MPWMD WATER SUPPLY PLANNING COMMITEE MEETING--APRIL 9, 2012--EXHIBIT 1A--DRAFT MINUTES OF THE OCTOVER 11, 2011 COMMITTEE MEETING

EXHIBIT 1-A

DRAFT 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: Darby Fuerst, 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\Board_Committees\WSP\2012\20120409\01\item1_exh1a.docx