MP Regional Water Authority TAC Meeting

MINUTES MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) Regular Meeting 10:30 AM, Monday, April 4, 2016 COUNCIL CHAMBER 580 PACIFIC STREET MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Narigi, Riedl, Riley, Stoldt, Van Der Maaten, Cullem Members Absent: Scuito, Huss Staff Present: Legal Counsel Freeman, Clerk Romero CALL TO ORDER Executive Director Cullem called the meeting to order at 10:31am. ROLL CALL Member Huss and Sciuto absent. Member Van Der Maaten came in at 10:34am. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS None PUBLIC COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve Minutes from January 27, 2016 - Romero Action: Approved PUBLIC COMMENTS None On a motion by Member Narigi, seconded by Member Riley, and carried by the following vote, the MPRWA Technical Advisory Committee approved the January 27, 2016 minutes: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Narigi, Riedl, Riley, Stoldt, Van Der Maaten, Cullem NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Huss, Sciuto ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None  MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, April 4, 2016 CONSENT ITEMS PUBLIC COMMENTS  Tom Rowley, from the Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association (MPTA), asked for clarification on the time of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) workshop in April. Receiving no further requests to speak Director Cullem closed public comments. Member Stoldt responded to Mr. Rowley that the workshop on April 14th with the CPUC during the next Monterey Regional Peninsula Water Authority (MPRWA) meeting, and the topic will be the extended schedule for the Environmental Impact Study (EIR), and the conversation will include causes for the delay in the schedule and what can be done to expedite it. He added that the CPUC staff present at the Workshop will be able to answer questions on behalf of the entire organization. On a motion by Committee Member Narigi, seconded by Committee Member Riley and carried by the following vote, the MPRWA Technical Advisory Committee Approved the Consent Items: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Narigi, Riedl, Riley, Stoldt, Van Der Maaten, Cullem NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Huss, Sciuto ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 2. Receive "Notice to Parties" Concerning the CPUC Schedule for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) - Cullem Action: Approved AGENDA ITEMS 3. Receive Update on GWR Schedule and Financing - Sciuto/Stoldt Action: Received update; Discussed Member Stoldt gave an update on the Ground Water Replenishment (GWR) schedule and briefly explained different processes that are affecting the schedule, such as: water rights negotiations and protests, the water purchase agreement, and the biological opinion on wildlife. The Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) has found that most of their criteria on GWR has been met but want to know what the “soft cost cap” will be. He added that an energy purchase agreement was approved which will provide the power needed for the advanced water treatment facility and pump station at a discounted rate compared to the desal project. He also said the Marina Coast Water District approved a contract for the design of the pipeline from the water treatment facility to the Seaside Basin. Member Stoldt said that GWR will be more cost effective with a smaller desal plant. 2  MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, April 4, 2016 PUBLIC COMMENTS  Tom Rowley, MPTA, asked for clarification on the soft cost cap. He also asked if there is anything that will cause a delay to GWR. Receiving no further requests to speak Director Cullem closed public comments. Member Stoldt responded to public comment saying that he doesn't see anything that would be a show stopper to GWR. He explained that the soft cost cap is the process in which a public authority looks at all the bids for a project and if the cost comes in below a certain amount that has been pre-established as a “cap”, then the project will be approved by the public authority. Member Riley asked about debt equivalency for GWR. Member Stoldt responded that ORA considers debt equivalence a non-issue and all effects have been mitigated. Director Cullem said GWR is the most promising project that will get through the milestones before desal starts. No action was taken by the Committee. 4. Receive Report, Discuss, and Make Recommendations as to Whether Cal Am Can Receive and Utilize Ground Water Replenishment (GWR) Water Should the PWM/GWR Project Come on Line Before Cal Am's Desal Facility - Crooks Action: Received report; Discussed; No action taken at this time Ian Crooks from California American Water (Cal Am) gave a presentation on whether they can receive and utilize Ground Water Replenishment (GWR) should GWR come online before the desal facility. He showed slides of the existing pipelines and hydraulic trough area in Monterey, wells in Seaside, and the Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR). He explained that in order to get water through the existing grid, pressures have to be increased and there is a limitation to take GWR and get around Seaside. He specified that a 36” pipeline is needed in order allow transfer and delivery of water anywhere in the system. During the discussion the Committee questioned whether the 36” pipeline would be necessary without a desal plant, and the consensus was that the pipeline would be good for the long term and it is already approved environmentally. It was discussed that the pipeline would be bi- directional to allow a larger capacity of water to be stored in ASR. The Committee discussed the total cost of the pipeline project, which is estimated at $41 million. It was reiterated by Mr. Crooks that the 36” pipeline is necessary for multiple water projects in the portfolio, and allow maximizing the use of GWR, ASR, and the permits for extracting from the Carmel Valley River when the levels are high. In summary, the 36” pipeline would allow the utilization of all excess water and store it for when water demands are higher and the flexibility to get water around the hydraulic trough. The Committee established that the 36” pipeline is a high priority, and although the cost is significant the pipeline has many long term benefits to the entire water supply project. The Committee discussed the surcharges for taxpayers to fund the pipeline project and the possibility that they may be increased slowly over time. The Committee deliberated that the 3  MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, April 4, 2016 pipeline project is necessary to maximize GWR and ASR, and will accommodate the small or large size desal plant. Member Van Der Maaten questioned if the pipeline project funding could be included with the approval of funding for the GWR. Member Stoldt said that this is worth looking into. Mr. Crooks said that the 36” pipeline is a standalone Cal-Am project and can be funded and approved separately before the desal plant. Executive Director Cullem said that it may be an advantage to the public to have phase II of the surcharge collected earlier and at a lower level to help fund the pipeline project. Member Stoldt said that the Committee should give a technical recommendation to the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (the “Authority”) in May or June of this year after more information is obtained. Member Riley suggested requested expedited the surcharge to get the funding started for the pipeline project to avoid have a steep increase for the rate payer. PUBLIC COMMENTS  Tom Rowely, MPTA, said that another $41 million for extra for the pipeline project will be an added burden to the ratepayer. He also said that the Authority should know that the excess flow in the Carmel River will be counted against the pumping from the river and affects the cease and desist (CDO) extension. Member Stoldt reported in response to Mr. Rowley that in 2010 and 2011, 1,100 acre feet of excess water was able to be stored for later use. He said ideally any excess water would be stored for later when it is needed, but the Fish and Wildlife group would like the water removed from the Carmel River put back in the same year. Ian Crooks responded to Mr. Rowley and said that the $41 million for the pipeline project is just an estimate, and some money is already applicable toward this amount. At the end of their discussion, the Committee decided to bring back this item at a future meeting when there is more information available before giving a recommendation to the Authority. No action was taken on this item. 5. Receive Suggestions from Authority President Jason Burnett on Modifications to the Policy Position Statement and Discuss Progress of the TAC Ad Hoc Committee Considering Changes to the Statement - Cullem Action: Received Suggestions to Policy; Discussed Progress of the Ad Hoc Committee Executive Director Cullem explained that at the last meeting the Committee formed an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of George Riley and Paul Sciuto, and has met to discuss modifications to the Policy Position Statement for the Authority. It was agreed that the policy should be more succinct and clear, and possibly separate the objectives and tasks. Authority President Burnett has given some suggestions on modifications to the existing Policy Position Statement, and the Ad Hoc Committee will discuss these suggestions at their next meeting. 4 MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, April 4, 2016 PUBLIC COMMENTS None The Committee reviewed the input from Authority President Burnett, and agreed that the Ad Hoc Committee will have another meeting to modify and shorten the Position Policy Statement, and bring back the modified Statement to the Committee when it is finalized. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 11:44am. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Nova Romero, Committee Clerk President MPRWA 5