WATER SUPPLY PLANNING COMMITTEE
ITEM:		ACTION ITEM
2.	CONSIDER DEVELOPMENT OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGARDING ADOPTION OF AN ADDENDUM TO THE DISTRICT’S PRIOR ASR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BYPASS PIPELINE TO ALLOW SIMULTANEOUS PURE WATER MONTEREY RECOVERY AND ASR INJECTION (Subject to CEQA Review per CEQA Guideline Sections 15162 and 15164)
Meeting Date:			December 8, 2020	Budgeted:	No; Reimbursed
From:			David J. Stoldt	Program/	Water Supply Projects
			General Manager	Line Item:	N/A
Prepared By:			David Stoldt	Cost Estimate:	Cal-Am Reimbursement
General Counsel Review: N/A
Committee Recommendation: N/A
CEQA Compliance: This action does not constitute a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines section 15378.

SUMMARY: In June, staff reported to the Board that a bottleneck in simultaneous operation of ASR injection and Pure Water Monterey recovery had been identified due to the existing piping configuration in General Jim Moore Blvd. A bypass pipeline around the bottleneck was identified as a solution that would allow simultaneous operation of both projects. The proposed pipeline is above the length and diameter to be exempt from the CEQA process. In order to facilitate this solution in an expedited manner, Cal-Am asked the District to act as Lead Agency under CEQA for the project. At the Board Meeting on June 22, 2020, MPWMD Board directed the General Manager enter into a reimbursement agreement with Cal-Am for the CEQA work to construct to bypass pipeline necessary to allow simultaneous PWM recovery and ASR injection. The appropriate agreements were executed and the environmental work has been completed.

At the July 6, 2020 Water Supply Planning Committee meeting staff presented the EIR Addendum to the Committee. The Committee recommended that the Addendum be brought before the full Board for consideration of adoption. MPWMS staff worked with Denise Duffy and Associates to prepare the findings that were needed to be made in order to adopt the Addendum. The findings were not adopted by the Board, nor was certification approved, at its November meeting.

During public comments at the July 31, 2020 Board Meeting, Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) provided comments stating that the parallel pipeline would not be necessary if a change petition was filed for the water rights associated with the Carmel River ASR project and Cal-Am’s Table 13 water rights. Staff was directed by the Board to meet with MCWD staff and the item was tabled at the District’s July Board meeting without a vote and sent back to the Water Supply Committee.

On September 24, 2020 District staff met with MCWD General Manager and District Counsel to discuss the water rights and the need for a parallel pipeline to operate ASR and PWM at the same time. MCWD suggested that if a change petition was filed and granted to change the place of use for ASR and Table 13 water rights, these permits could be used in the winter and PWM water could be banked in the Seaside Groundwater Basin and recovered in the summer and used for drought. Cal-Am was not present at the meeting.

Following the meeting, District staff discussed the proposal with District Counsel and looked at how the changes in operation of the system would affect compliance with existing State Board Orders, existing inter-agency agreements, and existing CPUC testimony.

On November 2, 2020 the issue was brought back to the Water Supply Planning Committee for approval to advance the topic of certification of the Addendum back to the full Board. Instead, the Water Supply Planning Committee asked a series of questions that they wanted answers to, before making a decision. The questions include the following:

1. Is the proposed by-pass pipeline in the District’s Addendum the same as the geographically similar pipeline described in the as-yet-uncertified Pure Water Monterey expansion SEIR?

2. Would the same by-pass pipeline be needed anyway for Pure Water Monterey expansion?

3. How many months a year, and how frequent on a water-year basis, would this pipeline be needed and effective?

4. Is the by-pass pipeline needed because of de-chlorination needs versus shutting down ASR for 4-5 weeks to avoid chlorination byproduct issues? What impact does that have on ASR injection, or is it just recovery?

5. What exactly is the cost? Our understanding is Cal-Am was to receive bids November 16^th so this item should be known by now. What is the ratepayer impact of the cost based on the increase in revenue requirement?

6. What does the pipeline cost versus the additional benefit provided? (i.e. cost-benefit analysis.) And when would it appear on Cal-Am bills?

7. Why does Cal-Am, and perhaps District staff, want this capital improvement so soon, rather than waiting until other events/authorizations/permits are approved?

8. Why wouldn’t Cal-Am want some of the water rights permit changes suggested by MCWD?

District staff hopes to provide answers to these fundamental questions at the Committee meeting.

RECOMMENDATION: That the Committee recommend to the Board of Directors that it does not approve Construction of a Bypass Pipeline Modification Addendum as Addendum 6 to the ASR EIR/EA until the California Coastal Commission acts on the recently resubmitted application by Cal-Am for a Coastal Development Permit, which will hopefully clarify actual versus perceived pipeline need. Further, any unanswered components of the questions above must be answered, as well.

EXHIBIT

None

U:\staff\Board_Committees\WSP\2020\20201207\02\Item-2.docx