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 1-D |
||||||
DRAFT
MINUTES Regular
Meeting Governance
Committee for
the Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project August 25, 2014 |
||||||
Call to Order: |
The meeting was
called to order at 1:45 pm in the conference room of the Monterey Peninsula
Water Management District offices. |
|||||
|
|
|||||
Members Present: |
Jason Burnett,
Chair, representing Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (JPA) Robert S. Brower,
Sr., Vice Chair, representative for Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District Robert MacLean,
representative for California American Water |
|||||
|
|
|||||
Members Absent: |
David Potter,
representing Monterey County Board of Supervisors |
|||||
|
|
|||||
Pledge of Allegiance: |
The assembly
recited the Pledge of Allegiance. |
|||||
|
|
|||||
Public Comments: |
No comments |
|||||
|
|
|||||
Agenda Items |
|
|||||
The Chair
received public comment on each agenda item. |
||||||
|
||||||
Action Items |
||||||
1. |
Approve Draft Minutes of July 16, 2014
Governance Committee Meeting |
|||||
|
Public Comment: Michael Warburton, representing the Public Trust Alliance, requested that the comments
he made at the July 16, 2014 meeting under the Public Comments item be
amended to state that any move to use ratepayer money to pay for a
desalination plant for Monterey County before reasonable alternatives are
investigated, is very likely to result in violations in public utilities,
securities, environmental water law and constitution on both state and
federal levels. |
|||||
|
|
|
||||
|
On a motion by
Brower and second of Burnett, the July 16, 2014 committee meeting minutes
were approved as presented on a unanimous vote of 2 – 0 by Brower and
Burnett. |
|||||
|
|
|||||
2. |
Approve Response to California American
Water re Request for Proposal for Test Slant Well Construction |
|||||
|
Public Comment: (1) Tom Rowley,
representing Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association, asked if the proposed
monitoring wells could be converted to water supply wells. (2) Michael Warburton opined that
the Governance Committee’s proposed response to California-American Water
(Cal-Am) is inadequate and does not protect the public interest. The project proponents have moved ahead
based on presumptions, and the Governance Committee should examine those
presumptions. He expressed hope that
the Governance Committee would seek to protect the public interest and not
focus entirely on protection of business interests. |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Ian Crooks,
Engineering Manager for Cal-Am’s Coastal Division, responded to questions
from the committee. He noted that bids
will be due on September 5, 2014. The
notice to proceed should be issued by September 19, 2014. He stated that monitoring wells are a
valuable tool for groundwater monitoring programs, but would not be used for water
supply as they are too small for that purpose. |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
On a motion by
Burnett and second of Brower, the committee authorized submission of the
response letter to California-American Water as presented. The motion was approved on a vote of 2 – 0
by Burnett and Brower. |
|||||
|
|
|||||
3. |
Receive Report, Discuss and Provide
Direction on the Value Engineering Final Report for the Cal Am Desalination
Facility |
|||||
|
Richard
Svindland and Ian Crooks reviewed Cal-Am’s response to recommendations BD-6;
E1 through E7; M-4; TP-1 through TP-11; and RS-2. Comments from the Governance Committee
are listed below. |
|||||
|
E-2 |
If recommendation were to be followed, it would affect plant
sizing, and reliability (with more pumps, operation could continue if some
pumps were down). Committee noted
that any change affecting plant size would be a concern to the
community. Many parties to the
litigation have agreed that 9.6 MGD is recommended or 6.4 mgd with a
groundwater replenishment project. |
||||
|
TP-1 |
Cal-Am representatives said that this change could cause an
increase in brine concentration to the outfall, and operation of outfall to
the National Marine Sanctuary, which could increase costs. Through use of slant wells, it is possible
that the source water will require less treatment and result in increased
plant efficiency. Committee asked if
the plant could be designed to use 45% recovery rate and later increase the
recovery. CAW responded that yes, if
conditions change, modifications could be made to increase recovery. |
||||
|
TP-4 |
Committee asked that the report include the annual and
life-cycle cost savings associated with elimination of sulfuric acid
treatment from the process. |
||||
|
TP-7 |
Committee clarified that if this change were implemented, a one-month
delay in project completion would result.
However, due to the time extension recently granted by the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), this delay would not inhibit timely
completion of the project. |
||||
|
TP-9 |
Cal-Am representatives stated that the review of alternatives
will be completed prior to the September 17, 2014 meeting of the Governance
Committee. |
||||
|
TP-10 |
Committee agreed that an expenditure of $225,000 to evaluate the
mean size of sand granules so that pump screens can be designed properly,
would be a wise expenditure. |
||||
|
TP-11 |
Cal-Am representatives say they will review this, but have
concerns that implementation would result in increased iron and manganese to
the outfall. |
||||
|
RS-2 |
The committee requested that this be carefully analyzed, so that
the information is available before State Water Resources Control Board
hearings on this issue. There should
be a plan to accelerate construction so that operation could begin as soon as
possible, especially in the event that drought continues. (Cal-Am’s current plan is that partial
operation of the plant could begin after the first six months of
construction.) There are permitting
and environmental considerations to plan for, if construction were to be
accomplished in shifts at night. A
final decision on whether to implement shifts could be made after 60% design
work is complete. Cal-Am will
investigate this, and also ask the test well drillers to provide a quote for
operation with 1, 2 and 3 shifts. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Public Comment: Michael Warburton stated that the value engineering team did not address the major
question; there was no evaluation of California American Water’s desalination
plant versus another water supply alternative. According to Mr. Warburton, legal
circumstances have changed since the time that the Public Trust Alliance
expressed support for a desalination project solution. At this present time, reallocation of
public water is of most importance.
Administrators of Salinas’ water have a responsibility to the entire
county, not just to agricultural interests, so that a small amount of water
could solve the Monterey Peninsula’s urban water problem. He noted that the urban preference has not
disappeared in Monterey County and it’s extremely important for the Governance
Committee, the Mayors and utilities to engage what that means. |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Brower offered
a motion to delay action until the next committee meeting when more
information will be available, including a plan for acceleration of the
construction schedule as discussed under recommendation RS-2. The motion was seconded by Burnett and
approved on a vote of 2 – 0 by Brower and Burnett. |
|||||
|
|
|||||
Reports to Committee |
||||||
4. |
Progress Report from California-American
Water on Development of Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Desalination
Plant |
|||||
|
Crooks reviewed the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Anticipate
Schedule, updated on August 25, 2014.
He reported that final publication of the project EIR is set for July
2015. California Coastal Commission (CCC)
approval is expected to occur in February or March 2016. He noted that if the Public Utilities
Commission and the CCC could process the applications in parallel, the CCC
could approve the slant well portion of the project first. Under that scenario, slant well
construction would not be delayed by the Snowy Plover nesting season. Crooks |
|||||
|
agreed to develop information on the implications of parallel process
of the permits, and make his analysis available to Burnett for future
discussions with John Laird at the California Natural Resources Agency. |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Public Comment: (1) Michael Warburton
expressed support for meetings with John Laird regarding the project timeline,
as he believes it is not clear that constitutionally delegated officers that
protect the public trust understand their duties. However, Warburton opined that the
desalination project has been driven by presumption, ambition and knee-jerk
protection of property which people might not own. He expressed support for broadening public
discussion and understanding of what is at stake, but also noted his concern
that accelerating the construction schedule could have a deleterious impact
on that aspect of the project. (2)
Tom Rowley stated that several years ago the Monterey City Council
decided to not pursue Pueblo Water Rights due to the high cost and potential
years-long legal battle associated with that effort. Rowley stated that at this time, the
community cannot avoid the deadline it is under to develop a water
solution. Possibly at some future
date the community can take the time necessary to divide up water from the
Salinas Basin. |
|||||
Discussion Items |
||||||
5. |
Suggest Items to
be Placed on Future Agendas |
|||||
|
Committee members proposed the following agenda items: review the Value
Engineering Report, and review bids for construction of monitoring wells. |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Public Comment: Michael Warburton suggested that the Governance Committee address the question of
changed circumstances regarding the desalination project. Is this a problem
that will not be solved in our lifetime, or is there a legal responsibility
to solve this in the public interest? The committee should be interested in
finding out if circumstances have changed based on climate change,
vulnerabilities of coastal locations, drought, and new information on groundwater
movement. He suggested that legal
experts could determine if it would be easier to solve this now than it was
20 years ago. |
|||||
|
||||||
Adjournment |
||||||
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 3 pm. U:\staff\MPWSPGovernanceCmte\2014\20141015\item1ExhD.docx |
||||||