MP Regional Water Authority TAC Meeting

M INUTES MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) Regular Meeting 10:30 AM, Monday, March 7, 2016 COUNCIL CHAMBER 580 PACIFIC STREET MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL Members Present Alternate Scott Dick, Huss, Riley, Sciuto, Stoldt, Van Der Maaten, Executive Director Cullem Members Absent: Riedl Staff Present: Legal Counsel Freeman, Clerk Romero PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS Member Stoldt reported that Dale Hekhuis passed away in February, who was a former member of the Water Management District. Director Cullem acknowledged remembrance of Dale Hekhuis. PUBLIC COMMENTS Executive Director Cullem opened comments, and receiving no requests to speak closed public comments. CONSENT ITEMS 1. Receive Latest CPUC Schedule for Consideration of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) - Cullem Action: Received schedule; Discussed; Accepted amended CPUC schedule Member Riley said that the date on the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) report is incorrect, instead of April 11 & 12 it should be April 14 & 15. Chair Cullem pointed out that all rebuttal testimony to the CPUC is due by March 22, 2016. On a motion by Member Sciuto, seconded by Member Stoldt, and carried by the following vote, the Technical Advisory Committee accepted the CPUC Schedule for Consideration of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project as amended with dates revised to April 14 & 15: AYES: 7 MEMBERS: Huss, Dick, Stoldt, Sciuto, Van Der Maaten, Riley, Cullem NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Riedl ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: Nine RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None  MPRWA Minutes Monday, March 7, 2016 AGENDA ITEMS 2. Review Report, Discuss, and Make Recommendations to the Water Authority Board on the Supplemental Testimony Submitted to the CPUC for the MPWSP - Cullem Action: Discussed; Recommended no action be taken Chair Cullem said that the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA) has requested that the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) discuss whether rebuttal testimony should be submitted to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) by March 22nd. He said that specifically the testimonies by Thomas Moore and Curtis Hopkins have information that the TAC may want to recommend be disputed in rebuttal testimony. Member Riley said that Thomas Moore’s testimony included a letter from the State Water Board from 2013 that suggested that Cal Am has an intake under the ocean bed and salvaged water rights apply. He said this is incorrect and Cal Am’s intake is not under the ocean, but under land. He questioned whether this misinformation changes the CPUC argument. Don Freeman said that rebuttal testimony must reference testimony submitted on January 22nd, or it’s too late. Member Van Der Maaten said that if rebuttal involves water quality, then it can be included. He referenced Svindland’s testimony which mentions water quality. Don Freeman suggested submitting two rebuttals, one referencing the testimony on water quality, and one referencing testimony on Cal Am’s intake location. Chair Cullem opened public comment:  Michael Bear, resident, stated in reading Curtis Hopkins’ testimony, his data says there may be 12% more return water. He also said that Hopkins’ testimony says the water is being pumped south of the river and being returned north of the river which he believes is a legal problem.  Tom Rowley, representing Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association (MPTA), said that the media’s report regarding the January 22nd CPUC hearing did not have much emphasis on ratepayer taxes. He said MPTA believes Ground Water Replenishment (GWR) should be a backup project and use the portfolio approach with the larger desal plant. He voiced concerned about the ratepayers having an increase in water bills and are not being considered. He asked the TAC if anyone can testify in person during the rebuttal CPUC hearings on behalf of the ratepayers. MPRWA TAC Meeting Minutes Regular Meeting Minutes - Monday, March 7, 2016 2 MPRWA Minutes Monday, March 7, 2016 Chair Cullem and the board addressed public comments. Member Sciuto said that the rebuttal is submitted in writing on March 22nd, there is no public hearing opportunity. Member Stoldt commented that the impact on ratepayers is the first priority for the CPUC. Chair Cullem said that a cost comparison study has been prepared by Member Stoldt, and the Authority is concerned about the impact to the ratepayer. He continued that there is risk on both sides and that is why the portfolio approach is being pursued. He said the issue at hand is how and if the Authority should respond to the testimonies by Hopkins and Moore. Member Huss responded to Michael Bear saying that the growers have been affected by seawater intrusion. Member Van Der Maaten said that the Salinas Valley basin has sub basin lines and there is a big difference in water quality between the north and south and that has not been looked at in terms of the modeling. He said it is important to recognize that the water intake should be recognized in the modeling and should be mitigated appropriately. Member Stoldt said that in data from the pause in the test well pumping, there was a clear decline in water level from the 180, and if it’s not coming from agricultural pumping, then there could be a pressure zone. He said there is a lot of information to weave together in a rebuttal. Member Riley said that the reason there is opposition to slant wells, is because there is no solid science behind it. He said he does not believe Cal Am’s test period data they presented to the public as a continuous pumping, when he knows that the test well did not pump for 3 months. He continued that the Coastal Commission also acknowledges that there are differences in Cal Am’s data points, and questions which agency is going to parse together this data. Chair Cullem responded that the CPUC has a process and all the data from the test wells will be fed into the model and revised EIR, and at that time address issues being raised about the test wells. Member Riley said he has been asking the TAC to look at potential litigation risk, and the Authority has been going along with blinders on as far as litigation. He questioned what plan B is if there is litigation that stops or slows the slant wells. MPRWA TAC Meeting Minutes Regular Meeting Minutes - Monday, March 7, 2016 3 MPRWA Minutes Monday, March 7, 2016 Chair Cullem voiced his understanding of Member Riley’s concerns about potential litigation and said that the Authority could agendize this issue at a future meeting and have legal counsel address it. Don Freeman said that all parties are aware of potential litigation, but if the Authority focuses on litigation risks and doesn’t move forward in its process, it may hurt the Water Supply Project’s outcome. Member Sciuto said the Authority should agendize an item to discuss potential litigation scenarios so they are acknowledged. Member Van Der Maaten said he believes that having a matrix of potential risks with the corresponding mitigation to the risks would be beneficial. Member Riley said that Cal Am has contingencies in place and he wants to know the Water Management District’s contingency plan or plan B is for a water source. Chair Cullem said that Plan B should be established so the Authority knows where to go if the current plan fails. He said to find out what the matrix of liability is, it’s going to cost money to have legal counsel prepare this. Member Riley suggested that the discussion about potential litigation does not need to include a legal presentation. Member Huss said that if the Authority starts looking at potential litigation problems for the current plan, then Plan B litigation risks will also have to be looked at, and so on. Member Riley said that a discussion on potential litigation can wait. Chair Cullem opened public comments:  Tom Rowley, representing MPTA, questioned why a representative from Cal Am isn’t at the meeting, and opined that an updated timetable for the Water Supply Project available at each meeting.  Michael Bear, resident, said that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) may provide guidance to answer these questions. He said if aquifer intake isn’t available at Cemex then Potrero Road should be looked into. He continued that at the monitoring well, the water was 49 percent seawater, now it’s 60 percent, and it can be used as a buffer even if it doesn’t have agricultural use. Receiving no further requests to speak Chair Cullem closed public comments. MPRWA TAC Meeting Minutes Regular Meeting Minutes - Monday, March 7, 2016 4  MPRWA Minutes Monday, March 7, 2016 Chair Cullem asked the TAC to return to the question at hand regarding whether the TAC should recommend that the Authority submit rebuttal testimony to the CPUC on March 22nd. Member Sciuto asked for clarification on which testimonies and issues to submit rebuttal testimony for. Chair Cullem said that the issues in the testimonies are primarily those regarding water return and intake, and if the Authority should authorize funds for Hydrogeologist Thrupp from Geosyntec to submit technical rebuttal testimony to CPUC. Member Stoldt said that the draft EIR may not be ready by April, depending on the CPUC hearings. He said he believes there may be a lawsuit when the EIR comes out. Alternate Member Dick said that in Carlsbad there were several lawsuits that delayed a water supply project for 14 months. Chair Cullem said there are potentially 3 testimonies that the Authority should analyze and address during rebuttal, and the TAC needs to come to a decision on what to recommend in time for the rebuttal deadline on March 22nd. Member Riley said that Authority has prided itself in avoiding litigation, but questions if the Authority will be more exposed to litigation when analyzing technical information. On a motion by Member Riley, seconded by Member Huss, and carried by the following vote, the Technical Advisory Committee will make no recommendation the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority regarding submitting rebuttal testimony to the CPUC by March 22nd: AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Huss, Riley, Sciuto, Stoldt, Van Der Maaten NOES: 2 MEMBERS: Dick, Cullem ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Riedl ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Member Stoldt said that the Authority may choose to make rebuttal testimony regardless of the TAC’s recommendation. 3. Review and Discuss the Policy Position Statement Adopted by the Water Authority Board on July 11, 2013, and Make Recommendations as to Whether any Changes, Updates, or Additional Studies are Appropriate at this Time - Cullem Action: Discussed; Will recommend to the Authority that this item be tabled until it is reviewed by the TAC Chair Cullem briefly described the four basic project criteria listed current Policy Position Statement Adopted by the Water Authority Board, and asked the Board if anything that should be changed in the Policy Statement. MPRWA TAC Meeting Minutes Regular Meeting Minutes - Monday, March 7, 2016 5 MPRWA Minutes Monday, March 7, 2016 Member Riley questioned how urgent the review of this Policy Position Statement is. Chair Cullem responded the Authority needs to have input from the TAC before President Burnett steps down from MPRWA. Member Sciuto said that the policy is from 3 years ago and could stand to be updated and more inclusionary as far as the four criteria, such as having project economics be competitive. Member Stoldt said that the four criteria in the Policy Statement should be more defined. Chair Cullem briefly explained the Policy Position Statement spoke about some of the suggested additions from the Authority and some other areas that may need to be updated. Member Riley voiced his concern about Monterey County being part of the Governance Committee since they have not committed to contributing to MPRWA. Don Freeman made the suggestion that the TAC recommend that the Authority continues this item so there would be time to go over the Position Policy Statement in detail and make suggestions. He also suggested forming an ad-hoc committee to focus on evaluating and making changes to the Policy. Several members volunteered and Executive Director Cullem selected members Sciuto and Riley to join him as the subcommittee to review and rewrite the policy, and the board discussed tabling this item until the draft rewrite is ready. Executive Director Cullem opened public comment:  Tom Rowley, said that until the EIR EIS comes out there aren’t enough facts to evaluate risks and said updating the Policy Statement is premature. He said that Monterey council meeting addressed rate increases but said there is a lot of confusion in the public. On a motion by Member Riley, seconded by Member Stoldt, and carried by the following vote, the Technical Advisory Committee recommends that the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority table the rewriting of the Policy Position Statement until it has been reviewed by the Subcommittee: AYES: 7 MEMBERS: Huss, Dick, Stoldt, Sciuto, Van Der Maaten, Riley, Cullem NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Riedl ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None MPRWA TAC Meeting Minutes Regular Meeting Minutes - Monday, March 7, 2016 6 MPRWA Minutes Monday, March 7, 2016 ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 12:09 pm. ATTEST: Nova Romero, Committee Clerk MPRWA President MPRWA TAC Meeting Minutes Regular Meeting Minutes - Monday, March 7, 2016 7