ITEM:		ACTION ITEMS
15.	RECEIVE STAFF REVIEW OF AUGUST 2008 MPWMD 95-10 PROJECT CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS REPORT
Meeting Date:			November 15, 2010	Budgeted:	N/A
From:			Darby Fuerst,	Program:	Water Supply Projects
			General Manager	Line Item No.:	N/A
Prepared By:			Andrew M. Bell	Cost Estimate:	N/A
General Counsel Review: N/A
Committee Recommendation: At its October 11, 2010 meeting, the Water Supply Planning Committee directed this item be presented to the full Board.
CEQA Compliance: N/A

SUMMARY: At the August 18, 2008 Board meeting, the Board received a report by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM) and ICF Jones & Stokes Associates (JSA) titled “Monterey Peninsula Water Management District 95-10 Project Constraints Analysis” and dated August 2008. This report includes a description of the analysis by the consultants of the potential for a seawater desalination project with intake facilities located along the coast in the City of Sand City and the southern portion of former Fort Ord, now Fort Ord Dunes State Park. A total of nine locations were analyzed, five in Sand City and four in former Fort Ord.

At the October 11, 2010 meeting of the Board’s Water Supply Planning Committee, the Committee directed staff to make a presentation to the full Board on feedwater intake capacities in two of the tables in the Constraints Analysis report and on some of the findings made in the report.

RECOMMENDATION: The Board should receive a report from staff. Following the presentation by staff, if the Board wishes further information or action, it should provide further direction.

DISCUSSION

Director Markey, as a member of the Board’s Water Supply Planning Committee (Committee), requested additional information regarding some of the findings made in the report related to feedwater site feasibility and capacity. In response to this request, staff provided information to the Committee at the October 11, 2010 meeting. During discussion of the item, the Committee directed staff to make a presentation to the Board regarding portions of the Constraints Analysis report. Exhibit 15-A is the staff note for the October 11 Committee item. Exhibit 15-B is a preliminary report that was provided to the Committee under separate cover containing staff’s findings to date regarding the potential to develop a seawater desalination project within the District boundary. Exhibit 15-C is document prepared by staff in response to a request by Director Markey made prior to the meeting. This document contains pages from the Constraints Analysis report showing staff’s estimate of desalination project yields in acre-feet per year corresponding to feedwater intake rates shown in gallons per minute in two of the report tables. The document also contains a section of the report titled “Formulation of Potential Projects,” which shows the consultants’ conclusions from their screening analysis of potential sites, as well as the report Findings. This document was handed out at the October 11, 2010 Committee meeting.

In Tables 1 and 5 in Exhibit 15-C (pages 18 and 24 of the report), the capacities of feed water collection well alternatives are shown in gallons per minute. Handwritten on the right margin are staff’s calculations of the project yield of each alternative or project in acre-feet per year. The calculations assume the desalination plant would operate at 50% recovery (one half of the feed water taken in would be converted to potable water), and that the plant would be in operation 90% of the time. The 10% down time allows for plant maintenance, power outages, and other operational interruptions. Page 6 of the preliminary report attached as Exhibit 15-B is an appendix showing how yield may be calculated using different assumptions as to percentage recovery and the percentage of time the plant is in operation.

The fourth bullet of the Findings section on page 25 of the Constraints Analysis report shown in Exhibit 15-C contains the following text:

“The analysis found that projects at or in the vicinity of the Sand City desalination project currently under construction are technically viable and could have a production capability of 6,000 AFY (5.0 mgd) or more with the least cost. However, in a meeting and subsequent conversations with Sand City staff, they expressed strong objections to siting any desalination facilities within the city limits. Their objections included potential for impacts to the Sand City desalination project and incompatibility with planned development at potential project sites. Therefore, none of the projects in Sand City were recommended for further consideration.”

Members of the Water Supply Planning Committee requested that staff explain how the conclusion that project sites in the vicinity of the Sand City desalination project that was then under construction (construction is complete and the Sand City project is in operation) could have a production capacity of 6,000 acre-feet per year. Staff contacted the individuals at Camp Dresser & McKee who made the analysis and learned that the conclusion was made based on use of conventional wells at the site (Alternative 3 in Table 1 of Exhibit 15-C ), which shows a feed water intake capacity (Flow Rate in the table) of 7,500 gallons per minute. The consultant stated that the potable water yield should have been calculated based on 50% recovery and a 90% plant factor, which would be 5,400 acre-feet per year. A yield of 6,000 acre-feet per year would only be achievable if the plant were in operation 100% of the time. Thus, the first sentence of the fourth finding in the report could be clarified as follows: “The analysis found that the projects at or in the vicinity of the Sand City desalination project current under construction are technically viable and could have a production capability of 6,000 AFY (5.4 MGD plant operating at 50% recovery – the yield would be 5,400 AFY if the plant were in operation 90% of the time) or more with the least cost.”

Water Supply Planning Committee members also expressed concern regarding the consultants’ conclusion that none of the projects in Sand City should be recommended for further consideration based on objections by Sand City staff. On pages 8 through 10 of the Constraints Analysis report, attached as Exhibit 15-D, the consultants address Land Use in the section titled “Policy and Regulatory Issues.” The first paragraph on page 9 provides additional information regarding discussions with Sand City staff.

IMPACTS TO STAFF AND RESOURCES:

This item was developed by staff in response to direction by the Water Supply Planning Committee. District Engineer Andrew Bell is the primary staff member charged with this assignment.

EXHIBITS

15-A Staff note for Item 2.A on October 11, 2010 Water Supply Planning Committee meeting agenda: Update on Potential Water Projects Including Desalination – A. Desalination Projects

15-B October 2010, Draft Preliminary Report by Andrew M. Bell, District Engineer – Potential for Seawater Desalination within the MPWMD Boundary

15-C Cover and pages 18, 23, 24, and 25 of the August 2008 report by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. and ICF Jones & Stokes Associates titled “Monterey Peninsula Water Management District 95-10 Project Constraints Analysis”

15-D Pages 8, 9, and 10 of the August 2008 report by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. and ICF Jones & Stokes Associates titled “Monterey Peninsula Water Management District 95-10 Project Constraints Analysis”

U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2010\20101115\ActionItems\15\item15.doc