Attachment 1

 

Community Advisory Committee Comments

Coastal Water Project (CWP)

May 29, 2007

Merits

Drawbacks

Manual Fierro

1.                  Complies with Order 95-10

2.                  Provides 1,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) for Seaside Basin

3.                  Can be modified to provide 20,272 AFY as a regional project

4.                  California American Water (CAW) knows problems the system has had past and present

5.                  Can provide 11,738 AFY for a small project

6.                  CAW stated the possibility of joining with a public partner

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paul Bruno

1.                  Technically feasible

2.                  Progress is being made on the PEA and EIR

3.                  Project is a product of the Plan B community process which was Assembly Bill 1182

4.                  Does not rely on rainfall

5.                  Addresses Order 95-10

 

6.                  Subsurface intake alternative addresses entrainment

7.                  Scaleable

8.                  Aquifer Storage/Recovery (ASR) component decreases the size and cost of the CWP

9.                  Extensive public outreach in the planning process

10.              Project planning includes integration into the current water system

11.              No public vote required unless public funds are used

12.              CPUC controls rates

13.              CPUC is the lead agency

 

 

Ron Chesshire

1.                  Agree with most of Mr. Bruno’s statements on merits of the project

2.                  Facility like this has tremendous potential to get us out of problems we are facing which makes it a target

3.                  Moss Landing power plant is largest electrical producer in California and is unlikely to be closed down for any reasons      

 

 

Dewey Baird

1.                  Potential mitigation of Order 95-10 and Seaside Groundwater Basin adjudication

2.                  Has an ASR component

3.                  Company has made a lot of progress so far

4.                  Mitigates saltwater intrusion

5.                  Partial restoration of the Carmel River summer flows

6.                  Not weather dependant

7.                  Agree with Mr. Bruno -- support CPUC as lead agency and approving rates                       

 

 

Janet Brennan

1.                  Once-through cooling has least environmental impacts due to use of water that has been produced, and disposal of brine.

2.                  Slant drilling alternative has benefits from an environmental perspective and may provide a net energy use reduction over the once-through cooling system.

 

 

 

 

Greg Pickens

1.                  Agree with positive comments made by Manuel Fierro

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

David Dilworth

1.                  Agree with some of positive comments.

2.                  Agree with some of Manuel Fierro’s comments on merits of project

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Robert Greenwood

1.                  Support 11,730 AF alternative 

2.                  Support the idea of putting the desalination plant in Marina because it would greatly decrease the cost of transmission to the Monterey Peninsula.

 

 

 

1.                  $230 million for 11,738 AFY is too costly

2.                  CAW’s Peninsula rate payers would pay the total cost at 9.9% profit for CAW

3.                  High cost per AF at $1,725

4.                  No public vote required unless public funds are used

5.                  Does not conform with Monterey County Ordinance 10.72

6.                  The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) controls rates customers must pay

7.                  Lead agency is the CPUC

8.                  No confirmed site for a desalination plant

9.                  Sale of CAW parent company on the stock exchange means no local control, you have a governance issue

10.              11,730 AFY does not meet with the desired requirements of Monterey County

 

 

 

1.                  Dependant upon electricity to operate

2.                  Entrainment is a significant issue when using once-through cooling

3.                  Its potential for success makes it a target for the no-growth community

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.                  Agree with Paul Bruno’s statements on drawbacks of the project

2.                  Concerns re operation and maintenance costs – if left unchecked or not dealt with -- to provide a cheaper source of electricity with RO membranes, costs are ongoing and might tend to add up over the years.

 

 

 

 

1.                  Electricity dependant (Moss Landing power plant may not close soon, but electricity is fossil fuel dependant which is an issue now)

2.                  At least 4.5 years out with 40 permitting hurdles facing it

 

3.                  The 70% ultimate rate increase is hard to swallow, although do not know of an alternative

 

 

 

 

1.                  We don’t have a good example of a large, water producing desalination plant in the U.S.  The one that does exist is in Florida and the cost of maintaining that facility is enormous, requiring continual membrane replacement.    I question the technical feasibility of the larger facility.

2.                  The energy demand is significant and may face hurdles under State regulatory scheme to reduce CO2 emissions.

 

 

 

1.                  No alternative water source intake discussed if the Moss Landing Power Plant cooling water discharge was not available

2.                  “Trough” used for saltwater prevention is questionable due to rising sea levels, inland waterway, storms and erosion

3.                  Potential multiple brine discharge solutions required.  Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency plus?

4.                  Slant well intake system.  The Dana Point pilot site is not sufficient to be considered proven technology.  What other locations use slant wells?  The technical studies listed refer to HDD wells.  Are there any studies for slant wells that can be provided?

5.                  Construction timeframe is too long, cost is too high, and location has not been secured

6.                  Rate recovery has begun.  Does this imply that if an alternative to CWP is selected, rate payers will be credited the collected amount so that it can be applied to the other project?

 

 

 

1.                  Project is illegal as proposed, contrary to Monterey County ordinance

2.                  Disconnect between public sentiment and project design.  CAW recognizes that no-growth is appropriate, but have proposed this large-growth project

3.                  Project is too big.  Not a replacement, not a right-sized project, it is a large-growth project

4.                  Extremely expensive drought protection

5.                  Public outreach CAW has done has been meaningless because there is a disconnect between public sentiment and project design.

6.                  2012 construction date is not soon.

7.                  4 to 5 million gallons per day (mgd) for each slant well is more than double that of any operating well project configuration. The 4 to 5 mgd may not be achievable.  It is untested.

8.                  Cones of depression and rate of infiltration -- may not be able to get enough water to the pipes

9.                  Maintenance is horribly expensive.

10.              CPUC is an outrageous agency to authorize this project.

11.              Once-through cooling is wasteful technology.  Above ground radiators are current technology.

12.              Tremendous amount of larvae are killed by the current once-through project.  In order to stop that, must use other technology.

13.              20-mile pipeline is nontrivial project that is subject to breakage and leakage.

 

 

 

1.                  No comment to make regarding project drawbacks.

 

 

 

 

U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2007\2007boardpackets\20070716\InfoItems\18\item18_exh18b_attach1.doc

A. Tavani/Comments from 5-29-07 CAC meeting/7-5-07/5 pages