MPWMD SPECIAL MEETING/WORKSHOP--MARCH 27, 2008--EXHIBIT 3F--TITLE PAGE, TABLE OF CONTENTS AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, FINAL REPORT FROMT HE CAC TO THE MPWMD BOARD (SEPT 11, 2007)

EXHIBIT 3-F

Final

Report from the Community Advisory Committee to the

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Board of Directors

September 11, 2007

Table of Contents

Executive Summary		3
Introduction and Purpose		11
Administrative History		15
Appendices
A.	Charge to the MPWMD Ad Hoc Community Advisory Committee	17
B.	Meeting Procedures and Decorum Rules	19
C.	MPWMD Comparative Matrix of Water Supply Alternatives Parts 1-A, 1-B and II, -- Attached to October 16, 2007 Report to the MPWMD Board describing the Matrix that was distributed to the Community Advisory Committee on February 6, 2007	21
D.	Minutes of Committee Meetings and Record of Committee Member Comments	57
E.	(1) List of Community Groups Contacted Re Participation on CAC	101
	(2) List of Community Groups Interested in Participating on CAC	104
F.	Questions and Answers Submitted in Writing – Including questions submitted in writing by CAC members and written responses received from the water supply project sponsors.	105

Executive Summary

Summary of Comments Received by the Community Advisory Committee

February 2007 through June 2007

September 11, 2007

Aquifer Storage & Recovery in the Seaside Basin

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

The MPWMD Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Project diverts “excess” flow from the Carmel River in wet periods, as defined by state and federal resource agencies, which would then be treated and transmitted via the Cal-Am distribution system to special injection/recovery wells in the Seaside Groundwater Basin on the former Fort Ord. Available storage capacity in the Seaside Basin Coastal Subareas serves as an underground reservoir for the diverted water for use during dry periods. ASR can help improve environmental conditions in the Carmel River and Seaside Basins by reducing Carmel River diversions in dry periods, when the river environment is most vulnerable, and helping to replenish the Seaside Basin in wet periods. MPWMD already owns and operates one set of successful two wells which, along with additional transmission pipeline and other minor structures, is known as the Phase 1 ASR Project. The Phase 1 project allows a maximum annual Carmel River diversion and injection of up to 2,420 acre-feet per year (AFY) into the Seaside Basin. The maximum extraction from the Seaside Basin would be 1,500 AFY. Average values would be lower and depend on long-term weather conditions. The long-term project yield is estimated to be about 920 AFY with operations that maximize use of Seaside Basin water to offset Carmel River pumping in dry periods. Additional project facilities, some being considered in conjunction with California American Water’s (CAW) Coastal Water Project, could significantly expand the project yield.

Merits

Drawbacks

· Useful in increasing area water supply, some help with Order 95-10 and Seaside aquifer, recharge of aquifers is good.

· Common sense solution; technically feasible; expandable.

· Flexible; can use sources of water in addition to Carmel River.

· Water “savings account”; any water stored is beneficial.

· Secondary benefits to Seaside Basin, e.g. helps prevent saltwater intrusion.

· No water for new construction or remodels, (not growth inducing).

· Protects ecosystem of Carmel River.

· Captures excess flow without negative environmental impacts of other alternatives.

· Cost effective; second most economical project.

· Uses some existing CAW infrastructure.

· Eligible for grant funding.

· More energy efficient than other alternatives.

· Wells can have dual use, i.e. emergency production well.

· Existing pipeline along General Jim Moore Blvd. will be buried; aesthetics.

· Does not meet replacement and future water needs of the Peninsula.

· NOAA Fisheries guidelines are flawed, i.e. non-revocable requirement needed to cut diversion of surface flow in Spring, Summer and Fall to protect aquatic creatures.

· Expensive.

· Needs new infrastructure, i.e., pipeline and surface storage.

· Needs legal management (enforceability) to prevent California American Water (CAW) from drawing against Carmel River.

· Additional use of excess ASR water by cities could negate primary environmental benefit to Carmel River.

· Cost estimate is preliminary and may be incomplete

Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project

Marina Coast Water District and Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency

The Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project (RUWAP) involves two major water augmentation supply projects: seawater desalination and recycled water. Only 300 acre-feet per year (AFY) is designated for use by California American Water (CAW) customers for non-potable uses such as golf courses, cemeteries, parks and other landscape open space.

The RUWAP project goal is to provide 2,400 AFY of water to the former Fort Ord area to meet redevelopment requirements described in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan. In addition, 300 AFY is being considered to replace potable uses on the Monterey Peninsula (defined as Cal-Am’s Monterey District service area). The EIR for the project was certified in October 2004; the “Hybrid Alternative” was endorsed by the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) and Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) boards of directors in 2005. The EIR evaluated several alternatives, including:

Ø “Seawater Desalination Alternative” -- a new 3,000 AFY desalination facility in the area currently occupied by the MCWD’s existing desalination plant. The proposed replacement desalination project meets the project objective of 2,400 AFY, replaces the District’s existing 300 AFY desalination plant, and also provides 300 AFY for use within or outside of the District service areas, e.g., on the Monterey Peninsula.

Ø “Recycled Water Alternative” -- provides 3,000 AFY of recycled water, which meets the project objective of 2,400 AFY, but would also provide 300 AFY of recycled water to the Monterey Peninsula and an additional 300 AFY for use within or outside District service areas.

Ø “Hybrid Alternative” -- includes a water supply of up to 1,500 AFY from an expansion of MCWD’s seawater desalination plant (including replacement of the existing 300 AFY capacity plant) and the production and distribution of up to 1,500 AFY of recycled water for landscape irrigation. The EIR concluded that depending upon the recycled water needs at the former Fort Ord, the remainder would be used for MCWD’s other service areas and potentially, the Monterey Peninsula, via a new recycled water distribution system.

The project yield for the desalination component is 1,500 AFY, with 1,200 AFY of this amount to be available for the Ord Community and 300 AFY to replace MCWD’s existing desalination plant. The reclaimed water project yields in 2005 were stated to be 1,700 AFY in Phase 1 and 3,100 AFY in Phase 2. The 2006 information provided by MCWD states the yields to be 1,500 AFY in Phase 1 and 3,300 in Phase 2.

Merits

Drawbacks

· Useful in increasing area water supply, some help with Order 95-10 and Seaside aquifer, recharge of aquifers is good.

· Good use of technology and conservation, technically feasible, permits obtainable.

· Helps increase water supply projects portfolio.

· Compatible with Groundwater Replenishment Project (GRP) – projects work well together.

· Could be part of regional solution, provide redundancy.

· Project underway, will be built without approval of MPWMD.

· State Proposition 84 bond funds available to RUWAP.

· Limited usefulness to MPWMD area.

· Cost is high, especially when combined with other proposed projects – regional, more cost-effective approach, including infrastructure sharing, needed.

· Desalination component may have California Coastal Commission permitting issue; Monterey County Environmental Health advocates for one large desalination plant.

· Cost estimate is preliminary and may be incomplete.

Groundwater Replenishment Project

Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency

The Groundwater Replenishment Project (GRP) is currently being evaluated by Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA). The concept envisions treatment of recycled water to near-potable condition for groundwater percolation or injection into the Seaside Basin. Similar to the ASR project described above, the purified, recycled water source would be available in winter, when it is not used by food crops such as artichokes, and could be put to a beneficial use rather than be discharged into the ocean. After meeting State Department of Health Services treatment and migration standards, this supplemental source of water could be made available for recovery and potable reuse. The initial project is anticipated to produce 2,400 AFY.

Merits

Drawbacks

· Useful in increasing area water supply, some help with Order 95-10 and Seaside aquifer, recharge of aquifers is good.

· Good use of technology and conservation, technically feasible, permits obtainable.

· Planned infrastructure could be part of regional solution.

· Provides redundancy.

· Saves fresh water, expands groundwater storage, could provide surface water habitat.

· Relatively energy efficient.

· State Proposition 84 bond funds available to GRP.

· Limited usefulness to MPWMD area.

· Cost is high, especially when combined with other proposed projects – regional, more cost-effective approach, including infrastructure sharing, needed.

· Should include using stormwater and excess Salinas River flows.

· Cannot stand alone as project, must be combined with RUWAP or other regional project(s).

· Cost estimate is preliminary and may be incomplete.

Long-Term Water Supply Project/Desalination in Sand City

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

The MPWMD Sand City Desalination Project (MPWMD SCDP) is comprised of a 7.5 million gallons per day (MGD) seawater desalination plant in the Sand City area with new seawater intake/brine discharge facilities at Seaside State Beach, Sand City and/or former Fort Ord. The project design initially envisioned horizontal directionally-drilled (HDD) wells for intake/discharge, but the geology of the former Fort Ord coastal area requires use of the existing MRWPCA outfall for large volumes of brine discharge. The basic yield goal set in 2003 is 8,400 AFY, intended to legalize existing community demand. Specifically, the project goal is to meet local, near-term needs, including compliance with Order 95-10, assuming CAW diversions from the Carmel River do not exceed 11,285 AFY. An additional amount if 500 AFY would offset a portion of the overdraft of the Seaside Groundwater Basin. Production up to 11,000 AFY may be possible, depending on the outcome of hydrogeologic and engineering investigations that must first be performed.

Merits

Drawbacks

· HDD wells environmentally beneficial.

· Sites available.

· Could be public/private partnership between District and CAW providing for local control of project design.

· Could require voter approval.

· No water for new construction or remodels, not growth inducing.

· Drought proof, flexible and expandable.

· Desalination plant technically feasible.

· Distribution costs appear lower than for North Coast desalination projects.

· Would result in compliance with Order 95-10 when combined with ASR and RUWAP.

· Project located within MPWMD boundaries.

· HDD well technology is questionable.

· Plant sites are theoretical.

· Potential permitting problems for well sites belonging to California Department of Parks and Recreation.

· Potential long-term erosion issue for facilities west of Highway 1.

· Not enough water for growth; politicizes ballot issue between growth and no-growth advocates.

· Costs extremely high for amount of water produced.

· High energy demand.

· Brine disposal by wells could be less favorable than by outfall.

· California Coastal Commission favors a regional facility rather than a series of small plants.

· Storage capacity not adequate to meet peak demand or during periods of low rainfall.

· Cost estimate is preliminary and may be incomplete.

Coastal Water Project/Desalination

California American Water Company

The major components of the proposed Coastal Water Project (CWP) are a seawater desalination plant in Moss Landing at the “Duke East” site on Dolan Road about one-half mile east of Highway 1; use of the intake and outfall for LS Power Group’s Moss Landing Power Plant (MLPP), formerly owned by Duke Energy.; a desalinated water conveyance system to the Monterey Peninsula, including a transmission pipeline, terminal reservoir and pumping stations; and an aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) project in the Seaside Groundwater Basin. California American Water (CAW) plans to use a site on the MLPP property for a one-year pilot project, but does not yet have a long-term lease agreement for the proposed CWP facilities. The yield goal for the “basic project” is defined as 11,730 acre-feet per year (AFY): 10,730 AFY to replace CAW’s Carmel River withdrawals to comply with SWRCB Order WR 95-10, and 1,000 AFY to help alleviate over-pumping in the Seaside Groundwater Basin. The seawater desalination plant would have a production capacity of 10 million gallons per day (10 MGD) and would produce on average 10,430 AFY. The ASR portion of the project would provide a long-term yield of 1,300 AFY.

Merits

Drawbacks

· Technically feasible; not dependent on weather conditions; drought proof; scaleable, 11,738 AFY for small project to 20,272 AFY for regional project.

· Would result in compliance with Order 95-10 ruling to replace 10,730 AFY for Carmel River overdraw.

· Progress already made on Proponents Environmental Assessment (PEA) and EIR.

· Extensive public outreach in planning (Plan B community process).

· No public vote unless public funding.

· CAW understands the present water system problems.

· California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is the lead agency and will control rates.

· Moss Landing Power Plant is largest electrical producer in California; not likely to close.

· Mitigates seawater intrusion; alternatives for brine disposal allow for least environmental impacts; partial restoration of Carmel River summer flow.

· Marina location alternative available for desalination plant.

· CAW stated the possibility of joining with a public partner.

· No present prototype. Closest comparison is expensive Florida desalination plant; questionable, unproven technical feasibility.

· Not enough production planned to meet general plan needs.

· Development and construction time frame too long.

· CAW public outreach meaningless; there is a disconnect between public sentiment and project design.

· 20,000 AF regional project is a target for the no-growth interests; too large; not right-sized.

· CPUC is wrong agency to lead project.

· Power-plant dependent; Moss Landing Power Plant requires fossil fuels; additional impact from greenhouse gases.

· Dependent on Moss Landing Power Plant cooling water discharge.

· Brine discharge alternatives all have great potential for negative environmental impact.

· High cost for water.

· High energy demand.

· Alleged not to conform to Chapter 10.72 of the Monterey County Code

· Cost estimate is preliminary and may be incomplete.

North Monterey County Desalination Project

Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Services District

The North Monterey County Desalination Project (NMCDP) is comprised of a seawater desalination plant in Moss Landing, transmission pipeline to the Monterey Peninsula, and a potential 30-acre solar energy power production facility to reduce energy costs. The proposed site is the former National Refractories and Mineral Corporation’s Moss Landing facility. Project proponents plan to use existing intake/outfall pipelines, with the possible use the Moss Landing Power Plant cooling water intake and outfall, as an alternative. A lease agreement with the property owner has been in effect since March 2004. The yield goal is 20,000 to 23,000 AFY or more, depending on purveyor demand. A 20 MGD project, capable of producing up to 22,400 AFY, was used for cost estimates provided in 2006. Total demands of 20,930 AFY are identified in Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Services District (P/SM) materials provided to MPWMD. The project is intended as a regional project, including meeting the needs of the expanding P/SM service area in northern Monterey County. P/SM has entered into a management agreement with Poseidon Resources, a private corporation experienced in desalination technology.

Merits

Drawbacks

· Project proponent is a public agency.

· Proponent is willing to enter into long-term agreement for guaranteed price.

· Includes multi-day storage capacity.

· Regional approach addresses multiple water problems by providing 20,000 to 22,000 AF of water.

· Could be supplemented by ASR.

· Drought proof, flexible and expandable.

· Would result in compliance with Order 95-10.

· Incorporates solar power.

· Has confirmed site.

· Ownership question due to participation of private organization in plant construction and operation.

· Long term reliability related to partnership with private organization and governance by an agency with no track record for implementing large water project.

· High O&M costs; transport of water to Monterey Peninsula not included in cost estimates.

· Obtaining agreement on regional approach would be difficult, i.e. there is no agreement between CAW and PSM for regional coordination.

· No planned ASR component.

· Permitting and environmental review process is stalled; longer with regional approach.

· Environmental impacts greater than other desalination projects with direct intake and discharge.

· Technical feasibility uncertain with no similar large facilities operating without major problems in United States.

· High energy demand.

· Cost estimate is preliminary and may be incomplete.

Seawater Conversion Vessels/Desalination

Water Standard Company

The seawater conversion vessel project, proposed by Standard Water Company, is based upon an offshore “mother ship” containing a seawater desalination plant using reverse osmosis technology and one or more gas turbine engines to provide energy for the desalination process and associated shipboard facilities. Treated water would be delivered to an onshore water distribution system such as Cal-Am’s using either a pipeline placed on the seabed or a “shuttle ship” tanker to deliver water to a shoreside facility for unloading. Information on the project provided to the District is based on a 20 MGD desalination plant capable of producing up to 22,400 AFY of treated water, but a much larger plant could be installed on the ship.

Merits

Drawbacks

· Project is unique and innovative.

· Environmental impacts on ocean resources less than other desalination.

· Water Standard Company capitalize and operate the project.

· Technology is proven although not in this configuration.

· Project is drought proof and scaleable.

· Water Standard Company has a good organizational structure and has partnered with companies in an innovative manner.

· Facility can be relocated.

· Would result in compliance with Order 95-10 ruling to replace 10,730 AFY for Carmel River overdraw.

· Lead agency needs to be identified.

· Extensive coordination required among various entities to get water to customers.

· Timeframe for permitting process is unknown.

· No proven track record for Water Standard Company.

· Lack of a comparable-sized prototype.

· Anchoring of a ship in the ocean to meet all weather challenges may be difficult.

· Potential unacceptable visual and air quality impacts.

· Installation, operation and maintenance of five-mile underwater pipeline.

· Feasibility of water storage.

· Concerns regarding financing from a small ratepayer base over a 30-year time period.

· Cost estimate is preliminary and may be incomplete.

Introduction and Purpose

v Introduction

On December 11, 2006, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD, or District) Board of Directors voted unanimously to form an Ad Hoc Community Advisory Committee (CAC, or Committee) with a charge to review the seven water supply projects listed on the Matrix of Water Supply Alternatives, and to submit a report to the Board documenting comments expressed by committee members on those projects. The CAC was chaired by the District General Manager (non-voting capacity), with technical and administrative support provided by the District’s Engineer and Executive Assistant. The charge requires the CAC to refrain from recommending a position of support or disapproval for any project or any aspect of a project. The seven projects are as follows:

Aquifer Storage and Recovery in the Seaside Basin (Sponsor: MPWMD)

Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project (Co-Sponsors: Marina Coast Water District and Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency)

Groundwater Replenishment Project (Sponsor: Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency)

Long-Term Water Supply Project/Desalination in Sand City (Sponsor: MPWMD)

Coastal Water Project (Sponsor: California American Water)

Monterey Bay Regional Desalination Project (Sponsor: Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Services District)

Seawater Conversion Vessels (Sponsor: Water Standard Company)

Each Director selected two persons to serve on the Committee. One of those two persons represents a community group. The Directors and their appointees are as follows:

Appointing Director	Appointee #1	Appointee #2
Alvin Edwards	Janet Brennan League of Women Voters	Manuel G. Fierro
Larry Foy	Paul Bruno Water for Us	Dewey Baird
Michelle Knight	Bob McKenzie Monterey County Hospitality Assoc.	Sheryl McKenzie
Judi Lehman	Greg Pickens Monterey Alliance of Neighborhoods	Bruce Crist
Kristi Markey	David Dilworth Helping Our Peninsula’s Environment	Robert Greenwood
David Pendergrass	Tom Rowley Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Assoc.	Ron Chesshire
David Potter	Roy Thomas Carmel River Steelhead Assoc.	Peter Dausen

The Committee met monthly between February and August 2007. The final report of the committee will be submitted to the Board for review at its September 17, 2006 meeting.

v Purpose

The Community Advisory Committee (CAC) is an Ad Hoc committee formed for the sole purpose of providing a forum for public discussion in order to increase the Board of Directors’ awareness of public sentiment regarding the seven water supply projects that are described on the Comparative Matrix of Water Supply Alternatives, Parts I and II, that was received by the Board on October 16, 2006. Utilizing the Matrix as a resource, the CAC met and reviewed each project listed on the Matrix and prepared a report that summarizes individual comments expressed by committee members on those projects, including the relative advantages and disadvantages of each project in addressing the Monterey Peninsula’s water supply need. The Board does not seek consensus from the CAC, but rather input on the merits or drawbacks of projects listed on the Matrix. The CAC does not recommend a position of support or disapproval for any project listed on the Matrix.

v Procedure for Committee Review of Each Project Listed on the Matrix

The Community Advisory Committee (CAC, or Committee) met once a month for seven months, beginning in February 2007. At each monthly meeting, the CAC received a report on one or two of the seven water supply projects listed on the Matrix by proponents of the respective projects. An outline of each report can be viewed on the District’s website at http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/asd/board/committees/cac/2007/2007.htm. In advance of the meeting, the Committee members could provide questions or issues for the presenters to address during their presentations. Following the presentation and question-and-answer period, the Committee members discussed the project and each provided his or her views on the merits and drawbacks of the project. Committee members could also provide additional input to staff following the meetings. At each meeting, the public was provided an opportunity for comment on each project presented, as well as non-agenda items.

Following the presentations on the seven projects, Janet Brennan, Ron Chesshire, Peter Dausen, Manuel Fierro, and Bob McKenzie volunteered to serve on a subcommittee that would assemble and summarize the merits and drawbacks of the projects. The subcommittee met on July 26 and August 14, 2007 to reach consensus on how best to summarize the merits and drawbacks of each project. Their consensus summary is included in this Report as the Executive Summary and was sent to the full Committee for review prior to the cancelled August 27, 2007 meeting and again in advance of the September 11, 2007 final review. The Final Report will be presented to the Board of Directors for consideration at their September 17, 2007 meeting.

The CAC meets the definition of a “legislative body” as defined by the Brown Act; therefore, all meetings were noticed and open to the public in compliance with the Brown Act.

U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2008\2008boardpackets\20080327\03\item3_exh3f.doc