MP Regional Water Authority TAC Meeting

MINUTES MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) 10:30 AM, Monday, June 20, 2016 MONTEREY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 580 PACIFIC STREET, MONTEREY MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Alternate Member Ellis, Member Reidl, Member Riley, Member Stoldt, Member VanDerMaaten, Executive Director Cullem Members Absent: Member Sciuto, Member Narigi, Member Huss Staff Present: Legal Counsel Freeman, Clerk Romero CALL TO ORDER Executive Director Cullem called the meeting to order at 10:34am. ROLL CALL Members Scuito, Narigi and Huss were absent. Member Stoldt came in at 10:36am. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS Riley said that “Public Water Now” has filed an objection to the return water agreement. Member Stoldt reported that the preliminary staff recommendation on the Cease and Desist Order (CDO) is available on California American Water’s (Cal Am) website. PUBLIC COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve Minutes from March 7 and April 4, 2016 - Romero On a motion by Committee Member Riley, seconded by Committee Member Stoldt, and carried by the following vote, the MPRWA Technical Advisory Committee Approved the Minutes from March 7 and April 4, 2016: AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Riedl, Riley, Stoldt, VanDerMaatten, Cullem NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 3 MEMBERS: Huss, Narigi, Sciuto ABSTAIN: 1 MEMBERS: Ellis RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None  MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, June 20, 2016 CONSENT ITEMS PUBLIC COMMENTS None On a motion by Committee Member Riley, seconded by Committee Member Stoldt, and carried by the following vote, the MPRWA Technical Advisory Committee approved the Consent Agenda: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Ellis, Riedl, Riley, Stoldt, VanDerMaatten, Cullem NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 3 MEMBERS: Huss, Narigi, Sciuto ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 2. Receive Report on the Submission of a Brine Disposal Agreement and a Return Water Agreement to the CPUC - Cullem Action: Received Report 3. Receive Report on Water Authority Motion on April 19, 2016 for Modification to the CPUC Phase 2 Process to Include the 36 inch Monterey Transfer Pipeline in the GWR Decision - Cullem Action: Received Report 4. Receive Report on Joint Meeting with the Water Authority Board on August 11 for Presentations on Deep Water Desal and People's Desal- Cullem Action: Received Report AGENDA ITEMS 5. Receive Update on GWR Schedule and Financing - Stoldt Action: Received update Member Stoldt gave an update on the current schedule and financing for the Pure Water Monterey (PWM) Ground Water Replenishment (GWR) project:  Water rights protests from National Marine Fishery Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife are expected to be dismissed.  The dismissal of the protests will enable National Incident Management System (NIMS) to consult with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and issue biological assessment on the project. They have 135 days to do, but will try to expedite it.  The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) will have a public workshop on September 1st regarding consideration of the Monterey pipeline, Aquifer Storage 2 MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, June 20, 2016 Recovery (ASR) pump station, and GWR. It is hopeful that a preliminary decision by the CPUC will be made by August 18, 2016. If not, the decision may be delayed until the end of September.  Negotiation is in process for the pipeline contractor so that construction can begin as soon as the CPUC final decision is made, possibly by October, 2016.  Marina Coast Water District and the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) announced their joint pipeline partnership.  The SWRCB has added a milestone of approval of GWR in September as part of the Cease and Desist Order (CDO) modification. However, an extension of that milestone date has been requested. Member Riley questioned the significance of the biological assessment report and its delay. Member Stoldt responded that the EPA does its biological assessment first before permits are approved for the engineers to tunnel under the Salinas River to ensure there is no taking under the Endangered Species Act. Member Stoldt mentioned that the group, which includes the Authority, submitted the application to extend the CDO. The group will come together and make and file an alternate proposal for the pipeline. He added that public comments on the application are due July 13th, and the hearing for the CDO is on July 19th. Executive Director Cullem suggested that the GWR schedule and progress be revisited at the next meeting so that the board can give a recommendation to the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (“Authority”). PUBLIC COMMENT  Tom Rowley, Monterey Peninsula Tax Association, questioned if GWR will be ready by early 2017, since it is tied to the Cease and Desist Order (CDO). He also questioned what the true cost of GWR will be. Member Stoldt responded to Mr. Rowley saying that the pipeline cost is determined at the state revolving fund rate, and 71% of the cost is covered by the cost of water. Member Stoldt said regarding the CDO, the 300 acre ft. difference in the diversion limit on the Carmel River poses a danger of rationing for the community, but doesn’t have as much of an effect on the fish. Executive Director Cullem said the forbearance will be a short-term cost, but will benefit the river is long-term. Member Riley commented that ratepayers will suffer paying the penalty and California American Water (Cal Am) will unfairly benefit from this. PUBLIC COMMENT 3  MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, June 20, 2016  Chuck Chech commented that there is no safeguard that Cal Am won't increase the cost of water to the public if the milestones are not reached. He opined that ratepayers should not be penalized, and Cal Am should not be allowed to raise the water rates because of this. Executive Director Cullem said that the CDO has nothing to do with the cost of water. The issue of water cost is addressed by the CPUC, and the Authority’s mission is to focus on getting a water supply to the community. He added the Authority Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) prohibits the Authority to be involved in water rate issues. Member Riley said that the Authority has been involved in a value engineering studies before, which is related to cost issues. No action was taken on this item; update received and discussed. 6. Receive Report and Discuss the Detailed MPWSP Schedule Including Status of Upcoming Permit Requirements and the Status of the Test Slant Well - Crooks Action: Received Report; Discussed Ian Crooks, Cal Am, gave an update on the latest Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) schedule, including upcoming permit requirements and test well results. Mr. Crooks reported that the test well started back up on May 2, 2016 and is currently running at 2,000 gallons per minute (GPM) with no problems, and salinity is about 92%. He summarized that the current focus is getting the pipeline and the pump station permitted and prepared to be built after the August 18 decision. The overall project has a list of permits that are currently being worked on. The approval of the permits is pending the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the Coastal Development permit. GWR is estimated to be available for use in early 2018. Mr. Crooks clarified for the Board that the remaining cost of the pipeline construction is around $59 million. The Board voiced concerned about the short time frame for the permit process. Mr. Crooks said that the timeline could shift based on a number of factors. Member Stoldt commented that proposed amendment to the CDO presupposes that the pipeline and ASR will be built and GWR will be approved. He suggested showing the schedule to the CPUC. He also informed the Board that when GWR is ready water will be available for use the same day. PUBLIC COMMENT  Tom Rowley, MPTA, asked about the distance between where the GWR water will be injected and the out-take wells. He questioned if Seaside will be getting free water.  Chuck Chech, resident, voiced concerns about the Monterey pipeline such as the bends in the pipe, digging up the streets, the route, and the timeline. He said the pipeline route should be reanalyzed. 4  MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, June 20, 2016 Member Stoldt responded to Mr. Rowley saying that the distance between the injection and the wells is about a half mile, and Seaside may get some benefit over several years but not significantly. No action taken on this item; report received and discussed. 7. Receive Report and Discuss the Technical, Financial and Environmental Reasons for Cal Am Use of a Transfer Pipeline Through Monterey Rather Than Through Los Laureles Grade - Crooks Action: Received Report; Discussed Ian Crooks, Cal Am, gave a presentation on the Hydraulic Trough Overview Schematics. He gave a detailed explanation of the existing pipeline limitations due to hydraulic constraints. He then clarified how the new 36” pipeline works to fix these current constraints. He described the type of material that will be used for the new pipeline, and gave a list of other cities that are currently using pipelines with the same material. Mr. Crooks then addressed the alternate route for the pipeline over Los Laureles Grade, which was proposed by a member of the public at the last Authority meeting. He explained that the alternate route has many significant impacts which make it not feasible, such as: o Biological impacts, wetlands area—Tarpy Flats o Visual impacts for pump station—Tarpy Flats o Traffic and transportation impacts from construction of pipeline on narrow canyon and road area o Does not aid long-standing hydraulic trough constraint of existing water system PUBLIC COMMENT  Tom Rowley, MPTA, said that the proposed alternate pipeline route goes through Canada de la Segundo, not the Los Laureles Grade. He said this route was looked as previously, but it was dropped because it wasn’t a good solution.  Chuck Chech thanked Mr. Crooks for his presentation. He voiced his concern about the cost of the 36” pipeline to the ratepayer, especially if Cal Am charges interest on the cost of the $41 million project over 30 years. Member Riley responded that the Authority should seek out alternate ways to cut costs on the Water Supply Project. No action taken, report was received and discussed. 5  MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, June 20, 2016 8. Receive Report and Discuss the Water Supply Needs of the Marina Coast Water District - VanderMaaten Action: Continued to Future Meeting This item was recommended for continuation due to time constraints. ADJOURNMENT Have no further discussion Executive Director Cullem adjourned the meeting at 12:05pm. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Nova Romero, Committee Clerk President MPRWA 6