sent out in the flyer to residents.

Documents received from Seaside will be incorporated by reference. Any other commentsreceived from Member cities will be provided at the Governance Committee.

On a motion by Director Edelen seconded by Director Rubio, and carried by the following vote,

the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority authorized President Burnett to represent theInterests of the Authority at the Governance Committee with regard to the pipeline.


ADJOURNMENT

ATTEST:

Lesley Milton-Rerig, Authority Clerk Jason Burnett, President


9/38

MINUTESMONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)

Special Meeting7:00 PM, Thursday, July 29, 2015

COUNCIL CHAMBER580 PACIFIC STREET

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Directors Present: Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Burnett, AlternateDowney

Directors Absent: None

Staff Present: Executive Director, Legal Counsel, Clerk

ROLL CALL

President Burnett called the meeting to order.



President Burnett reported that late edits were made to the letter in Agenda Item 1 andcopies were made for the Directors and the public. He also announced that there wascorrespondence with the State Water Resources Control Board today regarding the draftCDO extension request and how the delay may affect the CDO and they committed toproviding their comments on the draft extension request immediately. The item will beagendized for the August 13th meeting.

Executive Director Cullem reported that the contract with SPI was extended with a $5,000

increase, due to a request for the consultants to draft a technical response for inclusion inthe draft letter addressed to the CPUC. He also indicted that the CPUC canceled the July2015 meeting indefinitely.

PUBLIC COMMENTS


• Tom Rowley expressed concern regarding the policy decision to jointly file the CDOextension request with Cal Am and the MRWMD. He requested consideration ofmaintaining separation and independence of the Authority and the citizens.

• George Riley speaking representing Public Water Now, reported the organization has

exercised its discretion and had discluded itself using the provision in the settlementagreement and will oppose slant wells, based on rate payer interest, due to lack ofcurrent cost estimates from Cal AM and lack of seeking grant assistance.

AGENDA ITEMS

1. iscuss extension of comment period for Draft Environmental Impact Report for theonterey Peninsula Water Supply Project; consider letter responding to California Publictilities Commission, Energy Division’s notice of July 9, 2015 inviting comment on theppropriate response to the potential Geoscience conflict of interest and advisability ofecirculating the Draft EIR as a joint CEQA/NEPA document; and provide appropriate


10/38

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

2

irection to staff and legal counsel - Burnett

President Burnett reported that on July 9th the CPUC Judge Weathorford issued a rulingrequesting parties to submit suggestions regarding the conflict of interest by DennisWilliams, working both for Cal Am and the CPUC regarding modeling. The letter before theDirectors is the proposed response to the request and he spoke to the substantive changesin the document made since the last version was distributed. The red lined version is not asforceful in advocating for a joint document, recognizing that request could invoke significanttiming considerations. The other issue reflected is regarding the need for a recirculatedDEIR which will be left up to the commission, per the results of the peer review. The letteralso identifies a number of areas where the peer review should focus, identified by GeoSyntech and finally he noted the letter also requests that the CPUC reach out to theSWRCB as it affects the CDO and that any delays caused will not be on behalf of thecommunity.

President Burnett also reported that Cal Am has submitted its response to the CPUC datawhich he requested Cal Am report on the content of that filing. Rich Svinland from Calreported on the data request including their contracted work from GeoSciences with CalAm on the failed desal projects and noticed that engineering agreements typically haveproprietary language. He indicated that CPUC staff was very well aware of the contractswith Mr. Williams, but it may not have been at the Commissioner level, However, someoneshould have addressed the perceived or actual conflict. Mr. Svinland verbally committedthat Cal Am will not pass on any costs for patents from GeoSciences to the rate payers.

President Burnett invited comments from the public on this item.• George Riley indicated that the issue that needs to be under discussion is what are

the alternative interests or motives in terms of what he or others were hoping toaccomplish. Regardless of the patent cost to the project, his concern is regardingthe disclosure of the potential interests, which he says is suspicious. Who is tied tothe successful implementation of the project and how far would they go, there isculpability with non-disclosure.

• Dale Ellis, Coalition of Peninsula Businesses discussed this item and are in supportof the letter presented. They appreciate the balance that is attempted to ensure theprocess is sound with a pro-eye on maintaining a speedy process.

President Burnett noted he sent the draft letter to the Settling Parties and received positivefeedback exclusively. He clarified that this letter is also requesting a third peer review of theDEIR that does not have an interest in this project, which is a very limited field of study. TheDirectors discussed the potential conflict and that this is an engineering problem, andquestioned if there was any oversight with regard to the data and the issue with motivations.

President Burnett spoke to a request for updated cost data and reported the cost for the testwell is between approximately $5 to 8 million dollars. He did note that there was one requestfrom a settling party that was not incorporated, which he read to which the Directors agreed tomodify.

Director Kampe questioned the request to have the analysis of the three alternatives which willbe essential and questioned the timeline that will determine which is the preferred alternative.President Burnett spoke to his outreach to the different state agencies that will assist withgetting the NEPA document approved efficiently. He indicated that this should have beenaddressed two year prior but it was not. He then spoke to the balance and the best process withregard to the permitting approvals from the different state and local agencies.


11/38


3

On motion by Director Rubio and seconded by Director Pendergrass and Vice President Kampeand approved by the following vote the Authority Directors approved the draft red-line version ofthe letter and the verbal modification made.

AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Burnett, Downey, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass,Rubio

NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None

ABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneRECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

2. Receive Report, Review Draft Letter, Discuss and Authorize Staff to Send a LetterRegarding the Status of the Test Well and Application to the California CoastalCommission to Modify the Permit and Resume Pumping. - Burnett/Cullem

President Burnett spoke to the item and indicated the information is not in letter form at thispoint but is listed as series of questions requesting more information on the test well and thepermitting process for the MPWSWP. Cal Am and the Community need to understand that thisproject is based on being the fastest and best way to get water for the peninsula and support is

contingent upon performance and currently there is question about Cal Am’s performanceprimarily based on their performance with obtaining permits. The goal is to receive writtenanswers by the 13th for discussion. The risk and the allocation of risk needs to be understood.Cal Am is aware of the questions and requested Cal Am to provide the answers in advance ofpublishing the Agenda packet.

He also reported that the Coastal Commission review of the permit amendment request whichwill allow for restarting the test well has been postponed to the September 2015 agenda due toa need to obtain a peer review of the data and there are only so many specialist that canconduct the review. President Burnett reported on his request to ensure there is no conflict ofinterests with contracting with a specialist.


• George Riley indicated that things that do not serve Cal Am or the Authority well is visualaids in the GeoSyntech Report. Expressed criticism based on the lack of baseline data.He suggested requesting Cal Am include modeling to reconstruct a baseline so there isa basis going forward.

Mr. Svinland responded to the request for information and did place a caveat indicating that CalAm is participating in three active lawsuits to which the answers may be forced to be limited. Mr.Svinland responded that the primary modification to condition 11 will be that going forward theHWG would look at the data on a monthly basis and set a baseline to be able to measure from.The CPUC will hire an additional peer review consultant to verify the data and confirm it as the

baseline data.

President Burnett suggested that if the Authority Directors wanted to move forward, staff wouldrefine the questions and request Cal Am to prepare responses for discussion at the nextmeeting. Director Rubio expressed concern that we have the highly developed expertise andconsultants and expressed concern that there is not a comprehensive baselines. Directorsrequested that be included in the line of questioning.

Mayor Burnett closed by indicating that the purpose of the questions is to ensure that we arecollectively learning from this experience. There should be the expectation that if there will bemistakes with a 4 million dollar process, but that they be corrected. With respect to risk, if we


12/38


4

conclude that after we hear the answers, that there were mistakes, the fairness of the full risk ofthe community bearing the costs needs to be discussed. If there were procedural mistakes, itadds to that question. That is the context of which we will discuss the responses.

On motion by Director Rubio, seconded by Director Edelen and passed by the following thefollowing vote the Authority Directors provided authorization for President Burnett to sign a letterconsistent with the contents of what was included in the agenda report and the inclusion of thecomments made by the Directors during the discussion regarding the baseline.

AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Burnett, Downey, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass,Rubio

NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneRECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

ADJOURNMENT

On motion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:18 PM.

ATTEST:

Lesley Milton-Rerig, Authority Clerk Jason Burnett, President


13/38

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water AuthorityAgenda Report

Date: August 13, 2015

Item No: 3.

FROM: Authority Clerk Milton

SUBJECT: Approval and File Authority Checks through August 5, 2015

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Authority approve and file the accounts payable paymentsmade during the period June 30, 2015 through August 5, 2015 with total payments forthe above referenced period of $44,914.94 from the general fund account and authorizethe Directors to sign for such checks.

DISCUSSION:

At its meeting on September 12, 2013, the Authority Board approved a staffrecommendation to provide the Directors a listing of financial obligations since the lastreport for inspection and confirmation. Each invoiced expense has been reviewed andapproved by the Executive Director and Finance personnel prior to payment to insure thatit conforms to the approved budget.

The following checks are hereby submitted to the Authority for inspection andconfirmation.

• $ 7,595.64 to Brownstein Hyatt Farber and Schreck for Special Legal CounselServices.

• $ 50.00 to Environmental Relations for Public Outreach services

• $ 675.00 to Access Monterey Peninsula

• $ 31,594.30 to Separation Processes Inc for DEIR Review of the MPWSP

• $ 5,000.00 to Perry and Freeman for Legal Counsel Services

The bank balance as of August 5, 2015 is sufficient cover the above check therefore,staff is recommending approval.

ATTACHMENTS:

• Budget to Actual Report through August 5, 2015


14/38


15/38



Item No: 4.

№06/12

FROM: Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT: Receive the Most Recent Update of the California PublicUtilities Commission (CPUC) Schedule for the MontereyPeninsula Water Supply Project

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Water Authority receive the current CPUC

schedule for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) if it isavailable in time for the Aug 13, 2015 meeting.

DISCUSSION:

At its meeting of January 8, 2015, the Water Authority received a January5, 2015 staff revision of the October 7, 2013 CPUC schedule for theMPWSP including the activities needed for the GWR project.

On January 23, 2015, CPUC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Weatherfordannounced a decision making additional changes to the CPUC schedule.

On February 12, 2015 the Water Authority was provided an update of theCPUC schedule. The TAC was briefed on the revised schedule on March2, 2015.

If available in time for the Authority meeting of Aug 13, 2015, a morecurrent update reflecting changes to the schedule due to the delay in

finalizing the DEIR will be provided. Changes from the original October 7,2013 schedule will be highlighted in red.

ATTACHMENTS:

A- Updated CPUC schedule for the MPWSP if available.


16/38


17/38



Item No: 5.

№06/12


SUBJECT: Receive an Update on the Summary Project Schedule for the MontereyPeninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP), including Status of theApplication to the Coastal Commission for an Amended CoastalDevelopment Permit (CDP) to Resume Slant Test Well Operations,Receive Responses to Questions Provided to California American WaterCompany on July 29, 2015, Review the Table of Permits and Approvals,and Approve a Letter to Cal Am With Regard to Slant Well Financial Risk

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Water Authority Board receive a report from Cal Am on thelatest "Summary" MPWSP schedule, including the status of the application to theCalifornia Coastal Commission (CCC) for an amended CDP to resume operation of thetest slant well. Cal Am is also being requested to provide answers to a number of testwell questions and to discuss its most current table of required permits and approvals. Itis further recommended that the Board authorize the sending of a letter to Cal Amrequesting it assume the financial risk of the slant wells

DISCUSSION:

Cal Am routinely provides a "Summary Schedule" update at the Water Authoritymeeting. Since the slant test well was effectively shut down in June 2015, that scheduleneeds to now identify when Cal Am will appear before the Coastal Commission for anamended CDP allowing full resumption of pumping. The CCC date for consideration iscritical to timely participation by the Authority and interested members of the public.

Cal Am's recently developed table of permits and approvals will facilitate adetermination of the actual and potential delays Cal Am faces in completing theMPWSP. That, in turn, can provide direction to the Authority as to where, when, andhow it should further engage with permitting agencies to move the MPWSP forward. CalAm will present the permits and approvals schedule at the meeting, if available in time.

Cal Am was posed a number of questions concerning the test slant well at the WaterAuthority meeting of July 29. The questions are provided at Attachment A. Cal Am'sresponses are at Attachment B. However, the answers to the questions confirm that CalAm has substantial control over the eventual success or failure of the slant wells as thesource of feed water to the desal facility. Accordingly, the Authority believes that theratepayers should not bear the financial risk associated with the slant wells. TheAuthority Board is thus requested to authorize the President to send a letter to Cal Am


18/38

requesting it affirm that it shall not seek reimbursement for slant well costs in the eventthat the slant wells do not work well enough to meet the feed water requirements of theMPWP desal facility. A draft of the letter will be provided to the Board at the meeting.

ATTACHMENTS:

A- Questions Regarding the Test Slant WellB- Response to Water Authority Questions


19/38

(

13).

, () #11

“ Protection of Nearby Wells. PRIOR TO STARTING PROJECT-

RELATED PUMP TESTS, the Permittee shall install monitoring devices a

minimum of four wells on the CEMEX site, within 2000 feet of the test well, and

one or more offsite wells to record water and salinity levels within the wells and

shall provide to the Executive Director the baseline water and Total Dissolved

Solids (“TDS”) levels in those wells prior to commencement of pumping from the

test well. The Hydrogeology Working Group shall establish the baseline water andTDS levels for the monitoring wells. During the project pump tests, the Permittee

shall, at least once per day, monitor water and TDS levels within those wells in

person and/or with electronic logging devices. The Permittee shall post data

collected from all monitoring wells on a publicly-available internet site at least

once per week and shall provide all monitoring data to the Executive Director

upon request. If water levels drop more than one-and- one-half foot, or if TDS

levels increase more than two thousand parts per million from pre-pump test

conditions, the Permittee shall immediately stop the pump test and inform the

Executive Director. The Hydrogeology Working Group shall examine the data

from Monitoring Well 4 if the test well is shut down due to either of these causes.The Hydrogeology Working Group shall determine whether the drop in water

level or increase in TDS is from a cause or causes other than the test well, and it

will submit its determination to the Executive Director. If the Executive Director

agrees with the Hydrogeology Working Group that the cause of the drop in water

level or increase in TDS was a source or sources other than the test well, then the

Executive Director may allow testing to resume. If, however, the Executive

Director determines that the drop in water level was caused at least in part by the

test well, then the Permittee shall not re-start the pump test until receiving an

amendment to this permit.”

:

1. #11

at least in part by the test well?”

2. Does this condition not mean, if taken literally, that the drop due to the test

well could be arbitrarily small and virtually all of the drop could be due to

other sources?


20/38

3. 2014

. .

4. ,

. , ,

11

5.

#4

,

6. #4 (4)

4

7. 4 5 ,

8.

5 #11 3

,

9.

5,

10.

3,

.

11.

12.

#11

13.

14.

15.

.

16.

17.


21/38

LIFORNI

AMERICAN WATER

4701 Beloit Drive

Sacramento CA 95838

www.amwateccomicaaw/

P 916.568.4296

F 916.568.4286

Via Email and U.S. Mail

August 7, 2015

M r. Jim Cullem

Executive D irector


580 Pacific Street

M onterey, CA 93940

Re.: California American Water Company Responses to Monterey Peninsula

Regional Water Authority Questions About Test Slant Well Permit and

Required Amendment

Dear M r. Cullem,

This letter is in response to the set of questions the M onterey Peninsula Regional W ater

Authority provided to C alifornia Am erican Water on July 29, 2015 con cerning the recent

shutdown of our test slant well, the underlying permits, and our application to amend

Special Condition 11 of those perm its. I have included each question, followed by our

response, in sequence below.

1. Is the key problem with condition #11 that the pump cannot be restarted if

the drop is caused at least in part by the test well?

Response:

The fact that pum ping cannot be restarted under existing Special

Condition 11 if a 1.5 drop in groundwater elevation at Monitoring Well 4 is

caused

at least in part

by the test well is one of the issues that California

Am erican Water is seeking to address with its application to modify. California

Am erican Water and the Hydrogeologic W orking Group ( HW G ) believe that it

is more app ropriate to require shutdown if the Executive D irector of the Coastal

Com mission determines that test well causes an

ntir

1.5' drop. The language in

question here ( caused at least in party by ) was added to Special Condition 11 by

the Coastal Commission in its November 11, 2014 Addendum to Staff Report.

A secon d and equ ally significant constraint with existing Special C ondition 11 is

that it requires the HWG to monitor for a 1.5 drop in elevation from the elevation


22/38

Mr. Jim Cullem

August 7 2015

Page 2 of 6

at a set point in time, immediately before long term pum p testing began on April

22, 2015w ithout accounting for regional trends or natural fluctuations in

groundwater elevation.

2

Does this condition not mean, if taken literally, that the drop due to the test

well could be arbitrarily small and virtually all of the drop could be due to

other sources?

Response

Yes. As w ritten the condition requires pumping to be suspended and

amendm ent to be sought where a 1.5' drop in groundwater elevation occurs at

M onitoring Well 4, and the drop is caused

at least in partby the test well.

California Am erican Water and its consultants failed to consider the regional

impact on local groundw ater elevations when w e received and reviewed the

Coastal Com mission's Staff Report on October 31, 2014 , and therefore did not

comment on this issue before the November 12, 2014 Coastal Commission

hearing. We exp ect the end result of the application to am end Special Con dition

11 w ill be a more robust operating perm it that is protective of the environment

while facilitating continued d ata collection.

3

Prior to the issuance of the test slant well permit by the CCC in late 2014 the

Water Authority asked CalAm whether the permit conditions were

acceptable and workable. We were told they were. Can CalAm please

confirm that CalAm judged the conditions to be acceptable and workable?

Response

Please see response to Question 2, above. No te that the language

caused at least in part by was added to Special Cond ition 11 by the Coastal

Commission in its November 11, 2014 Addendum to Staff Report, and we do not

recall discussing the issue with M PRW A before the corresponding C oastal

Development Permits were approved on November 12, 2015.

4 In particular, the Water Authority asked whether any of the conditions

regarding the monitoring well would be triggered if things worked as

planned. Did CalAm, at the time of the CCC issuance of the permit,

understand that background pumping would reasonably likely lead to special

condition 11 not being met?

Response:

Please see response to Question 2 above.

5

Were historical trends analyzed for wells in the area and were there any

projections of drawdown in MW 4 due to sources other than the test slant

well? If not, why not?


23/38

Mr. Jim Cullem

August 7,2015

Page 3 of 6

Response:

Please see response to Qu estion 2, above.

6

When was monitoring well #4 (MW-4) constructed and when was data first

available? When could trends of a drawdown of MW-4 first be seen?

Response

The M W-4 m onitoring well cluster was com pleted on March 7, 2015.

After som e initial installation issues w ith transducers, groundwater elevation

trending of all three wells at MW -4 started on April 2, 2015. Long-term test well

pum ping began on A pril 22, 2015. This provided 20 days to collect and analyze

daily groundwater elevations and plot trends prior to com m encem ent of pump

testing. The data was provided to the Co astal Com m ission in the Baseline

Technical Mem orandum w hich reported some downward trends in the M W-4M

and MW -4D prior to initiation of the long-term pum ping test see table on page

11 of that document).

7

If trends of a drawdown of MW-4 could be seen prior to June 5th, why did

CalAm not begin taking steps earlier to prepare for an amended permit?

Respon s e : Please see response to Qu estion 6, above.

8

When the test well was shut down in June 5th did CalAm foresee a

reasonable possibility that Condition #11 could be read as the CCC has in its

July 3rd letter? If not, why not given the language about water level drop

being caused at least in part by the test well?

Response :

At the time of the initial shutdown, we believed that the Coastal

Co m m ission had the latitude to allow California Am erican Water to continue

pum ping without a permit ame ndme nt if the Executive Director agreed with the

HWG s conclusion that the 1.5 drawdown was substantially caused by sources

other than the test we ll.

9

When did CalAm first begin drafting a revised application for a test well

permit? If this was not initiated on June 5th, why not?

Response :

California American Water and the HWG began drafting our first

submission to the Coastal Commission on the issue of causes of a 1.5 drawdown

imm ediately upon deciding to cease test well pum ping on June 5, 2015. California

Am erican Water and the HW G began discussing and drafting an application to

amend Special Condition

imm ediately after receiving notice that the Coastal

Commission would require us to seek an amendment on July 3, 2015.


24/38

Mr. Jim Cullem

August 7 2015

Page 4 of 6

10

If CalAm did not begin drafting a revised application for a test well until

receiving the CCC letter of July 3rd, please explain why this should not be

viewed by the Water Authority and the public as a lost month.

Response:

Please see response to Question 8, above. Between June 5 and July 3,

2015, California American W ater submitted two detailed mem oranda by the

HW G analyzing the data and substantiating that the test well was not the cause of

the drawdown at MW -4.

11

How much time does it take to develop a revised application?

Response

In this case, it took California Am erican Water and the HW G 20 day s

(July 3 — 23, 2015) to develop an application to am end Special Condition 11.

12

Why is developing a revised application not a simple matter of redrafting

Condition 11 to state that the drawdown attributable to the test well must

not exceed a certain threshold?

Response The difficulty surrounds establishing a performance standard that is:

(a) conservatively protective of the basin; (b) technically w orkable; and (c) legally

defensible. Wh ile California American W ater and the HW G continue to believe

that a 1.5 drop in elevation caused by the test well is sufficient to provide a

conservative early warning, as described in response to Question 1 the

challenge is determining the starting point for measuring that draw down in a

dynam ic, constantly changing system.

13

When was the deadline to submit a revised application to the CCC in order

to get the item on the August CCC meeting?

Response There is no deadline set by regulation. Initially, after learning that w e

needed to seek an amendm ent on July 3, California American W ater was

optimistic that an application to amen d Special Cond ition 11 could be heard on

the Coastal Commission s August agenda. We apologize for communicating this

belief to MPRW A before verifying that it would be po ssible, and for not

clarifying imm ediately when it became clear that the matter would not be heard in

Augu st. After the fact, on August 5, 2015 Coastal Com mission staff confirmed

that the only way an application to amend Special Condition 11 could have been

heard in August w ould have been if: (a) an application to amend w as submitted by

California American W ater on or before July 6, 2015 (three days (and the first

business day) after receiving notice that it needed to subm it an application to

amend ); and (b) the Coastal Comm ission had already retained a hydrogeologist to

review all monitoring w ell data, etc. by the same date. To the b est of California


25/38

Mr. Jim Cullem

August 7 2015

Page 5 of 6

American Water s knowledge the Coastal Commission had not finalized its

retention a hydrogeologist as of August 5 2015. California Am erican Water and

the HW G wo rked to submit an application to amend Special Condition 11 as

quickly as possible and subm itted our application less than three weeks after

confirming that one would be required.

14

When did it first become apparent that CalAm was not on track to meet the

deadline to get this item on the August CCC meeting?

Response:

Please see response to Question 13 above.

15

The September CCC meeting is in northern California and there is some

possibility that this item will not be heard in September because of the

distance of the meeting. What are CalAm s plans to avoid another month

delay?

Response:

California American W ater is hopeful that the Coastal Comm ission

will hear its application to amend Special Condition 11 at its September m eeting

in Arcata and is working with the Coastal Com mission Staff to facilitate this.

How ever it may not be possible. W ith respect to distance note that the August

Coastal Comm ission meeting was held in Chula Vista which is 446 miles from

Mo nterey with a drive time of 7:40 while Arcata is 393 miles from Monterey

with a drive time of 7:46. As noted in response to Question 13 above the Coastal

Com mission plans to retain hydrogeologist to review all monitoring well data etc.

in connection with the application to amend Special Condition 11. To the best of

California American Water s knowledge the Coastal Commission has not retained

its hydrogeologist as of August 5 2015 so California American Water is not

certain that the Coastal Com mission will be prepared to hear the m atter in

September if the issue of distance is not determinative.

16

What steps have been taken within CalAm to ensure that the slant test well

receives the attention that it deserves and that future delays can be avoided

or minimized?

Response:

CA W has taken the test well process very seriously. Construction was

comp leted prior to the Snowy Plover nesting season and run successfully for

several months data has been collected and posted for the public in a timely

manner. The test well was shut down as soon as we believed we w ould exceed the

performance standard in Special Condition 11 and we notified the Coastal

Com mission imm ediately and subm itted an application to amend Special

Condition 11 as q uickly as possible.


26/38

Mr. Jim Cullem

August 7 2015

Page 6 of 6

17 What else has CalAm learned from the experience regarding the test slant

well permit?

Response On a project as large and as complex as this with a large number of

stakeholders, mistakes are unfortunately likely to occur. We apologize for our

failure to recognize and correct problems w ith Special Condition 11 and a lso for

overestimating how quickly an application to amend Special Condition 11 could

be heard. We are comm itted to improving our processes and comm unication to

reduce the likelihood of m istakes like this occurring aga in in the future. Despite

these mistakes, we have learned a tremendou s amou nt in regards to the

construction, operation and m onitoring of the test slant well. The associated

mon itoring well network continues to gather data that w ill inform p roject

stakeholders about the interaction of the test well w ith the aquifers. We exp ect the

end result of the application to amend Sp ecial Condition 11 will be a more robust

operating perm it that is protective of the environment w hile facilitating continued

data collection.

We a ppreciate the Monterey P eninsula Regional W ater Authority s interest in these

issues. Please let us know if you have a dditional questions or require any further

information.

Sincerely,

P

Richard C Svindland

Vice President — Operations


27/38

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY

DRAFT 4 August 14, 2015

Robert MacLean, PresidentCalifornia American WaterP.O. Box 951Monterey, CA 93940

Directors:Jason Burnett, President

Bill Kampe, Vice President

David Pendergrass, SecretaryJerry Edelen, TreasurerRalph Rubio, Director

Clyde Roberson, Director

Executive Director:Jim Cullem, P.E.

RE: Financial Guarantee for the MPWSP Slant Wells

Dear Mr. MacLean:

As you are aware and you and I have discussed, the public is concerned about the potential forstranded costs associated with the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) slantwells in general, and the test slant well in particular.In light of recent delays by Cal Am in applying for an amended California Coastal CommissionDevelopment Permit (CDP) to restart the test slant well, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water

Authority (MPRWA) asked Cal Am a number of questions about the issue at its meeting of July29, 2015. Cal Am's responses on August 7, 2015 were timely and are much appreciated.

However, responses to those questions, as well as previous discussions on the subject, suggest

that Cal Am has substantial control over the eventual success or failure of the slant wells. Although the test well results are promising, the use of slant wells as a source water supply fordesalination is novel and largely untested.

As you noted in the September 16, 2014 American Water Company press release on Cal Am's$1 million Prop 50 grant, “The test well project is not only important for the future of the MontereyPeninsula’s water supply; it also tests technology which is critical to the future of desalination asan alternative water source for our state.” Thus, regardless of the final outcome, results from thetesting will provide invaluable information to Cal Am for future state and national water projects.

Accordingly, Cal Am should guarantee the slant wells will work and agree to bear the costs ifthey don't.

Therefore, the MPRWA requests that Cal Am affirm that it shall not seek reimbursement for slantwell costs (inclusive of the current test well) in the event that the wells are not permitted or do notmeet the feed water requirements of the MPWSP desal facility. Of course, if the slant wellsperform as advertised, we would expect that Cal Am would seek reimbursement for theexpenses.

580 PACIFIC ST, ROOM 6 ∙ MONTEREY ∙ CALIFORNIA ∙ 93940 ∙ www.mprwa.org∙


28/38

Full financing by Cal Am and Am Water not only demonstrates belief and commitment to ananticipated successful outcome, but also clearly demonstrates sound fiscal judgment andresponsibility to both stockholders and ratepayers. While it might be posited that suchcommitment has "potential risk", given the circumstances for State intervention and economicimpact to the Monterey Peninsula region, such "potential risk" merits exception and appearsunlikely according to Cal Am itself.

In conclusion, a positive response to this request presents an unusual opportunity for Cal Am to

demonstrate to skeptical ratepayers the level of confidence it has in the successful constructionand operation of slant wells for the MPWSP.

Sincerely,

Jason Burnett, PresidentMonterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

2


29/38



Item No: 6.

№06/12


SUBJECT:Receive Report, Discuss, and Provide Direction on FinalApplication to the State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB) for a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) ExtensionRequest, and Authorize the Authority President to Send aComment Letter to the Board Staff on Its Draft Response to theCal Am Draft CDO Application

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority(MPRWA) consider the final version of the Application for a four-yearextension of the CDO 2009-60 deadline date of December 31, 2016, ifavailable at time of the meeting, and confirm its intent to co-sign theapplication along with California American Water Co. (Cal Am) and theMonterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD). The Board isalso requested to authorize the President or Executive Director to send a

comment letter to the SWRCB on the draft Board staff response to the CalAm draft CDO Application.

DISCUSSION:

Cal Am's Application for Extension of CDO 2009-0060 with Attachment 1(proposed modified CDO), based on its DRAFT Proposal of March 10,2015, is in preparation.

Key elements in Cal Am's March 10 DRAFT proposal include:• A four-year extension of the CDO deadline

• A new reduction schedule in regular increments during the extension

• Authority for the SWRCB staff to suspend a water reductions ifmissed milestones outside the control of Cal-Am, MPWMD, and theWater Authority.


30/38

• Ability of the MPWMD, and the MPRWA to decide if misses areoutside our control, appealable by state staff to the SWRCB.

The MPRWA and the MPWMD, following several months of public inputand staff coordination, intend to co-sign the Application for Extension inorder to maintain local public agency standing in the process and toemphasize community unity on the proposed CDO modification.Submission of an Application for Amendment is time sensitive since theSWRCB could take up to a year to take final action, so we are anxious tofinalize the application as soon as possible.

However, the Authority, as well as the other settling parties, just receivedthe SWRCB staff DRAFT responses to Cal Am's March 30, 2015 DRAFTProposal. Accordingly, the Final Application may have to be further revisedin light of the SWRCB responses, so it may not be available in time for theMPWSP meeting of 13 August.

Finally, the Authority staff requests authorization to discuss the SWRCBDRAFT response with its staff, and to send a comment letter to theSWRCB with respect to those responses if determined to be appropriate.

ATTACHMENTS:

None


31/38



Item No: 7.

№06/12


SUBJECT: Approve a Letter from the Water Authority to the Marina CityCouncil Inviting Marina to Name a Non-voting Hydrogeologist tothe MPWSP Hydrogeological Working Group (HWG)

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Water Authority authorize the President to senda letter to the Marina City Council inviting the Council to name a non-voting

hydrogeologist to the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP)Hydrogeological Working Group (HWG).

DISCUSSION:

The City of Marina is as an approving agency for future approvals andpermits for the MPWSP. Accordingly, it is in everyone's best interests thatthe City have as much independent technical information as possibleavailable to it during its deliberations.

Interpretation of monitoring well data from the operation of the test slantwell and analysis of the groundwater models are performed by the expertsin the HWG. Since their technical findings and recommendations play acritical role in decisions about the feasibility of production slant wells, CalAm has agreed to a Water Authority request, with the concurrence of thesettling parties, to fund inclusion in the HWG of a non-votinghydrogeologist, selected by the City of Marina, should the City wish toparticipate.

Accordingly, staff recommends the attached letter be sent to the City ofMarina proposing participation by a City of Marina hydrogeologist.

ATTACHMENTS:

A- Draft Letter to the City of Marina ref. Participation by City Hydrogeologist


32/38

580 PACIFIC ST, ROOM 6 · MONTEREY · CALIFORNIA · 93940 · www.mprwa.org·

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY

Aug 14, 2015

Mayor Bruce DelgadoCity of Marina211 Hillcrest AveMarina, CA 93933

Directors:Jason Burnett, President

Bill Kampe, Vice PresidentDavid Pendergrass, Secretary

Jerry Edelen, TreasurerRalph Rubio, Director

Clyde Roberson, Director

Executive Director:Jim Cullem, P.E.

RE: Invitation to Participate in Hydrogeologic Working Group for theMPWSP

Dear Mayor Delgado:

Over the last year or so, you and I have had many conversations with respect

to City of Marina concerns over the impact of the Monterey Peninsula WaterSupply Project (MPWSP), especially the validity of groundwater modeling ofthe subsurface intakes. Interpretation of monitoring well data on the test slantwell and analysis of the groundwater models are performed by the experts inthe MPWSP Hydrogeologic Working Group (HWG), and at present, the City ofMarina is not represented on the HWG.

As you well know, the City is the approving agency for a number of futurepermits for the MPWSP, so it is in everyone's best interests that the City has as

much independent technical information as possible to inform the Councilduring its future deliberations.

Since the technical findings and recommendations of the HWG play a such acritical role in decisions about the feasibility of production slant wells, the WaterAuthority, with the concurrence of Cal Am and the settling parties, wants toextend an invitation to the City to appoint a hydrogeologist to serve as a non-


33/38

2

voting member of the HWG. As you may know, the landowner for the proposedlocation of the MPWSP’s seawater intake system, CEMEX, Inc., participates inthe HWG in a similar capacity.

Cal Am has agreed that per City Resolution No. 2007-153, Marina may chargeCal Am for participation in the HWG as long as that participation facilitated theCity's review and processing of the MPWSP EIR, permits, and approvals.

The Authority Board is hopeful the City will accept our invitation, as well as totake this opportunity to further address concerns of Marina residents andto improve the lines of communication between our communities.

Sincerely,

Jason BurnettPresidentMPRWA


34/38


35/38



Item No: 8.

№06/12


SUBJECT:Receive Presentation, Discuss, and Provide Staff Direction onthe Deep Water Desal Project

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Board of the Monterey Peninsula Regional

Water Authority (MPRWA) receive a briefing on the proposed Deep WaterDesal Project and provide staff direction.

DISCUSSION:

At the invitation of the proponents of the Deep Water Desal Project (DWD)and at the direction of the Water Authority Board, the TAC received abriefing and site visit on the DWD project on Monday, November 17, 2014.Both were open to the public.

The briefing and site visit were intended to better inform members of theMonterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA), as well as thepublic, on the status of the Deep Water Desal Project.

More information can be found at the project web site atwww.deepwaterdesal.com.

As of this date, the City of Salinas has expressed its intention to serve as a

public partner for the Deep Water Desal Project.

To provide the public and the Water Authority on the progress of the DWD

project, its proponents have been invited to make a presentation to the

Water Authority at the August 13, 20015 meeting. In addition, the Authority


36/38

has requested the proponents to answer the following questions as part of

their presentation, or in response to questions from the Board or the public.

- How do you plan to get support/approval for your project source waterprior to exhausting all alternatives for sub surface intake as required bythe CCC, SWRCB and CPUC?

-What are the overall project features (land, data center, water facilities,Salinas- related features, etc.)?

- What is the desalination configuration and facilities layout?- Who are potential product water purchasers?- What is your Intake/Outfall strategy?- What is the CEQA/NEPA status and timeline?- What hurdles do you see and what are the contingencies?

- What is status of discussions with state permitting agencies?- What is current financial status and total investment required?- What is the overall schedule for delivery of water to end user?

ATTACHMENTS:

None


37/38



Item No: 9.

№06/12


SUBJECT:Receive Presentation, Discuss, and Provide Staff Direction onthe People's Desal Project

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Board of the Monterey Peninsula Regional

Water Authority (MPRWA) receive a briefing on the proposed People'sDesal Project and provide staff direction.

DISCUSSION:

At the invitation of the proponents of the People's Desal Project and at thedirection of the Water Authority Board, the TAC received a briefing and sitevisit on the project on Monday, November 17, 2014. Both were open to thepublic.

The briefing and site visit were intended to better inform members of theMonterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA), as well as thepublic, on the status of the People's Desal Project.

More information can be found at the project web site atwww.thepeopleswater.com.

As of this date, the Moss Landing Harbor District may serve as a public

partner for the People's Desal Project.

To provide the public and the Water Authority on the progress of the

People's Desal project, its proponents have been invited to make a

presentation to the Water Authority at the August 13, 20015 meeting. In

addition, the Authority has requested the proponents to answer the


38/38

following questions as part of their presentation, or in response to

questions from the Board or the public:

- How do you plan to get support/approval for your project source waterprior to exhausting all alternatives for sub surface intake as required bythe CCC, SWRCB and CPUC?

- What are the overall project features (land, data center, water facilities,Salinas- related features, etc.)?

- What is the desalination configuration and facilities layout?- Who are potential product water purchasers?- What is your Intake/Outfall strategy?- What is the CEQA/NEPA status and timeline?- What hurdles do you see and what are the contingencies?

- What is status of discussions with state permitting agencies?- What is current financial status and total investment required?- What is the overall schedule for delivery of water to end user?

ATTACHMENTS:

None