EXHIBIT
18-E
FINAL
MINUTES
Water Supply
Planning Committee of the
Monterey
Peninsula Water Management District
October 11, 2011
Call to Order
The
meeting was called to order at 1:00 pm in the District’s conference room.
Committee
members present: Bob Brower, Chair
Regina
Doyle
David
Pendergrass
Staff
members present: David J.
Stoldt, General Manager
Larry
Hampson, Senior Water Resources Engineer
Joe
Oliver, Water Resources Manager
Arlene
Tavani, Executive Assistant
Comments from the Public
No
comments.
Action Items
1. Receive
Minutes of July 19, 2011 Committee Meeting
On a motion by Pendergrass and
second of Doyle, the minutes were adopted unanimously on a vote of 3 – 0.
Discussion Items
2. Development
of Plan for Implementation of MPWMD Water Supply Projects
Stoldt stated the District has
budgeted $150,000 from user fee proceeds for a feasibility study on Water
Project 3, a desalination project at the abandoned City of Monterey wastewater
treatment plant site owned by the U.S. Navy. Collection of the user fee is no
longer assured, so funding for the feasibility study is in question. Preliminary estimates are that the desal project could provide 2,000 acre-feet per year,
but additional analysis may indicate a higher yield of 3,600 acre-feet per
year. Within a month, Mr. Stoldt will report to the
committee on key milestones for development of the District’s five water supply
projects. The timeline for Phase 2
Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) is fairly certain, but more work needs to be
done on the other projects to refine the milestones. District staff will develop an estimate of
conservation savings for review by the Water Demand Committee. If the committee concludes that water
conservation projects such as retrofits and rebates yield significant savings,
they could be added to the list of water supply projects.
Public Comment: Dale Hekhuis stated that it would be helpful
if staff could provide an update on development of the desalination project
proposed for the abandoned City of Monterey wastewater treatment plant site
owned by the U.S. Navy and a completion date for a feasibility study.
3. Review
Ideas for Alternative Water Projects Raised During Public Breakout Sessions or
by Other Third Parties
Stoldt reported on the status of
ideas that were raised during break-out sessions at the August 25, 2012 Board
workshop on water supply alternatives and at subsequent meetings of the
Board. (1) Acquisition of Clark Colony
water rights: under consideration by
California-American Water (Cal-Am), also dependent on Salinas River water
rights and would require a legal determination.
No further investigations by the District anticipated. (2) Enlargement of the Sand City Desal
project: the District is focused on a
new project at the abandoned City of Monterey wastewater treatment plant site
owned by the U.S. Navy. (3) DeepWater
Desal project: set for discussion under agenda item 9. (4) Carmel River dam project: staff has been
directed to send a letter of inquiry to NOAA Fisheries re the possibility of
re-opening discussions on a dam project.
(5) Table 13 water rights: one of
the alternatives analyzed by Cal-Am. The
District is not pursuing that issue.
Staff will have discussions with the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) regarding how Carmel River flow requirements would affect the ability
of property owners to utilize a Table 13 water right.
4. Establish/Increase
User Fee to Fund Water Supply Project Planning and Implementation
The committee members agreed to
recommend to the Board of Directors that the General Manager and Administrative
Services Division Manager be authorized to examine alternate approaches to
secure the collection of the User Fee.
5. Discussion
of California American Water’s October 5, 2011 “Monterey Water Supply Analysis”
Stoldt
distributed a list that described the ten alternatives covered in the
analysis. John Kilpatrick, Engineering
Manager for Cal-Am’s Coastal Division was present to respond to questions from
the committee. During the discussion, it
was suggested that the phased approach of Alternative 11 with additional ASR
production would provide water for the community at a lower cost than other
options. Once the ultimate yield of ASR
and groundwater replenishment is defined, the desal
project could be sized to meet community needs.
It was also noted that Cal-Am’s estimate of DeepWater
Desal project costs were higher than previously
presented by DeepWater Desal
representatives. Kilpatrick stated that DeepWater Desal proponents had
underestimated the cost of the project.
Kilpatrick responded to questions from the audience.
Progress Reports
6. Activity
Related to Water Projects 1 (Underground Storage) and 2 (Expanded Storage)
Oliver reported
that work is underway on completion of the interior of the electrical facilities
building at the Phase 1 site. Regarding
Phase 2, well No. 1 at the Seaside Middle School site has a temporary
connection to electricity. A second well at that site cannot be
connected to power until one year has elapsed, because PG&E does not have
the capacity to provide permanent power to both wells. The District has not received a permit from
the SWRCB for Phase 2 of ASR, which could jeopardize efforts to complete the
project in order to comply with the SWRCB requirement that Cal-Am develop a
small water supply project.
7. Feasibility
of Moving Additional Water from Carmel Valley to Water Projects 1 and 2
Stoldt reported
that he spoke with representatives of Monterra
regarding installation of a transmission line across their property that would
facilitate diversion of up to 5,000 acre-feet of
water during the wet season months from the
Carmel River to ASR wells in Seaside. The
Monterra representatives expressed concern about
damage to roadways that would result from installation of a pipeline across
their Tehama property. Stoldt also
discussed this concept with Cal-Am representatives. They were not supportive, and stated that a
dedicated pipeline for ASR is not needed.
They confirmed that plans they have to upgrade
Cal-Am only facilities related to the Regional Water Project would have the
capacity to serve more ASR wells.
8. Development
of Recycled Wastewater Alternatives
It was suggested
that in the future this item be titled, Development of Water Project 4 - Groundwater
Replenishment Project. Stoldt reported
that he will meet with Keith Israel, General Manager of the Monterey Regional
Water Pollution Control Agency, regarding funding mechanisms for the project,
and to discuss which agency has contractual rights to the wastewater source for
the project. Ultimately, it may be
possible for the District to receive an entitlement to purified water from the
project, and then sell that water to Cal-Am.
9. Status
of Request that the MPWMD Approve Letter of Intent to Support Investigation
into Development of Deep Water Desal Project in Moss Landing
The committee
members agreed that Stoldt should advise DeepWater Desal that at this time, the
District will not authorize preparation of a letter of support for
investigation into development of the project.
The District prefers to wait until decisions are made regarding the
Regional Water Project before it makes a commitment to DeepWater Desal.
Suggestions from the Public on Water
Supply Project Alternatives
The
following comments were directed to the committee. (1) George
Riley stated that a process
should be developed that would identify the ultimate desal component. That process should be advocated by the
District or possibly mayors of jurisdictions within the District. The solution may be for Cal-Am to purchase
the water from another entity and deliver it to the ratepayers. (2)
Dale Hekhuis stated that some of the projects listed in Cal-Am’s Monterey
Water Supply Analysis would cost over $500 million. The question to be answered is, should time
be spent to continue the analysis of projects that cost $500 million.
Other Items
Stoldt
reported that at an October 3, 2011, he attended a meeting to hear a
presentation from Max Gomberg of the California Public Utilities Commission. During the question and answer period, Gomberg
stated that an acceptable alternative to the Regional Water Project would be a
portfolio of projects that included groundwater replenishment and maximization
of ASR. At a recent meeting of LandWatch
that Stoldt attended, the same sentiment was expressed. Stoldt also advised the committee that at a
recent meeting of the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD), there was a discussion
about establishment of an expanded Operations and Maintenance Committee for the
Regional Water Project that would include representation from the mayors and
the District. He will continue to
coordinate with MCWD on this proposal.
Set Date for Next Committee Meeting
The
committee agreed to meet on November 10, 2012, at 1 pm.
Adjournment
The
meeting was adjourned at 2:30 pm.
U:\staff\Boardpacket\2012\20120416\InfoItems\18\item18_exhE.docx