Agenda

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

Regular Meeting
7:00 PM, Thursday, August 13, 2015
CALL IN LOCATION: 407 South Supernaw
Skiatook, OK 74070
PHYSICAL LOCATION: Council Chamber
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, California

ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REPORTS FROM BOARD DIRECTORS AND STAFF
PUBLIC COMMENTS
PUBLIC COMMENTS allows you, the public, to speak for a maximum of three minutes on any
subject which is within the jurisdiction of the MPRWA and which is not on the agenda. Any person
or group desiring to bring an item to the attention of the Authority may do so by addressing the
Authority during Public Comments or by addressing a letter of explanation to: MPRWA, Attn:
Monterey City Clerk, 580 Pacific St, Monterey, CA 93940. The appropriate staff person will contact
the sender concerning the details.

CONSENT AGENDA
1.

Approve the Minutes of July 9, 2015 Regular Meeting - Milton

2.

Approve the Minutes of July 29, 2015 Special Meeting - Milton

3.

Approve and File Checks - Milton

4.

Receive the Most Recent Update of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
Schedule for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project - Cullem
AGENDA ITEMS

5.

Receive an Update on the Summary Project Schedule for the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project (MPWSP), including Status of the Application to the Coastal Commission
for an Amended Coastal Development Permit (CDP) to Resume Slant Test Well
Operations, Receive Responses to Questions Provided to California American Water
Company on July 29, 2015, Review the Table of Permits and Approvals, and Approve a
Letter to Cal Am With Regard to Slant Well Financial Risk - Crooks

6.

Receive Report, Discuss, and Provide Direction on Final Application to the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) Extension

Thursday, August 13, 2015

Request, and Authorize the Authority President to Send a Comment Letter to the Board
Staff on Its Draft Response to the Cal Am Draft CDO Application - Cullem
7.

Approve a Letter from the Water Authority to the Marina City Council Inviting Marina to
Name a Non-voting Hydrogeologist to the MPWSP Hydrogeological Working Group
(HWG) - Cullem

8.

Receive Presentation, Discuss, and Provide Staff Direction on the Deep Water Desal
Project - Adamson

9.

Receive Presentation, Discuss, and Provide Staff Direction on the Peoples Desal Project Balch
ADJOURNMENT

The City of Monterey is committed to including the disabled in all of its services, programs and
activities. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance
to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerks Office at (831) 646-3935.
Notification 30 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements
to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II]. Later requests will
be accommodated to the extent feasible. For communication-related assistance, dial 711 to use
the California Relay Service (CRS) to speak to City offices. CRS offers free text-to-speech, speechto-speech, and Spanish-language services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you require a hearing
amplification device to attend a meeting, dial 711 to use CRS to talk to the City Clerk's Office at
(831) 646-3935 to coordinate use of a device.
Agenda related writings or documents provided to the MPRWA are available for public
inspection during the meeting or may be requested from the Monterey City Clerks Office at 580
Pacific St, Room 6, Monterey, CA 93940. This agenda is posted in compliance with California
Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or Section 54956.

M I N U TE S
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
Regular Meeting
7:00 PM, Thursday, July 9, 2015
COUNCIL CHAMBER
580 PACIFIC STREET
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Directors Present:

Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Burnett

Directors Absent:

Roberson

Staff Present:

Executive Director, Legal Counsel, Clerk

ROLL CALL
President Burnett called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REPORTS FROM BOARD DIRECTORS AND STAFF
President Burnett invited comments from the Directors.
President Burnett reported that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) announced
the comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) will be extended from
July 13 to September 30th, 2015 to address a potential conflict of interest and attempt to align
the document with the NEPA process. He then reported that the State Water Resources
Control Board announced their ruling on the petition on the Odello water which would bring in
85 acre foot of water into the Cal Am system and leave water in the Carmel River. This will
benefit the CDO extension request and has additional benefits to the Carmel River water shed
and the City of Carmel by the Sea.
President Burnett requested tabling Agenda Item 4, as the letter is no longer relevant for tonight
due to the extension. He also reported that the SWRCB had intended to provide comments on
the draft petition in advance of this meeting but were not received. The letter will not be sent
until comments are received and addressed.
Executive Director Cullem reported on the comment letter submitted by Janie Haines which
was forwarded to Andrew Barnsdale at the CPUC as a DEIR comment expressing concern
regarding the long term viability of the test well. He additionally reported on the Power
Purchase Agreement regarding renewable power that the cost of power is an issue due to the
capital investment. However preliminary engineering work has been done and a full report will
be brought back at a later date.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
President Burnett invited comments from the public.

Tom Rowley spoke representing Monterey Peninsula Tax Payers Association thanking
the Authority for commissioning the technical report about the DEIR and spoke in
support of the DEIR comment extension period. Finally, he clarified there are
organizations that continue to submit letters to the editor that say they represent tax
payers but they are not part of the MPTA, who has been advocating water issues for
years. The Authority has been effective in lobbying for water for the Peninsula and

MPRWA Minutes

Thursday, July 9, 2015

encouraged them to keep up the good work.

George Riley expressed serious concern regarding the management of the process that
is resulting in the delay of the DEIR including the lack of coordination to ensure CEQA
and NEPA are on the same track. He expressed frustration that the conflict of interest
issue was brought up before and should have been addressed previously.

Dale Heikous thanked Royal Caulkins for his reporting on issues in Carmel and that he
thinks it was a service to the Citizens.

President Burnett responded to public comment agreeing with Mr. Riley that it should have
been a joint NEPA/CEQA document and spoke to previous efforts advocating for a joint
document.
CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Director Kampe, seconded by Director Pendergrass, and carried by the
following vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority approved the Consent Agenda
with the exception of Item 4. Director Rubio Abstained from the Minutes.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSED:

5
0
1
1
0

DIRECTORS:
DIRECTORS:
DIRECTORS:
DIRECTORS:
DIRECTORS:

Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio

None
Roberson
Rubio, From Item 1
None

1.

Approve Minutes from June 23, 2015 Joint Special Meeting

Action: Approved

2.

Approve Minutes from August 14, 2014 Regular Meeting

Action: Approved

3.

Approve and File Checks Through June 30, 2015

Action: Approved

4.

Receive , Discuss, Provide Direction as Necessary on Final Comment Letter to the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Draft
Environmental Impact Report
Action: Tabled
AGENDA ITEMS

5.

Receive an Update on the Summary Project Schedule for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project (MPWSP) including Status of Slant Test Well Operations and Results

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Regular Meeting Minutes - Thursday, July 9, 2015
2

MPRWA Minutes

Thursday, July 9, 2015

Ian Crooks from Cal Am began by reporting on the Dana Point test well and spoke to the
differences between the Dana Point and the current test well and detailed the lessons learned that
have been incorporated into this project. He listed the differences between the two projects to
include time constrains, money constraints as well as differences in technology. Mr. Crooks spoke
to a report written by the Principle Engineer for Dana Point addressing responses to the criticisms
of the well and addressing the issues. The new project design has benefitted from the report, to
which he agreed to send to the Directors. Mr. Crooks answered questions from the Directors.
Director Kampe questioned is how long before they begin to see the effects of sand in the pump
and if it occurs, how much time is needed to resolve the problem if it occurs to which Mr. Crooks
agreed to find out and report back.
Mr. Crooks gave a quick overview of the test well data statistics, then detailed the purpose and
the reasoning for discontinuing the test well pumping as required as part of the permit
agreement. He indicated that, as the permit is written, if any decline in the water level occurs,
pumping must cease. He spoke to data collected that proves the decline in water level was not
related to the test well pumping and that the Hydrogeological Working Group has submitted a
letter to the CPUC to request modification of the permit requirement. Draft language for the
permit modification will be submitted to the Coastal Commission for an August decision on the
amendment. The Directors discussed the data results and the permit requirements for the
drawdown to ensure there is a conservative approach to protect the environment in an unknown
situation.
President Burnett invited public comment on the item.

George Riley spoke to his continued concern regarding the lack of data. He indicted that
he did not think that the Dana Point project was time or financially constrained. If there was
a design change between the two projects, that's what the patent was about, regarding the
filtration of the sand particles, but they deny the use of the patent, and there are mixed
facts and it needs more clarification and research. The group has been concerned about
the feasibility question and it must be robust and short time frames are not acceptable for
good data.
Doug Wilhelm requested clarification regarding the agricultural farmers using the purple
pipe which should not have any effect on the water level.

Mr. Crooks spoke to Mr. Wilhelm's question and spoke to the trend line that regarding long term
pumping which proves there was a decline in the ground water. It is a basin decline, not related
to the well, it is general pumping which is causing the event. This is part of the seawater
intrusion issue. The report was received.
6.

Discuss Concerns of the City of Marina with Respect to the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project (MPWSP) and the Pure Water Monterey/Ground Water Replenishment (GWR) Projects
and Provide Direction
Action: Tabled
This item was tabled.

7.

Receive Report, Discuss, Provide Staff Direction, and Authorize the Water Authority Executive
Director and/or President to Co-sign or Send Letter in Support of the Proposed Cease and
Desist Order Extension Request

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Regular Meeting Minutes - Thursday, July 9, 2015
3

MPRWA Minutes

Thursday, July 9, 2015

Action: Discussed and Direction Provided

President Burnett reported that comments have not been received from the State Water
Resources Control Board staff to date and think there is not an appetite to make significant
changes, but they will have the final say. Executive Director Cullem outlined the key points that
are included in the CDO request.
Director Pendergrass expressed satisfaction that the community retains it's rights to litigate the
issue if necessary and he requested a copy of the letter be provide prior to the meeting the next
time this item is agendized.
President Burnett invited public comment on the item.

George Riley questioned the monitoring of Cal Am and monitoring of the 1,000 foot
level. What are some of the monitoring mechanisms and can that be taken up by the
TAC to ensure they are caught in time.
Tom Rowley indicated that this brings up who is going ot be the litigants, and all the City
Councils may want to be a player and that the Monterey County still is not represented
and this emphasizes the County should be represented as a member of the Authority.
Dale Ellis spoke on behalf of the Coalition of Peninsula Businesses indicating that they
support moving forward with this, and they are pleased to see the CPBs concerns being
addressed in the letter.

President Burnett requested the Authority to table sending the letter until comments are
received from the SWRCB staff. The Directors agreed.
Executive Director Cullem acknowledged that as soon as there is authorization to release the
draft, amended letter, it will be distributed to Directors with enough time to review, and it will be
posted on the website.
8.

Discuss, Provide Direction and Authorize Sending of Comment letter to the PCA / Water
Management District on the Pure Water Monterey/Ground Water Replenishment (GWR) Project
Action: Discussed
Executive Director Cullem reported that there have been comments received and concerns
expressed by other agencies and interested parties concerning a the availability of adequate
sources of intake water to meet the demands needed by the various water users as it relates to
the Groundwater Replenishment project. He reminded the Directors and the public that the
GWR project is critical to the decision on the sizing of the MPRWSP desal facility.
President Burnett clarified that he requested this item be added to the agenda to provide the
opportunity for the public to hear the answers to these concerns.
Paul Scuito, General Manager of the MRWPCA, spoke to his understanding of the concern of
source water and reliability for the GWR Project. The reliability focuses on three areas;
conservation of waste water flows to the plant, the viability of agricultural wash water and use of
some of the drainage areas. He explained the status of each of the three areas including the
volume and the trends of the flows now and projected into the future. He did confirm that many
of the estimates are conservative.

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Regular Meeting Minutes - Thursday, July 9, 2015
4

MPRWA Minutes

Thursday, July 9, 2015

Mr. Sciuto reiterated that the project is viable, as presented in the EIR. He spoke to the
progress made on the water purchase agreement, successful meetings with the County Water
Resources Control Board, that wash water agreements with the City of Salinas are being
finalized. Ongoing negotiations with MCWD are occurring, but meetings have been delayed due
to schedule conflicts.
Dave Stoldt, General Manager of the MPWMD agreed with Mr. Sciutos combination of water
sources and reported that the growers will continue find different sources and pull about the
same amount of water no matter where the source is and that technology will continue to
change processes. He indicated that the focus now is the Marina Coast Water Districts
concern regarding the monitization of stranded costs.
Director Rubio spoke to the positive tenor and in agreement with the progress that has been
made on behalf of all negotiating parties. President Burnett spoke to his efforts on the State
level to discuss the success of the project and the need for federal/state funding.
Mr. Scuito closed by saying that both boards will be approving the application for the SRF
funding and that approval of SRF funds put you in an eligibility position for grant funds.
President Burnett invited comments from the public.

Tom Rowley said it was encouraging that there is progress but disagreed with
certification of the EIR without solid agreements.

Mr. Stoldt responded that the certification of the EIR does not depend on the source water.
Director Pendergrass spoke to a prototype of water cleaning at the MRWPCA that will be
revealed in August and encouraged interested individuals to reach out and schedule a tour.
9.

Annual Appointment of Officers for Fiscal Year 2015-16

Action: Approved Appointments
Director Rubio made a motion to keep the same format of officers as elected last term.
President Burnett invited comments from the public and had no requests to speak. All members
agreed to keep their current positions.
On a motion by Director Rubio and seconded by Director Edelen, and carried by the following
vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority approved the following appointment of
officers for Fiscal Year 2015-16:
President: Mayor Jason Burnett
Vice President: Mayor Bill Kampe
Secretary: Mayor David Pendergrass
Treasurer: Mayor Jerry Edelen
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSED:

10.

5
0
1
0
0

DIRECTORS:
DIRECTORS:
DIRECTORS:
DIRECTORS:
DIRECTORS:

Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio

None
Roberson
Rubio, From Item 1
None

Water Authority board members authorize the president to represent the city's interest at the
governance committee for the pipeline RFP.
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
Regular Meeting Minutes - Thursday, July 9, 2015
5

MPRWA Minutes

Thursday, July 9, 2015

President Burnett spoke to being the Authoritys representative on the Governance Committee
and that in the near future the Governance Committee will be reviewing and approving the RFP
for the MPWSP Pipeline. He requested an understanding of the concern of the member cities to
be able to best represent their interests during the GC Meetings.
Director Pendergrass expressed concern that this pipeline is vital to both the GWR and Desal
projects and that the current legal issues with the MCWD can hinder both projects. He
encouraged cooperation. Director Burnett reported on the invitations to the City of Marina to
attend this and the next meetings to assist with the cooperation and working with the City and
the District.
Director Edelen requested to get a map that shows the pipeline of the conveyance facilities to
which Mr. Crooks showed a map which outlines the desal plant site, the intake wells and the
pipelines that the RFP would cover. After consultation with the Cities, the alternate route has
been accepted. Director Rubio reported that the City of Seaside comments were submitted as
part of the DEIR but he questioned the impacts to sewer lines. He spoke to the intent to
develop the currently undeveloped areas, and questioned if future sewer connections were
considered to which Crooks reported they are in contact with staff in Seaside. Mayor Rubio also
requested that impacts to residents are truly considered and highlighted.
President Burnett invited comments from the public.

Tom Rowley spoke as a Monterey resident regarding the impacts to the residents and
requested outreach to the neighborhoods that will be impacted. This is an improvement
for what was sent out in the flyer to residents.

Documents received from Seaside will be incorporated by reference. Any other comments
received from Member cities will be provided at the Governance Committee.
On a motion by Director Edelen seconded by Director Rubio, and carried by the following vote,
the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority authorized President Burnett to represent the
Interests of the Authority at the Governance Committee with regard to the pipeline.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSED:

5
0
1
0
0

DIRECTORS:
DIRECTORS:
DIRECTORS:
DIRECTORS:
DIRECTORS:

Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio

None
Roberson
Rubio, From Item 1
None

ADJOURNMENT

ATTEST:

Lesley Milton-Rerig, Authority Clerk

Jason Burnett, President

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Regular Meeting Minutes - Thursday, July 9, 2015
6

M I N U TE S
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
Special Meeting
7:00 PM, Thursday, July 29, 2015
COUNCIL CHAMBER
580 PACIFIC STREET
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Directors Present:

Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Burnett, Alternate

Downey

Directors Absent:

None

Staff Present:

Executive Director, Legal Counsel, Clerk

ROLL CALL
President Burnett called the meeting to order.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REPORTS FROM BOARD DIRECTORS AND STAFF
President Burnett reported that late edits were made to the letter in Agenda Item 1 and
copies were made for the Directors and the public. He also announced that there was
correspondence with the State Water Resources Control Board today regarding the draft
CDO extension request and how the delay may affect the CDO and they committed to
providing their comments on the draft extension request immediately. The item will be
agendized for the August 13th meeting.
Executive Director Cullem reported that the contract with SPI was extended with a $5,000
increase, due to a request for the consultants to draft a technical response for inclusion in
the draft letter addressed to the CPUC. He also indicted that the CPUC canceled the July
2015 meeting indefinitely.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
President Burnett invited comments from the public.

Tom Rowley expressed concern regarding the policy decision to jointly file the CDO
extension request with Cal Am and the MRWMD. He requested consideration of
maintaining separation and independence of the Authority and the citizens.
George Riley speaking representing Public Water Now, reported the organization has
exercised its discretion and had discluded itself using the provision in the settlement
agreement and will oppose slant wells, based on rate payer interest, due to lack of
current cost estimates from Cal AM and lack of seeking grant assistance.
AGENDA ITEMS

1.

Discuss extension of comment period for Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project; consider letter responding to California Public
Utilities Commission, Energy Divisions notice of July 9, 2015 inviting comment on the
appropriate response to the potential Geoscience conflict of interest and advisability of
recirculating the Draft EIR as a joint CEQA/NEPA document; and provide appropriate

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

direction to staff and legal counsel - Burnett

President Burnett reported that on July 9th the CPUC Judge Weathorford issued a ruling
requesting parties to submit suggestions regarding the conflict of interest by Dennis
Williams, working both for Cal Am and the CPUC regarding modeling. The letter before the
Directors is the proposed response to the request and he spoke to the substantive changes
in the document made since the last version was distributed. The red lined version is not as
forceful in advocating for a joint document, recognizing that request could invoke significant
timing considerations. The other issue reflected is regarding the need for a recirculated
DEIR which will be left up to the commission, per the results of the peer review. The letter
also identifies a number of areas where the peer review should focus, identified by Geo
Syntech and finally he noted the letter also requests that the CPUC reach out to the
SWRCB as it affects the CDO and that any delays caused will not be on behalf of the
community.
President Burnett also reported that Cal Am has submitted its response to the CPUC data
which he requested Cal Am report on the content of that filing. Rich Svinland from Cal
reported on the data request including their contracted work from GeoSciences with Cal
Am on the failed desal projects and noticed that engineering agreements typically have
proprietary language. He indicated that CPUC staff was very well aware of the contracts
with Mr. Williams, but it may not have been at the Commissioner level, However, someone
should have addressed the perceived or actual conflict. Mr. Svinland verbally committed
that Cal Am will not pass on any costs for patents from GeoSciences to the rate payers.
President Burnett invited comments from the public on this item.
George Riley indicated that the issue that needs to be under discussion is what are
the alternative interests or motives in terms of what he or others were hoping to
accomplish. Regardless of the patent cost to the project, his concern is regarding
the disclosure of the potential interests, which he says is suspicious. Who is tied to
the successful implementation of the project and how far would they go, there is
culpability with non-disclosure.
Dale Ellis, Coalition of Peninsula Businesses discussed this item and are in support
of the letter presented. They appreciate the balance that is attempted to ensure the
process is sound with a pro-eye on maintaining a speedy process.
President Burnett noted he sent the draft letter to the Settling Parties and received positive
feedback exclusively. He clarified that this letter is also requesting a third peer review of the
DEIR that does not have an interest in this project, which is a very limited field of study. The
Directors discussed the potential conflict and that this is an engineering problem, and
questioned if there was any oversight with regard to the data and the issue with motivations.
President Burnett spoke to a request for updated cost data and reported the cost for the test
well is between approximately $5 to 8 million dollars. He did note that there was one request
from a settling party that was not incorporated, which he read to which the Directors agreed to
modify.
Director Kampe questioned the request to have the analysis of the three alternatives which will
be essential and questioned the timeline that will determine which is the preferred alternative.
President Burnett spoke to his outreach to the different state agencies that will assist with
getting the NEPA document approved efficiently. He indicated that this should have been
addressed two year prior but it was not. He then spoke to the balance and the best process with
regard to the permitting approvals from the different state and local agencies.

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

On motion by Director Rubio and seconded by Director Pendergrass and Vice President Kampe
and approved by the following vote the Authority Directors approved the draft red-line version of
the letter and the verbal modification made.
AYES:

DIRECTORS:

NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSED:

0
0
0
0

DIRECTORS:
DIRECTORS:
DIRECTORS:
DIRECTORS:

2.

Burnett, Downey, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass,

Rubio
None
None
None
None

Receive Report, Review Draft Letter, Discuss and Authorize Staff to Send a Letter
Regarding the Status of the Test Well and Application to the California Coastal
Commission to Modify the Permit and Resume Pumping. - Burnett/Cullem

President Burnett spoke to the item and indicated the information is not in letter form at this
point but is listed as series of questions requesting more information on the test well and the
permitting process for the MPWSWP. Cal Am and the Community need to understand that this
project is based on being the fastest and best way to get water for the peninsula and support is
contingent upon performance and currently there is question about Cal Ams performance
primarily based on their performance with obtaining permits. The goal is to receive written
answers by the 13th for discussion. The risk and the allocation of risk needs to be understood.
Cal Am is aware of the questions and requested Cal Am to provide the answers in advance of
publishing the Agenda packet.
He also reported that the Coastal Commission review of the permit amendment request which
will allow for restarting the test well has been postponed to the September 2015 agenda due to
a need to obtain a peer review of the data and there are only so many specialist that can
conduct the review. President Burnett reported on his request to ensure there is no conflict of
interests with contracting with a specialist.
President Burnett invited comments from the public.

George Riley indicated that things that do not serve Cal Am or the Authority well is visual
aids in the GeoSyntech Report. Expressed criticism based on the lack of baseline data.
He suggested requesting Cal Am include modeling to reconstruct a baseline so there is
a basis going forward.

Mr. Svinland responded to the request for information and did place a caveat indicating that Cal
Am is participating in three active lawsuits to which the answers may be forced to be limited. Mr.
Svinland responded that the primary modification to condition 11 will be that going forward the
HWG would look at the data on a monthly basis and set a baseline to be able to measure from.
The CPUC will hire an additional peer review consultant to verify the data and confirm it as the
baseline data.
President Burnett suggested that if the Authority Directors wanted to move forward, staff would
refine the questions and request Cal Am to prepare responses for discussion at the next
meeting. Director Rubio expressed concern that we have the highly developed expertise and
consultants and expressed concern that there is not a comprehensive baselines. Directors
requested that be included in the line of questioning.
Mayor Burnett closed by indicating that the purpose of the questions is to ensure that we are
collectively learning from this experience. There should be the expectation that if there will be
mistakes with a 4 million dollar process, but that they be corrected. With respect to risk, if we
3

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

conclude that after we hear the answers, that there were mistakes, the fairness of the full risk of
the community bearing the costs needs to be discussed. If there were procedural mistakes, it
adds to that question. That is the context of which we will discuss the responses.
On motion by Director Rubio, seconded by Director Edelen and passed by the following the
following vote the Authority Directors provided authorization for President Burnett to sign a letter
consistent with the contents of what was included in the agenda report and the inclusion of the
comments made by the Directors during the discussion regarding the baseline.
AYES:

DIRECTORS:

NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSED:

0
0
0
0

DIRECTORS:
DIRECTORS:
DIRECTORS:
DIRECTORS:

Burnett, Downey, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass,

Rubio
None
None
None
None

ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:18 PM.
ATTEST:

Lesley Milton-Rerig, Authority Clerk

Jason Burnett, President

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Agenda Report

FROM:

Date: August 13, 2015

Item No: 3.

Authority Clerk Milton

SUBJECT: Approval and File Authority Checks through August 5, 2015

RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Authority approve and file the accounts payable payments
made during the period June 30, 2015 through August 5, 2015 with total payments for
the above referenced period of $44,914.94 from the general fund account and authorize
the Directors to sign for such checks.

DISCUSSION:
At its meeting on September 12, 2013, the Authority Board approved a staff
recommendation to provide the Directors a listing of financial obligations since the last
report for inspection and confirmation. Each invoiced expense has been reviewed and
approved by the Executive Director and Finance personnel prior to payment to insure that
it conforms to the approved budget.
The following checks are hereby submitted to the Authority for inspection and
confirmation.

$ 7,595.64 to Brownstein Hyatt Farber and Schreck for Special Legal Counsel
Services.

$ 31,594.30 to Separation Processes Inc for DEIR Review of the MPWSP

$ 5,000.00 to Perry and Freeman for Legal Counsel Services

50.00 to Environmental Relations for Public Outreach services

675.00 to Access Monterey Peninsula

The bank balance as of August 5, 2015 is sufficient cover the above check therefore,
staff is recommending approval.
ATTACHMENTS:

Budget to Actual Report through August 5, 2015

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Agenda Report

FROM:

Date: August 13, 2015

Item No: 4.

Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT: Receive the Most Recent Update of the California Public

Utilities Commission (CPUC) Schedule for the Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Water Authority receive the current CPUC
schedule for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) if it is
available in time for the Aug 13, 2015 meeting.
DISCUSSION:
At its meeting of January 8, 2015, the Water Authority received a January
5, 2015 staff revision of the October 7, 2013 CPUC schedule for the
MPWSP including the activities needed for the GWR project.
On January 23, 2015, CPUC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Weatherford
announced a decision making additional changes to the CPUC schedule.
On February 12, 2015 the Water Authority was provided an update of the
CPUC schedule. The TAC was briefed on the revised schedule on March
2, 2015.
If available in time for the Authority meeting of Aug 13, 2015, a more
current update reflecting changes to the schedule due to the delay in
finalizing the DEIR will be provided. Changes from the original October 7,
2013 schedule will be highlighted in red.
ATTACHMENTS:
A- Updated CPUC schedule for the MPWSP if available.

06/12

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Agenda Report

FROM:

Date: August 13, 2015

Item No: 5.

Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT: Receive an Update on the Summary Project Schedule for the Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP), including Status of the
Application to the Coastal Commission for an Amended Coastal
Development Permit (CDP) to Resume Slant Test Well Operations,
Receive Responses to Questions Provided to California American Water
Company on July 29, 2015, Review the Table of Permits and Approvals,
and Approve a Letter to Cal Am With Regard to Slant Well Financial Risk
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Water Authority Board receive a report from Cal Am on the
latest "Summary" MPWSP schedule, including the status of the application to the
California Coastal Commission (CCC) for an amended CDP to resume operation of the
test slant well. Cal Am is also being requested to provide answers to a number of test
well questions and to discuss its most current table of required permits and approvals. It
is further recommended that the Board authorize the sending of a letter to Cal Am
requesting it assume the financial risk of the slant wells
DISCUSSION:
Cal Am routinely provides a "Summary Schedule" update at the Water Authority
meeting. Since the slant test well was effectively shut down in June 2015, that schedule
needs to now identify when Cal Am will appear before the Coastal Commission for an
amended CDP allowing full resumption of pumping. The CCC date for consideration is
critical to timely participation by the Authority and interested members of the public.
Cal Am's recently developed table of permits and approvals will facilitate a
determination of the actual and potential delays Cal Am faces in completing the
MPWSP. That, in turn, can provide direction to the Authority as to where, when, and
how it should further engage with permitting agencies to move the MPWSP forward. Cal
Am will present the permits and approvals schedule at the meeting, if available in time.
Cal Am was posed a number of questions concerning the test slant well at the Water
Authority meeting of July 29. The questions are provided at Attachment A. Cal Am's
responses are at Attachment B. However, the answers to the questions confirm that Cal
Am has substantial control over the eventual success or failure of the slant wells as the
source of feed water to the desal facility. Accordingly, the Authority believes that the
ratepayers should not bear the financial risk associated with the slant wells. The
Authority Board is thus requested to authorize the President to send a letter to Cal Am

06/12

requesting it affirm that it shall not seek reimbursement for slant well costs in the event
that the slant wells do not work well enough to meet the feed water requirements of the
MPWP desal facility. A draft of the letter will be provided to the Board at the meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
A- Questions Regarding the Test Slant Well
B- Response to Water Authority Questions

Attachment A
Questions regarding the test slant well
Propose that the Water Authority send a letter to CalAm asking the following
questions and requesting a written response within two weeks so that the
responses can be considered at the next regular Water Authority meeting (August
13th).
As background, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) special condition #11
states Protection of Nearby Wells. PRIOR TO STARTING PROJECT-

RELATED PUMP TESTS, the Permittee shall install monitoring devices a

minimum of four wells on the CEMEX site, within 2000 feet of the test well, and
one or more offsite wells to record water and salinity levels within the wells and
shall provide to the Executive Director the baseline water and Total Dissolved
Solids (TDS) levels in those wells prior to commencement of pumping from the
test well. The Hydrogeology Working Group shall establish the baseline water and
TDS levels for the monitoring wells. During the project pump tests, the Permittee
shall, at least once per day, monitor water and TDS levels within those wells in
person and/or with electronic logging devices. The Permittee shall post data
collected from all monitoring wells on a publicly-available internet site at least
once per week and shall provide all monitoring data to the Executive Director
upon request. If water levels drop more than one-and- one-half foot, or if TDS
levels increase more than two thousand parts per million from pre-pump test
conditions, the Permittee shall immediately stop the pump test and inform the
Executive Director. The Hydrogeology Working Group shall examine the data
from Monitoring Well 4 if the test well is shut down due to either of these causes.
The Hydrogeology Working Group shall determine whether the drop in water
level or increase in TDS is from a cause or causes other than the test well, and it
will submit its determination to the Executive Director. If the Executive Director
agrees with the Hydrogeology Working Group that the cause of the drop in water
level or increase in TDS was a source or sources other than the test well, then the
Executive Director may allow testing to resume. If, however, the Executive
Director determines that the drop in water level was caused at least in part by the
test well, then the Permittee shall not re-start the pump test until receiving an
amendment to this permit.
Questions:
1. Is the key problem with condition #11 that the pump cannot be restarted if
the drop is caused at least in part by the test well?
2. Does this condition not mean, if taken literally, that the drop due to the test

well could be arbitrarily small and virtually all of the drop could be due to
other sources?

3. Prior to the issuance of the test slant well permit by the CCC in late 2014 the
Water Authority asked CalAm whether the permit conditions were
acceptable and workable. We were told they were. Can CalAm please confirm
that CalAm judged the conditions to be acceptable and workable?
4. In particular, the Water Authority asked whether any of the conditions
regarding the monitoring well would be triggered if things worked as
planned. Did CalAm, at the time of the CCC issuance of the permit, understand
that background pumping would reasonably likely lead to special condition
11 not being met?
5. Were historical trends analyzed for wells in the area and were there any
projections of drawdown in MW#4 due to sources other than the test slant
well? If not, why not?
6. When was monitoring well #4 (MW-4) constructed and when was data first
available? When could trends of a drawdown of MW-4 first be seen?
7. If trends of a drawdown of MW-4 could be seen prior to June 5th, why did
CalAm not begin taking steps earlier to prepare for an amended permit?
8. When the test well was shut down in June 5th did CalAm foresee a reasonable
possibility that Condition #11 could be read as the CCC has in its July 3rd
letter? If not, why not given the language about water level drop being
caused at least in part by the test well?
9. When did CalAm first begin drafting a revised application for a test well
permit? If this was not initiated on June 5th, why not?
10. If CalAm did not begin drafting a revised application for a test well until
receiving the CCC letter of July 3rd, please explain why this should not be
viewed by the Water Authority and the public as a lost month.
11. How much time does it take to develop a revised application?
12. Why is developing a revised application not a simple matter of redrafting
Condition #11 to state that the drawdown attributable to the test well must
not exceed a certain threshold?
13. When was the deadline to submit a revised application to the CCC in order to
get the item on the August CCC meeting?
14. When did it first become apparent that CalAm was not on track to meet the
deadline to get this item on the August CCC meeting?
15. The September CCC meeting is in northern California and there is some
possibility that this item will not be heard in September because of the
distance of the meeting. What are CalAms plans to avoid another month
delay?
16. What steps have been taken within CalAm to ensure that the slant test well
receives the attention that it deserves and that future delays can be avoided
or minimized?
17. What else has CalAm learned from the experience regarding the test slant
well permit?

CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN WATER

4701 Beloit Drive

P 916.568.4296

Sacramento, CA 95838

F 916.568.4286

www.amwateccomicaaw/

Via Email and U.S. Mail

August 7, 2015
Mr. Jim Cullem
Executive Director
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
Re.: California American Water Company Responses to Monterey Peninsula
Regional Water Authority Questions About Test Slant Well Permit and
Required Amendment

Dear Mr. Cullem,

This letter is in response to the set of questions the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water
Authority provided to California American Water on July 29, 2015 concerning the recent
shutdown of our test slant well, the underlying permits, and our application to amend
Special Condition 11 of those permits. I have included each question, followed by our
response, in sequence below.
1. Is the key problem with condition #11 that the pump cannot be restarted if
the drop is "caused at least in part by the test well?
Response: The fact that pumping cannot be restarted under existing Special
Condition 11 if a 1.5' drop in groundwater elevation at Monitoring Well 4 is
caused "at least in part by the test well" is one of the issues that California
American Water is seeking to address with its application to modify. California
American Water and the Hydrogeologic Working Group ("HWG") believe that it
is more appropriate to require shutdown if the Executive Director of the Coastal
Commission determines that test well causes an entire 1.5' drop. The language in
question here ("caused at least in party by") was added to Special Condition 11 by
the Coastal Commission in its November 11, 2014 Addendum to Staff Report.

A second and equally significant constraint with existing Special Condition 11 is

that it requires the HWG to monitor for a 1.5' drop in elevation from the elevation

Mr. Jim Cullem

August 7,2015
Page 2 of 6

at a set point in time, immediately before long term pump testing began on April
22, 2015without accounting for regional trends or natural fluctuations in
groundwater elevation.
2. Does this condition not mean, if taken literally, that the drop due to the test
well could be arbitrarily small and virtually all of the drop could be due to
other sources?
Response: Yes. As written the condition requires pumping to be suspended and
amendment to be sought where a 1.5' drop in groundwater elevation occurs at
Monitoring Well 4, and the drop is caused "at least in part by the test well."
California American Water and its consultants failed to consider the regional
impact on local groundwater elevations when we received and reviewed the
Coastal Commission's Staff Report on October 31, 2014, and therefore did not
comment on this issue before the November 12, 2014 Coastal Commission
hearing. We expect the end result of the application to amend Special Condition
11 will be a more robust operating permit that is protective of the environment
while facilitating continued data collection.
3. Prior to the issuance of the test slant well permit by the CCC in late 2014 the
Water Authority asked CalAm whether the permit conditions were
acceptable and workable. We were told they were. Can CalAm please
confirm that CalAm judged the conditions to be acceptable and workable?
Response: Please see response to Question 2, above. Note that the language
"caused at least in part by" was added to Special Condition 11 by the Coastal
Commission in its November 11, 2014 Addendum to Staff Report, and we do not
recall discussing the issue with MPRWA before the corresponding Coastal
Development Permits were approved on November 12, 2015.
4. In particular, the Water Authority asked whether any of the conditions
regarding the monitoring well would be triggered if things worked as
planned. Did CalAm, at the time of the CCC issuance of the permit,
understand that background pumping would reasonably likely lead to special
condition 11 not being met?
Response: Please see response to Question 2, above.

5. Were historical trends analyzed for wells in the area and were there any
projections of drawdown in MW#4 due to sources other than the test slant
well? If not, why not?

Mr. Jim Cullem

August 7,2015
Page 3 of 6

Response: Please see response to Question 2, above.

6. When was monitoring well #4 (MW-4) constructed and when was data first
available? When could trends of a drawdown of MW-4 first be seen?
Response: The MW-4 monitoring well cluster was completed on March 7, 2015.
After some initial installation issues with transducers, groundwater elevation
trending of all three wells at MW-4 started on April 2, 2015. Long-term test well
pumping began on April 22, 2015. This provided 20 days to collect and analyze
daily groundwater elevations and plot trends prior to commencement of pump
testing. The data was provided to the Coastal Commission in the Baseline
Technical Memorandum which reported some downward trends in the MW-4M
and MW-4D prior to initiation of the long-term pumping test (see table on page
11 of that document).
7. If trends of a drawdown of MW-4 could be seen prior to June 5th, why did
CalAm not begin taking steps earlier to prepare for an amended permit?

Response: Please see response to Question 6, above.

8. When the test well was shut down in June 5th did CalAm foresee a
reasonable possibility that Condition #11 could be read as the CCC has in its
July 3rd letter? If not, why not given the language about water level drop
being "caused at least in part by the test well?"

Response: At the time of the initial shutdown, we believed that the Coastal
Commission had the latitude to allow California American Water to continue
pumping without a permit amendment if the Executive Director agreed with the
HWG's conclusion that the 1.5' drawdown was substantially caused by sources
other than the test well.
9. When did CalAm first begin drafting a revised application for a test well
permit? If this was not initiated on June 5th, why not?

Response: California American Water and the HWG began drafting our first
submission to the Coastal Commission on the issue of causes of a 1.5' drawdown
immediately upon deciding to cease test well pumping on June 5, 2015. California
American Water and the HWG began discussing and drafting an application to
amend Special Condition 11 immediately after receiving notice that the Coastal
Commission would require us to seek an amendment on July 3, 2015.

Mr. Jim Cullem

August 7,2015
Page 4 of 6

10. If CalAm did not begin drafting a revised application for a test well until
receiving the CCC letter of July 3rd, please explain why this should not be
viewed by the Water Authority and the public as a lost month.
Response: Please see response to Question 8, above. Between June 5 and July 3,
2015, California American Water submitted two detailed memoranda by the
HWG analyzing the data and substantiating that the test well was not the cause of
the drawdown at MW-4.
11. How much time does it take to develop a revised application?
Response: In this case, it took California American Water and the HWG 20 days
(July 3 23, 2015) to develop an application to amend Special Condition 11.
12. Why is developing a revised application not a simple matter of redrafting
Condition #11 to state that the drawdown attributable to the test well must
not exceed a certain threshold?
Response: The difficulty surrounds establishing a performance standard that is:
(a) conservatively protective of the basin; (b) technically workable; and (c) legally
defensible. While California American Water and the HWG continue to believe
that a 1.5' drop in elevation caused by the test well is sufficient to provide a
conservative "early warning," as described in response to Question 1 the
challenge is determining the starting point for measuring that drawdown in a
dynamic, constantly changing system.
13. When was the deadline to submit a revised application to the CCC in order
to get the item on the August CCC meeting?
Response: There is no deadline set by regulation. Initially, after learning that we
needed to seek an amendment on July 3, California American Water was
optimistic that an application to amend Special Condition 11 could be heard on
the Coastal Commission's August agenda. We apologize for communicating this
belief to MPRWA before verifying that it would be possible, and for not
clarifying immediately when it became clear that the matter would not be heard in
August. After the fact, on August 5, 2015 Coastal Commission staff confirmed
that the only way an application to amend Special Condition 11 could have been
heard in August would have been if: (a) an application to amend was submitted by
California American Water on or before July 6, 2015 (three days (and the first
business day) after receiving notice that it needed to submit an application to
amend); and (b) the Coastal Commission had already retained a hydrogeologist to
review all monitoring well data, etc. by the same date. To the best of California

Mr. Jim Cullem

August 7,2015
Page 5 of 6

American Water's knowledge the Coastal Commission had not finalized its
retention a hydrogeologist as of August 5, 2015. California American Water and
the HWG worked to submit an application to amend Special Condition 11 as
quickly as possible, and submitted our application less than three weeks after
confirming that one would be required.
14. When did it first become apparent that CalAm was not on track to meet the
deadline to get this item on the August CCC meeting?

Response: Please see response to Question 13, above.

15. The September CCC meeting is in northern California and there is some
possibility that this item will not be heard in September because of the
distance of the meeting. What are CalAm's plans to avoid another month
delay?

Response: California American Water is hopeful that the Coastal Commission

will hear its application to amend Special Condition 11 at its September meeting
in Arcata, and is working with the Coastal Commission Staff to facilitate this.
However, it may not be possible. With respect to distance, note that the August
Coastal Commission meeting was held in Chula Vista, which is 446 miles from
Monterey with a drive time of 7:40, while Arcata is 393 miles from Monterey
with a drive time of 7:46. As noted in response to Question 13 above, the Coastal
Commission plans to retain hydrogeologist to review all monitoring well data, etc.
in connection with the application to amend Special Condition 11. To the best of
California American Water's knowledge the Coastal Commission has not retained
its hydrogeologist as of August 5, 2015, so California American Water is not
certain that the Coastal Commission will be prepared to hear the matter in
September if the issue of distance is not determinative.
16. What steps have been taken within CalAm to ensure that the slant test well
receives the attention that it deserves and that future delays can be avoided
or minimized?

Response: CAW has taken the test well process very seriously. Construction was
completed prior to the Snowy Plover nesting season and run successfully for
several months, data has been collected and posted for the public in a timely
manner. The test well was shut down as soon as we believed we would exceed the
performance standard in Special Condition 11, and we notified the Coastal
Commission immediately and submitted an application to amend Special
Condition 11 as quickly as possible.

Mr. Jim Cullem

August 7,2015
Page 6 of 6

17. What else has CalAm learned from the experience regarding the test slant
well permit?

Response: On a project as large and as complex as this with a large number of

stakeholders, mistakes are unfortunately likely to occur. We apologize for our
failure to recognize and correct problems with Special Condition 11 and also for
overestimating how quickly an application to amend Special Condition 11 could
be heard. We are committed to improving our processes and communication to
reduce the likelihood of mistakes like this occurring again in the future. Despite
these mistakes, we have learned a tremendous amount in regards to the
construction, operation and monitoring of the test slant well. The associated
monitoring well network continues to gather data that will inform project
stakeholders about the interaction of the test well with the aquifers. We expect the
end result of the application to amend Special Condition 11 will be a more robust
operating permit that is protective of the environment while facilitating continued
data collection.
We appreciate the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority's interest in these
issues. Please let us know if you have additional questions or require any further
information.
Sincerely,

0,44,4,-P
Richard C. Svindland
Vice President Operations

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Agenda Report

FROM:

Date: August 13, 2015

Item No: 6.

Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT: Receive Report, Discuss, and Provide Direction on Final

Application to the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) for a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) Extension
Request, and Authorize the Authority President to Send a
Comment Letter to the Board Staff on Its Draft Response to the
Cal Am Draft CDO Application
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
(MPRWA) consider the final version of the Application for a four-year
extension of the CDO 2009-60 deadline date of December 31, 2016, if
available at time of the meeting, and confirm its intent to co-sign the
application along with California American Water Co. (Cal Am) and the
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD). The Board is
also requested to authorize the President or Executive Director to send a
comment letter to the SWRCB on the draft Board staff response to the Cal
Am draft CDO Application.
DISCUSSION:
Cal Am's Application for Extension of CDO 2009-0060 with Attachment 1
(proposed modified CDO), based on its DRAFT Proposal of March 10,
2015, is in preparation.
Key elements in Cal Am's March 10 DRAFT proposal include:
A four-year extension of the CDO deadline
A new reduction schedule in regular increments during the extension
Authority for the SWRCB staff to suspend a water reductions if
missed milestones outside the control of Cal-Am, MPWMD, and the
Water Authority.

06/12

 Ability of the MPWMD, and the MPRWA to decide if misses are

outside our control, appealable by state staff to the SWRCB.
The MPRWA and the MPWMD, following several months of public input
and staff coordination, intend to co-sign the Application for Extension in
order to maintain local public agency standing in the process and to
emphasize community unity on the proposed CDO modification.
Submission of an Application for Amendment is time sensitive since the
SWRCB could take up to a year to take final action, so we are anxious to
finalize the application as soon as possible.
However, the Authority, as well as the other settling parties, just received
the SWRCB staff DRAFT responses to Cal Am's March 30, 2015 DRAFT
Proposal. Accordingly, the Final Application may have to be further revised
in light of the SWRCB responses, so it may not be available in time for the
MPWSP meeting of 13 August.
Finally, the Authority staff requests authorization to discuss the SWRCB
DRAFT response with its staff, and to send a comment letter to the
SWRCB with respect to those responses if determined to be appropriate.
ATTACHMENTS:
None

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Agenda Report

FROM:

Date: August 13, 2015

Item No: 7.

Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT: Approve a Letter from the Water Authority to the Marina City
Council Inviting Marina to Name a Non-voting Hydrogeologist to
the MPWSP Hydrogeological Working Group (HWG)
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Water Authority authorize the President to send
a letter to the Marina City Council inviting the Council to name a non-voting
hydrogeologist to the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP)
Hydrogeological Working Group (HWG).
DISCUSSION:
The City of Marina is as an approving agency for future approvals and
permits for the MPWSP. Accordingly, it is in everyone's best interests that
the City have as much independent technical information as possible
available to it during its deliberations.
Interpretation of monitoring well data from the operation of the test slant
well and analysis of the groundwater models are performed by the experts
in the HWG. Since their technical findings and recommendations play a
critical role in decisions about the feasibility of production slant wells, Cal
Am has agreed to a Water Authority request, with the concurrence of the
settling parties, to fund inclusion in the HWG of a non-voting
hydrogeologist, selected by the City of Marina, should the City wish to
participate.
Accordingly, staff recommends the attached letter be sent to the City of
Marina proposing participation by a City of Marina hydrogeologist.
ATTACHMENTS:
A- Draft Letter to the City of Marina ref. Participation by City Hydrogeologist

06/12

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY

Aug 14, 2015

Mayor Bruce Delgado

City of Marina
211 Hillcrest Ave
Marina, CA 93933

Directors:
Jason Burnett, President
Bill Kampe, Vice President
David Pendergrass, Secretary
Jerry Edelen, Treasurer
Ralph Rubio, Director
Clyde Roberson, Director
Executive Director:
Jim Cullem, P.E.

RE: Invitation to Participate in Hydrogeologic Working Group for the

MPWSP
Dear Mayor Delgado:
Over the last year or so, you and I have had many conversations with respect
to City of Marina concerns over the impact of the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project (MPWSP), especially the validity of groundwater modeling of
the subsurface intakes. Interpretation of monitoring well data on the test slant
well and analysis of the groundwater models are performed by the experts in
the MPWSP Hydrogeologic Working Group (HWG), and at present, the City of
Marina is not represented on the HWG.
As you well know, the City is the approving agency for a number of future
permits for the MPWSP, so it is in everyone's best interests that the City has as
much independent technical information as possible to inform the Council
during its future deliberations.
Since the technical findings and recommendations of the HWG play a such a
critical role in decisions about the feasibility of production slant wells, the Water
Authority, with the concurrence of Cal Am and the settling parties, wants to
extend an invitation to the City to appoint a hydrogeologist to serve as a non-

580 PACIFIC ST, ROOM 6 MONTEREY CALIFORNIA 93940 www.mprwa.org

voting member of the HWG. As you may know, the landowner for the proposed
location of the MPWSPs seawater intake system, CEMEX, Inc., participates in
the HWG in a similar capacity.
Cal Am has agreed that per City Resolution No. 2007-153, Marina may charge
Cal Am for participation in the HWG as long as that participation facilitated the
City's review and processing of the MPWSP EIR, permits, and approvals.
The Authority Board is hopeful the City will accept our invitation, as well as to
take this opportunity to further address concerns of Marina residents and
to improve the lines of communication between our communities.

Sincerely,
Jason Burnett
President
MPRWA

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Agenda Report

FROM:

Date: August 13, 2015

Item No: 8.

Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT: Receive Presentation, Discuss, and Provide Staff Direction on

the Deep Water Desal Project
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of the Monterey Peninsula Regional
Water Authority (MPRWA) receive a briefing on the proposed Deep Water
Desal Project and provide staff direction.
DISCUSSION:
At the invitation of the proponents of the Deep Water Desal Project (DWD)
and at the direction of the Water Authority Board, the TAC received a
briefing and site visit on the DWD project on Monday, November 17, 2014.
Both were open to the public.
The briefing and site visit were intended to better inform members of the
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA), as well as the
public, on the status of the Deep Water Desal Project.
More information can be
www.deepwaterdesal.com.

found

at

the

project

web

site

at

As of this date, the City of Salinas has expressed its intention to serve as a
public partner for the Deep Water Desal Project.
To provide the public and the Water Authority on the progress of the DWD
project, its proponents have been invited to make a presentation to the
Water Authority at the August 13, 20015 meeting. In addition, the Authority

06/12

has requested the proponents to answer the following questions as part of

their presentation, or in response to questions from the Board or the public.
- How do you plan to get support/approval for your project source water
prior to exhausting all alternatives for sub surface intake as required by
the CCC, SWRCB and CPUC?
-What are the overall project features (land, data center, water facilities,
Salinas- related features, etc.)?
- What is the desalination configuration and facilities layout?
- Who are potential product water purchasers?
- What is your Intake/Outfall strategy?
- What is the CEQA/NEPA status and timeline?
- What hurdles do you see and what are the contingencies?
- What is status of discussions with state permitting agencies?
- What is current financial status and total investment required?
- What is the overall schedule for delivery of water to end user?

ATTACHMENTS:
None

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Agenda Report

FROM:

Date: August 13, 2015

Item No: 9.

Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT: Receive Presentation, Discuss, and Provide Staff Direction on

the People's Desal Project
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of the Monterey Peninsula Regional
Water Authority (MPRWA) receive a briefing on the proposed People's
Desal Project and provide staff direction.
DISCUSSION:
At the invitation of the proponents of the People's Desal Project and at the
direction of the Water Authority Board, the TAC received a briefing and site
visit on the project on Monday, November 17, 2014. Both were open to the
public.
The briefing and site visit were intended to better inform members of the
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA), as well as the
public, on the status of the People's Desal Project.
More information can be
www.thepeopleswater.com.

found

at

the

project

web

site

at

As of this date, the Moss Landing Harbor District may serve as a public
partner for the People's Desal Project.
To provide the public and the Water Authority on the progress of the
People's Desal project, its proponents have been invited to make a
presentation to the Water Authority at the August 13, 20015 meeting. In
addition, the Authority has requested the proponents to answer the

06/12

following questions as part of their presentation, or in response to

questions from the Board or the public:
- How do you plan to get support/approval for your project source water
prior to exhausting all alternatives for sub surface intake as required by
the CCC, SWRCB and CPUC?
- What are the overall project features (land, data center, water facilities,
Salinas- related features, etc.)?
- What is the desalination configuration and facilities layout?
- Who are potential product water purchasers?
- What is your Intake/Outfall strategy?
- What is the CEQA/NEPA status and timeline?
- What hurdles do you see and what are the contingencies?
- What is status of discussions with state permitting agencies?
- What is current financial status and total investment required?
- What is the overall schedule for delivery of water to end user?

ATTACHMENTS:
None