Governance
Committee for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project |
||||
California American Water Monterey County Board of Supervisors Monterey Peninsula Regional
Water Authority Monterey Peninsula Water Management District EXHIBIT 23-B |
||||
FINAL
MINUTES Regular
Meeting Governance
Committee for
the Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project March 31, 2014 |
||||
Call to Order: |
The meeting was
called to order at 1:30 pm in the conference room of the Monterey Peninsula
Water Management District offices. |
|||
|
|
|||
Members Present: |
Jeanne Byrne,
representing Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (alternate to
Robert S. Brower, Sr.) Jason Burnett,
Chair, representing Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (JPA) David Potter,
representing Monterey County Board of Supervisors Robert MacLean,
representing California American Water (Cal Am) |
|||
|
|
|||
Members Absent: |
Robert S.
Brower, Sr., Vice Chair, representing Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District |
|||
|
|
|||
Pledge of Allegiance: |
The assembly
recited the Pledge of Allegiance. |
|||
|
|
|||
Public Comments: |
No comments
were directed to the committee. |
|||
|
|
|||
Agenda Items |
|
|||
The Chair
received public comment on each agenda item. |
||||
|
||||
Presentations |
||||
1. |
Report from California-American Water on
Bore Hole Investigations, Test Well Schedule and Overall Project Schedule |
|||
|
The report was
given by Ian Crooks, Engineering Manager/Coastal Division for Cal-Am. A summary of his presentation can be viewed
on the Governance Committee website.
Crooks reported that Cal-Am drilled eleven boreholes, one is under
construction at the Cemex site, and the last is still to be drilled is at a
parking lot on Monterey Dunes Way owned by California State Parks. A total of 13 bore holes will have been
constructed in seven months. Results are that the Cemex site would provide
good production and water quality. The
Potrero Road site also produced favorable results. The Moss Landing sites
would be unfavorable. A test slant
well could be installed at the Cemex site; however, Cal-Am will request that
the permit be modified so that the well site could be moved behind the 60/40
erosion line. Crooks reviewed |
|||
|
the project
schedule which anticipates that test well construction will begin in November
2014. He advised that the California
Coastal Commission has not made a commitment to conduct the test well permit
hearing on the Monterey Peninsula.
According the project schedule, desalination plant construction could
begin in 2016, and should be completed by 2018. Public
Comment: (1) Michael Warburton
representing the Public Trust Alliance, stated that the Monterey Bay Marine
Sanctuary may be concerned about brine disposal from the project. MacLean
responded that test well water will not be desalinated, so brine is not an
issue. Warburton asked if the project time-line included planning for another
water supply alternative, and if a formal determination had been made that no
other alternatives should be considered. MacLean stated that 17 settling
parties have agreed to the proposed project, and Cal-Am is moving ahead with
the assumption that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) will issue a permit for the project. Warburton
also asked if sharing of water between agricultural interests and Peninsula
water users had been considered. (2) David Lithland noted that the
life of beach wells is 20 to 30 years, and the term for bond financing is 30
years. He asked if geologic
information collected on the bore holes would be placed on water supply
project website. He also asked if the test well would be sealed after testing
is done. Crooks responded that geologic
data will be placed on the project website, and that if the test well proves
to be successful, it will be used for the water supply project. Lithland asked why Cal-Am does not advise
the CPUC that open water intake is an acceptable option. (3) Tom Rowley, representing the
Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association, noted that the time-line presented
by Crooks listed 2014 as the date for a decision on Groundwater
Replenishment, but it is shown under the 2015 heading. Burnett confirmed that
the will be corrected to reflect the 2015 date. Rowley also stated that the
project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) may be challenged if test well data
is not available to show that slant wells would be a successful option for
the project. (4) Larry Hampson,
Engineer, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, asked for
clarification as to why the project time-line lists approval of the EIR and
CPUC issuance of a project permit are concurrent with collection of test well
data. Burnett responded that the EIR
team judged that preliminary data and modeling results are sufficient for the
EIR, and that actual test data will not be included in the EIR. Crooks stated
that Cal-Am will use the test will data to verify the groundwater model and
designs prior to construction of the desal project. (5) Jim Cullum,
Executive Director of the JPA, opined that the project schedule is overly
optimistic. He suggested that the
schedule be identified as an “optimistic” plan, and that Cal-Am should
specify on the schedule impacts of any delay that could be caused by the EIR
process or the CPUC. |
|||
|
|
|||
Action
Items |
||||
2. |
Develop Process for Procurement of
Consultant to Conduct Value Engineering Analysis of CDM Desalination Project
Design The committee
members discussed the issue and then received public comment. |
|||
|
Michael Warburton addressed the committee on this item during the public comment period. He stated that the key value engineering decision is whether the preferred technology is desalination or another water production technology. There is an obligation to make sharing of agricultural and urban water resources a reality. If the decision is made after design is 60% complete, it will be too late to make a decision on the best use of fresh water sources. Burnett offered a motion that was seconded by Potter, to request that the Water Authority and or the Water Management District lead on procurement of the value engineer. The process would be: the two agencies would develop a draft RFP or RFQ; bring that to the Governance Committee for consideration; receive input on that RFP or RFQ; distribute the final document; and bring back a recommendation on the preferred value engineer. The Governance Committee would be authorized to make that final selection. The Water Authority or the Water Management District would enter into a contract with the value engineer for running the value engineering process and would also seek and be provided
reimbursement from California American Water.
The motion was adopted unanimously on a vote of Byrne, Potter and
Burnett. MacLean also expressed support
for the motion. |
|||
|
|
|||
3. |
Receive
Report from Cal-Am on Contingency Source Water Intake Locations and Develop
Recommendation on Future Action regarding Source Water Intakes |
|||
|
Crooks’ presentation can be viewed on the Governance Committee
website. He provided information on
development of a contingency intake well at Potrero Road. He requested that the committee consider
authorizing Cal-Am to spend additional funds to apply for a permit to drill a
test contingency intake well, in case the test well at the Cemex site prove
not to be the best location. Cal-Am
could develop an updated time-line and cost estimates for committee review at
its next meeting. The committee
discussed the item and received public comment. Public Comment: (1) Tom
Rowley spoke in support of open water intake as a contingency should
slant wells prove to be infeasible. He
stated that slant wells must be proven feasible before the EIR is
complete. (2) Jim Cullum
offered the influence of JPA members to assist with obtaining rights of way and
permits. (3) David Lithland asked for clarification as to criteria for
a decision on the best intake site, and when a decision must be made on
whether to utilize Ranney wells or open water intake. (4) Michael
Warburton stated that consideration must be given as to the best use of
water resources in Monterey County, and that selection of the desalination
alternative has not been settled. Byrne offered a motion that was seconded by Potter, to continue this
item to the next committee meeting when Cal-Am staff will present additional
information regarding development of a contingency intake well. The motion was approved unanimously on a
vote of 3 – 0 by Byrne, Potter and Burnett. |
|||
|
|
|||
4. |
Update on
Development of Landfill Gas Term Sheet Cullum reported that representatives from the Monterey Regional Waste
Management District and Cal-Am are working closely together on development of
a plan for supplying power to the desalination plant. It is estimated that the desalination plant
will require 4.5 to 5 megawatts of power.
The Waste Management District could produce up to 7 megawatts of power
to meet the needs of the desalination plant and other customers on the
grid. Cullum stated that the debt
equivalency question will be dealt with. |
|||
|
|
|||
5. |
Discussion of
Items to be Placed on Future Agendas No discussion. |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Adjournment |
||||
The meeting was adjourned at 3:15 pm. U:\staff\Boardpacket\2014\20140915\InfoItems\23\item23_exh23b.docx |
||||