|
ITEM: |
ACTION
ITEMS |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
17. |
Receive
CONSULTANTS’ REPORT ON MPWMD 95-10 DESALINATION PROJECT |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Meeting
Date: |
October 20,
2008
|
Budgeted: |
Yes |
||
|
|
|||||
|
From: |
|
Program: |
Water Supply Projects |
||
|
|
General
Manager |
Line Item No.: |
1-2-1.B |
||
|
|
|||||
|
Prepared
By: |
Andrew M. Bell,
|
Cost
Estimate: |
Not-to-Exceed $170,000 |
||
|
District Engineer
|
(total for FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09) |
||||
|
General Counsel Approval:
N/A |
|||||
|
Committee Recommendation:
N/A |
|||||
|
CEQA Compliance: N/A |
|||||
SUMMARY: Provided as Exhibit 17-A is the report by ICF Jones & Stokes Associates (JSA) and Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM) on their findings in regard to three specific issues identified in their August 2008 report titled “Monterey Peninsula Water Management District 95-10 Project Constraints Analysis.” These issues are as follows:
1.
Inter-basin transfer of groundwater from the
2. State Water Resources Control Board anti-degradation policy
3.
Site issues at California Department of Park and
Recreation’s
No “fatal flaws” in the potential for development of the MPWMD 95-10 Project have been identified in the constraints analysis conducted for the project by JSA and CDM.
RECOMMENDATION: The Board should receive a presentation by consultants JSA and CDM representatives, receive public comment, and discuss the consultants’ findings. If the Board desires to proceed with the project, the Board should direct staff to present detailed scope of work and costs for the next phase or phases of technical and environmental studies at a future Board meeting.
BACKGROUND: At the January 24, 2008 Board meeting, the Board endorsed Director Brower’s request to direct staff to prepare a report on requirements to update the MPWMD 95-10 Project, a seawater desalination project proposed to be located in Sand City that was most recently studied by MPWMD in 2004. At the April 21, 2008 Board meeting, the Board authorized a first phase of studies, termed a “constraints analysis,” to be conducted by JSA and CDM. Representatives of these two firms presented their report at the August 18, 2008 Board meeting. At that meeting, the Board directed that the consultants be authorized to address the issues identified in their August 2008 report in the section titled “Data Gaps and Next Steps” (Exhibit 17-B), item 1: “Address Policy Issues Related to Implementation Feasibility.” The report attached as Exhibit 17-A contains the consultants’ findings and conclusions regarding these issues.
Exhibit 17-B contains descriptions
and estimated costs of the next phases of the project: 2) Perform Phase 2 Technical Evaluation; and
3) Prepare Phase 3 EIR. If the Board
wishes to proceed with the project, staff will bring detailed scopes and costs
for these phases to the Board for consideration at a future meeting.
IMPACT TO DISTRICT STAFF/RESOURCES:
Funds for the JSA and CDM studies
conducted to date are included in the FY 2007-08 and 2008-09 budgets. No funds for additional consulting work for
the MPWMD 95-10 Project are included in the Fiscal Year 2008-09 MPWMD budget, should
the Board wish to proceed with the project. As can be seen in the section
of the report titled “Data Gaps and Next Steps” (Exhibit 17-B), the costs to conduct
needed studies through the project EIR stage would be significant. The consultant contracts for the constraints
analysis were administered by District Engineer Andrew Bell.
EXHIBITS
17-A Report by CDM and JSA [place holder for now]
17-B Data Gaps and Next Steps (section of JSA and CDM August 2008 report titled “Monterey Peninsula Water Management District 95-10 Project Constraints Analysis”)
U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2008\2008boardpackets\20081020\ActionItems\17\item17.doc