ATTACHMENT 1

 

Community Advisory Committee Comments

Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project (RUWAP) by the MCWD and

Groundwater Replenishment Project (GRP) by the MRWPCA

March 26, 2007

Merits

Drawbacks

Robert Greenwood

                                   

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Dausen

  1. Both projects useful in increasing water supply for area.
  2. Great technology and great way to tap into a resource for increased portfolio of water

 

Janet Brennan

  1. Both projects compatible.  Both projects work together well.
  2. GRP project is energy efficient.

 

Manuel Fierro

RUWAP

1.   Recycled water used for non potable needs.

2.   Helps some with 95-10 issue.

3.   Can be part of  a regional solution.

4.   Redundancy in case of a breakdown of other projects.

 

 

 

GRP

1.   Provides water to Seaside Basin as required by Watermaster Management Team.

2.   Could help solve 95-10 issue.

 

Roy Thomas

RUWAP – project is underway.

 

 

      GRP – saves fresh water, expands groundwater storage, could provide surface water habitat.

 

Sheryl McKenzie

Both projects -- Commendable use of technology and conservation.

 

Bruce Crist

GRP –

1.   Dynamite idea, support recycling of wastewater.

2.   Relatively energy efficient.

 

Tom Rowley

Agrees with comments made by McKenzie and Dausen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paul Bruno

  1. Both projects technically feasible.  Permits are obtainable on both. 
  2. Both projects will be built whether or not the MPWMD agrees.
  3. Infrastructure can be used as part of a regional system.
  4. Recharge of aquifers is an advantage.
  5. Proposition 84 funds available for these types of projects.

 

Dewey Baird

  1. Proponent of both projects.
  2. Support Factory 21 Purified Recycled Water project.
  3. Agrees with Bruno’s comments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       RUWAP 

       1.   Does not reduce our deficit, only 300 AF of supply to offset demand.

       2.   RUWAP can stand alone, but GRP cannot stand alone.  Should be looked at as one consolidated project.  Need regionalization. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RUWAP

  1. May spend money when not needed.  Redundant issue.
  2. California Coastal Commission may not approve a new desalination plant.
  3. Monterey County Health Department is promoting one large desalination plant.

 

 

GRP

  1. Doesn’t totally solve 95-10 by itself.
  2. Costs 37.9 million and O&M is $1,325,000 per year.
  3. Further costs not known.

 

 

RUWAP – not keeping cost down – need to cooperate with other regional projects – share infrastructure.

 

GRP – should be expanded to utilize storm water and excess Salinas River water.

 

 

Both projects have limited potential for new supplies within MPWMD.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.       Agrees with comments made by McKenzie and Greenwood.

2.       If we add up price and operating costs for all projects, we cannot afford them.   These are all technically feasible projects, but can we afford all the individual projects? 

 

 

 

RUWAP -- Limited benefit to MPWMD as currently presented.

 

Both projects -- Issues of cost effectiveness.  There may be less expensive options related to easing governmental regulations.

 

 

 

  1. Concern regarding collective cost of all projects.
  2. Need a matrix that outlines cost to ratepayers for one or more of the projects.

 

 

 

U:\staff\word\committees\CAC\2007\20070827\04\4a\AppendixD_finalmins032607_attach1.doc